Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-25-Speech-3-218"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050525.21.3-218"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I should like to welcome Commissioner Kyprianou here this evening and say that we look forward to welcoming him to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. We have been inviting him for over six months and apparently he is far too busy to join us, but he would be very welcome.
Some weeks ago President Barroso assured us that he would ‘Lisbon
proof’ all legislation coming from the Commission. He mentioned REACH and the Services Directive. Could I ask that Commissioner Kyprianou bring this particular piece of legislation to his attention and immediately ‘Lisbon
proof’ it? There is far too much unnecessary red tape involved in it and it will place a very onerous and disproportionate burden on SMEs in particular.
I agree with the basic principle behind the proposal before us that consumers should not be misinformed, but I have serious doubts about the Commission’s approach, especially in relation to nutrient profiles and implied health claims, i.e. Articles 4 and 11. This legislation smacks of the nanny state and verges on the patronising in its current form. Consumers bear the ultimate responsibility for their own food choices. Almost no foodstuffs are inherently bad.
Food consumption patterns are what is important. The emphasis should be on encouraging healthy lifestyles and healthy diets, not on censoring information, as is the case in relation to the so
called nutrient profiles in Article 4 of this proposal.
Having consulted with nutrition experts from the University of Ghent and from Trinity College Dublin, I am convinced that the concept is not grounded in solid science and will have the adverse effect of depriving consumers of a great deal of information. Reference intake values are the accepted scientific norm today and should be used to ensure that labelling is clear, unambiguous and meaningful; they would greatly facilitate consumer choice, not least as a tool to fight obesity.
Having made this point, I fully support the proposal to delete Article 4. As a fallback position, I support the proposal put forward by the PPE
DE Group and others at committee stage and now resubmitted by the ALDE, namely to decouple Article 4 by requiring a study into the scientific basis of nutrient profiles before making a decision on their implementation. This is a very sensible option.
All nutritional health claims should be scientifically substantiated according to scientific best practice. In particular, I would refer to the inclusion of a positive list of allowed nutritional health claims. I question whether this is legally sound, and it is a poor approach to legislation. It could lead to certain claims being banned by default because legislators were not aware of them at the time of drafting. Such an approach does not allow enough flexibility to take account of new products placed on the market.
In addition, just last month the Food Supplements Directive, which had a positive list of allowed substances, was found to be illegal by the Advocate General in Luxembourg. It is not yet clear what impact that will have on this nutritional health claims proposal. I would like the Commission to clarify this particular matter this evening. Will this proposal for a regulation also end up in a fourth reading in Luxembourg?"@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples