Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-07-09-Speech-1-079"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070709.15.1-079"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I wish to thank the rapporteurs for their constructive cooperation. One of the consequences of this is that my amendments limiting the use of flavour enhancers, warning against azo dyes and calling for the labelling and risk assessment of genetically modified additives and pesticides used as preservatives have been incorporated into the report. I hope that these amendments will be retained by plenary.
In proposing a double legal basis I am supporting the rapporteur. When additives are authorised, account must be taken of their environmental impact. This may be necessary in order to obtain proper purification in sewage treatment works.
The main idea contained in the Commission’s proposal is to introduce committee procedures for additives. The risks we should then run would be those of too many additives being approved and of only provably dangerous substances being banned. The experience of the European Food Safety Authority shows that the precautionary principle does not count for much. Moreover, one of the basic requirements of the regulation is that consumers should not be misled. How these matters are to be interpreted as a political issue and thus an issue for Parliament.
We are entitled to good, natural and safe food. Often, additives that are not fresh or natural are used in food. Consumers have everything to gain from the competitive advantages of natural and fresh food not being reduced through sloppy legislation on additives that favours food produced on a centralised and large-scale basis and involving something that, too, is scarcely very good for the environment, namely transport over long distances.
It is therefore absurd for the Commission to state that the need to put colour in otherwise colourless food is a particularly important reason for using colouring agents. That, if any, procedure is likely to mislead the consumer. The proposal that sweeteners might be used for the specific purpose of extending a product’s shelf life is misleading and should be deleted.
I hope that, with a view to protecting children, I shall obtain support for limiting colorants in food designed for children. Nor should nanoparticles be approved under this regulation, because the latter is not designed for dealing with the properties of nanoparticles. We should also take special account of those with allergies by not allowing additives to limit their choice of food.
Those manufacturers that do not provide adequate information about their additives must not, of course, have them approved. Manufacturers must not find it worthwhile to withhold information. We in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance have tabled amendments to reflect all these considerations. If they are approved, we shall obtain legislation that protects consumers.
The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance has applied the same logic to other regulations. Naturally seasoned food must not be placed at a disadvantage, as it would be through the Commission’s proposal. I call on everyone to support natural seasoning and not to allow themselves to be deceived by the synthetic additives industry."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples