Verbatim report of proceedings

Monday, 10 April 2000 - Strasbourg

7. Food additives other than colours and sweeteners

  President. – The next item is the report by Mr Lannoye (A5-0072/2000), on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive amending Directive 95/2 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners COM(1999) 329 – C5-0068/1999 – 1999/0158(COD).

  Lannoye (Verts/ALE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are now going to discuss a second aspect of the food safety issue. The fact is, over the years, more and more additives have been used in foodstuffs, in connection, in particular, with the industrialisation of food production. When I say ‘more and more’, you only have to look at the figures. A survey of the current situation shows that 307 additives are authorised within the European Union. We are effectively working with a positive list. All the additives given on this list are authorised; any not included are, by the same token, prohibited. That makes 307 authorised additives, only 163 of which may be considered as totally harmless, indicating that many others are either suspect or actually cause food safety-related problems. I am thinking in particular of the problem of allergies.

What is being proposed today? Not reducing the list, but extending it a little further since the Commission has made nine proposals, either to add certain additives to the list or to extend the uses of some already authorised additives.

In principle, there are three criteria governing the acceptance of a new additive: technological need, usefulness for the consumer and harmlessness. It must be acknowledged that, in the course of time, technological need has always been the predominant criterion. It is not that the criterion of harmlessness has been ignored, just that it has been modified slightly over time. It is common knowledge today that the precautionary principle was practically unheard of seven or eight years ago, whereas today it has come to the fore. The situation must therefore be reviewed from a different perspective to the one we took a few years ago.

I therefore find it quite astounding – as indeed does the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy – that a number of additives are being proposed for inclusion, for which we do not have assurances. Of the Commission’s nine proposals, we think that five are suspect for one reason or another. I shall mention them quickly. Firstly, an additive called sodium alginate is proposed for use on grated carrots. The usefulness for the consumer is that the grated carrots will appear to be ‘fresh’ even though they are actually not. This is quite clear, just from reading the relevant literature. As for the risks to the consumer, apparently these are not very significant, but the Scientific Committees which have looked into the matter do consider that the laxative effect of this additive is likely to combine with other problems of the same type. It is not, therefore, necessarily to be recommended. In consideration of the fact that this involves deception of the consumer rather than improving the situation for the consumer, our opinion is that this additive must not be accepted.

There is another additive which presents a huge problem, E467. I will refrain from giving its official name because it is far too long and complex, and I think it would be even harder to translate. E467 is problematic in terms of assessing its harmlessness, because it contains extremely dangerous impurities. One such impurity is ethylene oxide, which the relevant scientific authorities recognise is a proven carcinogen. We must consequently reject this one too.

Finally, three other additives are proposed as propellants. These are inflammable gases – butane, isobutane and propane. In view of the fact that there are alternative solutions – the technological need is therefore a real one, but it can be fulfilled by other additives – and that, in addition, after cooking, after the use of these products, the residues in the form of organic products are not, a priori, harmless, we consider that these additives cannot be approved either.

That is a brief overview of the problem. As far as we are concerned there are five additives which should not be authorised, and the four others do not seem to present any problem, based on a reading of the scientific literature about them. As we are not absolutist, we consider that they may be accepted.

I think it is important, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, to reverse the trend in the current legislation on additives. The Commission has announced a radical revision of the directive. I think we would be sending out a positive message if we indicated that we do not wish to maintain the attitude which has dominated for years, allowing the number of additives to grow and grow, even though we know nothing about their synergistic effects in combination. Quite the contrary, we think we should move towards a much more limited list, and remove the most suspect additives from the list. I have counted around fifty of these myself. Others should be used far less widely. I am thinking, for example, of nitrites, nitrates and sulphites which are known to present proven health problems.

  Pohjamo (ELDR), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to thank the rapporteur for his thorough work but, in my opinion, the preparatory work has been carried out far too meticulously, with too much weight given to the precautionary principle.

I would like to draw your attention to some of the issues that have been raised in this opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. The Committee found that the proposal for a directive does not follow the procedure specified for the basic directive on additives. The amendments in the Commission’s proposal are based on the needs expressed by a Member State, and the Scientific Committee for Food has delivered a favourable opinion on the amendments in question.

Now we are talking about allowing the use of a few new additives. The rapporteur and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy have, however, treated the proposal heavy-handedly and are proposing that the use of most of the new additives mentioned in the Commission’s proposal be rejected. This raises a few questions. The Scientific Committee for Food has delivered a favourable report on proposals by Member States concerning additives. Has it not shown itself capable of the task in question or has the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy indeed gone too far in its interpretation of the precautionary principle? To what extent has the point of view of industry been taken into account in the report? Should not the question of innovations and the use of better additives, as well as competitiveness of the European food industry, be given greater consideration?

We might also ask how Parliament in future will manage its enormous task if it tackles issues so meticulously. Should Parliament not decide on goals and procedures whereby matters such as the safe introduction of new additives can be assured? If the report is adopted in the form in which it has been presented, could not the adoption procedure regarding new additives be reformed once and for all and the whole additives list revised? I would ask the rapporteur in question, and the representative of the Commission also, to reply to these questions.

  Thyssen (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, the way in which we feed ourselves is an expression of how we live. Some people criticise what I would call the modern western lifestyle, rightly or wrongly. The answer to this question is often determined by the choices we make. What matters to the European People’s Party is that the consumer has choices. This presupposes both the availability of information and the guarantee that what is on offer on the market does not present any health risks and that all products are manufactured in accordance with current rules and procedures.

As far as additives are concerned, the basic rules are enshrined in the 1989 Framework Directive. This directive stipulates that an additive shall only be admitted if there is sufficient technological need, if there is no risk to the health of the consumer and if the consumer is not misled in the process. In our view, the latter condition has not been met regarding the admission of sodium alginate in peeled and sliced carrots. If consumers buy fresh carrots, they must be able to assume that these are untreated and not processed and they do not expect them to be dipped in a preservative.

To assess whether the use of additives is necessary, the Framework Directive lists various accepted objectives. One of these is the supply of ingredients or components of foodstuffs to patients with dietary needs. The use of E 467 – I will not attempt to pronounce the full word – as proposed by the Commission, seems to meet this requirement.

Finally, the Framework Directive also stipulates that facilitating the manufacture and preparation of foodstuffs is an acceptable criterion of usefulness. In the light of this, our Group is not really opposed to permitting three additives in baking sprays, unlike the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. All other amendments tabled by this committee receive our support, including the amendment tabled by the PSE Group.

I would like to add the following if you will allow me. Firstly: the rapporteur who, incidentally, has worked extremely hard – I have rarely seen a rapporteur put so much effort into one report and I would like to congratulate him on this – has every right to complain about the Commission providing Parliament with insufficient information in the COM document. Something was added at the end, but I do not think that this is the way forward and I would like to find out from the Commissioner whether he intends to do anything about this in the future.

Secondly, the effects on public health must obviously be assessed on a scientific basis. For this purpose, we call on the Scientific Committee for Food for scientific opinions. After the BSE crisis, the Scientific Committees were reformed at our request and, as we have said before, they have been reformed to our satisfaction. We now have to make a decision: either we accept the opinions of the Scientific Committees in principle, or we do not; but then these Scientific Committees will need to be reformed once again. We cannot do a bit of both. I fear that if we do not, out of principle almost, accept the conclusions reached by the Scientific Committees, this will cost us and the legislation we draft dearly in terms of credibility, and we will then end up replacing the expertise of the scientists in the Scientific Committees by our own convictions. This is something I find difficult to come to terms with.

Thirdly, I would like to know from the Commission if it intends to screen the permitted additives at set times and examine these according to state-of-the-art technology, as the rapporteur has asked in his explanatory note, and quite rightly so.

Fourthly, and on a final note, I would like to say a few words on the hierarchy of standards. We have asked for a hierarchy of standards in the IGC report and we have also mentioned this elsewhere. Could the Commissioner tell me whether he thinks that lists of additives should be drafted or completed within the European Parliament and the Council, preferably according to a codecision procedure, or is this a task which, in his opinion, should be carried out by an authorised executive body?

  Lund (PSE). – (DA) Mr President, our foodstuffs – and this also applies to entirely fresh produce, for example the peeled carrots we heard mentioned today – are nowadays doctored in all kinds of ways with colouring agents, sweeteners, flavour enhancers and preservatives, in fact with every possible type of substance. And all in order to disguise the products’ natural characteristics. It is, of course, not just a few substances we are talking about. Nowadays, we use several thousands of additives and, where the majority of these are concerned, the fact is that we are not even aware of their consequences for health. To top it all, we are in fact aware that a large number of them are harmful, and yet we still allow them to be used. I think that Community policy in relation to the use of additives has developed in a quite irresponsible way. I should therefore like to support Mr Lannoye’s report. I think a splendid piece of work has been carried out. New additives ought to be refused and any increase in the quantity of accepted and permitted substances should be rejected. Instead, I think the Commission needs seriously to rationalise the number of additives. In the general remarks in his report, Mr Lannoye points to many substances which ought to be investigated, including antibiotics added directly to foodstuffs.

I should like to point out a further problem. It is a problem which Mr Lannoye also mentioned in his intervention, namely the question of adding nitrates and nitrites to meat products. In my opinion, the quantities of these compounds that are permitted are way too excessive. A major investigation by five consumer organisations in Europe has recently shown that a large proportion of meat products contains quite large quantities of nitrosamines. Nitrosamine is a carcinogenic substance which is derived from, and produced by, nitrates and nitrites. I think the situation is unacceptable in this area, but I do not see the investigation having made any impression upon the Commission. I think that the quantity of nitrates and nitrites added to meat products ought to be considerably reduced and that there should be compulsory monitoring of the quantity of nitrosamine which, as I said, is of course a powerfully carcinogenic substance, the presence of which in our foodstuffs is not presently measured at all. I hope that Commissioner Byrne, who has assumed responsibility for this area, will examine the question of added amounts of nitrates and nitrites. I think we have a serious problem in this regard and I hope he will confirm that this will be done. Finally, I would say that, in my view, we need quite a thorough rationalisation of the quantity of additives in our foodstuffs.

  Maaten (ELDR). – (NL) Mr President, the report is concerned with supplementing a list of permitted additives with additional foodstuff additives, other than colouring agents and flavourings. This means that the Commission suggests supplementing the list with additives which have not yet been used. It does not, however, mean deleting any additives from the list. In terms of food and food safety, the needs and wishes of the consumer need to be given more consideration than has been the case in the past. That does not mean, of course, that we can ignore the interests of the foodstuff manufacturers or that we should turn our back on modern food production methods, as Mr Pojarno mentioned a moment ago. It does mean, however, that food safety must be at the top of the agenda. Whilst many additives are harmless, this does not mean that they all are. And if harmlessness has not been established 100%, there is no doubt that the only correct way forward is to ban the use of the product. In addition, it is useful to get manufacturers to spell out the benefit of adding substances for the consumer. The example of E401 or sodium alginate – a word which I can pronounce – has been mentioned. This makes stale carrots look fresh. What consumer interest is served by doing this? What is in the interests of the consumer differs from one consumer to another and from one consumer group to the next. But what is clear is that all consumers benefit from sound consumer information so that they are not misled. This report literally takes a refreshing look at the problem, and not before time. The rapporteur is to be congratulated on this and the report can count on the support of the liberal group.

  Breyer (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, naturally we too wish to congratulate our colleagues. Mr Lannoye has done an excellent job; indeed, he has achieved what the Commission failed to. The Commission only offers talk of the precautionary principle, whereas Mr Lannoye has shown in his report that it is also about implementing it in practice and actually making the precautionary principle a keynote.

I also fail to see what the Commission promised, i.e. transparency. It is nothing less than consumer deception if we are giving the illusion of freshness which does not in reality exist. Commissioner, you must finally come clean as to why you are not envisaging that unpacked foodstuffs, in particular fruit and vegetables, should also be compulsorily labelled.

I would also like to once again stress what Mr Lannoye has said. This report makes clear that we need a reform of additives. We cannot place hundreds of additives on the market simply because industry wants it. It has nothing to do with competition that we reject what the Commission is proposing. We actually need, as in Japan, a limited list of 70-100 additives and I would have liked to know what the Commissioner thinks of this. Industry will then have to decide the ones it wants. That would at least be an innovative viewpoint which makes competition the basis. Mr Lannoye is right that we must lay our cards on the table in this regard and do justice to the precautionary principle.

  Sandbæk (EDD). – (DA) Mr President, I should like to start by saying that, with Paul Lannoye as rapporteur, the report concerned has been placed in very competent hands, and I am able fully to support all his conclusions. As is well known, there are three prior conditions which must be fulfilled if additives are to be included on the positive list. There should be a technological need, the product should be useful to the consumer and there should be documentary proof of its being harmless. Paul Lannoye rightly points out that none of the prerequisites are present in the case of sodium alginate. The substance is not useful to the consumer. On the contrary, it directly misleads the consumer by making sliced carrots look fresh, even if they are not. It is also very unfortunate that the synergy effect has not been investigated. It is, on principle, very alarming that the Commission should be able to extend the list of additives just because the substances are permitted in parts of the EU. This rule ought to be changed so that an additive can only be put on the positive list if there is a clearly documented technological need for it which is also, mind you, of benefit to consumers.

It is ironic to be having to deal with this proposal such a short time after the publication of the Commission’s White Paper on Foodstuffs. In the white paper, the Commission itself attaches importance to limiting the consumption of additives in order – as the Commission puts it – to thereby avoid negative effects on health. The Commission also states that it wishes to guide consumers as best it can so that they themselves can make a choice. On examining this proposed directive, the conclusion has to be drawn that there is very little connection between words and deeds in the EU’s handling of additives. I seem to remember that the original intention in drafting a positive list was partly that it should be possible to decide to remove additives from the list. Current liberalisation of the quantity of permitted additives is worrying. Let us, therefore, have the list shortened as soon as possible rather than extended. In addition to what Mr Lund has said about nitrites and nitrates, I would mention that, in the course of the last part-session, I asked the Commission if the newly discovered scientific facts about these two substances’ effects on health had caused the Commission to review its position. The answer was unfortunately ‘no’ and, in common with Mr Lund, I should like to see that ‘no’ justified here today.

  Arvidsson (PPE-DE). – (SV) Mr President, I share in principle the opinion of the rapporteur that new additives in foodstuffs should not be approved if there is no actual need for them. However, I would like to point out that we ought to consider the fact that there might be a regional or national tradition that justifies the approval of an additive.

The additive I am thinking of in this regard is ethylhydroxyethylcellulose. This substance is no luxury and it is not addictive. Ethylhydroxyethylcellulose has, however, been used for more than 20 years in Sweden and Finland, and I think also in Norway, as a binding agent in gluten-free bread and pastries. It is used in order to prevent gluten-free bread and pastries from crumbling apart and in order that the relatively small group of people with an intolerance for gluten are able to eat bread and pastries in the same form as other healthy people.

Ethylhydroxyethylcellulose is particularly suitable for the kind of bread traditionally made in the northern region of the EU. The substance is, therefore, not completely exchangeable for other, already approved types of cellulose. The rapporteur claims that there is a risk of contaminants in ethylhydroxyethylcellulose that could have a carcinogenic effect and also suggests that high doses could have a laxative effect. However, I maintain that in reality the opposite may be true.

The fact that the bread sticks together and does not have to be eaten with a spoon because it has broken into a mass of crumbs is particularly important for children with gluten intolerance. These children have difficulty understanding why they should have to eat breadcrumbs when other children eat whole bread that does not crumble into pieces. If children are careless about their diet, there is an increased risk of malnutrition. If children with gluten intolerance abandon the breadcrumbs and eat normal bread, they will suffer from stomach pain and they can then develop diarrhoea. In the long term, there is probably also an increased risk of contracting cancer of the stomach or intestine.

For many families with gluten intolerant children, life is very difficult and the extra work involved in managing their diet is tremendous. These families cannot buy their bread, but have to make it themselves and add the binding agent themselves. Why should we make life even more difficult for these families? Why should they not be allowed to continue to use the binding agent that they are used to using?

Not approving ethylhydroxyethylcellulose makes life more difficult for people with gluten intolerance and for families with gluten intolerant children. In this case it is not possible to invoke the precautionary principle in order to ban the substance. On the contrary, the precautionary principle favours the approval of ethylhydroxyethylcellulose.

  Whitehead (PSE). – Mr President, like everyone else in this debate I should like to congratulate Mr Lannoye. He and I sometimes cross swords on the issue of other nutritious additives, but in this case we are looking very much at the essence of the burden of proof before this list is yet further extended. He has done a service to the committee and also to this House by pointing out that this procedure appears to be almost always one-way.

We need to hear from the Commission on two points of principle: the first is whether the procedures themselves need review as the Commission spokesman suggested in the debate in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy; secondly, whether there is a more efficacious way of removing additives as well as bringing them into effect.

It seems to us that the list is getting larger and that the burden of proof must remain with those, be they in Member States, in the Commission or in the Scientific Committees, who want us to adapt these things. I am prepared to accept that some of these are harmless. Indeed, the committee and even Mr Lannoye were prepared to accept E949 and E650.

However, whilst I would not claim to be an expert – as no other member of the committee would – on the issue of which of the various propellant sprays can safely be used, enough doubts were raised in committee, not least when we heard from the representative of the Commission, about the propellant sprays themselves. These are apparently needed by manufacturers because they produce an equal spray of fat on the utensil concerned.

One of them is there only for professional use. The other two are regarded as safe for all. We all want to look again at this issue and see why they have been chosen and whether we might now hold back any clearance of them, at least until the review which is suggested has been carried through.

With regard to the two amendments, my Group, whilst it supports the spirit of what Mr Lannoye proposes in Amendment No 1, would not go as far as this to write the precautionary principle itself into this particular directive. It does not seem to us to be the right place for it. We would prefer to strike out recital 5 and we shall so vote. This is the place to discuss the burden of proof rather than the overall principle of precaution.

Finally, as regards Amendment No 2 in the name of my Group, this is purely a drafting amendment to remove references to the codecision procedure. But its meaning remains crystal clear. We do not think these additions should be made unless it can be demonstrated that the consumer benefits. At the end of the line it is for the consumer that this is being done. It is being done in the consumer's name. For that reason we commend Amendment No 2.

  Ries (ELDR). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the recent dioxin and mad cow scandals have amply demonstrated, if indeed there was any need, that consumers now want to have every possible guarantee as to the quality of their food. In this respect, the Lannoye report provides one more classic example. The rapporteur rightly wonders if the additives added to our foodstuffs are really necessary and, more especially, if they are really harmless. What are we discussing here? The total of 307 additives authorised by the European Union, only 163 of which are completely harmless, as Paul Lannoye has just pointed out. Who stands to gain from the inclusion of additives, of chemicals, in our meals? Certainly not the consumers, who are now increasingly looking to find 100% healthy food for themselves and for their children.

In this respect, without going into the technical details, I should like to go back over the three criteria highlighted in the report. On the one hand, do the additives meet a technological need? The least that can be said is that consumer interests are not always in line with the interests of manufacturing firms. On the other hand, are the additives useful to the consumer? On this subject, the rapporteur highlights at least one case where this mistaken conclusion may be drawn; is stopping an ageing grated carrot going soft and losing colour – as it ought to – not, in the final analysis, a form of deception? The question answers itself.

Finally, is it certain that the additive is harmless? Once again our thinking must be guided by the precautionary principle, since selecting a carrot which has had the E401 face-lift treatment also involves – and this is something the customer is not aware of, or not generally at least – running the risk of potentially unpleasant side-effects which cannot be ignored or played down.

In conclusion, the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party will support the Lannoye report because it makes a practical contribution to improving consumers’ quality of life and, moreover, guaranteeing honesty with regard to what is on our plates. That is the prime consideration.

  Byrne, Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Lannoye for his report on the Commission proposal to amend European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners. The Commission considers that Directive 95/2 needs to be adapted in the light of recent technical and scientific developments. Our proposal is based on three main principles. Approved additives are safe and present no risk to public health. Safety issues are evaluated by the Scientific Committee for Food. Food additives are only permitted if it is demonstrated that there is a technological need for them and consumers are not misled and will benefit from having a choice of new products with better quality.

Several of the additives now proposed for use have been temporarily authorised by some Member States. Provided that the opinions of the Scientific Committee are respected, technological need is demonstrated and consumers are not misled, Community legislation should recognise the experience of the Member States in the use of these additives. For these reasons the Commission is not in a position to accept Amendments Nos 3, 4 and 5. The amendments proposed do not sufficiently take into account the opinions of the Scientific Committee for Food and the technological need that exists in some Member States. If these amendments were adopted, some perfectly safe foodstuffs would disappear from the shelves of food stores in certain Member States.

As to the first amendment, the application of the precautionary principle is not appropriate as has been mentioned by a number of speakers this evening. The safety of the food additives we are discussing has been evaluated by the Scientific Committee for Food. This is the basis on which the Community legislators have approved the use of additives in the past and it is the basis on which the Commission now proposes the authorisation of new food additives. Therefore, the Commission is not in favour of the first amendment. The Commission does not believe that Amendments Nos 2 and 6 are necessary or appropriate in respect of this directive. The Commission is sponsoring this directive on the basis of the well-established criteria that the additives in question are safe, as evaluated by the Scientific Committee for Food, that there is a technological need and that consumers are not misled and will benefit from having a choice of more products with better quality.

However, it is my own belief that such an amendment could be appropriate in Framework Directive 89/107 of 21 December 1998, and that document is referred to in the annex to the White Paper at entry No 42. It is Mr Whitehead's amendment in relation to No 2 that has given me the opportunity to consider this particular aspect and whether there is a need for raising the standard in this area in a particular manner. I have come to the conclusion that he is correct and that some effort should be made to deal with this. But I think that it is probably best to do so in the framework directive rather than in this particular directive. That would have more universal application and would achieve the ends that all of us want to achieve for consumers. So when we come to the point of amending that particular directive, i.e. 89/107, I will be giving serious consideration to that suggestion and to that amendment put forward by Mr Whitehead.

There are a number of individual points that have been mentioned that I would like to draw attention to and see if I can respond to the questions raised. First of all, in relation to sodium alginate, a number of speakers mentioned the fact that this particular proposal would have the effect of misleading consumers because it was designed for the purpose of keeping the carrots fresh. That is not strictly speaking a correct analysis of the purpose of this particular additive. The carrots are pre-packed, so they are labelled and therefore the consumer knows that an additive is being used.

The purpose of the additive is as a firming agent rather than making the food look, or suggesting that it is, in fact fresher than it is. Therefore, in those circumstances, it is justifiable.

Mr Lannoye mentioned the application of the precautionary principle. I have dealt with that very briefly but let me just say, I respectfully agree with a number of the contributors this evening on the proper place for the precautionary principle. I believe that the precautionary principle is inappropriate in the circumstances that we are considering this evening, whereas it is appropriate in circumstances where there is an absence of science. But in this particular case, the Scientific Committee has examined the situation, it has given its opinion that these additives are safe.

I agree with another contributor earlier, that I have some anxieties about putting forward our views in place of the scientific opinions expressed by scientists. I would have strong reserves about approaching a particular problem in that way and therefore we should give full regard to the opinions of Scientific Committees. Our decisions ought to be science-based. To supplant the opinions of scientists with our own opinions is a dangerous precedent in my view and certainly this is not the appropriate place for the precautionary principle.

I was also asked why does the Commission propose the use of the additive E467 that is alleged to contain dangerous impurities such as ethylene oxide. I should say that the impurity of ethylene oxide did not prevent the Scientific Committee from concluding that this cellulose is safe for use. Limits for impurities will be set in the specifications that are drawn up as a Commission directive after the additive is permitted for use.

I was also asked why the Commission does not propose the deletion of food additives instead of always adding new ones to the positive list. When the Commission has the information that an additive is no longer used, it proposes the withdrawal of the substance from the positive list. For instance, in the next revision of this directive, the Commission services will propose the deletion of calcium hydrogen carbonate and magnesium carbonate.

Mrs Thyssen made reference to the fact that there was insufficient information in the Commission document, and I take account of that.

There is something to be said for what you say in relation to this. I propose to take steps when further Commission proposals are made in this regard. Perhaps some greater clarity might be contained in the document, giving a broader justification for such inclusion from a consumer benefit point of view. Perhaps some more technical information might justifiably be included also.

Mr Lund suggested that the colouring agents are added to unprocessed food. That is a factually incorrect statement. No colouring agents are added to unprocessed food at all. He also asked if some consideration should not be given to the consumer survey that took place in December on nitrates. I have been informed that this is under active consideration and discussions are taking place with Member States in relation to that particular survey.

Mr Whitehead asked me if we should give some consideration to a more effective way of removing additives. I refer you to the earlier part of my answer when I said that two particular additives will be removed from the list, but I will seek some further information from my service as to what procedure is followed and what information is available to Members of Parliament so there can be doubt as to what procedures are involved. Not only Mr Whitehead but also some other speakers made reference to this. Obviously there is some concern that there is not enough information about this. I will certainly make further inquiries so as to be in a position to give further information to Members in due course.

  Lannoye (Verts/ALE), rapporteur. – (FR) I promise, Mr President, to be extremely brief. I do not think we have time or that it is in fact possible to have an in-depth debate on such a complex problem, but I should like to be able to discuss the matter with the Commissioner outside this Chamber.

Firstly, I have an initial comment to make on the Scientific Committees. It is not sufficient, Commissioner, simply to read the conclusions of the Scientific Committees. You must read the report, as I have done. Occasionally, reading the reports gives rise to more doubts than certainties. I would ask you, therefore, to be a little more circumspect before rejecting all the amendments out of hand, since I can also claim to have made a scientific study of the situation. I have gathered a number of opinions, I have read the texts, and I can tell you that you are going too far in sweeping aside the amendments we are proposing.

Next, there is one other aspect which has not been taken into account, to wit, the potential interaction between the many additives found in food. They have never been studied together, they are studied in isolation; and that is an aspect that you must take into consideration.

  President. – That concludes the debate.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.⁽¹⁾

(The sitting closed at 9.20 p.m.)

(1) Agenda for the next sitting: see Minutes.