Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-25-Speech-3-191"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050525.20.3-191"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, the intention of the proposed regulation is to harmonise the different national provisions on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods. Discussions have shown, and will do so again today, that this is a very, very difficult task, firstly because we have different opinions on the extent to which the addition of such nutrients is necessary for a balanced diet, and secondly because traditions in the Member States of the European Union vary considerably.
In one Member State, for example, unlimited additions are permitted, provided that the end product does not present a health risk. In another Member State, additions are permitted only if it can be proved that they are necessary for a balanced and adequate diet. In between there are various different nuances, such as the Member States that permit the addition of those vitamins and minerals that are listed in a particular register. A variety of upper limits are also stipulated.
I should also like to underline that this regulation only regulates the voluntary addition of vitamins and minerals, and that national provisions on the mandatory addition of nutrients to foods are therefore not affected. According to Article 3 of this regulation, there are three reasons why vitamins and minerals may be added to foods: firstly, to restore nutrient levels in the end product, as the various stages in the storage and manufacturing process cause nutrients to be lost; secondly, when producing substitute foods, the most well
known example here being undoubtedly margarine, which was originally manufactured as a substitute for butter, and thirdly, the addition of vitamins and minerals to fortify the food, regardless of whether the nutrient was present in it originally or not.
The basic premise on which my report is based is that the Community should work towards a situation in which manufacturers add vitamins and minerals to food for nutritional and health reasons. I am therefore delighted that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety adopted my amendments stating that all vitamins and minerals that are added to food must also be able to be absorbed by the body. Otherwise consumers are being misled and in extreme cases there may even be adverse effects on health, such as diarrhoea or reduced absorption of other nutrients.
The two issues in this report that gave raise to the most heated discussion were without a doubt the nutrient profiles and the question of whether the so
called other substances should be regulated by means of a positive or a negative list. I think that the proper place for nutrient profiles is in the Poli Bortone report on health claims, and I hope that the amendments about nutrient profiles that have been tabled to that proposal – as you now the report will be debated next – also receive majority support.
However, I believe that it would be wrong to establish nutrient profiles in my report. It is not a question of being consistent or saying that we need nutrient profiles in both reports or in neither of them. If we establish the nutrient profiles here, then we will not only be banning the health claims, but also the product itself. This seems to me to be wrong, although I am aware that some of my colleagues in my group will be supporting these amendments.
On the issue of the certain other substances, I propose a definition of the other substances, as the vitamins and minerals allowed for fortification are listed and thus defined in Annexes I and II. Article 9a is an important contribution, enabling adequate information to be gained about the certain other substances that are being added. Within 18 months of the regulation’s entry into force, the Member States will have to notify the Commission of the other substances used in their territory to enrich foodstuffs.
Annex III regulates the use of the other substances. The Commission is proposing a negative list, which I, as rapporteur, support. This means that at the request of the Commission or a Member State, the other substances are subject to a risk assessment by the EFSA and are then placed in one of the following categories: prohibited substances and substances whose use is restricted."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples