On Eve of EU-US Energy Forum, 200 Groups on Both Sides of the Atlantic Unite in Opposition To Climate-hostile LNG Trade

Brussels/Washington, DC – Today, 200 groups from both sides of the Atlantic released an open letter to EU Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete and U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry, calling on the EU and U.S. administrations to immediately stop the transatlantic trade in fracked hydrocarbons.

Yesterday, the Department of Energy announced that Secretary Perry would be attending the EU-US Energy Council High-Level Forum in Brussels on May 2 – paving the way for a new Trans-Atlantic Trade Agreement with imports and exports of U.S. fracked gas at the heart of the deal. According to data released in early March, EU imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the U.S. have increased by 181% since July 2018.[i]

The letter highlights that the continued use and import/export of fracked LNG torpedoes critical climate targets and violates basic human rights. In 2012, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) issued a “Global Alert” on fracking, concluding that fracking may have environmental impacts even if done properly.[ii]

“The LNG trade is paving the way for prolonged use of fossil fuels and plastics, creating a twin environmental and human rights emergency,” said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch and Food & Water Europe. “Governments on both sides of the Atlantic are failing to do what it takes to stand up to fracked gas interests and prevent looming climate chaos.”

The signatories state that new gas infrastructure has a significant economic lifespan (usually between 30 and 50 years) that goes beyond the point when we must fully decarbonize our energy systems. Ongoing use of fossil fuels like gas would also have devastating economic impacts on both sides of the Atlantic.

The letter also refers to what activists call the #Fracking4Plastics link, highlighting that the plastics industry has reaped under-the-radar benefits from the environmentally destructive fracking boom and an oversupply of cheap ethane. This surge has been a boon for the plastics industry, which relies on petrochemical manufacturing to turn ethane, a hydrocarbon present in natural gas, into plastics.

Beginning in 2012, chemical companies started aggressively investing in petrochemical plants and export facilities focused on tapping the ethane glut, creating further negative implications for human and environmental rights.

“The EU is importing U.S. fracked gas to create plastics,” says Andy Gheorghiu, policy advisor at Food & Water Europe. “Europe is throwing away a stable climate for a throw-away society.”

Signatories include Food & Water Watch, Food & Water Europe, Friends of the Earth U.S. and EU, Greenpeace, Break Free From Plastic, European Environmental Bureau, Oil Change International, Rainforest Action Network, Talk Fracking, Health and Environment Justice Support International, Earthworks, 350, Corporate Europe Observatory, Rethink Plastic, Ocean Conservation Research, Frack Free United, Berks Gas Truth, SEE Change Network and Safety Before LNG.

Press contacts:

Andy Gheorghiu, Policy Advisor & Campaigner, Food & Water Europe, [email protected], +49 160 20 30 974

Scott Edwards, Legal Director, Food & Water Watch, [email protected], +1 202.683.4969

Further Links:
Open letter (.pdf)


[i] See the European Commission Press Release
EU-U.S. Joint Statement: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) imports from the U.S. continue to rise, up by 181%
[ii] Read More about UNEP’s Global Environment Alert About Gas Fracking. 4 Dezember 2012.

Corporate Control in Animal Science Research


FoodCommon Resources



Corporate agribusinesses depend on favourable science to gain regulatory approval or market acceptance of products such as new animal drugs, and they depend on academic journals to deliver this science. To secure favourable scientific reviews, industry groups play an enormous role in the production of scientific literature, authoring journal articles, funding academic research and also serving as editors, sponsors or directors of scientific journals where much of their research is published.

Deep-pocketed corporations often have no counterpoint in the scientific literature. No group of scientists or science funders is, for example, aggressively investigating the safety or efficacy of new animal drugs, or examining alternatives. The influence that industry now wields over every aspect of the scientific discourse has allowed companies to commercialise potentially unsafe animal drugs with virtually no independent scrutiny.

Find out what needs to be done in the report, Corporate Control in Animal Science Research.

New Report: For-Profit Animal Science Undermines Safe Food, Trade

Brussels and Washington, D.C.— A new report (.pdf) published today by Food & Water Europe exposes the enormous influence that corporate drug companies play in the peer-reviewed science surrounding risky veterinary drugs widely used in the United States but forbidden in the EU. The U.S. approach of allowing the marketplace to determine the safety of risky veterinary drugs rather than independent science—as was the case with the beef cattle growth-promoter Zilmax, which was removed from the U.S. market in 2013—makes any move toward regulatory “harmony” via an EU-U.S. trade agreement a serious threat to safety of the EU food system.

Food & Water Europe EU Food Policy Analyst Eve Mitchell said, “It’s clear that some favourable safety findings on the drugs widely used to produce food are effectively bought and paid for by the companies that stand to profit. The cornerstones of the scientific method, like independent replication of findings, simply aren’t being honoured, and many U.S. farmers are giving their animals questionable drugs every day because of it. This is not the kind of food production we want or need, yet a trans-Atlantic trade deal will reinforce these safety problems for everyone.”

The Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a vast trade deal under negotiation between the U.S. and EU. Highly controversial topics like genetically modified (GM) food and hormone treatments in meat animals have all but stalled progress of TTIP, which was supposed to conclude negotiations later this year. “Governments on both sides insist neither regulatory system will be eroded by TTIP and that food safety will continue to be guaranteed, but today’s report shows safety isn’t even clear now,” says Mitchell.

A major problem is with the scientific journals that publish the studies. Industry groups play an enormous role in the production of scientific literature, authoring journal articles, funding academic research and also serving as editors, sponsors or directors of the same scientific journals where much of their research is published.

Mitchell said, “It’s not just a matter of EU and U.S. regulators agreeing that their counterparts consulted the science and concluded drugs are safe when that science is comprised. Now, consumers on both sides of the Atlantic are being asked to place our faith in “harmonised’ approval systems.”

“This report documents the problems in animal science research, but the same weak disclosure rules, industry influence and lack of independent research appears to pervade much of agricultural research, from GMOs to cloning to herbicides. It’s huge.”

Mitchell added, “There’s a lot of talk about ‘free trade” out there, especially when in comes to TTIP, but it’s full of holes. To function properly, genuinely free markets rely on complete information available to all, and this report shows how deep the disclosure problem goes. The EU is not immune to these problems.”

Food & Water Europe calls on scientific journals to disclose the funding sources for papers they publish and says the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) also needs to do more to ensure the research it uses to determine the safety of products in the food chain has been thoroughly and independently assessed.

Mitchell concluded, “The merits of EFSA’s ongoing project on openness and transparency will be called into question unless it does more to ensure it is not relying on for-profit science. EFSA should publish the authorship affiliations and funding sources of the science it consults. Some large portion of the science EFSA consults is likely to have been biased by industry authorship and funding, but the public can’t see where this happens. This has to change.”

Read For Profit Animal Science Undermines Safe Food Trade: http://www.foodandwatereurope.org/reports/corporate-control-in-animal-science-research/.

Contact: Eve Mitchell, Food & Water Europe (UK time), +44(0)1381 610 740, [email protected]