Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-06-14-Speech-4-011-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120614.6.4-011-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I would have also liked to welcome the Danish Presidency but perhaps this is the aftermath of defeat, I do not know, so we will do this without it.
I can easily understand their concerns and I will use a single argument, but an important one: the costs they must bear in order to draw up a robust scientific file to present to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), on average between EUR 500 000 and EUR 1 000 000. How do you expect healthy and fair competition to be established under these conditions? That is why access to the internal market for SMEs must be a common theme across all of our legislation. Of course, that is what we are saying here.
To finish, I would like to send a brief message to the shadow rapporteurs. You will understand that, in my capacity as rapporteur, I must stand by the overall compromise that was reached in committee. I do not wish to re-open new issues or issues that were resolved in committee.
Even though, personally, I can sympathise with some of the amendments tabled in plenary, particularly Amendment 84 on pesticides, I will stand by our agreement, our compromises. It is covered in our own amendment, Amendment 63, and furthermore a promise is a promise and I will stand by it. Thank you, and I am looking forward to hearing the next speakers.
Firstly, and this is important, I would particularly like to thank Ms Lange, Ms Sârbu, Ms Girling, and Ms Liotard, as well as Mr Schlyter and Mr Rossi, who acted as rapporteurs for their respective political groups throughout the course of this lengthy piece of work and who have proven that we are clearly stronger together than when Parliament is divided on certain issues. This, of course, is in the best interests of the citizens, families and vulnerable population groups who are most likely to be affected by this future legislation on food.
The text which we will now debate and which we will vote on in three hours’ time is essential for newborns, young children under the age of three and those suffering from long-term illnesses who have specific nutritional needs. To put it simply, here we are targeting food intended for particular groups, which covers close to 2% of the large food market.
I will not dwell too long on how this legislation came into being, suffice to say that the Commission has done well after 35 years of the legislation on dietary foods being in force, and after it was extended to other types of products, to undertake the complete renovation of this particular legal arsenal, and for good reason. We must establish order in this jungle of food products which is threatening the cohesion of the internal market and which, moreover, often does not allow consumers to exercise their freedom of choice.
By voting unanimously on my draft report on 29 February – let me remind you – the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection sent a clear message, which I will summarise as follows: the Commission’s approach, which I just mentioned, of simplifying this legislation and abolishing the concept of dietary foods is the right approach. We have supported it.
It is also crucial to maintain a tailor-made legislative framework for three types of foodstuff: food intended for infants and young children – both liquid and solid food – and food intended for sick people, as I said. In other words, sub-categories of restricted groups, to put it that way, who therefore cannot exercise this freedom of choice, hence the vital importance for us to maintain strict rules on labelling and composition.
Thirdly, we wanted to broaden the scope to other equally vulnerable population groups, without wanting to make the situation worse, of course. Specifically, I am talking about people who are overweight and on drastic diets of less than 1 200 calories per day and people intolerant to gluten, in other words those suffering from what is known as coeliac disease. Around 2% of the European population suffer from this disease and they strongly support our desire to maintain a specific legal framework for these so-called gluten-free products.
I would remind you that this legislation aims to protect the most fragile, the most vulnerable among us, and that is essential.
We also wanted – I will not be able to mention everything but this is important – to think about our most dynamic European companies, these small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which are at the heart of innovation and job creation in Europe. Whether they are Italian or German companies involved in gluten-free products, Belgium companies – off the top of my head – involved in food supplements, the least we can say is that SMEs, many of which approached us throughout the course of our work, were worried to see the Commission’s plan to shake up the current legislation in the 2006 regulation on claims."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples