Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2015-10-28-Speech-3-071-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20151028.5.3-071-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, let me make very clear what is at stake here today. Rejecting the delegate deal with the Council and Commission would risk extending the shelf life of an old regulation that is no longer fit for purpose and that is slow to respond to market needs and safety concerns.
Some did want novel food to be authorised by delegated acts, but there is a confusion here. If we are a Parliament representing the people of Europe, we have to act as a Parliament: it is up to us to set the legal framework, not to implement it. We are the legislature, not the executive branch of government. The concept of Parliament deciding on authorisations for companies seems to me a very strange one.
To sum up, I want the European food sector to continue to lead rather than follow. We need legislation that can keep pace with new technologies, otherwise I greatly fear that we will be left behind.
Our agri-food sector is constantly changing, constantly adapting and improving. We must always be prepared for change. We need a legislative framework in place to keep up with the technological developments of the past 20 years. For example, with regard to nanotechnology and cell tissue cultures, the new innovations must have a proper legal framework securing food safety standards. A new, single and centralised procedure for the authorisation of novel foods and more robust data protection will provide applicants with greater legal certainty, reduce the administrative burden for SMEs and therefore encourage further innovation in the agri-food sector across Europe.
It will not compromise our safety standards, which are the highest in the world, and we are rightly proud of them. On the contrary, the enhanced role for the European Food Safety Authority and increased transparency in the process can only improve these standards.
The Novel Foods Regulation has had a long and arduous history. I want us to make a breakthrough today. During the negotiations on novel foods we have managed to come much further than Parliament had done in the past. I am pleased with the substantial progress that has been made on a number of issues, and I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, the Commission and all who worked on this to bring it thus far.
On nanomaterials, the definition has been moved to this regulation to reflect the safety concerns of this House, and it will be updated, by means of a delegated act, to reflect scientific progress: in other words, Parliament is being given a say on how the definition is updated. The wording on the test methods for nanomaterials has been strengthened, while taking into account environmental and consumer protection.
On the environment, this regulation should take into account a high level of protection and improvement in the quality of the environment. On animal welfare, the regulation has been strengthened in terms of animal-welfare measures, urging that testing on animals should be replaced, reduced or refined.
The transparency of the process has been significantly strengthened: by obliging the Commission to publish the summary of every application and through the fact that the list of rejected applications should be publicly available. Food consisting of, isolated from, or produced from cell or tissue cultures derived from animals, plants, micro-organisms, fungi or algae is now explicitly mentioned in the scope of the regulation. The precautionary principle is explicitly mentioned in the articles as a main factor for the Commission in deciding whether to propose to authorise a novel food. A provision has also been added to align time periods with regard to data protection under the Novel Foods and Health Claims Regulations, which will act as a stimulant to innovation.
The regulation also makes it easier for traditional food from one or more third countries to be placed on the internal market. This is particularly welcome for developing countries attempting to export their traditional products. Nevertheless, and quite rightly, any food imported from these third countries must meet our high quality standards.
Let me also comment on two other issues. Cloning no longer belongs in this proposal. After the collapse of 2011, the Commission rightly separated out the cloning issue to different files. If you disagree with the Commission proposals, then the right place to have the debate is in relation to those files. Insisting on tackling the cloning issue here benefits no one, whatever side of the debate you are on: clearly the Council will not move on novel foods unless it moves on other files. But if the Council moves on other files it is no longer necessary to do anything on novel foods."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples