Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-25-Speech-3-211"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-05-25"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Nutrition and health claims in labelling2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050525.21.3-211"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-05-25-Speech-3-2122
lpv:speaker	lp:Kartika Tamara Liotard2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; FEMM (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 vice-chair; EUL/NGL (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; AGRI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Socialistische Partij (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Maghreb countries and the Arab Maghreb Union (including Libya) (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3
lpv:translated text	". The Commission proposal is, I think, in itself a sound one, although I regard Mrs Bortone’s original report as being even better in a number of areas. This issue has been on the agenda for a few years and this is the second time that someone has produced a report on it. That this is a tricky subject is illustrated, moreover, by the outcome of the vote in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. For a split second, I thought that Mrs Bortone would now also throw in the towel, for the Committee’s vote completely undermined the Commission proposal and also the rapporteur’s report. Article 4 on nutrient profiles, which is crucial, was simply wiped away by one amendment. This article had to avoid foodstuffs such as crisps, chocolate and alcohol, which are intrinsically unhealthy foodstuffs, being labelled with health claims from which the consumer could deduce that they are healthy because they contain calcium, for example. Public health is thus really being taken for a ride and the food industry’s lobbying has won it the battle. In order to defend its position that a claim need not be based on a product’s real nutrient values, the Committee has used the same argument as the food industry, namely that there is no such thing as good or bad foods, only bad diets or customs. In the same breath, the Committee has brushed off the table the proposed licensing procedure and replaced it by a duty of notification. That means that the producer or importer of foodstuffs is only required to notify to a food agency that they use this or that claim without there being the need for scientific proof. My group has tabled a number of amendments to rectify a situation that we find unacceptable. We want Article 4 reinstated, and let me finish off by saying that if it is not – not even in a diluted form – then we will be voting against the proposal."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph