Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-253"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.8.2-253"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I warmly congratulate the three rapporteurs, among whom I would like to single out Mrs Klaß, whose report demonstrates some very good ways of approaching this issue. I know from my own personal experience the different preconceptions that have to be taken into account when considering issues of labelling.
I would particularly like to highlight the rules on labelling for products that trigger allergic reactions. In the European Union, 8% of children and 3% of adults suffer an allergic reaction to food ingredients to such an extent that it markedly affects their general state of health, and that is an alarming statistic. When it comes to keeping consumers informed, labelling is the only option in view of the large number of compound foodstuffs, the composition of which changes frequently. Unlike the previous speakers, I am in favour of the continued addition of ingredients that, it simply has to be said, improve the quality of the meal. That products should be listed only if there is scientific evidence that they trigger allergies goes without saying; we should also ensure that the list can be amended quickly when new findings come to light. It should always be borne in mind that the plethora of information on a label has to communicate the essentials. In this perspective, I look forward with keen anticipation to learning what the Commission thinks about the inclusion on labels of, for example, unproven assertions. This is where there could well be a reduction in the amount of information provided.
May I just make one additional observation? In 1998, as a rapporteur, I tried to bring in rules on the labelling of alcoholic drinks; the sole issue then was the labelling of sulphur. What was, at that time, seen as revolutionary is now no longer an issue; proof that Parliament has, in recent years, come round much more to the consumers’ way of thinking.
Furthermore, I welcome the proposal for labelling where the proportion of an ingredient is in excess of 2%. Although this was, years ago, regarded as impossible, and may well not be necessary, we are now taking account of the tendency to use many ingredients in small quantities in the production process, and we are discharging our obligation to inform the consumer. Businesses with whom I have had discussions have told me that most labels now include ingredients the proportion of which is under 2%.
I would just like to make a brief comment on the Olsson report; I welcome Mr Olsson’s accommodating approach and see it as a good thing, but I am also aware that oestradiol 17β is already being replaced by other substances in many countries in the European Union. That is something that we should be encouraging and promoting."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples