Mr President, you are obviously in a generous mood tonight. I hope your generosity will extend to the daunting task that I have of replacing Mrs Oomen-Ruijten – because of her sad illness – as the shadow rapporteur on this measure. I start by thanking the rapporteur for her remarks and for her work in committee. I have to say that many have questioned the need for some aspects of this measure. Where we need this measure, it is important that our directive is based on science. It is not for us to second-guess the scientific advisers to the Commission. They say these products are safe and the Commission is right to accept that advice. Sucralose presents no problems: it is made from sugar, it is non-calorific, it does not lead to tooth decay or – and here let me declare an interest – to risks for those of us who live with diabetes. Indeed, if it could do something for my brainpower as well, I would sit here munching it all night. It has already been approved in some 45 countries. In the past cyclamates have rightly been treated with caution. However, now science shows that a reduction of the permitted level from 400 mg/l to 350 mg/l is all that is needed. To go further has no basis in science, except for a tiny sample of 43 children in Denmark, which was itself rejected by the Danish Food and Veterinary Administration. The acceptable daily intake – the ADI – is not only the favoured measurement of the FAO and WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, but it also sets an intake level – not a maximum for a single day, but an average over a lifetime. The proposed ADI is 7 mg/kg of body weight. Thus all seemed plain sailing, until we had the rapporteur's proposal to reduce the figure to 250 mg, whereupon we had the Commission's brainstorm. A normally sensible, wise and objective official, widely respected and, indeed, loved by the world of food and food safety allowed herself to be bounced into a statement that the Commission could accept 250. She then had to admit that this was not based on one iota of scientific evidence. That is a very dangerous precedent. If the Commission ignores the advice of its own scientists, who can we trust? Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and I are both of the view that the requests for a new report on the re-evaluation of the approval of aspartame are also completely misplaced. In December 2002, the Scientific Committee on Food, in cooperation with the French and British food authorities, concluded that there is no reason to adjust the approval of aspartame in any way. In addition, the FDA and JEFCFA – the scientific advisory body of WHO – have approved the substance. Therefore, it is absolutely unnecessary to question the validity of the conclusion of the European Union's independent scientific committee – the SCF – that aspartame is a substance safe for human consumption. It has to be taken into consideration that in the approval of a substance like aspartame the SCF sets the allowed daily intake in which the vulnerable life phases are included at a level such that even the heaviest users of the substance will not exceed 30-40% of that maximum intake. A new report on the evaluation of aspartame would lead simply to negative publicity. It would bring about rumours and feelings of uncertainty among consumers, as a substance that has been approved safe by an independent scientific committee is being questioned again for absolutely no good reason. I would just add that my good friend Mrs Oomen-Ruijten, who, jointly with Mrs Ayuso González, tabled Amendment 12, to which Mrs Ferreira referred, asked me to point out that she thinks there is a translation problem – at least in the English version – and that the category 'fine bakery products, energy-reduced or with no added sugar' – is supposed to be an addition to the previous text and not a replacement for it. I put that before you and leave it in your good hands, Mr President, and exhort the services, if possible, to look at this before we come to vote on the matter tomorrow.

Political group: PPE-DE