Mr President, Commissioner, I have always believed that consumer and health protection should take precedence over all other considerations. Compliance with the precautionary principle, however, does not mean preventing any technological progress in the field of processing foods. With regard to the ionisation of foods, therefore, the communication from the European Commission – because I must specify that this is indeed a communication and not a legislative text – emphasises that the scientific community believes that irradiating foods poses no risk to consumer health if good manufacturing practices are applied. Nonetheless, ionisation must not, of course, be used to compensate for negligence with regard to hygiene. I found the draft report that Mrs Breyer presented to us in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy last September particularly disappointing. It is essential that we avoid the confusion caused by some Members. What we are discussing here is the content of the report by Mrs Breyer and not the Commission communication. I would, however, like to tell Mrs Breyer that I have not been subject to any pressure. This report, following the adoption of most of my amendments and those of Mr Bowis, was adopted unanimously by the Parliamentary committee. My group considered that a balance had been struck and that this report could be accepted as it was, even though some particularly crowd-pleasing paragraphs remained. Paragraph 14, for example, adds nothing at all to the report. The Member for the Green Party considers that it should be obligatory for food manufacturers to prevent risks to workers, human health and the environment. How can we retain our credibility in the eyes of consumers if we restrict ourselves to this type of statement? We must concentrate on taking practical decisions that increase consumer safety effectively. It was to this end that I tabled the amendments adopted in committee seeking to increase controls to prevent illegally-ionised products from being placed on the market. On the other hand, since ionisation has proved to be extremely useful for destroying micro-organisms or insects present in certain types of foods, I believe it is reasonable not to close the door to this kind of treatment. Furthermore, I do not share the rapporteur’s views on the transport of goods. I believe it is beneficial today to be able to import and export products that could not have been transported in the past. Spices, for example, can be transported over extremely long distances. I do not see how preserving foods for longer compromises the objective of sustainable development that we all want to achieve. Lastly, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to take this opportunity to make a general comment. I believe it is thoroughly regrettable that Parliament is prepared to speak and draft reports on every and any communication from the European Commission. This kind of procedure was useful when we were only being consulted. Today, however, it would be more effective and more logical if we concentrated on our legislative work. We would earn increased respect, we would streamline our overloaded agenda and be able to spend more time on legislative procedures, and lastly, we would avoid doing the work of the Commission by establishing our position on a dossier before even having received a proposal from the Commission. I shall not say any more on this matter, which, in my opinion, did not really need further amendments or another debate in plenary. Devoting a significant amount of time to a report on a Commission communication, for just three amendments tabled in plenary, does not seem to me to be behaviour worthy of the debates we should hold here in Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE