Archives: Press Releases

BRUSSELS, BELGIUM and OTTAWA, ONTARIO and MONTREAL, QUEBEC–(Marketwire – Feb. 6, 2013) – Labour, environmental, Indigenous, women’s, academic, health sector and fair trade organizations from Europe, Canada and Quebec representing more than 65 million people are demanding that Canada and the EU stop negotiating an excessive and controversial investor rights chapter in the proposed Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). The groups issued a joint statement today ahead of a two-day meeting in Ottawa between European Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht and Canadian International Trade Minister Ed Fast, where the two hope to move the CETA negotiations forward if not to conclude an agreement.

“We will vigorously oppose any transatlantic agreement that compromises our democracies, human and Indigenous rights, and our right to protect our health and the planet,” says the transatlantic statement, endorsed by more than 70 organizations. “We urge the EU and Canadian governments to follow the lead of the Australian government by stopping the practice of including investor-state dispute settlement in their trade and investment agreements, and to open the door to a broad re-writing of trade and investment policy to balance out corporate interests against the greater public interest.”

Investor-state dispute settlement is a process found in many Canadian and European trade and investment agreements, including NAFTA and the hundreds of bilateral investment treaties that EU members states have signed with developing countries and with each other. The process allows a firm in one country to sue the government of the other country if the firm feels its investor rights have been violated. In a very real sense, these investment rules create a parallel legal system for multinational corporations and private investors, who are using them increasingly to challenge environmental, public health and other government policies, decisions, laws and measures that interfere in some way with the “right” to make a profit.

Recent high-profile cases include the $250-million NAFTA lawsuit threatened by Lone Pine Resources against Quebec’s ban on hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), a EUR3.7-billion claim by Swedish Energy firm Vattenfall against Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear power, ExxonMobil and Murphy Oil’s successful case against provincial profit-sharing rules on offshore oil development, and U.S.-based Renco Group’s $800-million claim against a Peruvian requirement to clean up the extreme pollution caused by its smelter in La Oroya. 

“Qualitative research suggests that the treaties are not a decisive factor in whether investors go abroad… Based on a lack of economic benefits, and evidence that investment treaties do pose risks to environmental measures, a Sustainability Impact Assessment of CETA urged the European Union not to include [investor-state dispute settlement] in the agreement. Like the European Parliament, this independent report for the European Commission suggested a state-to-state dispute process is more appropriate in the EU-Canada context,” says the joint statement issued today by transatlantic civil society groups. 

The Australian government decided in 2011 it would stop including these rights and investor-state dispute settlement in its trade and investment agreements. Many countries, including South Africa and India, are rethinking their investment treaties because of the way corporations and law firms have abused them to undermine democracy and public policies globally. Several Latin American countries are cancelling their investment treaties for the same reason.

In 1998, European and Canadian opposition to investor-state dispute settlement put an end to the planned Multilateral Investment Agreement, which would have extended these extreme investor protections to the entire OECD region. In the same spirit and in light of the rebirth of this failed corporate project in the Canada-EU trade deal, the European, Canadian and Quebec groups listed below “demand that the EU and Canada cease negotiating investor rights and an investor-state dispute settlement process into the CETA.”

 

To read the full statement: http://tradejustice.ca

Endorsed in Europe: 11.11.11 (Belgium), AITEC (France), ACV-CSC (Belgium), Attac Austria (Austria), Attac-France (France), Attac Liège (Belgium), ATTAC VLAANDEREN (Belgium), Both Ends (Netherlands), Center for Research and Documentation Chile-Latin America (Germany), CFTC, Confédération française des travailleurs chrétiens (France), CNCD – 11.11.11 (Belgium), Corporate Europe Observatory (Belgium), Ecologistas en Aciòn (Spain), European Federation of Public Services Unions (EPSU), European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), Fairwatch (Italy), Food & Water Europe, Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII – Germany), FTM-CGT (France), Global Social Justice (Belgium), International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), Labour, Health and Human Rights Development Centre (Nigeria), PowerShift (Germany), Stichting Vrijschrift (Netherlands), SOMO (Netherlands), Transnational Institute (Netherlands), World Economy, Ecology & Development (Germany), Zukunftskonvent (Germany)

Endorsed in Canada: Canadian Association of University Teachers, Canadian Auto Workers, Canadian Environmental Law Association, Canadian Federation of Students (CFS-FCEE), Canadian Health Coalition, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW), Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), Common Frontiers, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP), Council of Canadians, Greenpeace Canada, Hupacasath First Nation, National Farmers Union, National Union of Public and General Employees, Ontario Council of Hospital Unions, Polaris Institute, Public Service Alliance of Canada, Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, Sierra Club Canada, (Tsalalh) Seton Lake Indian Band, Trade Justice Network, United Steelworkers

Endorsed in Quebec: Réseau québécois sur l’intégration continentale (RQIC), Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux (APTS), Alternatives, Association canadienne des avocats du mouvement syndical (ACAMS-CALL), Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale (AQOCI), Attac-Québec, Centrale des Syndicats démocratiques (CSD), Centrale des Syndicats du Québec (CSQ), Confédération des Syndicats nationaux (CSN), Conseil central du Montréal métropolitain (CCMM-CSN), Eau Secours!, Fédération des femmes du Québec (FFQ), Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec (FECQ), Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec (FEUQ), Fédération interprofessionnelle de la santé du Québec (FIQ), Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ), Ligue des droits et libertés, Mouvement d’éducation populaire et d’action communautaire du Québec (MÉPACQ), Réseau québécois des groupes écologistes (RQGE), Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique section Québec (SCFP-Québec), Syndicat de professionnelles et professionnels du gouvernement du Québec (SPGQ), Union des consommateurs

New Bill Could Expose Previously Hidden Genetically Engineered Ingredients in our Food

Des Moines, Iowa —Today, Senator Joe Bolkcom introduced a bill, Senate File 194, that would require labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods in Iowa. The legislation was drafted with the support of consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch and is strongly supported by many national and local organizations and individuals including food cooperatives, organic farmers, environmentalists and food justice proponents.

“Consumers want to know what is in their food,” said Sen. Bolkcom (D-Iowa City). “This is a simple bill that gives consumers information they want”

If passed, SF 194 would require labeling for all foods containing more than nine-tenths of one percent GE ingredients. This includes plants altered in a laboratory with foreign genetic material to create novel genetic combinations and exhibit traits that do not occur in nature. Since most processed foods contain some derivative of GE corn, soybean or cotton, they would need to be labeled under this law.

“Right now, consumers are in the dark about whether or not the food they buy and feed to their families is genetically engineered,” said Matt Ohloff, Iowa Organizer for Food & Water Watch. “SF 194 would give Iowans the power to decide for themselves whether or not to buy and eat GE foods. This simple right to information about our foods is something everyone can support, which is why GE food labeling is on both the Iowa Republican and Democratic Party Platforms. We look forward to seeing legislators from both parties and the Governor represent their constituents, and their parties, and pass GE food labeling legislation in Iowa.”

Although health risks associated with eating GE products are not fully understood, these altered foods have become pervasive within our food system since they first became available in 1996. Companies submit their own safety testing data, and independent research is limited because biotechnology companies prohibit cultivation for research purposes. 

Labeling GE foods is not a novel idea. The European Union specifically addresses the new properties and risks of biotech crops, requiring all food, animal feeds, and processed products with GE content to bear labels. In fact, the EU is among nearly 50 developed countries that require the GE products they import from the U.S. to be labeled. Furthermore, a 2012 Mellman Group Study showed that 91 percent of U.S. voters favored having the Food and Drug Administration require labels on GE foods and ingredients.

SF 194 will be considered by the Legislature over the coming months and can be viewed at: http://fwwat.ch/IowaSF194

Contact: mohloff(at)fwwatch(dot)org, 319-512-7825

New Bill Could Expose Previously Hidden Genetically Engineered Ingredients in our Food

Springfield, Ill. – Today, Senator Dave Koehler introduced SB 1666, a bill that would require labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods in Illinois. The legislation was drafted with the support of consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch and is strongly supported by many national and local organizations and individuals including food cooperatives, organic farmers, environmentalists and food justice proponents.

“SB 1666 presents a tremendous opportunity to improve research and expand our understanding of GE crops and foods,” said Jessica Fujan, Illinois organizer for Food & Water Watch. “Labeling will give us the data we need to draw solid conclusions about GE foods, and it will give consumers the ability to make fully informed decisions about what we are eating and feeding our families. Right now, the companies that stand to profit from genetic engineering are making those decisions for us.”

If passed, SB 1666 would require labeling for all foods containing more than one percent GE ingredients. This includes plants altered in a laboratory with foreign genetic material to create novel genetic combinations and exhibit traits that do not occur in nature. Since most processed foods contain some derivative of GE corn, soybean or cotton, they would require labeling under this law.

Although health risks associated with eating GE products are not fully understood, these altered foods have become pervasive within our food system since they first became available in 1996. Companies submit their own safety testing data and independent research is limited because biotechnology companies prohibit cultivation for research purposes.

Securing labeling of GE foods is a key priority for groups such as the Chicago Food Policy Advisory Council, which represents urban and rural farmers and individuals advocating for sustainable growing practices. “The farmers and non-farmers among us are universally supportive of GE labeling. We work hard to grow good food and serve our families food that has not been genetically engineered. It’s our right as citizens to know what is in our food. In a democracy, corporations should not have special privileges that make it difficult for the average consumer to have transparency in what they consume,” said Erika Allen, urban farmer for Growing Power and President of the Chicago Food Policy Advisory Council.

Labeling GE foods is not a novel idea. The European Union specifically addresses the new properties and risks of biotech crops, requiring all food, animal feed and processed products with GE content to bear labels. In fact, the EU is among nearly 50 developed countries that require the GE products they import from the U.S. to be labeled. Furthermore, a 2012 Mellman Group Study showed that 91 percent of U.S. voters favored having the U.S. Food and Drug Administration require labels on GE foods and ingredients.

SB 1666 will be considered by the Legislature over the coming months and can be viewed at: http://bit.ly/VV9qZp

Contact: Emily Carroll, Food & Water Watch, ecarroll(at)fwwatch(dot)org, 773-796-6086

New Food & Water Europe Issue Brief Documents Pay-to-Pollute Programs That Undermine Proven Regulations 

Washington, D.C., Brussels — The international consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch and its European programme Food & Water Europe released an issue brief today that describes a growing trend to reduce air and water pollution using market-driven credits to control pollutants. Pollution Trading: Cashing Out Our Clean Air and Water documents government-sanctioned pollution reduction programs that provide a market place for trading credit allotments in an effort to offset harmful discharges. But these mechanisms don’t deter industrial pollution. In fact, they give companies an opportunity to pay and trade for the “right” to pollute.

Programs including the U.S. Acid Rain Program, Emissions Trading System, Regional Clean Air Incentives Market, Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load and the Renewable Fuel Standard Program, encourage polluting companies to trade emission allowances for nitrogen, air quality, carbon, nutrient water, and renewable fuel identification numbers in the spirit of decreasing industrial pollution. But these cap-and-trade methods deter companies from upgrading equipment and technology, and complying with regulatory guidelines designed to decrease the amount of pollutants and toxic discharges into our environment.

Many of these pay-to-pollute programs have yet to prove they are successful in decreasing the amount of air and water pollution. In some cases, the programs contain loopholes that allow for the creation of fraudulent credits, giving some companies the ability to earn credits without actually reducing emissions.

“We’ve moved away from regulations that actually work, and instead we’ve adopted a pay-to-pollute trading system that actually rewards companies without requiring them to decrease their emissions,” said Food & Water Europe Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. “Instead of investing in improved technology and methodology that could reduce our harmful discharges, we’ve created a trading scheme fraught with fraud and liability issues.”

Pollution Trading: Cashing Out Our Clean Air and Water available here. 

 

Contact:

Rich Bindell, Food & Water Watch, +1 202 683 2457, [email protected]

Gabriella Zanzanaini, Food & Water Europe, +32 488 409 662, gzanzanaini(at)fweurope.org

Statement by Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director, Food & Water Europe

Brussels – “The recent UK Government announcement that it is stepping up its promotion of GM cultivation raises serious questions about whether or not the GM industry is calling the shots in Whitehall agriculture policy development.

“Downing Street was quick to support Secretary of State Owen Paterson’s call for GM crops to be grown and sold widely in the UK. A Freedom of Information request by GeneWatch UK and GM Freeze recently revealed UK Ministers and other officials attended a biotech industry meeting in June that resolved to use more taxpayer money to promote GM crops and to press harder to remove any residual “barriers”. This push has been expected, and industry’s influence on the highest levels of the UK Government helps explain why an administration adamant its policy will be science-based is instead promoting a policy that goes out of its way to avoid incorporating even the UK’s own scientific evidence on GM. See our blog for more detail.

“If you take a step back for a wider look it’s not a pretty picture. The last UK Secretary of State for Food and Rural Affairs owned a GM lobbying company until public pressure forced her to shut it down. Her replacement, Owen Paterson, has a brother-in-law who is a keen and vocal GM advocate and writes for the newspaper Paterson used to “break” this story. However, he is better known for the bank he ran, Northern Rock, which collapsed and had to be bailed out by taxpayers. This is not our idea of a good pool of advisors for developing food policy based on scientific evidence.

“Defra says public and environmental safety are the Government’s priority, and that its decisions on GM would be science based. The UK Government already has its own studies showing GM does cause harm, and in the decade since the Farm Scale Trials concluded the evidence base has grown around the world. Based on Defra’s own reassurance GM crops should not be considered.

“Rather than backing more reliable technologies, the Government is attempting to ignore its own evidence showing that public concern is high and that GM raises serious health and environmental concerns. The facts are clear: GM is an unpredictable, unnecessary technology that is unwanted by anyone other than those with a financial stake in their success.”

Contact: Eve Mitchell, EU Food Policy Advisor  +44 (0) 7962 437 128 (mobile)