Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-11-Speech-2-082"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-06-11"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Indication of ingredients present in foodstuffs2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020611.6.2-082"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-06-11-Speech-2-0832
lpv:speaker	lp:Horst Schnellhardt2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Temporary committee on foot and mouth disease (2002-01-30--2002-12-17)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the identification of food ingredients issue is one that recurs in Parliament on a regular basis. When a major amendment to the labelling directive was decided on in 1995, there were similar discussions on the same issues as are on the agenda today. In my view, though, today's discussions are necessary simply because there has been an increase in people's allergic reactions to certain component foods, some of which have been a threat to life itself. This alone makes amendment of the directive and other measures necessary. In my estimation, the production processes have remained unchanged since 1995. What has changed is Parliament's attitude, as, at that time, we were already debating the rights and wrongs of the 25% rule. That is no longer an issue today, so we are – I think – going back to 5%, which ensures that consumers can be certain of spotting allergenic substances that are a danger to them, and that is the whole point of this amendment. That is why we should carry on along this road. Today, though, we are back to walking the tightrope between clarity and the need for information, by which I mean firstly the clarity of the label and secondly that of the directive. The consolidated version 2013/EC was a superfluous piece of legislation, and, in my view, so complex that anyone starting to apply this directive needs the help of someone learned in the law in order to accomplish it properly. Please do not misunderstand me: I know of no amendment that we should be making other than this one. I would like, however, to sharpen our awareness so that we can consider, in view of the next amendment to the labelling directive being imminent, whether there are not essential things that we could leave off the label because the public now know a good deal more than once they did. When the public enter a hostelry, restaurant or bar, where mixed drinks and many varieties of food are prepared, we work on the assumption that they know what is in them and can also find out by asking. That is an approach that we might perhaps take to what lies ahead when the next amendment comes round; I believe it is nearly upon us. I am thinking of such things as alcoholic drinks."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph