Barroso
administration: Golden medal in serving interests
A
research by the Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO)
“Through
the course of the crisis, attempts by corporations and corporate
lobby groups to influence EU policies have probably been more
successful than ever, in part due to a close relationship with the
Commission.”
“Corporate
Europe Observatory has gathered a lot of evidence over time and
covering many different areas that shows how the Commission is easily
captured by corporate interests. This report is an attempt to produce
a condensed version of how the Commission has come to act on behalf
of corporations over the past five years, focusing on climate
policies, agriculture and food, finance, economic, and fiscal
policies.”
5
- Siding with agribusiness on GMOs and pesticides
Key
findings
“The
Commission’s role was most problematic in cases where DG SANCO
(Health and Consumers) was in the driving seat. We can observe
continuous clashes between DG Environment and DG SANCO. At the start
of his second term, Barroso moved both the pesticides and GMOs
dossiers from DG Environment to DG SANCO, generally seen as more
industry-friendly. Something similar happened in the middle of this
term, when DG SANCO suddenly interfered in DG Environment’s first
attempt to define what is an ‘endocrine disrupting chemical’
(EDC), a modest start to a crucial and long-standing problem of these
harmful chemicals that are currently not regulated.”
“We
found that 79% of the organisations lobbying on CAP [Common
Agricultural Policy] reform, as listed in the EU’s Transparency
Register, were likely to be defending agribusiness interests, a
sweeping imbalance that is all too typical.”
“As
polls show, consumers in Europe still don’t have an appetite for GM
food, despite all the biotech lobby’s PR efforts. In recent years
however, the Commission has made various attempts to meet demands
from the biotech industry to facilitate their business. One attempt
concerned the import of crops containing traces of illegal GMOs. In
2011, the Commission proposed to abandon the EU’s so-called
‘zero-tolerance policy’ regarding contamination with
non-authorised GMOs. The lobby campaign to break down this policy
was headed by animal feed lobby group FEFAC, aided by biotech
industry association EuropaBio, food companies such as Unilever, and
the food industry lobby group, FoodDrinkEurope (then called the
Confederation of Food and Drink Industries (CIAA)). They used
scaremongering tactics, claiming that this policy would cause feed
prices to soar, resulting in the starvation of the millions of
animals kept in Europe’s factory farms and a loss of
competitiveness for Europe’s meat industry. Internal FEFAC
newsletters suggested excellent access to a high-ranking DG SANCO
official.”
“On 2
March 2010 John Dalli, in one of his first acts as Health
Commissioner, gave the green light to BASF’s controversial
genetically modified Amflora potato for commercial growing in Europe.
It was the first time in 12 years that a new genetically modified
organism (GMO) was granted authorisation for cultivation in the EU.
This decision was the result of an aggressive lobbying battle by
chemical giant BASF, combined with disputed scientific advice from a
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) expert panel riddled with
conflicts of interest and positively biased towards the biotech
industry.”
“...
the Commission has been wary of putting forward GMOs in the pipeline
for cultivation approval up for vote to member states. That is, until
6 November 2013, when Dalli’s successor Tonio Borg sent a
proposal – with major legal gaps – to national ministers to
decide about the cultivation of Pioneer’s 1507 maize in Europe’s
fields. This maize is not only herbicide-tolerant but also produces
various Bt-toxins (insecticides). Since it produces its own
insecticides, it could pose risks to butterflies and moths and there
has been no research on its impacts to other beneficial insects such
as bees and other pollinators. Finally in February 2014, an
extraordinary vote took place in which 19 countries voted against the
maize, five voted in favour, and the rest abstained. But even this
massive show of rejection did not deliver a ‘qualified majority’
against approval, and the Commission stubbornly insisted it had to
approve the maize. The rumour goes that the Commission will not
officially approve the GM maize until after the EU elections to avoid
public upheaval.”
“In
early 2012, DG Environment finally published the report on EDCs,
which included a broad definition of endocrine disruptors, and
started bringing together numerous experts from member states,
associations, industry and public research centres. But in came DG
SANCO, taking many by surprise when it suddenly announced in autumn
2012 that it had tasked EFSA with forming a scientific opinion on
endocrine disruptors, effectively creating a parallel process. It
was revealed in Le Monde that more than half of the members of the
EFSA working group formed for the purpose had conflicts of interest,
many of them with industry think-tank ILSI (International Life
Science Institute). The Commission Secretary General Catherine Day
added insult to injury in July 2013, when she required an economic
impact assessment of the setting of criteria to define endocrine
disruptors.”
“...
industry has moreover managed to buy the time it needed to benefit
from the deregulation, free trade dynamic offered by the EU-US trade
talks. The chemicals and pesticides industries are putting strong
pressure on the negotiators to halt any action taken on endocrine
disruptors by the EU as it would ‘distort trade’ between the two
blocks.”
Related:
Totally dominant lobbies in a downgraded Europe – (part 6)
Totally dominant lobbies in a downgraded Europe – (part 7)
Totally dominant lobbies in a downgraded Europe – (part 8)
Totally dominant lobbies in a downgraded Europe – (part 9)
Juncker-Verhofstadt:
Lobbies and groups of interests in the EU are unavoidable!Totally dominant lobbies in a downgraded Europe – (part 7)
Totally dominant lobbies in a downgraded Europe – (part 8)
Totally dominant lobbies in a downgraded Europe – (part 9)
Comments
Post a Comment