Archives: Press Releases

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

EU Vote Key to Keeping Clones Out of Our Food

January 16, 2015—Brussels. Next Wednesday, members of the EU Environment Committee will vote on measures that are a critical step toward keeping clones out of Europe’s food supply.

The European Commission is proposing a new regulation that clarifies and consolidates the rules governing the trade and import of breeding animals and their breeding material, like semen, ova and embryos, which are routinely used to breed farm animals.

MEPs have tabled amendments to the proposed regulation that would require the documentation that already accompanies such transactions to indicate if the animal or breeding material is the product of cloning or clone descendants.

Food & Water Europe Food Policy Analyst Eve Mitchell said, “Congratulations to our MEPs for spotting that the Commission seems to have forgotten about clones in its draft. Farmers have a right to know what they are buying, and we need to know where clones are so we can keep them out of our food.”

The EU trade in breeding material with the U.S. is a particular concern because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration considers clones safe to eat and does not require any labeling. In 2010 the U.S. Secretary for Agriculture admitted he didn’t know if clones are in the U.S. food supply. What’s worse, there is only a voluntary moratorium standing between EU importers and U.S. farmers or breeders. “Europe needs to protect itself with reasonable controls,” said Mitchell. “Cloning for food should be an open and shut case.”

In 2008 the European Group on Ethics in Science and Technology said cloning for food is not justified because of the suffering it causes. The Parliament voted for a full ban on all clones and their offspring in July 2010, and called for a formal moratorium until such laws could be brought forward. In 2011 the Commission, Council and Parliament all agreed that tracing clones would be needed for whatever rules on cloning are finally enacted.

Yet the Commission isn’t keeping up. It tabled “provisional” rules in 2013 that ban food from clones but not food from clone offspring. Those rules also controversially rejected the Parliament’s call for clear labels on such foods, offered as a compromise after years of wrangling over a ban, saying the work needed to secure labels would be “disproportionate” and therefore “cannot be justified” because it would require “meticulous investigation into the accompanying documentation”. This is exactly the kind of documentation discussed in this new regulation, so ensuring those papers note where cloning is used is essential for labeling if clone offspring are sold as food.

Mitchell added, “We are assured that our meat if fully traceable, and that this will be reinforced after the EU-wide contamination of meat supplies with horsemeat last year, so checking documentation cannot possibly be considered too onerous. Labels on meat from clone offspring are perfectly possible and the very least we should expect.”

Food & Water Europe believes the Commission approach to cloning in food is hypocritical and ethically indefensible. Since you can’t have clone offspring without clones, and since cloning is clearly cruel and unnecessary, all food from clones and their offspring should be banned. Anything short of a full ban makes clear labels non-negotiable.

Mitchell said, “The revelation in August 2010 that clones were in the UK food supply clearly demonstrated the need for regulation and enforcement. We must ensure that any new laws are future proofed to enable the full ban on clones and their offspring in our food that the Parliament, the public and common sense demand.”

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


GM Crops: Science Is About Questions, Not “Consensus”

Categories

Food

Brussels — Food & Water Europe’s damning critique of the so-called scientific “consensus” surrounding GM food and crops, published today, exposes the biotech industry’s role in massaging facts to support its products. The report is published while the EU Parliament and Council are locked in negotiations trying to overcome deep disagreement on so-called “opt-outs” (national or regional bans) for GM crops.

Food & Water Europe Executive Director Wenonah Hauter said, “The fact that such a vigorous debate continues over the so-called ‘consensus’ on GMO safety is evidence enough that no consensus exists. Rather than chasing ‘consensus’, the real conversation that scientists and the public should be having — in academic journals, in the media and in Parliaments — is whether or not GMOs are safe.”

The So-Called Scientific “Consensus”: Why the debate on GMOs is not over (available at the link below), shows how pro-GM vested interests cherry pick information and manipulate quotes from scientific bodies like the World Health Organisation and the Royal Society of London to promote their alleged consensus. The briefing also points out that neither scientific institutions, the scientific literature nor independent scientists support the “consensus” claim.

Food & Water Europe’s EU Food Policy Advisor Eve Mitchell said, “GMO boosters are working so hard to distract the public from the real questions hanging over GM food and crops – that’s par for the course. The biotech industry has long used its financial might and political power to distort the public discourse — and even the science — surrounding GMOs.

“We want to ensure the public has access to all the facts so we can make the best decisions. For starters there are zero peer-reviewed studies of the epidemiology of GMO consumption, so any claims GMOs are safe to eat in the long-term are based in hope, not science. People need to know that.”

The organisation also points to the hundreds of scientists who called the “consensus” bogus, citing:

  • Limited animal feeding trials have been conducted on GMOs; several show or suggest toxic effects.
  • The biotechnology industry is  responsible for most of the available feeding trials showing that genetically engineered crops are safe and nutritious; an equal number of research groups working on feeding trials have expressed “serious concerns” over safety.
  • There is evidence of environmental safety issues, including adverse, unintended impacts on non-target organisms and the promotion of resistant weeds.
  • There is evidence of possible adverse human and animal health effects from exposure to Roundup, the herbicide used on the majority of GMO crops.
  • Several international agreements acknowledge safety issues with GMOs.

Mitchell added, “There are many grave risks here, but there is no liability regime to hold the biotech industry responsible if anything goes wrong with their GMOs. At the very least we need to heed what the evidence is telling us and take more care. Given what we know already, there has never been a better case for saying ‘better safe than sorry’.”

Contact: Eve Mitchell, EU Food Policy Advisor, Food & Water Europe +44 (0)1381 610 740 or emitchell(at)fweurope(dot)org

Food & Water Europe’s briefing The So-Called Scientific “Consensus”: Why the debate on GMOs is not over is available in English and in Spanish.

Un Nuevo Informe Desmiente el Mito del Consenso Científico sobre la Seguridad de los Transgénicos

Categories

Food

Madrid, Bruselas – Amigos de la Tierra y Food & Water Europe publican hoy un nuevo informe que expone cómo la industria manipula la información sobre los cultivos y alimentos transgénicos para generar la idea de que existe un “consenso científico” en torno a la seguridad de sus productos. El informe “El falso ‘consenso científico’: El debate en torno a los transgénicos no ha terminado” [1] muestra cómo la industria de los transgénicos y sus defensores eligen de forma interesada la información y manipulan citas, incluyendo interpretar a su manera a la Organización Mundial de la Salud, para promover la idea de que el debate sobre la seguridad de los cultivos y alimentos transgénicos está superado.

David Sánchez, coordinador de campañas de Food & Water Europe [2] aseguró: “Durante años la industria de los transgénicos ha utilizado su poder económico y su influencia política para distorsionar el debate público y científico sobre los transgénicos. Ni las instituciones, ni la literatura científica ni la ciencia independiente apoya que haya un ‘consenso’ sobre la seguridad de los alimentos y cultivos modificados genéticamente.”

Blanca Ruibal, responsable del área de agricultura y alimentación de Amigos de la Tierra afirmó: “La estrategia tanto a nivel internacional como estatal es utilizar organizaciones teóricamente neutras, financiadas por la propia industria, y científicos afines para repetir de forma machacona en medios de comunicación y blogs los mismos argumentos y citas manipuladas o convenientemente adaptadas. El verdadero debate no es si hay ‘consenso’ o no, el verdadero debate es si los cultivos y alimentos transgénicos son seguros, si son necesarios, a quién benefician, a quién perjudican y si son más convenientes para la sociedad que el resto de opciones”.
La industria de los transgénicos, a través de esta campaña para promocionar la existencia de un supuesto ‘consenso’ sobre la seguridad de los cultivos y alimentos transgénicos no menciona los hechos citados por cientos de científicos que niegan este consenso, incluyendo que:

  • Se han realizado muy pocos ensayos de alimentación con animales sobre transgénicos y varios de ellos muestran o sugieren efectos tóxicos.
  • La industria de los transgénicos es la responsable de la gran mayoría de los estudios de alimentación disponible que muestran que los cultivos transgénicos son seguros. Un número similar de grupos de investigación que trabajan con estos estudios de alimentación han expresado “preocupaciones serias” sobre su seguridad.
  • No existen estudios epidemiológicos sobre seguridad en alimentación humana.
  • Hay evidencias de problemas de seguridad para el medio ambiente, incluyendo impactos adversos e inesperados en organismos no diana y la generación de malas hierbas resistentes a herbicidas.
  • Hay evidencias de efectos potenciales negativos sobre la salud humana y animal de la exposición al Roundup, el herbicida utilizado con la mayor parte de los cultivos transgénicos.
  • Varios acuerdos internacionales reconocen problemas de seguridad con los organismos modificados genéticamente

Lea el informe en Español:

Lea el informe en Inglés

Para más información

David Sánchez, coordinador de campañas, Food & Water Europe +32 485842604 dsanchez(at)fweurope(dot)org

Blanca Ruibal, responsable de Agricultura y Alimentación, Amigos de la Tierra 691471389

Notas

[1] El informe “El falso ‘consenso científico’: El debate en torno a los transgénicos no ha terminado” puede descargarse en castellano y en inglés aquí:
[2] Food & Water Europe es el proyecto europeo de Food & Water Watch, organización de consumidores con sede en EEUU que trabaja para garantizar que la comida, el agua y el pescado que consumimos son seguros, accesibles y sostenibles. Para que todos y todas podamos disfrutar y confiar en lo que comemos y bebemos, ayudamos a la ciudadanía a asumir el control sobre el origen de sus alimentos; a mantener un suministro de agua de grifo limpia, asequible y pública; a proteger el medio ambiente y la salud de los océanos; a forzar a los gobiernos a cumplir con su obligación de proteger a la ciudadanía, y a educar sobre la importancia de mantener los bienes comunes bajo el control público.
www.foodandwatereurope.org