Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-01-13-Speech-2-380"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2009-01-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Pharmaceutical products package (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20090113.29.2-380"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2009-01-13-Speech-2-3812
lpv:speaker	lp:Carl Schlyter2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; ENVI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; G/EFA (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; CONT (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; PECH (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; INTA (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Miljöpartiet (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, I would like to thank the Commission for its statement. I think that it is good to address environmental aspects, for example. Contamination from pharmaceutical products is a growing problem in treatment works. As regards advertisements for pharmaceutical products, I would like to see the toughest possible restrictions. I have really become quite tired of this issue. One evening when I was watching television, a quarter of all the advertisements were for over-the-counter pharmaceutical products. I would like the Commission to carry out an impact assessment to see how great an effect the advertisements have had on sales of these pharmaceutical products. Is it reasonable to have so many advertisements for pharmaceutical products on the television, even if we are talking about over-the-counter medicines? In Sweden, we had an example of the vaccine Gardasil, which scarcely falls within the bounds of over-the-counter or epidemiological vaccines. I would therefore like us to tighten up the legislation in this area. As regards the counterfeiting of medicines, this is probably also connected to our current patent system. There is an extremely large difference in price. I believe that a solution for better steering research in the direction of needs that are in the public interest would perhaps be to introduce the greater use of prize funds for pharmaceutical products. Neglected tropical diseases, for example – that is to say an area where there is no buying power – would then be able to obtain new medicines. This would better enable research to be carried out into producing medicines for groups in society that do not have a strong buying power. I would like the Commission to look more closely into the possibilities of making greater use of prize funds, whereby a person who develops a new pharmaceutical product receives a one-off sum. Manufacture would then be licence-free. I believe that in certain cases this could be a better system for improving research and, above all, for eliminating the purpose of counterfeiting medicines. I see many advantages to being able, from a political position, to steer research into solving a disease problem instead of treating the symptoms for 30 years with medication that is very lucrative for the undertakings concerned. Finally, I would just like to say something about nanotechnology. There are nanoparticles in medicine, but we know very little about their toxicological effects. I would like better methods to be introduced for investigating the toxicology of nanoparticles."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph