Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-15-Speech-3-051"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030115.4.3-051"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, conciliation has brought a result which, in the end, satisfies no one. Animal rights advocates think the text does not go far enough, manufacturers do not think they can keep to the time limits and consumers do not understand what has been decided, especially about animal experimentation, which is at the heart of the directive. By banning experimentation and the marketing of products tested on animals six years after it comes into force, with no possibility of extension, the directive puts the cosmetics industry’s back against the wall and undermines its ability to innovate. Nevertheless, from the start of negotiations it has been our common desire to put healthy, hypoallergenic cosmetics on the market, to prevent needless suffering to animals and to preserve the jobs, competitiveness and know-how of our high value-added exporting firms.
The cut-off date adopted in the directive will, however, in our opinion mean that the safety of the products placed on the market can no longer be guaranteed – they will not in fact have undergone a full range of tests affording the same guarantees as the tests carried out on animals – European products will be penalised on the markets of those third countries that continue to perform animal experiments, which are the only completely reliable ones today, and there will be a risk of WTO sanctions, since it may regard the ban as a barrier to the marketing of cosmetics manufactured outside the European Union. It is generally accepted that few alternative methods will be found within 10 years but that the total replacement of animal experiments might be possible within about 15 years. In my opinion it would have been more realistic to agree on a ban in ten years’ time, with an exemption for three types of test, those relating to reproductive toxicity, toxicokinetics and toxicity in the case of repeated applications. Nevertheless, there are a few positive points, such as showing on the packaging how long the products may be used after opening and the possible presence of allergenic ingredients; these specific measures will improve consumer protection.
Finally, I note that some directives are being revised for the seventh time, while others, like the 1979 ‘‘Birds’’ directive and the ‘‘Habitats’’ directive, which is ten years old now, have still not been revised at all."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples