Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-02-22-Speech-2-078"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050222.6.2-078"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that you can hear me above the mounting background noise. Speakers deserve to be treated with a bit of respect in this Chamber!
This report on the European Environment and Health Action Plan concentrates too much on chemicals. Too little attention is paid to many other things that have an adverse affect on human health. It is clear that there are risks associated with chemicals, but there is little point in drawing up blacklists and thus stigmatising certain substances such as phthalates. The report is based on an exaggerated interpretation of the precautionary principle. It talks about direct and total bans on certain substances without basing them on scientific findings, or without taking account of known scientific findings, as is customary with the precautionary principle.
This report represents another attempt at a zero-risk policy, at what I call the ‘green disease’ prevalent in many western societies. We are trying to apply a comprehensive insurance mentality to environmental protection, forgetting that there are always risks associated with the development of an open society. The mere existence of a risk and widespread fear of chemicals are used to justify demands for total bans.
Fear is nothing more than uncertainty arising from ignorance. If you want to counter fear, you must combat ignorance. To do that you need to promote science and research, and to draw the correct conclusions from your findings. We should not confuse risks with dangers that are actually present. The priority objective of environmental policy should not be to exclude risks, but to identify and eliminate dangers.
The report also overshoots the mark when it comes to dealing with tobacco smoke. As long as tobacco is a legal product, we should hold back from demanding a total ban on smoking. It is not for Europe to determine where you can and cannot smoke. In the report we call for tobacco smoke to be designated a class 1 carcinogen, indicating that it has a proven and direct effect. I would like to remind you that there is as yet no scientific proof for that. I am not suggesting that the health dangers of tobacco smoke should be played down, but putting tobacco smoke in the same category as substances such as benzene or asbestos is nothing short of environmental populism.
I also believe that we should be holding this debate in Brussels, not in Strasbourg."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples