Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
 Index 
 Full text 
Debates
Monday, 22 October 2018 - Strasbourg Revised edition

Reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment (debate)
MPphoto
 

  John Stuart Agnew, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, this proposed directive typifies why we need a Brexit. Our UK Environment Agency has published a life cycle assessment, which demonstrates that oxo-biodegradable plastic is superior to bio-plastic. This was reinforced by the Intertek report of 2012.

The EU has instigated its own technical study but want to rush legislation through before the findings are published. This indicates that the European Union are trying very hard to airbrush oxo-biodegradable plastic out of the discussion entirely. Why? Because this is being developed by a British company, whilst the competitor technology is in the hands of the Italian company Novamont, who have received direct support from the Italian Government, who in turn have made it mandatory for retailers to use Novamont’s product. The Italian product will not fully degrade in the open air, whilst the British product does so. The Italian product cannot be recycled, whilst the British product can be, if required. The Italian process produces far more CO2, indicating that more energy is required to manufacture it.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

 
Last updated: 12 December 2018Legal notice