Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-25-Speech-3-195"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-05-25"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Addition of vitamins and other substances2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050525.20.3-195"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-05-25-Speech-3-1962
lpv:speaker	lp:Richard Seeber2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2005-05-02--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Österreichische Volkspartei - Liste Ursula Stenzel (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; PETI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; REGI (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, I should first like to thank the rapporteur for her excellent report and her constructive cooperation. I also believe that this report constitutes a further step towards creating a European single market, precisely in the food sector, and that it also brings us a step closer to providing comprehensive consumer protection. I should now like to focus on the other substances because, given their different nature and function, they cannot be treated in the same way as vitamins and minerals. That is why I believe it is wrong to wish also to apply all of the provisions for minerals and vitamins to these other substances at all costs. We need to consider which of the provisions that are foreseen for vitamins and minerals would also make sense for these other substances. However, this regulation should not take on the mammoth task of harmonising the thousand other substances that are currently used in the European food industry. In taking on such a project, we would, for years, be tying up the European institutions and above all the European Food Safety Authority with the complex task of drawing up detailed risk assessments for substances, which for the most part have never given cause for health concerns, and this would hamper them in the other work they do. I believe, therefore, that our priorities should lie elsewhere. That is why I support the approach chosen by the Commission, which simply wants to create a legal instrument for other substances that can serve, if required, to regulate certain other substances across the Community, if they are classified as possibly raising health concerns by the European Food Safety Authority, and thus to guarantee a uniform level of protection for all European consumers. For everything else we can confidently live with the present system, which leaves authorisation of other substances to the Member States. From this point of view, the ‘positive list’ proposed by some Members does not make much sense either. Such a list would go way beyond our objectives and in practice would simply not be feasible. In the short term, we should therefore consider which of the thousand other substances should be included in such a list from the outset."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph