Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-09-Speech-3-413"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030409.10.3-413"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, it is always daunting to follow the measured tread of Mr Bowis as he spreads reassurance through the Chamber. I, however, tend to take the view of the rapporteur and of those of my political Group in the Committee of which we are all members. I wake up every morning, like Mr Bowis, and say to myself 'I am not a scientist'. I have no right to second-guess scientists. However, I do have a right to the long view and to second opinions, and where there are concerns, even if these have been allayed to some degree in the period when a new product is coming into use, as is certainly the case with salt of aspartame, nevertheless it is right to think after these products have gone into use – and they are now being used in many hundreds of different confectionery and other products – that over time a periodic review of a new substance is necessary.
I do not think that any of us know, because we are part of this vast experiment, how far the human metabolism has been changed by this whole range of new artificial products many of which bring great benefits, as salt of aspartame obviously does to Mr Bowis, but which could also cause concern. He has probably received, as I have, a number of letters from the Additives Survivors' Network, who relate pretty grim stories of the adverse consequences of salt of aspartame for some of them. We are not advocating second-guessing the scientific committee and our own Foods Standards Agency in the United Kingdom. We are simply saying, over time you need to have the right to review this, to take another view once it is general use and is part of that great experiment among the population.
My second and last point relates to the reduction of cyclamate levels. Mr Bowis says this was all the result of some brainstorm in the Commission. Some feckless person in the Commission foolishly said yes, a 250 mg limit would be acceptable. It is also actually as Mr Bowis probably knows, the view of the UK Government – in the advice that it circulates to us and is more frequently sometimes copied on that side of the House than on this – that a reduction to 250 mg measurement may be necessary. Why is that? It is because lifetime use has to be considered in the light of the intensity of the intake. We do have to take into account the extensive use, for very young children in particular, of products which have been flavoured and sweetened in this way. I believe that we should reduce to 250 mg and I am glad to see that I am in good company, though not alas that of Mr Bowis."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples