Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-09-Speech-3-414"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030409.10.3-414"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I hope that you will not be any more strict with me than with other Members. Nevertheless, I shall try to keep within my allotted speaking time.
What are the main concerns highlighted by this report? I think that Mrs Ferreira, who has done some very serious work on this subject, has stated them quite correctly. I should therefore like to give you my opinion on what seem to me to be the main points, starting with the addition to the list of sweeteners of a new sweetener called sucralose, and I should like to draw your attention to the fact that sucralose is no ordinary substance. It is an organochlorine substance obtained by the conversion of sugar with the addition of three atoms of chlorine. I would point out to you that organochlorines are substances which generally give rise to problems regarding the environment and even health. I am astonished, therefore, at a proposal which seems to treat as something quite commonplace the inclusion of this new sweetener in the list of approved sweeteners. In addition to that remark, I would also point out that the ADI, or acceptable daily intake, which is being proposed for this sweetener, is three times higher than the one proposed by the US Food and Drug Administration. Consequently it seems to me that there are enough unknown factors regarding this new sweetener to justify our not agreeing to allow it to be added to the list of approved substances.
My second point refers to aspartame. Despite the considerations put forward by Mr Bowis, I share the rapporteur’s view that Amendment No 4 is entirely justified. A re-evaluation of aspartame does not seem to be in the least embarrassing. It would not call into question the honesty of what was done previously. It would simply show that knowledge can develop and that that development sometimes leads us to question the authorisations that were given previously. Personally, therefore, I believe that this proposal is correct.
My third point concerns cyclamates. On this subject, the European Commission is proposing to amend the maximum level for use in water-based drinks. It would be reduced from 400 mg/l to 350 mg/l. mg/l. Mrs Ferreira’s proposal is more ambitious, and I believe that she is right. However, it seems to me that, given the role played by cyclamates, and given that they are prohibited, or at least not approved, in the United States, we should ask ourselves about the possible risks posed by these sweeteners. I would draw Members’ attention to the fact that sweeteners, and therefore cyclamates, are often present in drinks or other products widely consumed by young children, so that the acceptable daily intake for this type of sweetener is easily exceeded. Consequently it seems to me desirable that we should be even more ambitious and I hope that we shall support Mrs Schörling’s amendment, which proposes that the maximum level should be fixed at 100 mg/l. I believe that this is a realistic proposal."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples