Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-15-Speech-2-221"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051115.25.2-221"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Commission’s proposal for a regulation contains a methodological flaw. Although the title refers to chemical compounds, Article 3 makes no mention of them, and instead gives a definition of a substance. This broadens the scope of the regulation substantially to include the kind of matter that, as we all know, is not energy. It also makes it less clear.
The second point I should like to make is that no definition is given of the subject of the regulation, or in other words hazardous chemical compounds and their chemical activity in living organisms.
Thirdly, the proposal fails to define hazard classes, for example on the basis of medical criteria. It would make sense to attempt to define hazard levels in terms of probability by assigning substances to different groups on the basis of tonnage if they all posed the same threat, yet this is by no means the case.
My fourth point is that a number of traditional products should be excluded from the scope of the regulation, since their chemical activity is almost zero under normal conditions.
There is an urgent need for the REACH regulation, but it should be limited to very narrow definitions of hazard classes for chemical compounds. It should also establish a European Chemicals Agency, which would draw up detailed specifications for chemicals and issue certificates and registrations in line with this interpretation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples