Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-24-Speech-2-374"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-10-24"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Restrictions on the marketing and use of perfluorooctane sulfonates (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"hu"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061024.37.2-374"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-10-24-Speech-2-3752
lpv:speaker	lp:Gyula Hegyi2
lpv:spokenAs	member; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Magyar Szocialista Párt (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2005-01-05--2009-07-13)3 substitute; CULT (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of south-east Europe (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3
lpv:translated text	". I welcome the compromise package drawn up by the Council and the European Parliament, which in many respects tightens the Commission’s proposal. It is good to see that Parliament is so united on the question of banning or limiting a dangerous substance. Health, the protection of the environment and the desire for a healthy life are more important than the narrow interests of industry. There is no longer any doubt as to the problem posed by chemical substances. Stricter regulation is necessary in the area of chemicals, and this is indeed the focus of REACH, which seeks to regulate not merely one particular substance but some 30 000 compounds. As regards today’s proposal, it has been scientifically proven that perfluorooctane sulfonate is a hazardous substance. It endangers human health and is a persistent substance, one that does not biodegrade and is bio-accumulative, that is, it builds up in the body’s cells. Its use must therefore be restricted. I consider it an achievement that the substance is being banned in more areas than in the original proposal, and in other areas it can remain in use only during a period of transition. In the case of dangerous fires, fire-fighting foam may continue to be used for some time. If it is a question of saving human lives, then naturally we must use whatever is at hand. Over the longer term, however, it is vital that the chemical be replaced by substances that are not harmful to the human body. I consider it particularly forward-looking that the substitution principle has been built into this directive, which means – as everyone is no doubt aware – that the toxic chemical must be replaced by a different, harmless substance, and that research on and the introduction of such a substance is the responsibility of the manufacturer. Over the longer term, therefore, the use of PFOS will only be permitted where its replacement is impossible, and where it does not come into direct contact with the human body. I hope that those who will now vote for the substitution principle in this directive will also vote for the substitution principle for other compounds as contained in the REACH directive."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph