Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-21-Speech-2-294"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-10-21"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Sweeteners for use in foodstuffs2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20031021.10.2-294"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-10-21-Speech-2-2952
lpv:speaker	lp:John Bowis2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, I join in the general congratulations of Mrs Ferreira on reaching what is a sensible and welcome compromise on this revision of the directive. I certainly support her final tweaks of the text in the three amendments that she has put forward. However, I have to say to Mrs Schörling that I cannot accept Mr Lannoye's fourth amendment. It is unrealistic and it is one that he tried at first reading. When I criticised it at that point, his response was that 'it showed that knowledge can develop and that development sometimes leads us to question the authorisations that were given previously'. Well, many regulatory bodies across the world have evaluated aspartame and none have come forward with evidence that suggests that knowledge has developed in such a way as to doubt previous authorisations. So, are we to keep on re-evaluating the evidence until we get the result that Mr Lannoye wants? Where are the wide criticisms of the SCF opinion? Have any Member State competent bodies contradicted it? Has the World Health Organisation contradicted it? Who are we to believe – a large number of national regulatory bodies, legally responsible and accountable for examining evidence objectively on the basis of science or, for example, the Internet campaign that we have seen only this week suggesting that the tragic ferry accident at Staten Island in New York was somehow due to aspartame? Scaremongering of this sort can only undermine public confidence in the bodies set up to protect our food and our health. With such widespread consensus from regulatory bodies, it seems wasteful to divert the overstretched EFSA from meaningful work into an endless cycle of re-evaluation. There are safety considerations with the use of aspartame. If you look at the UK Food Standard Agency guidance it says that there is a small group of people who cannot safely consume aspartame. They are the sufferers of the inherited disease PKU, who are unable to metabolise the amino acid phenylaline. Since aspartame was also a source of this, all food products containing aspartame are clearly labelled to that effect, as the Commissioner said. That is the right way to tackle this issue. It is time that we restored some perspective to this and stopped undermining the work of our regulatory bodies. It is time to listen to the scientists and not the scaremongers. I commend Mrs Ferreira's report as it stands, with the Commissioner's proposals. I hope that is now acceptable to Parliament."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Conservative and Unionist Party (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Development and Cooperation (2002-05-30--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees and Delegation for relations with Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Bowis (PPE-DE )."1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph