Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-17-Speech-2-118"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021217.3.2-118"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
This report, without commenting on content – the advantages for consumers of the ionisation process, which it does not contest – highlights a number of dangers and instances of abuse in this field.
We are only voting for this report because it advocates prudence, which we consider beneficial to consumers. The real problem does not arise from the ionisation process itself as much as from the use to which it is put. Although it can already be applied to the benefit of producers and consumers (conservation of foods, eradication of parasites, etc.), the agri-food and mass marketing sectors, concerned solely with increasing their profits, can turn the process against users. The report illustrates this danger: the consumer is not warned by adequate labelling that the product, despite its appearance achieved through ionisation, will nevertheless deteriorate, and this has already led to food poisoning (cases of fatal exposure of workers to ionising products have been reported in some companies).
Once again, where an innovative process could lead to progress for the people, the irresponsibility induced by market pressures is dangerous as operators disregard human life and health in the pursuit of capitalist profit."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples