Archives: Press Releases

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]


European Commission Shale Gas Research Conference

Brussels — Today’s event, organised by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, fails to ask the question whether or not shale gas should be developed at all in Europe, according to Food & Water Europe. Instead, the Commission assumes future large-scale development of shale gas in the EU as its starting point, exploring how research and certain policies can facilitate its extraction.

Together with many anti-fracking groups across the EU, Food & Water Europe strongly rejects this point of departure and firmly believes that the emerging body of research about the negative climate, environmental and public health impacts of fracking makes an urgent case for a ban on fracking. In the ‘make or break’ year of the Paris climate summit, it is unacceptable that the link between climate change and unconventional fossil fuels like shale gas is not even mentioned on the conference programme.

“A conference about shale gas research that does not engage with the pressing question of whether or not such unconventional fossil fuels are compatible with science-based climate targets starts with a false premise,” said Food & Water Europe Director of EU Affairs Geert Decock, “An emerging body of research has started to document the negative climate, but also environmental and public health, impacts of fracking, which the Commission fails to properly engage with”.

Contact: Geert De Cock tel. +32 (0)2 893 10 45, mobile +32 (0)484 629.

Energy Union Drops Idea of Communication on Promoting Domestic (Shale Gas) Energy Sources

Brussels — Food & Water Europe welcomes that the European Commission dropped the idea of a “Communication on promoting domestic resources — including progress on shale gas”, which was announced by Commissioner Arias Cañete two weeks ago during the Latvian presidency conference on the Energy Union in Riga.

The weak emphasis on shale gas and other unconventional fossil fuels in the Communication reflects a growing realisation inside the European Commission — following a series of disappointing experiences with fracking — that this potential fossil fuel resource is unlikely to address any of the EU’s energy challenges: import dependency, decarbonisation, technological leadership, green jobs, etc. The Energy Union Communication now called shale gas “an option, provided that issues of public acceptance and environmental impact are adequately addressed”.

“Finally, the Commission is turning away from echoing the hype about shale gas, promoted by Big Oil & Gas,” said Food & Water Europe Director of EU Affairs Geert Decock, “One year ago, its Communication on shale gas projected that 10 percent of EU energy demand in 2035 could come from shale gas. Now, shale gas is just ‘an option’, with a number of important caveats about environmental impacts and public acceptance”.

Contact: Geert De Cock tel. +32 (0)2 893 10 45, mobile +32 (0)484 629.491, gdecock(at)fweurope.org

The European Commission Forgets About the Human Right to Water

Brussels – The European Commission has published the statistical results of the public consultation on the Drinking Water Directive [1], their flagship reaction to the first successful European Citizen’s Initiative (ECI) on the human right to water and sanitation. According to Food & Water Europe, the review of this Directive, the only major initiative about water included in the Commission’s Working Plan for 2015, does not address the demands of citizens who support the human right to water.

David Sánchez, campaigns officer at Food & Water Europe said, “Despite their propaganda, the answer of the European Commission to the first ever successful ECI was just a compilation of already ongoing actions. And the public consultation on the drinking water directive simply does not address any of the demands of the 1,8 million European citizens that supported the initiative. Even worse, this is the only major action about water in their agenda for 2015.”

The demands of the ECI on the Right to Water [2] included implementing the human right to water and sanitation as approved by the UN in 2010; excluding water services from liberalization; and increasing EU efforts to achieve universal access to water and sanitation. The Commission only responded positively to the need to achieve universal access to water and sanitation.

Sánchez added, “With their attitude, the European Commission is doing its best to disappoint the expectations of the massive number of citizens that mobilized using this new tool, the ECI, implemented as a way to make the European Union more participatory and more accessible to the people. If the Commission continues in this manner, it will just broaden the gap between Brussels-based politicians and European citizens.

The European Commission is still analyzing the answers to the open questions in the consultation, the only space available to remind the Commission about the real demands of the ECI. The European Parliament is also currently working on a report on this initiative, which should be up for a vote in the coming months.

Contact: David Sánchez, Campaigns officer, Food & Water Europe, +32 (0) 2893 1045 (land), +32 (0) 485 842 604 (mobile), dsanchez(at)fweurope.org

[1] The statistical report of the consultation can be checked here

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/results_drinking_water.pdf

[2] More information about the European Citizen’s Initiative on the human right to water and sanitation

http://right2water.eu/

Audit Reveals Flawed or Absent EU GM Controls

Effective Enforcement, and a Liability Regime, Needed Before GM Crop Expansion Harms Farmers or Misleads Shoppers

Brussels — An official audit published in December 2014 by the European Commission reveals shocking gaps in enforcement of legal controls placed on EU Member States growing genetically modified (GM) crops. Food & Water Europe says these failures, and the apparent inability of regulators to enforce improvements over years, call into question official reassurances that GM crops are safe and well-managed in Europe.

The group’s EU Food Policy Analyst Eve Mitchell said: “A good deal of noise is being made about the recent changes to European GM crop approvals, but almost nothing is said about the ongoing failure to honour the laws governing GM crop production. The Commission’s own audit makes sobering reading for farmers and other citizens, who may well wonder how well we really are protected.”

Among the most disturbing revelations in the audit report are:

Breaches of seed law: The Commission reports that some Member States are permitting contamination of seed with GM varieties that are not approved to grow in the EU. This violates the laws on both seed purity and seed labelling.

GM seed can only produce a GM crop, so official assurances that European agriculture only permits GM crops under tightly defined and controlled circumstances are clearly strained if some countries do not abide by the law. Furthermore, labels on seed must be accurate so farmers know what they are buying, growing and selling into the food chain.

Breaches of labelling law: The 2014 Commission audit found a number of problems with the way GM labels are applied or underpinned, including authorities permitting routine, illegal, unlabelled low-level contamination of non-GM products with GMOs. Inadequate testing, sampling and communication of findings are also reported.

If testing is not conducted properly, or if labelling law is simply ignored, shoppers cannot have faith in what they are buying. The impact this may have on market confidence, including with export markets, is yet to be seen.

Monitoring done by GM companies: Regarding cultivation of Monsanto’s controversial MON810 GM maize, the Commission reports that vital post-market monitoring for long-term environmental impacts is “limited largely to anecdotal or casual observations noted in the context of the farmer questionnaires issued by the consent holder”.

The consent holder, Monsanto, then voluntarily supplies the Commission with reports of its findings from these questionnaires. These reports, perhaps unsurprisingly, “did not identify any adverse effects of MON810 cultivation”.

Absence of internal or cross-border controls: Of particular concern to countries wishing to ban GM crops, the Commission found that farmers are buying GM seed over international borders and bringing it home to grow. The report says that the location of such fields “was not known” to the countries concerned, and that in one country the authorities were not even aware of GM crops in their territory that Monsanto itself had informed the EU were growing.

Mitchell continued: “At a time when some EU countries are actively promoting increased GM production, it simply can’t be right that countries don’t know GM maize is growing in their territory, or if they do know they can’t say where, or that GM seed is clearly moving unchecked over international borders. We have a right to expect everyone to play by the rules, or to be punished if they do not.”

The extent of the problems can be glimpsed in the 2011 audit of Spain’s GM crop production, the biggest in Europe. That report showed the failure to use accredited laboratories for GM testing dating back to at least 2005.

Mitchell said: “The Spanish example shows how easily official GM crop controls are apparently ignored and how difficult regulators seem to find it to pull a Member State into compliance. Basic problems identified way back in 2005 are still there years later, which must surely be a red flag that Europe needs to tighten up considerably before even considering expanding GM production.”

Other identified problems in Spain are serious: a lack of monitoring of negative impacts on biodiversity, operating an illegal GM threshold on seed, selling GM seed without proper labels, failure to consult the public on GM trials, and no requirement for farmers to use isolation distances between GM and non-GM crops.

Mitchell said: “This is a long way from what most people think of as proper and transparent control of GMOs as required by law. Relying on Monsanto to tell us, if it wants to, that everything is safe is clearly not enough.

“If the market cannot be relied on because the law is not enforced, it only makes the argument that much more urgent for clear, strong economic liability for all damage done by GM food and crops, including across international borders. The polluter should pay with GM crops just like any other industry.”

Contacts: Eve Mitchell, Food & Water Europe (UK time), +44(0)1381 610 740, emitchell(at)fweurope(dot)org


Movement to Ban Fracking Heats Up in the UK

Brussels – The vote yesterday in the House of Commons supporting a moratorium on fracking shows how attempts by the shale gas industry have failed to gain greater public acceptance, especially in areas where fracking is likely to take place, according to advocacy group Food & Water Europe.

“The UK government’s ‘dash for gas’ approach to fracking has backfired,” said Food & Water Europe Director of EU Affairs Geert Decock, “This vote and other recent events illustrate how the movement to ban fracking is growing across the European Union, including the UK. Even though the proposed moratorium in the UK failed to win over a majority of UK MPs at this point in time, affected communities will continue to speak up in favour of a ban on fracking and win over their representatives.”

Last week, officials of Lancashire County Council recommended refusing a planning application to shale gas company Cuadrilla due to concerns about noise and traffic. Also last week, the Environmental Audit Committee in the House of Commons called for a moratorium on fracking “because it cannot be accommodated within our climate change obligations.” Yesterday, Friends of the Earth UK revealed that Chancellor George Osborne made dozens of interventions to fast-track fracking as a “personal priority”, including the delivery of numerous “asks” from shale gas company Cuadrilla. To avoid a moratorium on fracking, the UK government had to accept a number of proposals, such as banning fracking in national parks.

“Events over the past week show that the public acceptance of a shale gas industry is nowhere, especially in areas of the UK licenced for shale gas exploration,” said Decock. “Yet, together with a handful companies, some in the UK government are trying to fast track fracking, disregarding local communities, scientific experts and its own backbenchers. We call on those officials to stand up with the affected local communities to protect their environment, not corporate interests.”

Contact: Geert De Cock tel. +32 (0)2 893 10 45, mobile +32 (0)484 629.491, gdecock(at)fweurope.org

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lancashire-30913269
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmenvaud/856/85607.htm
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/26/george-osborne-ministers-fast-track-fracking
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6e1ac088-a584-11e4-ad35-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=intl#axzz3Q1Oi0Gtc