Archives: Press Releases

UK GM Report: Vested Interests Miss the Point

Categories

Food

Statement from Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter

Brussels—“Food & Water Europe dismissed today’s United Kingdom report calling for more GM trials in the UK as “a chronically flawed effort from blinkered vested interests. The UK’s pro-GM government asked a group of GM scientists and lobbyists what we should do about GM food and crops. Since many of the scientists involved make money from GM, it’s no surprise they want more of it. But this situation begs the question: shouldn’t those advising the Government on GM be a bit more independent, or at least a little more distant from the profits?

“The report  aims for a shift to U.S.-style regulation based on “substantial equivalence,” rather than the EU’s clear case-by-case precautionary evaluation of each GMO in turn. This attempt to portray GMOs as “just the same” also undermines the very labels that help EU consumers find, and roundly reject, GM products on supermarket shelves.

“The biggest problem with the report is that it misses the point—if industrial food production was going to end hunger, it would have done so by now. We need a much smarter approach to feeding ourselves, with more respect for what farmers do, a sentiment that was reflected in a report called Wake Up Before It’s Too Late, which the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development issued last year.

Continue reading “UK GM Report: Vested Interests Miss the Point”

UK Government Pressed on Pro-GM Position

Categories

Food

Brussels – Food & Water Europe today asked the UK Government to change its vocal but ill-founded pro-GM position in light of the evidence that GM and non-GM farming are incompatible. 

EU Food Policy Analyst Eve Mitchell said, “The UK Government keeps saying it will base its GM policy on evidence and that it will listen to public views, so we’re asking how it is addressing the evidence that doesn’t suit its pro-GM agenda.”

Food & Water Europe is particularly keen to hear how UK Government support for GM cultivation protects the rights of farmers and consumers who want to avoid GMOs. A new survey of farmers conducted by Washington DC-based Food & Water Watch and the Organic Farmers’ Agency for Relationship Marketing across 17 U.S. states reveals that since GM cultivation was introduced in 1996, GM contamination has unfairly burdened organic and non-GMO farmers with extra work, longer hours and financial insecurity, while those growing GM crops are not required to mitigate the risk of contamination. Survey results show GM and non-GM coexistence is a practical impossibility in the small fields of the EU and UK. Even in the huge agricultural holdings farmed in the U.S.:

  • 52 percent of survey respondents have had shipments rejected due to GM contamination at a median cost of US$4,500 due to this load rejection — one farmer reported a US$367,000 loss in one year. Five out of six responding farmers are concerned about GMO contamination impacting their farm, with 60 percent saying they are extremely concerned.
  • Over two-thirds of respondents do not think good stewardship alone is enough to protect organic and non-GMO farmers from contamination.
  • Nearly half of respondents are skeptical that GM and non-GM crop production can coexist.

In addition, Food & Water Europe asked the UK Government to explain how it will develop the necessary coexistence legislation needed to introduce GM crops to England when the Scottish and Welsh Governments remain steadfastly opposed to GM cultivation and the Scots even oppose coexistence regulation because they find it incompatible with their moratorium on all GM crops. These are serious policy problems given the clear risk that English GM farming will contaminate Welsh and Scottish farms across national borders. 

Given the incompatibility of GM and non-GM farming, the organisation is asking the UK Government if it will now support full liability being placed firmly on GM patent holders for all economic and environmental damage caused by their products, including biotech companies paying into a compensation fund and new measures to ensure that those wishing to bring GM products to market bear the costs of the necessary segregation, rather than the other way around as is now the case.

Mitchell added, “UK Government support for GM crops is ill-founded, the practicalities have not been thought through, and the underlying problems are not going to go away. While the UK Government continues to act as a cheerleader for GM crops, we can’t see how it will be able to protect farmers and consumers who want to exercise their right to avoid GMOs or how it will ensure it isn’t non-GM farmers who pay the price for the inevitable contamination GM crops will cause. We’re appealing to the UK Government to do the right thing, listen to the lessons learned elsewhere and withdraw from its misplaced support for GM crops before it is too late.” 

Contact:
Eve Mitchell, EU Food Policy Advisor +44 (0)1381 610 740 [email protected] 

c/o Rose Cottage

Farness

Poyntzfield

Dingwall

The Black Isle   IV7 8LY 

tel + 44 (0)1381 610 740 

First Successful European Citizen’s Initiative on Right2Water presents demands to EU Institutions

Categories

Water

Brussels — The first ever successful European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) met with Maros Sefcovic and the European Commission services today to discuss the application of the ECI within European legislation. This is the first time the European Commission met and discussed with citizens to initiate European legislation.

After having received over 1.68 million valid statements (http://www.right2water.eu) the representatives of the citizens committee are demanding that the European Commission recognise and implement the right to water for all into EU legislation as a way of ensuring all Member States do the same.

“The message of our ECI is simple. Implement the human right to water, do not liberalise water services in the EU and do more to ensure people across the world have access to clean and safe water,” says Jan Willem Goudriaan, Vice President of the ECI Right2Water.

Also today, the President of the Environment Committee (ENVI) Matthias Groote chaired a public hearing with representatives of the Petitions Committee, the Internal Market Committee and the Development Committee. Over 30 Members of the European Parliament were able to ask questions.

The European Water Movement has been a pillar of this ECI. People supporting the ECI Right2Water have a clear message: “We do not want the liberalisation of water services in the EU. Human rights come before market interests,” says Gabriella Zanzanaini, Director of European Affairs for Food & Water Europe.

 

For more information contact:

Gabriella Zanzanaini, (+32) 488 409 662, gzanzanaini(at)fweurope.org

Food & Water Europe is a member of the European Water Movement

Europe Opens Door to Dangerous Fracking

Categories

Food

Joint statement from Friends of the Earth Europe and Food & Water Europe

Brussels, January 22, 2014 – Europe is opening its doors to dirty and dangerous unconventional fossil fuels, Friends of the Earth Europe and Food & Water Europe said today. The warning comes as the European Commission published a framework to guide member states on how to regulate shale gas which fails to provide mandatory protection for Europe’s citizens against the environmental and health risks of fracking.

Despite the best efforts of some decision-makers, attempts to regulate the fracking industry have been undermined by heavy corporate lobbying and pressure from certain member states intent on fracking their lands. The proposal is now weak and will not stop the environment and communities being harmed, contradicting previous recommendations and studies made by the European Parliament and the European Commission [1].

Antoine Simon, shale gas campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe said: “Shale gas regulations have been fracked to pieces by corporations and fossil fuel-fixated governments. Insufficient and non-binding recommendations and monitoring mean fracking will go ahead improperly regulated and local communities will be the ones who suffer. Europe is putting the fox in charge of the hen house.”

Europe can expect to see a surge in local resistance, like that witnessed in the UK, Romania [2] and Poland: more than 370 grassroots organisations from all around Europe published last week a letter expressing strong concern about the promises not kept by the EU institutions to put in place a regulatory framework that would guarantee a so-called safe and sustainable development of this industry in Europe [3].

Geert de Cock, policy officer for Food & Water Europe said: “The Commission proposals on unconventional fossil fuels fail to deliver the robust rules that the Commission’s own impact assessment, the Parliament, opinion polls and the International Energy Agency have called for. The lack of courage by EU leaders to stand up to industry pressure will galvanize our campaign for a complete ban on fracking.”

With the heavy support from José Manuel Barroso, the United Kingdom, Poland, and Romania have all played a leading role in undermining shale gas legislation, with allies Hungary, Lithuania, Czech Republic and Slovakia, according to a letter written by the UK Permanent Representation and obtained by Friends of the Earth [4].

Antoine Simon continued: “Past experience, every poll, study and resolution, pointed to the need for tough regulation. Instead, we’re repeating the social and environmental mistakes played out across America. The village of Pungeşti, Romania offers a grim example of the future of shale gas development in Europe – with communities themselves the last line of defence against dirty and dangerous fossil fuels.”

Next month, MEPs will make a final vote on changes to environmental and health safeguards applicable to all fossil fuels, in the form of a review of the Environmental Impact Assessment directive. Fracking remains exempt from mandatory impact assessments after being removed from the text by the European Council. Environmental impact assessments for shale gas projects will only be undertaken voluntarily by member states and some countries have already announced they would not make use of them.

Friends of the Earth Europe and Food & Water Europe campaign against the extraction of unconventional fossil fuels, including shale gas. The extraction of unconventional gas and oil poses a significant threat to the climate, the environment and to local communities. They will lock Europe into fossil fuel use, jeopardise emissions reduction targets and prevent investments in genuine solutions – like the development of community renewable energy resources, and energy savings projects.

Today the European Commission also unveils its plans to tackle climate change by the year 2030. The proposal disregards climate science and fails to set the ambitious binding targets necessary to avoid catastrophic levels of global warming [5].

***

For more information please contact:

Antoine Simon, shale gas campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe,

Tel: +32 (0) 2 893 10 18, Mob: +32 (0) 486 685 664, email: [email protected]

 

Geert de Cock, policy officer for Food & Water Europe,

Tel: +32 (0) 2 893 10 45, email: [email protected]
 

Sam Fleet, communications officer, Friends of the Earth Europe, (EN)

Tel: +32 (0) 2893 1012, Mob: +32 (0) 470 072 049, [email protected]

 

***
NOTES

[1] European Parliament, 2012, “Own Initiative report on the environmental impacts of shale gas and shale oil extraction activities” http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/2308(INI)

European Parliament, 2012, “Own initiative report on industrial, energy and other aspects of shale gas and oil” http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/2309(INI)

DG Environment study, 2012, “Support to the identification of potential risks for the environment and human health arising from hydrocarbons operations involving hydraulic fracturing in Europe” http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/pdf/fracking%20study.pdf

DG Environment study, 2013, “Regulatory provisions governing key aspects of unconventional gas development in eight Member States” http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/pdf/Final%20Report%2024072013.pdf

[2] http://www.foeeurope.org/Solidarity-with-Pungesti-071213

[3] http://heavenorshell.se/open-letter-eu-institutions

[4] Link to the UK Perm Rep Letter

[5] Friends of the Earth Europe reaction to the 2030 White Paper will be published after 12.00: http://www.foeeurope.org/2030_climate_energy_plan_220114

LINK FOR THIS PRESS RELEASE: http://www.foeeurope.org/shale_gas_framework_220114

Organizations denounce Nestlé’s new human rights impact assessment as a public relations stunt

Categories

Water

Joint statement by Blue Planet Project, FIVAS, Food & Water Watch, and Public Services International

Brussels and Ottawa —Nestlé’s new human rights assessment, launched at the UN Forum on Business and Human Rights last week, is full of holes say labour and civil society organizations, including the Blue Planet Project, FIVAS, Food & Water Watch, and Public Services International.

“The analysis is fundamentally flawed because it is a selective examination of corporate policy rather than corporate practice,” says Maude Barlow, founder of the Blue Planet Project and chairperson of the Council of Canadians and Food & Water Watch.

Nestlé’s “Creating Shared Value” program is touted in the report as a strategy to address the needs of impacted communities, yet as Barlow notes in her newly released book, Blue Future, there are significant discrepancies between Nestlé’s so-called values and its actual practice.

“One key Nestlé ‘shared value’ is the need for conservation of the world’s water,” says Barlow. “But this has clearly not been transmitted to Nestlé Waters Canada, which recently appealed a decision by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment to impose mandatory reductions on water takings in times of severe drought.”

Furthermore, although the assessment involves the Danish Institute for Human Rights, it is a far cry from an independent analysis on the human rights impacts of Nestlé’s activities. The parameters for the assessment were set by Nestlé and involved a limited set of criteria that overlooked key areas including the human right to water. In addition, the bulk of the assessment was carried out by Nestlé field staff and final data vetted by Nestlé headquarters and executives in the countries where operations were evaluated.

“The failure to examine Nestlé’s track record on the human right to water is not surprising given recent statements by its chair Peter Brabeck challenging the human right to water,” says Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch. The company famously declared at the 2000 World Water Forum in the Netherlands that water should be defined as a need—not as a human right.

In 2012, among the numerous grievances against Nestlé in this area, the award-winning film Bottled Life documented the conflict between Nestlé and the community of Bhati Dilwan, a village in Pakistan where local leaders and members of the community have accused Nestlé of draining groundwater resources to produce its Pure Life bottled water. A recent SumOfUs petition denouncing Nestlé’s activities in Pakistan received over 346,000 signatures.

Barlow also points out that while the report commends Nestlé for providing human rights training for security personnel in Colombia, it makes no mention of the fact that in 2009 a number of labour and human rights organizations launched a campaign demanding that Nestlé be expelled from the UN Global Compact for trade-union busting and child labour in Colombia.

In November 2013, Colombian trade unionist Oscar Lopez Trivino became the fifteenth Nestlé worker to be assassinated by a paramilitary organization while many of his fellow workers were in the midst of a hunger strike protesting the corporation’s refusal to hear their grievances.

The organizations also denounce the growing role of Nestlé in shaping public policy through its involvement in multi-stakeholder bodies including the 2030 Water Resources Group, the UN Global Compact and the Global Water Partnership. 

“Nestlé has used its privileged position to promote greater private access to water resources and public water and sanitation services despite growing opposition to corporate control of water around the world,” says David Boys of the global union federation Public Services International.

Nestlé is currently the leading supplier of the world’s bottled water, including such brands as Perrier and San Pellegrino.

“Given the selective focus, limited scope and glaring omissions, the report cannot be seen as anything more than the company’s latest public relations stunt,” says Jorgen Magdahl of the Norwegian NGO FIVAS.

For more information, please contact:

Meera Karunananthan, Blue Planet Project, 613-355-2100, [email protected]

Gabriella Zanzanaini, Food & Water Europe, +32 488 409 662, [email protected]

US Family Farmers Warn EU Ministers Against GM Cultivation in Advance of Critical Vote

Categories

Food

Brussels —The National Family Farm Coalition, representing family farmers across the US, has sent a clear warning against any escalation of GM crop reliance on chemicals in Europe. 

The message was sent in a letter to every EU Agriculture and Environment Minister as EU officials prepare for a key vote on the authorisation for cultivation of GM maize Pioneer1507, which is both tolerant to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium (sold as Liberty or Basta) and contains the GM Bt gene, making the crop toxic to pests. 

Katherine Ozer, executive director of the National Family Farm Coalition in the US warned Ministers:

“Farmers nationwide have experienced extensive (and expensive) losses from 2,4-D and dicamba drift, and crops resistant to them are not yet even deregulated. We are very concerned that escalated reliance on these and similar toxins could lead to the demise of fresh water, tree and wildlife cover, and all non-GM crops – ultimately our environment and food system as we know them.”

Multiple objections to authorising Pioneer 1507 for cultivation in Europe include:

  • It is reliant on glufosinate ammonium, an herbicide with considerable health and environmental risks that has not been properly assessed in the EU, making this application premature at best.
  • The crop also carries the GM Bt gene, making it toxic to pests. Existing GM Bt crops are already failing in fields in the US, Brazil and India as the target insects develop resistance. The Brazilian Government is now warning that reliance on Bt crops is causing the severe economic damage facing GM farmers. Maharastra State Agriculture Minister Ramakrishna Vikhe-Patil said of Bt cotton: “In the long run, we want to eradicate it because it is water-intensive and utterly unsuited to our conditions since 82% of the 4.2 million hectares of Bt cotton cultivation is done in drought-prone areas…[Agriculture researchers and universities] did not do enough to alert the Government to the potential dangers of Bt cotton.”
  • EFSA admits Pioneer 1507 will harm non-target insects, like butterflies. There has been no assessment of its impact on other pollinators, which already face a host of threats endangering our future food production.
  • GM agriculture is not wanted by EU citizens and is not necessary, as most

recently demonstrated by Heinemann et al: “Despite the claims that GM might be needed to feed the world, we found no yield benefit when the United States was compared to W. Europe, other economically developed countries of the same latitude which do not grow GM crops. We found no benefit from the traits either.” 

Food & Water Europe’s EU Food Policy Advisor Eve Mitchell commented:

“The science shows non-GM is the future of food and farming. The courts told the Commission to process this application, but it has not been sufficiently scrutinised so we do not know if it is safe, so there is every reason for Member States to reject it. 

“We want a healthy, productive future for European agriculture, and we can clearly see that countries that rushed to jump on the GM bandwagon are now suffering as the technology fails. European Ministers need to think very carefully about the warnings from farmers in the US and the Governments of both Brazil and Maharashtra – growing GM causes worse problems than it solves.”

Only two other GM crops are permitted in EU fields. One is the industrial starch potato Amflora, which was approved by the Commission amid considerable controversy and has never recovered from the debacle in its first year of cultivation when another, unauthorised GM potato contaminated the seed stock and much of the crop had to be destroyed. The authorisation for Amflora was annulled on 13 December by the EU General Court, which found that the Commission had not properly followed necessary procedures when it approved the crop. The other GM crop grown in the EU is the controversial MON810 Bt maize, which is banned in several EU countries and is the subject of ongoing scientific controversy over its negative environmental impacts.  

For further information contact: 

Eve Mitchell, EU Food Policy Advisor, Food & Water Europe  +44 (0)1381 610 740 

Katherine Ozer, Executive Director, National Family Farm Coalition (US) +1 202 543 5675

National Family Farm Coalition unites and strengthens the voices and actions of its diverse grassroots members to demand viable livelihoods for family farmers, safe and healthy food for everyone, and economically and environmentally sound rural communities.