Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-16-Speech-2-133"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060516.32.2-133"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I had the opportunity to express my point of view yesterday evening during the debate on Mrs Poli Bortone’s report. I wish, however, to explain why I voted as I did on Amendment 66, the notorious disclosure clause.
I am opposed to calling Article 4 and the nutrient profile into question in any way. In my view, this compromise is therefore the worst sort of hypocrisy whereby it is permitted to make nutrition claims for food with high sugar, salt or fat content as long as the high content of these substances is indicated on the label. To put it bluntly, it makes it legal to give false descriptions.
For example, ‘non-fat’ lollipops can happily be described as such, even if they are also ‘pure sugar’. And who cares if they give children tooth decay?
If, in spite of that, I have abstained from voting, it is because of what is contained in the remainder of the report. Firstly, we have come a very long way indeed from our vote at first reading which purely and simply killed off the nutrient profile. Moreover, many uncertainties have been removed, especially for SMEs. What is more, there is still a ban on health claims for alcoholic products. Finally, I am convinced that we should not obtain anything better by the end of a long and expensive conciliation procedure. Politics is partly about accepting compromises."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples