Mr President, Commissioner, we are about to see the approval of a framework for our food packaging. It feels almost like a symbolic act because we have almost concluded all the legislative work surrounding the Green Paper on Food Law. After everything else we have successfully resolved, we are now to create an overall framework. I hope we succeed. I wish to emphasise that we are concerned here with approving the principles that are to apply to material that comes into contact with food. We are not approving new materials as such, but saying how matters should proceed. In my view, the fact that we are laying down guidelines and establishing limits for what is to be approved is an example of good legislation. In the future too, packages will on many occasions have to be expressly approved in the light of the particular substances and food they are to be used for. For example, what is the fat content of the food with which the material comes into contact? I can guarantee consumers that we shall continue to be cautious so that, for example, phthalates are not released from soft plastic. As the Commissioner said, there are three principal new developments: the new administration, and thus transparency, resulting from the setting up of a European Food Safety Agency; the new principles incorporated into food legislation; and, finally, the opportunity to approve active, intelligent packaging. A majority in Parliament appears to be prepared to accept active packaging, that is to say packaging that can absorb oxygen and moisture in the environment or give off antioxidants. Research projects carried out demonstrate, for example, that tomatoes and fruit retain their proper form for longer in the active packaging. Correctly used, I believe that they can in actual fact lead to fewer additives. That would be an advantage, because we are concerned about a possible link between additives and the increasing number of allergies. I personally prefer active packaging around my bread. I myself came across an unopened package after two years and found the bread completely unchanged. As we said, active intelligent packaging should entail advantages for both consumers and manufacturers. I can also envisage situations in which such packaging helps us save energy, something which would of course be of value. One of the conditions of our approving the new types of packaging is that they should be compatible with Community legislation generally. The substances that have been allowed into food must be approved, and active packaging must not be misleading to consumers. A bad smell must not be covered by another smell. Intelligent packaging can provide us with information about the way in which food has been stored and thus show whether it has been stored suitably. We know, for example, that certain smoked food can be difficult to store in the right way. Let us hope that, in the future, intelligent packaging will be developed that shows, for example, how smoked fish has been treated and whether it has been treated properly. We know that, in this connection, problems have sometimes arisen involving listeria. As the Commissioner said, we shall have discussions concerning the recycling of material, for the requirements have become stricter when it comes also to the use of plastic, metal and paper in packaging. It is important for new regulations, backed by this regulation, to be adopted and for us to know with certainty that food packaging needs to be approved to ensure that it is safe. More rules concerning traceability will be adopted, supported by, and in line with, the previously adopted legislation. In its work, Parliament has tried to emphasise that the information to be preserved is that which is needed for investigating problems that may arise later. I also believe that the rules on traceability that we are now laying down are important if all the parties are to have equal opportunities to be suppliers to large chains of food stores. I am pleased that we have set out clear rules governing the language used and public access to records. That aspect of the Commission’s proposal was not entirely clear. Had there been more rules on the subject of unambiguous, binding regulations to promote sound administration, we should probably have avoided a number of amendments. That was not, however, the case. We therefore need to clarify matters here and now. For my part, I regret the fact that the Council and the Commission did not wish to approve the independence of the Food Agency. I hope that we can adopt this report at a single reading. That would be the case if we were to vote in favour of blocks one and two. That would be in keeping with the position at which we had arrived in our negotiations with the Council and with what COREPER approved last week. I see no reason, however, for approving Amendment No 17. I wish to thank the Commission and the Council for their constructive cooperation. Above all, I wish, however, to say a big thank you to the secretariat of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, as well as to our helpful official, Mrs Köykkä, for her excellent work. It has been a pleasure to collaborate with her.

Political group: ELDR