Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-26-Speech-3-157"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030326.10.3-157"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, representatives of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, we now have to decide on the report by Mr Nisticò, an important report because, as has just been mentioned, it aims to prohibit the marketing of substances newly classified as carcinogens, mutagens or substances toxic to reproduction. It also constitutes – and I would emphasise this – the twenty-third amendment to the directive. We must of course welcome the European Union’s decision on this question, and also welcome the fact that it regularly comes up for discussion, as our knowledge of the subject grows. The examples quoted by Mr Lisi are a good illustration of the need to prohibit these hazardous substances.
During the conciliation procedure, however, the Council was unwilling to approve the proposal to extend the subject matter of the text to include products, so as to avoid legislation which in its view would be too complex and which would run the risk of being impossible to apply. Admittedly the argument that these substances are present in 30 000 products and it would be difficult to carry out assessments of such a large number of products makes good sense. However, surely we could ask, here and now, that such assessments should be carried out on new products placed on the market which contain the substances in question?
Moreover, the Commission has undertaken, following agreement between Parliament and the Council, to submit a legislative proposal aimed at prohibiting the use of products containing CMR substances when it is scientifically proven that exposing the public at large to such substances involves risks. It is desirable that this proposal, which is in line with what we want to happen, is put into practical terms as soon as possible.
As for the method of working, I would remind the House that, whereas this report concerns the twenty-third amendment to the directive seeking to prohibit the marketing of CMR substances, the Committee on the Environment is already looking at the twenty-fifth amendment to that directive. Of course the twenty-fifth amendment is concerned with other substances and preparations, but would it not be better to coordinate the adoption of the various texts, particularly when they are concerned with products that are hazardous to human beings and to the environment? CMR substances, chemical products and pesticides should be examined from the same angle, namely that of safety and the risks that they represent to human beings and to the environment.
There is also another question which we shall have to take increasingly into account from now on, and that is the question of risk and the burden of proof. A company which places a product on the market has to assure consumers that the product is not harmful. It is not the task of the consumers to demonstrate that the product is hazardous. A product should not have to be banned after it has been placed on the market because the product has actually shown itself to be harmful: it should be banned before it is even placed on the market."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples