Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-09-Speech-3-415"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030409.10.3-415"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, Mr Whitehead spoke of the Additives Survivors' Network. Sitting here on an evening like this, I think we all belong to Parliament's survivors' network.
The trouble with sweeteners in the additives category is that they excite fundamentalist reactions of exactly the same type as genetically modified organisms. Basically, that reaction leads to the position of Mr Lannoye, which really is that he does not want any sweeteners authorised at all at any level and would like them all taken off the market. It is as well to bear that in mind as a background to what he has just said.
I would like to comment on two amendments and would like to hear the Commission's view on them. Amendment 4 has been mentioned as requiring a new investigation into aspartame. That illustrates the point about fundamentalism, because this would take place less than a year after the publication of the Scientific Committee for Food's opinion on aspartame. Can the rapporteur tell us – because she did not say this in her speech – why we should doubt the FDA assessment? Does the rapporteur have evidence of the FDA's inadequacy and the inadequacy of its own assessment? If so, she should share the evidence with us, because there is no point in tabling an amendment like this without giving us that information.
Another point on Amendment 4: why is the rapporteur against a sweetener which is known apparently as stevia? There is no mention of this in the justification. The amendment seems to be against stevia and wants another investigation of that. What does the rapporteur know that we do not? Can Mr Byrne help us?
Secondly, in relation to Amendment 8 – which has been mentioned by more than one Member – it worries me more for the process by which it was agreed than for the substance that it contains. When it was moved in the committee by the rapporteur, the Commission indicated willingness to accept a change from the level of 350 mg/l to 250 mg/l. The Commission gave no substantive reason for this. It almost seemed to us, as Mr Bowis has said, that it was picking a figure out of a hat. As Mr Coleman of DG SANCO stated in a letter he wrote shortly after that: 'A clear majority of experts from the Member States have expressed the position in both the Commission and the Council working parties that the reduction to 350 mg/l is not sufficient, and wish to go further.' That information was not given to the committee. No information was given to the committee! We were certainly not told that Member States' experts thought that 350 mg/l was too high or why they did. Can the Commissioner now take this opportunity to say why the Commission changed its mind – on the basis of which scientific studies? And, indeed, when did it do so, given the fact that it presumably consulted the self-same national experts who were happy with 350 mg/l when it drew up the directive not very long ago?"@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples