Mr President, when it is as late as this, I do not think it is good form to prolong the debate, especially when, in the end, there is little to discuss. There is only one amendment, but it is an important one. I shall explain why. At first reading, we in fact adopted five amendments, including two that were essential. The first was designed not to authorise the use of ethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose – rather a complex scientific expression, I am afraid – or E 467 as a new food additive. The Council followed our lead, which is very good. However, it did not follow our lead in the case of another amendment aimed at refusing to extend authorisation to another additive: sodium alginate (E 401), used for pre-packed, peeled and/or cut unprocessed carrots. This may appear trivial, but I shall explain why the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy was right to propose that Parliament should not agree to such authorisation. First of all, there are in general three criteria according to which a new additive is either admitted or rejected. The first criterion is technological need. The technological need is difficult to dispute in this case. Indeed, it is worth pointing out that sodium alginate is used as a firming agent for peeled, cut, ready-to-eat packaged carrots. It prevents softening of the carrot pieces and helps maintain the organoleptic qualities of the carrots. The second criterion is usefulness to the consumer. It seems that treatment with alginate may mislead the consumer, since the food may appear fresher than it really is. Moreover, additives cannot, in general, be used, as in the present case, for unprocessed foodstuffs which have not undergone treatment involving a significant change to their original state. There is therefore a second form of deception, and that is why it cannot be said that there is usefulness to the consumer. Instead, there is harm to the consumer. The third criterion is harmlessness. According to all the scientific literature and the Scientific Committee for Human Food, this additive is innocuous, but it has a laxative effect which is considered to be negligible in the small quantity ingested. A problem may arise in view of the number of additives with a laxative effect. The synergy between all these additives with a laxative effect has not been assessed. There are many such substances, and I would remind you that, in 1992, the Scientific Committee for Human Food recommended that a study be carried out of the contribution of other food components with potential laxative effects to the overall dietetic burden of substances with this biological property. This study has never been carried out. As a result, it would be only natural, as a precautionary measure and until such time as this study has been carried out, not to authorise new additives presenting this property. These are the three criteria. Two of them do not satisfy us. I think it is perfectly right to refuse to authorise this additive. It is not a question of having it in for a particular additive, but of demonstrating a rigorous approach. There are at present 307 food additives on the European market, 163 of which are perfectly innocuous. That is not bad. The others, although not dangerous, may present a potential health risk, especially when they are used in combination. There are always problems of synergy. We know that the Commission is preparing a new directive on additives. I think it would be extremely interesting to show what Parliament’s position is at a time when the directive is being revised so that the additive content is less than it is at present. I think that this would be of benefit to public health without causing any damage at all to industry.

Political group: Verts-ALE