Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-15-Speech-1-098"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060515.16.1-098"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, first of all, I should like to thank Mrs Poli Bortone. I think that, along with her, the Council and among ourselves, we have reached a sound compromise. I am also indebted to Mrs Sommer and the other groups that have played a part in this.
Many consumers are anxious about their health, about cholesterol and blood pressure, or wrestle with excess weight. The food industry is cashing in on this. There is a proliferation of all kinds of claims. This morning, I enjoyed a sandwich that is beneficial for my intestinal flora, with a covering of butter that reduces my cholesterol and an egg that contains high levels of Omega 3. Perfect … or at least that is what I think, for I do not know.
Consumers do not know whether the claims manufacturers make are true, and that is why this legislative proposal’s stipulation that the health claims which food manufactures make must be scientifically underpinned is so crucial. We must avoid consumers being taken for a ride. Consumers are often prepared to pay more for a product that claims to benefit their health, but they should be able to be confident that it really does.
Whilst misleading advertisements are already banned, the burden of proof has so far been with the authorities. Of course, this does not work in practice. It is impossible for governments to constantly check claims on packaging and then to disprove them. This proposal will benefit consumers, in that manufacturers in all 25 countries must from now on provide honest information.
At first reading, Parliament gave in to pressure from businesses that were scared of being exposed, businesses that deliberately mislead consumers by painting a different picture, and they cannot in any way count on my sympathy. No profits on the back of people who are worried about their weight or health. The internal market should not be a licence for leading consumers up the garden path, something which, fortunately, the compromise recognises to a large extent.
Deception comes in many guises. According to Article 4, health claims can only be made on products that meet a certain profile. I would like to assure Mrs Sommer that those food profiles do exist. They are used in the United States. All major enterprises apply them and they work very well. It is also appropriate that food claims can only be added to products that are, in principle, healthy. After all, the greasy hamburger will not suddenly become a health food only by adding a few vitamins. Nor will the sugary lollypop by adding vitamin A.
The compromise rejects health claims on alcohol, which will only be allowed where the alcohol percentage or calorie level is reduced. If one considers all the problems involving alcoholism, including liver damage and brain damage, it is hard to allow health claims on alcohol. Luckily, all parties were prepared to support this proposal in the end.
At first reading, it transpired that the proposal is unnecessarily bureaucratic. This position was also shared by our group, although we did want sufficient guarantees for adequate procedures. These are now in place. There is now a weighty authorisation procedure for claims directed at children and claims that pertain to reduced health risks. Our group is behind the consumer and well-meaning enterprises. This legislation ensures that consumers are given honest information. I would express the hope and expectation that this legislation will contribute to better food and better health. Thank you for your attention."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples