Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-06-19-Speech-2-183"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070619.37.2-183"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"(
) When Slovakia acceded the EU, local producers were required to make changes to the designation of alcohol and spirits. The producers were not overly enthusiastic, but they complied with the need for change in a disciplined manner. The ‘rum’ they had produced became ‘um’; to have retained the designation ‘rum’ it would have had to be produced from sugar cane alcohol. For economic reasons, producers preferred to stick with alcohol produced from grain or sugar beet molasses. This is one of the reasons why in Slovakia we have ‘um’ instead of ‘rum’, the former being a spirit with a specific rum flavouring people consume because of its taste, which has evolved over generations and has not changed since EU accession.
This is why I sympathise with my fellow Members from Poland, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania; this is why I have signed and voted in favour of the amendment demanding that there be a strict definition of vodka, which would regard grain, potatoes and, potentially, sugar beet molasses as the only acceptable raw materials. I do not consider the Schnellhardt compromise acceptable, since, although it would not change the labelling on vodkas made from grain, potatoes or molasses, it would involve products made from other raw materials being designated ‘vodka made from …’ followed by the name of the original ingredient.
This is such a simple matter, and EU definitions should be just as simple. Since the amendment was not adopted, I have abstained from voting on the report by my colleague, Mr Schnellhardt."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"SK"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples