Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-07-09-Speech-1-073"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070709.15.1-073"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I support the position of the regulation on flavourings: The outdated European legislation needs to be modernised and simplified in order to improve the operation of the internal market and to promote technological advances, although not at the cost of reducing consumer protection. On the contrary, protection must be increased.
Finally, I wish to offer a heartfelt thanks to the two rapporteurs of the other regulations which go to make up the new legislative package for their excellent cooperation and very productive exchange of opinions.
The aim of standardised rules for approving new food additives is to increase the trust of consumers. The rules must be such that they preclude the possibility of consumers being misled, and apart from anything else this requires accurate and clear labelling of products.
Alongside the toxicological aspect of food safety, I believe we also need to take into account the expediency of adding flavourings to food. Indeed it is possible for manufacturers to use strong flavourings in order to cover up bad ingredients in their ready-made food. The issue of the technological expediency of flavourings is, then, linked to the principles of protecting people’s health.
The contentious part of the regulation in my view is the part about food ingredients with aromatic properties, especially herbs and spices. These were included in the text of the regulation after the publication of reports on the genotoxicity and carcinogenic effects of certain pure biologically active principles in herbs. The maximum permitted amounts, relating to around 60 herbs and spices, are contained in Appendix III to the regulation.
We do not underestimate the scientific evidence that biologically active principles can in themselves be harmful. I agree that we need to preclude the possibility of toxic substances accidentally getting into ready-made food. For the moment, there is no scientific evidence that such principles are harmful, even when they appear, in minute quantities, in mixtures of herbs and spices and we ingest them in ready-made food.
One possible consequence of determining the highest permitted values based on biologically active principles might be that certain traditional products, which have already been in the European market for decades, would disappear from it, with food producers leaving out herbs and using flavourings in their place.
I speak on behalf of almost all members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety when I say that the issue of biologically active principles needs to be addressed in a complex and integrated way. I propose that the solution adopted by a large majority in the committee be supported by Members in the plenary session. In that case Appendix III, part B would remain in the regulation, but would be empty until based on scientifically supported reasons and the Commission, within its competence, orders a relevant study, which would use the average daily consumption of such food to calculate the actual risk to human health.
In the regulation on additives we support the view that a condition for inclusion on the list of permitted substances is a positive opinion from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), but this should not be the only criterion. Toxicological acceptability does not say everything about how sensible it is to add additives in the light of European Union efforts to educate people towards healthy eating habits. Reasonable technological interest is a concept which, in light of this, we support as a tool for the political interpretation of borderline problems. It makes sense, for instance, to prevent consumers from being misled with regard to the value of food additives, if in truth they have no value.
Our group also supports a unified and centralised procedure for approving new additives, flavourings and enzymes, on condition that it becomes more efficient, faster and more transparent. We had some reservations, which we expressed in the debate in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, but having counted up the good and less good sides to the new proposal, we are of the opinion that comitology with the right of scrutiny will give Parliament the option of fleshing out the technical aspects of approving food additives with certain political criteria that seem important from the point of view of long-term consumer protection."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples