Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-16-Speech-1-097"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021216.8.1-097"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"It seems that fresh food and safe food do not always go hand in hand.
Every year, many people die as a result of poisoning by Salmonella and Campylobacter in chicken, for example. These bacteria can be controlled by chemicals, such as methyl bromide, which is toxic. A major disadvantage of using this method is that traces of these toxic substances can be found in food. Food irradiation forms a good alternative in order to kill microorganisms and prevent subsequent food poisoning.
If we want to eat fresh produce, then it is impossible first to treat it thermally. However, in order to prevent vegetables, fruit and cereal products from going off, we can irradiate them. This is therefore a great way of keeping produce fresh after all. However, it would be unfair to say that food is irradiated for the wrong reasons – in order to give it a better appearance, or to disguise any imperfections. Any harmful substances already produced by the microorganisms cannot be eliminated by irradiation. Hygiene and sanitary regulations therefore need to continue to apply during production and agricultural processes.
How, though, do we now know that this fresh produce is also safe? First of all, experience has taught us that food irradiation is common practice in countries both inside and outside the European Union. Moreover, the safety of irradiated food is borne out by the record of fifty years of research by the World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Agency, among others. The irradiation of food does, however, result in new substances being formed, as is also the case when food is cooked. Only in the case of fats is it not entirely clear whether irradiation could have adverse health implications. This requires further investigation.
From the above, I conclude that there is a technical need for food irradiation, that there is no danger to public health, that it is useful for the consumer and that it is not an alternative to hygiene regulations. The four conditions laid down in the 1999 framework directive are thus met. I would therefore like to make provision for adding
vegetables, fruit and cereal products to the positive list.
In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, the resolution has been improved by the incorporation of amendments. I do, however, still have a comment on labelling. Labelling should not function as a warning sign. Once it has been proven that the product is safe, a warning is no longer relevant. This would wrongly give the consumer the idea that something was wrong with the produce after all. To avoid any confusion, the designation that this product has been irradiated for hygienic reasons may suffice, just as it is stated on a carton of milk that the latter has been pasteurised.
Let me end by saying that I would conclude that food irradiation is necessary in a number of cases in order to let fresh food and safe food go hand in hand. We should therefore not reject food irradiation out of hand but respect it for what it is."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples