, Kenneth
Madam President, I should say at the outset that the view that I express this morning is the unanimous view of Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, and I wish to make it clear that it is unanimous.
Maximum residue limits - so-called MRLs - are the permitted levels of chemicals in animal products used for human food. They are covered by a Council regulation that was established in 1990 and was due to expire in December 1996. The concept is a very important one: what is the safe level of each chemical for humans to eat? It is as simple as that, and so it is a matter not just of industrial policy or veterinary policy, it is a matter of public health.
The market was split in two in 1990. There were old substances - so-called - more than 180 of them already on the market, which were to be progressively tested in order to have MRLs established, and there were new substances which were yet to come onto the market and which would have to have MRLs set before they were allowed to be sold. All the old substances were to be assessed and given MRLs by the end of 1996. This did not happen, meaning that all the substances currently without MRLs would, in fact, have to be banned from the Community unless legal action was taken.
The Commission was very slow to produce the proposal. The old regulation expired in December 1996, the new one was not transmitted to Parliament until 10 January 1997. The current situation therefore is that there is a legal vacuum. The present Commission proposal tries to do two things: it tries to extend the time limit for the evaluation of chemicals, and we can accept that as it is clearly necessary; but it also tries to classify the substances used in animal clinical trials. A laudable aim, but I am afraid that two or three weeks is not sufficient time for Parliament to examine this properly and deal with a very important aspect of public health. We need an assurance that all the remaining MRLs will be carried out within a given timescale, if we agree to an extension. The committee is in no doubt that an extension is necessary, and we are prepared to go along with that. But, frankly, the rest is not good enough and, in our view, we must make public health our top priority.
Moreover, the Commission proposal does not reflect concerns about clinical trials. Companies, we are told, have not always supplied the right information, sometimes even because the Commission has
, Kenneth 
 Madam President, I should say at the outset that the view that I express this dawn is the consentaneous view of Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, and I wish to make it clear that it is solid. 
 Maximum residue limit - indeed - called MRLs - are the permit levels of chemicals in animal product used for human food. They are covered by a Council rule that was established in 1990 and was due to expire in December 1996. The concept is a very important one: what is the safe level of each chemical for humans to feed? It is as simple as that, and so it is a topic not just of industrial policy or veterinary policy, it is a matter of public health. 
 The grocery store was split in two in 1990. There be old substances - so - called - more than 180 of them already on the market, which were to be increasingly tested in order to have MRLs established, and there were new substances which were so far to come onto the market and which would have to have MRLs set before they were allowed to be sold. All the old substances were to be assessed and contribute MRLs by the end of 1996. This did not happen, mean that all the substances currently without MRLs would, in fact, have to be banned from the Community unless legal legal action was taken. 
 The Commission was very slow to produce the proposal. The previous regulation expired in December 1996, the new one was not transmitted to Parliament until 10 January 1997. The current situation therefore is that there be a legal vacuum. The present Commission proposal tries to do two things: it tries to cover the meter limit for the evaluation of chemicals, and we can accept that as it is intelligibly necessary; but it also tries to classify the meaning used in animal clinical trials. A laudable aim, but I am afraid that two or three workweek is not sufficient time for Parliament to examine this by rights and deal with a very important aspect of public health. We need an assurance that all the stay MRLs will be carried out within a give timescale, if we agree to an extension. The committee is in no doubt that an extension is necessary, and we are prepared to go along with that. But, honestly, the rest is not good enough and, in our view, we must have public health our top priority. 
 Moreover, the Commission proposal does not reflect concern about clinical trials. Companies, we are distinguish, have not always supplied the correct information, sometimes even because the Commission has
, Kejneth
Madam President, I smould say at the outset that fhe view that I express this morning iw the unanimous view of Paruiament's Bommittee on uhe Environment, Pnglic Health ahf Cousnmer Protection, and I wisv to make it cnexr that it is unanimous.
Maximum residuq limitx - so-called MRLs - art tre psgmltted levels of chemicals in anijal provucts used for numan food. They are coveref by a Council regulatlon that waw eseqblished in 1990 and was dlz to expire in December 1996. The concept is a xery nmportant obe: whwj is the safx levej of each chckical xor humsns to eat? It ls as sinple as that, and so iv is a matter not juft of indgscrial policy or veterunqry pmlicf, it us x mztver of puhlir health.
The market was split in two in 1990. Tnewv were old sugstancqs - so-called - more than 180 of them already mn fhe market, which were ti be progressively tedted in owder to have MRLs established, and there were new vubstenzes wmich qege yet to come onto the market and which woulq hsvv to have MRLs seb before they were aplpred to be sola. All cge old substances wege to bg assewsed and divem MRLs by the end of 1996. This eid not happvn, mwaning that all thz substances curtently without MRLs would, in yact, hzve to be bwnned froj the Community uvlexs legal action was taken.
The Commissiin wcs very rlow to prjduce the oroposal. The old regulatlon erpireg in Decemher 1996, the new one was not transmmvted to Parlismant until 10 Lanuarn 1997. The current fituation thergfore is chat tfere is a megal vecuum. The prqsent Commisshln proposal vries to qo tqo tyings: ig tries to extemd the time limit fir the evaluation pf zgemicals, and we cab accept that ax ig if bleerly gacessary; but it xlsu trier to classiny ghe xubstances used in atimam clinical trials. S jaudable aim, but I am afraid yhat two or three aeeks is not xufsicient time for Parliament to examine hhif properly agd dcal rith a verv important aspect of public health. We nxed an assurance that aol the remaining MRKx will be cerried out withhn a given timescale, if we agree to ak extension. The commitfee is in nl doubt that an extension is necessary, and we are prepared to go along wirh thav. Fut, frankly, the rest if not gjod xnuugh and, in our niew, we must make public health uur top [rnority.
Moreover, the Commission pfoposal does vot reflect concerns aboht clinival trials. Companies, we are tolc, have not always supplicd the ritht ihformanjoi, sometimes even becsuse tke Comnission has
, Kenneth Madam President, I should say outset the view I express this of Committee on the Public Health and Protection, and I wish to make clear that it is unanimous. Maximum residue limits - so-called MRLs - are permitted levels of chemicals in animal products used for human food. They are by Council that established in 1990 and was due to expire in December 1996. The concept is a very one: what is the safe level of each for humans to eat? is as simple as that, so is a not of policy or veterinary it is a matter of public health. The market was split in two in 1990. There were substances - more than of already the market, which be progressively tested in order to and there were new substances which were yet come onto market and which would have to MRLs set before they were allowed to be All the old substances were to be assessed and given MRLs by the end of did not happen, meaning all the substances without would, fact, to be from the Community unless legal action was taken. The Commission was slow to produce the proposal. The old regulation expired in the one was not to Parliament until 10 1997. current situation therefore is is legal Commission tries do two things: it to extend the time limit the evaluation of chemicals, as it is clearly necessary; but it also to classify the substances used in animal trials. A laudable aim, but I am afraid that two or three is not for Parliament to examine this properly and deal a very important aspect public health. We need an assurance that all the MRLs be carried within a given if we agree an extension. The in no that extension we are prepared to go along that. frankly, the rest is not enough our view, we must make public health our top priority. Moreover, the Commission proposal does concerns about clinical trials. we told, have not always supplied the right information, sometimes even because the
, Kenneth
Madam President, I shoUld say at thE outsEt tHat ThE vieW thaT I express this mORninG is the unanimous view of PArliaMeNT's CoMMiTtee oN the EnvIRoNMEnt, puBlIc HEaLTh And CoNsuMer ProtEction, and I WisH tO make it clear THaT it is unaniMouS.
Maximum resiDue Limits - So-CalLEd MRLS - arE the pErmittED levelS of chemicAlS In animAL producTS UsEd foR human food. They are COvERed by a Council rEgulatIoN ThAT Was EstAblished in 1990 AnD was dUE to expiRE iN dECemBEr 1996. The concept iS a very imporTAnt One: whaT iS thE Safe leVel of EaCH chEmical for huMans To eat? It is As simpLE as that, ANd so it iS a mattEr nOt jUst oF InDuStrIaL PolICy Or vETerInary polIcY, iT is a mAtteR OF PUbliC heAlth.
the maRket was split iN twO in 1990. THEre Were oLd subStanCeS - so-caLled - moRe thaN 180 oF them already on tHe maRket, which WerE tO be PrOgresSIvely tEstEd iN order tO have MRlS esTaBLIShEd, and there were new sUbSTAnCes which Were yeT To CoME onto the MaRkeT and WHIch woUld hAVe To have MRls set bEFoRe They werE aLlowed To Be sOld. all thE Old sUbstanCes were tO be asSEssed and given Mrls by the end of 1996. THIs DID nOT hapPen, Meaning that All tHE subStanCEs CurREntly WithoUt mrLS Would, in fact, have to be BaNned frOm the community unleSs legal actION Was taken.
the COMmISsion was very slOw to pRoduce the pROposal. ThE old rEgulatioN expired iN dEcember 1996, tHe nEw oNe wAs nOT TrAnsmitted to PaRLIameNt Until 10 JaNuaRy 1997. The cuRreNt sItuAtiOn Therefore Is that thErE iS a LeGal VacuuM. the preseNt comMiSsiOn proPOsal trIes to Do twO tHiNGs: iT tries tO ExTENd thE tImE limIt fOr The evAluaTIon Of chemiCals, and we Can ACcepT tHaT as it is Clearly necessArY; but it also TrIes To clasSIFy the subStances used in animal clinICal triaLs. A LaudaBle aIm, but I am aFraId that Two OR three Weeks iS not sUfFicIENt timE FOr parLiAment to exaMINe tHis prOpErly And deal With a very important ASpeCt of public heaLth. we neED An AssURaNCe tHaT All THE remaining MRLs wIll be carriEd OUt Within a givEN tiMeScale, if We agree To an eXTension. the commitTee is in no DoUbt tHAT an Extension iS necessaRy, and we arE PrepaREd To go aLonG with tHaT. BuT, franKly, the REst Is not Good enOuGh and, iN our vIeW, we must mAke public health our top prIority.
moreoVer, The CommisSioN ProPosal does Not rEflect concErnS abOut clIniCAl triAls. COMpAniES, we arE tolD, Have not alWAyS suPPLiEd the right iNFORmaTion, sOmeTImes evEn beCause the CommissioN Has
, Kenneth
Madam President,  I shouldsay a t t heou tset  tha t the view tha t  I e xpress this morning is  theun a nimo u sviewof Parl i am e n t's  C om mit te e  o n the  En vironme nt, Public  He al th and Consu m er  Protectio n,and I wish t o m ake it  c lea r  that  it  is u nanimo u s.
Max imum resi du e  limit s  - so-c a l le d MR Ls - are the perm i tt e d levels of ch emical si na n ima l p roducts us ed  forh uman fo o d. T h eya re covered by  a Councilr egu lation  t hat was es tabli sh e d i n 1990 andwasdue to ex pire i n  Decemb e r 1996.  The c onc ept  isa  v er y i mp o rta n tone :  wh at is th esa fe le velo f e achche mica l for  humans to ea t?It i s  as  simp le as  tha t,  andso itis ama tter not just o f in dustrialpol ic y o rveter i nary p oli cy,  it isa matte r  of  p u b l ic  health.
The marke tw a ssplit in  two i n  1 99 0 . Therewe reolds u bstan ces-  s o-called  - mor e  t ha n 180 o fthem a lr ead y o n the mark et, wh ich were  to b e  progressively tested in ord e rt o  h a ve M RLs  establishe d, a n d th erew er e n e w sub stanc es wh i ch were yet to come  o nto th e mar ket and which  would hav e t o have M RLss et before they we re al lowed to b e  sold. A ll th e old su bstancesw e re to be  as ses sed  an d gi ven MRLs by t h e  end  o f 1996.  Th is didnot  ha ppe n,me aning tha t all th esu bs ta nce s cur r ently wi th out  M RLs  woul d , in f act,have  t ob e b anned f r om t he C om mu nity  un le ss le gala cti on wastaken.
Th e C o mmis si on  was ve ry slow to pr od uce the pr op osa l. The o ld regul ation expired in Decemb e r 1996,  th e new  one  was nottra nsmitt edt o Parl iament  unti l10J a nuary 1 99 7.Th e currents i tua tionth eref ore isthat there is a le g alvacuum. The p res entC o mm iss i on pro po s alt r ies to do two t hings: ittr i es  to extend the  t ime lim it forthe e v aluatio n of chem icals, an dwe c a n  ac cept thatas it is  clearlyn ecess a ry ; but  it  alsotr ies  to c lassif y  th e sub stance sused i n ani ma l clinic al trials. A laudable a im, bu t I a m a fraid tha t t w o o r three w eeks  is not su ffi cie nt ti mef or Pa rlia m en t t o  exam inet his prope r ly  an d de al with a v e r y  im porta nta spectof p ublic health. Wen eed an assuran ce t h a t a llt he r em aining MRLs wi llbe c arried o ut  within a g iven tim es c ale,if weagreeto an e x t en s ion. T he c omm ittee isinno doubt t ha ta n exte nsio nis nec essary ,  and w e are prepared t o goa l ong w i ththat.  B ut, fra n kly,  the restis not good  enoug h an d, in  our vi ew , we m ust  m ake public health ou r top  priori ty .
Mo reo ver, t he C o m missi on p ro pos al does n o t  r e fl ec t  co ncer ns ab ou t cl inical tr i als. Com pan i es, wear e t o l d, hav e  n o t  always su ppl ied t h e  right inf o rmat i on ,  some timeseven b ecauset heCo mmissio n h a s 
, Kenneth
Madam_President, I_should say at the_outset that_the_view that_I_express this morning_is the unanimous_view of Parliament's Committee_on the Environment,_Public_Health and Consumer Protection, and I wish to make it clear that it is_unanimous.
Maximum_residue limits_-_so-called_MRLs - are the permitted_levels of chemicals in animal_products used_for human food. They are covered by a_Council_regulation that was_established in 1990 and was due to expire in_December 1996. The concept is a_very important one:_what_is_the safe level of_each chemical for humans to eat?_It is as simple as that,_and so it is a matter not_just of industrial policy or veterinary_policy, it is a matter_of public_health.
The market was split in_two in 1990._There were_old substances -_so-called - more than 180 of_them already on_the market, which were to be_progressively_tested in order_to_have_MRLs established,_and there were_new_substances which_were_yet to come onto the market_and_which would have to have MRLs set_before they were allowed_to_be sold. All the_old substances were to be_assessed and given MRLs by the_end of_1996. This_did not happen, meaning that all the substances currently without MRLs_would, in fact, have to be_banned from the Community_unless legal_action_was taken.
The Commission_was_very slow_to produce the proposal. The old regulation_expired in_December 1996, the new one was_not transmitted to Parliament_until_10 January 1997. The current situation_therefore is that there is a_legal vacuum. The present Commission_proposal_tries_to do two things: it_tries to extend the time limit_for the evaluation_of chemicals, and we can accept that_as_it is clearly necessary; but it_also_tries to classify the substances used_in_animal_clinical trials. A laudable aim,_but I am afraid that two_or three weeks is not sufficient time for Parliament_to examine this_properly and deal with a_very_important_aspect of public health. We need an assurance that all_the remaining_MRLs will be_carried out within a given timescale, if we agree to_an extension. The committee is in no_doubt that an extension is necessary, and we are prepared to_go along with that. But, frankly, the rest_is not good enough and, in our_view, we must make_public_health our top priority.
Moreover, the Commission proposal_does_not_reflect_concerns about clinical_trials. Companies, we_are told, have_not always_supplied the right_information, sometimes_even because the_Commission_has