Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-25-Speech-3-208"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050525.21.3-208"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many consumers are worried about their health, cholesterol, blood pressure or have a weight problem. The food industry takes advantage of this. There is a proliferation of all kinds of claims. This morning, I had a sandwich that is good for my intestinal flora, the butter in which reduces my cholesterol level; I also had an egg that is high in Omega 3. This afternoon, I had a low
calorie drink. I, at any rate, think this is terrific, for I have no knowledge of these things.
That is why it is so important that this legislative proposal should require scientific proof for the claims made by the food manufacturers. We must prevent the consumer from being misled. Consumers are often prepared to pay more for a product that claims to benefit their health, but they should then be able to rely on that. Deception comes in many forms.
In accordance with Article 4, health claims can only be made about products that meet a certain profile. That is right, for you cannot turn greasy croquet potatoes into a healthy food by adding a few vitamins. Yoghurt with 0% fat is not good for the figure if a good measure of sugar has been added. A lollipop that is high in sugar is not a healthy snack even if it also contains Vitamin A. That is why Article 4 is vital.
I cannot identify with the argument by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats that SMEs struggle with Article 4. Even a small food company must know what ingredients they use in bread or snacks. My group is behind the consumers and supports well
intentioned companies. I hope that a majority in this House will take this line and will not repeal Article 4.
In all honesty, the request for a study made by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe is equally beyond me. It is clear that it is not easy to draft those profiles, but it is equally clear that in the United States and in some companies, nutrient profiles have been used for a long time. I would therefore urge the Liberals not to ask for studies every turn around, but to take a decision and not to leave the consumers out in the cold.
I would like to draw your attention to three other points. The first one is health claims in respect of children. We cannot see why health claims for children should be banned, as long as those claims are scientifically underpinned. It is, indeed, a good thing to carry out research into good food for children, but we do want to control advertising that is geared towards children, even if this is, strictly speaking, outside of this proposal’s remit.
The second point concerns alcohol. I find it disappointing that some people, even within our group, are against the ban on claims for alcoholic drinks. If you consider all the problems involving alcoholism, damage to the liver and brain, you can hardly condone health claims for alcohol. In the case of alcohol, warnings are what are needed. We should not encourage the use of alcohol.
A third and very important point is the question whether claims should be subjected to the licensing procedure or whether notification would suffice. In the case of a licence, manufacturers must be able to demonstrate convincingly that their claim is justified. In the case of notification, the onus of proof falls on the authorities, which means that a claim is permitted until such time as the authorities have managed to prove otherwise. That is what is at the heart of the legislative proposal and what our group is in any event against.
I would urge everyone in this House to vote in favour of consumers and well
intentioned companies. We must not now bow to the pressure of companies that are frightened about being unmasked. The internal market is not a licence for misleading consumers. Let tomorrow’s outcome demonstrate to Europeans that Europe is there for them."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples