Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-26-Speech-3-158"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-03-26"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Restrictions on CMR substances and preparations2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030326.10.3-158"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-03-26-Speech-3-1592
lpv:speaker	lp:Inger Schörling2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--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 member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Miljöpartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Development and Cooperation (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Mr Nisticò is not here, but we have to debate the twenty-third amendment to this directive, which restricts the use and release onto the market of dangerous substances and preparations classified as carcinogens, mutagens or substances toxic to reproduction. Naturally, my group and I are in favour of adding a further 25 dangerous substances to the banned list. I, personally, am also the rapporteur for the twenty-fifth amendment to this directive, through which a further batch of substances is being added. That is not at all what is controversial about this recommendation. Instead, my criticism applies more to what is not included and to the defects in the current legislation. The designation ‘substances and preparations’ by no means covers the use of CMR substances in consumer products, that is to say in those products with which we, as consumers, in the first place come into contact and through which we are exposed to these dangerous substances, for example when we buy toys, textiles, new flooring etc. The directive does not, then, cover the main source of what we are exposed to, that is to say carcinogens and other dangerous substances. At first reading, the European Parliament asked the Commission to extend the directive to include the sale of consumer products, and we requested a proposal by 2002. In the common position, the Council states that a full risk assessment is required if it is to be possible to introduce restrictions on products. What is more, the Council comes up with the amazing argument that this really will be difficult because there are so many products. That is, of course, precisely why, in fact, a directive is required, namely so that people do not continue to be exposed to carcinogens through consumer products. The conciliation on which we are now to adopt a position, together with Mr Nisticò’s recommendation, constitute a compromise I believe to be quite contrary to the new chemicals policy we have adopted, proposing that CMR substances not be permitted to be used in products if, through what is termed a reverse burden of proof, they have not proved to be safe. A reverse burden of proof is not what we now have in the outcome achieved but, instead, restrictions that apply only if, by means of a risk assessment, it can be demonstrated that a risk exists. In other words, we have precisely the policy that all the institutions have recognised as being ineffective in protecting people’s health. Unfortunately, it will be a good many years before the chemicals policy comes into force. In order to protect people’s health, we really needed measures covering CMR substances in consumer products immediately. The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance will not therefore be voting in favour of the recommendation."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph