Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-250"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.8.2-250"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I would particularly like to congratulate Mrs Klaß, who has worked very competently on this report and shown herself capable of weighing up both the advantages and the negative consequences of systematic labelling regulations. She has fought her corner and defended her case against some of her collaborators, notably the Commission, which was not predisposed to listen to the demands of the elected Members of this House.
Mrs Klaß’s report, as adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, was the best solution in my view, speaking as an eagle-eyed native of Champagne. Certain higher and sometimes contradictory interests, however, could not be ignored, and we thus decided on a fallback solution. In a sense, I had already proposed that solution anyway, in the amendments I tabled in committee, but I had then rallied round, without enthusiasm, to the solution advocated by the rapporteur.
Today, part of me is happy that a partial solution has been taken up and reworked to satisfy the majority of us. Ensuring clear and relevant information as well as a certain level of protection for consumers suffering from allergies makes good sense to me. On the other hand, alarmist labelling would terrify consumers who suffer from allergies and reduce their own consumption. Iconic European drinks such as champagne or Irish beer would suffer terribly from this, Commissioner, dragging the whole European wine industry down with them.
Tomorrow, before representatives of the wine industry of my region, Champagne-Ardennes, I am going to have to defend the established principle that it is the responsibility of producers great and small to prove that derivatives of supposedly allergenic products used by them as technological aids in wine are not themselves allergens, because they are the result of an important process of transformation of raw materials and operate in a totally different context, that of wine or beer. All of this alters their characteristics fundamentally. Brewers will thus have to prove that isinglass, used for centuries in beer-making, is not a proscribed product. In short, the burden of proof falls on their shoulders, but we have bought some time to do the relevant research.
I would like to conclude by thanking the rapporteur and supporting the solution proposed in Amendment No 4. The Union for Europe of the Nations Group has moreover co-signed the compromise amendment and assumes the consequences of that choice."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples