Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-245"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.8.2-245"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, it will be no surprise to you when I say that I would of course have preferred it if the three fine amendments adopted – admittedly by a small majority, but adopted nonetheless – in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy had been made use of. Things being as they are, and politics being the art of the possible, I would, however, like to make it plain to you that this House cannot be expected to co-decide on a European directive that demands that winemakers and brewers should indicate on the bottle label that these beverages were produced using fish and eggs. That, though, would have happened had we approved the Common Position without the amendments tabled by our rapporteur, Mrs Klaß.
To her I would like to extend the warmest thanks for her tireless efforts at bringing to the light of day a well thought-out directive, one that will of course ensure that, where potentially-allergenic ingredients – and I say ingredients rather than processing aids – are present, that presence is required to be indicated on a label. Wine and beer, however, do not contain such allergy-triggering ingredients. There is no doubt that their manufacture and processing involves the use of traces of processing aids described in Annex IIIa as having allergenic potential, these being isinglass and egg derivatives as clarifiers and fining agents. They help in technical processes such as filtering. The crucial difference from conventional additives is that processing aids are removed after use, and things that are not present in wine or beer do not have to be declared on the list of ingredients. That is the solution that this House adopted at first reading.
I am convinced that the ministers responsible would, if they had known what is at stake, have followed this House’s wise and far-sighted lead and would have put a proper Common Position before us.
We know for certain that the presence in the end product of traces of the aids used cannot be scientifically demonstrated, even though, in such small quantities, they are unlikely to trigger allergies. Until such time as that is sorted out, there must be no labelling of such a nature as to mislead consumers, arouse unwarranted fears and do indefensible harm to major sectors of industry. That is why our approval of our rapporteur’s compromise motion represents the outermost limit of what we can tolerate, and beyond that we cannot go.
Commissioner, as you did not give Mrs Klaß an answer, I will ask you once more: is it indeed the case that studies may be submitted nine months after the directive enters into force? This is something that must be clarified now, or else the rapporteur will have to speak for another few minutes."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples