Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-07-09-Speech-1-076"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-07-09"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Common authorisation procedure for food additives – Food additives – Food enzymes – Flavourings and food ingredients with flavouring properties for use in and on foods (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20070709.15.1-076"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-07-09-Speech-1-0772
lpv:speaker	lp:Karin Scheele2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Temporary Committee on Climate Change (2007-05-10--2008-12-10)3 member; ENVI (2007-01-31--2008-12-10)3 member; PES (2004-07-20--2008-12-10)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-15--2008-12-10)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2008-12-10)3 substitute; DEVE (2007-01-31--2008-12-10)3 unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (2004-07-20--2008-12-10)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, I would like to thank the three rapporteurs, especially Mrs Doyle, who produced the report for which I am shadow rapporteur for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. I would like to try and identify the common points, but also the differences between our positions. Like the previous speakers from my group, I support the approach of having two legal bases for the regulations because for me the enhanced consumer safety this Commission proposal contains really is the most important argument. As Mrs Doyle has already mentioned, only three Member States have so far introduced a safety assessment for enzymes into their national laws. That is why we need a safety assessment at European level – precisely on grounds of consumer safety. I hope that tomorrow’s plenary will follow the committee’s example and accept a further criterion, in addition to those provided in the Commission’s text, for a food enzyme to be included in the Community list: namely that its use should benefit the consumer. Enzymes derived from genetically modified organisms are an important subject for me, as also for many other Members of this House. I well remember how, when we debated the regulation on genetically modified food and feed in this house a few years ago, many of us tried to get acceptance for the European public’s wish that GMO-derived enzymes should be labelled as such. At the time, our attention was drawn to this general revision of the enzyme legislation. That is where we are today and that is why I believe that the time has now come to get the wishes of a broad majority of the European public accepted. If I may now turn from my own terms of reference directly to Åsa Westlund’s report, I will of course support the codecision approach, because on a subject such as enzymes we should ensure the broadest possible transparency. It is of course interesting that the Commission is advocating the extended comitology procedure here, while we are up against a brick wall with another dossier on genetically modified organisms. I find it very interesting that in this case the regulatory procedure with scrutiny is said to be possible for individual authorisations of enzymes, even though that is evidently still not the case with other topics such as genetically modified organisms."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph