Corporate Europe Observatory

Exposing the power of corporate lobbying in the EU

  • Dansk
  • NL
  • EN
  • FI
  • FR
  • DE
  • EL
  • IT
  • NO
  • PL
  • PT
  • RO
  • SL
  • ES
  • SV

A Trojan … Bee? Front group for BASF co-organise event at the Parliament on ‘bees and biodiversity’

In the build-up to Rio+20, the European Parliament played host to the “first ever European Week of the Bee and Pollination” from 3 to 6 June. Events included a high-profile conference inside the European Parliament and a large flower garden in front of the Parliament building. The conference in the Parliament was hosted by conservative MEP Gaston Franco, and held under the patronage of Commissioner Potocnik. It even featured ‘honey tasting with beekeepers’.

Both events prominently carried the logos of the UNEP and the ‘Bees Biodiversity Network’. The conference invitation also featured the logo of German agrochemical giant BASF. But what it did not show, is that the Bees Biodiversity Network itself is operating closely in tandem with BASF, that has created and supported the network’s website.

BASF as a pesticide company has a great interest in sustained use of pesticides. Insecticides are of course in particular harmful for insects. BASF product fipronil (trade name Regent) was banned in 2004 by the French government for its harmful impact on bees. Even till years later, BASF kept promoting the use of Regent in particular together with other insecticides called neonicotinoids. In a 2008 publication “The Science behind Seed Treatments’, BASF’s Craig Lindholm boasts that BASF’s insecticide “gives you the best below ground insect control” especially when used in ‘synergy’ with neonicotinoids.

Neonicotinoids are now shown to be very toxic to bees. Primary producer of these insect killers is Bayer with its product imidacloprid being sold under many different trade names such as Admire, Advantage, Gaucho and Winner. Syngenta’s insecticide Cruiser also belongs to this category. Imidacloprid has been banned by the French governement in 1999 for use on sunflower seeds and in 2004 for maize. Two new studies published in Science this March further increased the evidence that neonicotinoids are in particular damaging to bees.

Both fipronil and neonicotinoids are insectides that are applied as seed coatings. They will then be found in the plant’s roots, leaves, stems, pollen and nectar, and that is why they are called ‘systemic’ pesticides. Bees and other pollinators are exposed to small doses of the poison every time they collect pollen or nectar from these plants.

Clearly, it is in BASF’s interest to downplay the harmful role of pesticides, and instead stress other causes such as a lack of food (which can also be attributed to industrial high input farming). And that was exactly the message of the exhibit at the European Parliament last week. BASF’s project is on the one hand a classical example of greenwash and of using front groups; but it is also a classical lobbying strategy. Now that the disastrous bee decline is getting headlines, it is crucial for the company to shift the focus of media and decision makers on one of the causes that would not substantially hurt their interests in any way. Flower edges around fields of monoculture industrial farming – what better way to cover up this farming model’s failures!

On the network’s website (www.bees-biodiversity-network.org), a search for BASF’s name does not give any results. It’s logo is absent. However, the domain name is registered by  Sandrine Leblond, a BASF employee in France. The website says that the Bees Biodiversity Network is “an NGO currently undergoing significant expansion” and that it was created in France by Philippe Lecompte, a “professional beekeeper in Champagne”. This website does not give any hint about the corporations behind it.

In France however, the network is called “Réseau Biodiversité pour les Abeilles” and has a website that gives a lot more information. It shows that the network has 250 partners, including BASF and many other seed companies and industrial agricultural cooperatives. Philippe Lecompte features in a March 2011 publication by BASF called ‘Agricultural Dialogue’. In this publication, BASF again downplays the impacts of pesticides on bees and blames any impacts on the misuse of the product by the farmers:

“According to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and long term studies in Germany and France, correlation between winter losses of honeybee colonies and high pesticide presence is rare. … BASF therefore works closely with partners to investigate the suspected pesticide impacts and eradicate human misuse of crop protection products.”

The french website of the bees network echoes this position in a blatantly misleading way: “The cohabitation of bees and pesticides is very possible. If some pesticides (insecticides) pose a threat to bees, the risk of intoxication is close to zero when used respecting the user instructions. Intoxication only happens when products are not correctly used, applied on the wrong moment or in the wrong dose”.

This statement seems highly doubtful in itself, but is very misleading precisely because these insecticides in question are often applied as seed coating, and therefore are not applied directly by the farmer. The farmer simply plants the treated seeds, after which the insecticide goes at work in the way it is meant to do by the designer of the product: it is present in the plant at all times, exposing pollinating insects to 
small quantities whenever it is feeding on the plant.

The EFSA pesticides panel (PPR panel) has recently published a new opinion on the impacts of pesticides on bees. In this opinion, based on the work of an expert working group, the panel says there are gaps in the knowledge on low dose exposure.

In France, the National Union of french beekeepers UNAF has been aware about the links between the Réseau Biodiversité pour les Abeilles and BASF. In an article in Les Echos in 2009, UNAF explains that it has been strongly attacking pesticides and their producers about bee decline and the fact that the Réseau focuses mainly on crop diversity is related to their support from BASF and other seed firms. Pierre Testu who runs the network in France justifies the BASF support as their presence would “reassure cooperatives or farmers”.

It is not the first time that BASF uses a front group to divert attention from pesticides and to greenwash their activities as protecting the bees. BASF has used the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), a veteran lobby group which brings together some 200 companies, as a platform to promote their engagement in the ‘Le Réseau Biodiversité pour les Abeilles’ as a proof of their commitment to sustainable agriculture and biodiversity protection.

Pollinators are of crucial importance to world food production and biodiversity. It is scandalous that the European Parliament allows its public space to be abused by a front group of the pesticides industry, misleadingly called the Bees Biodiversity Network. Corporate Europe Observatory has submitted a complaint to the Questors of the European Parliament, arguing that the exhibit was in fact a lopbby event intended to influence MEPs and that it failed to clarify the role of BASF.

MEP Franco’s office confirmed that Mr Franco (see here on pictures of the events inauguration) was aware about the nature of the Bees Biodiversity Network as being set up by BASF. The role of the UNEP as partner, and the fact that BASF’s ‘bees biodiversity project’ is being applauded in the run up to Rio +20, is entirely inappropriate. This partnership is one of many examples of the growing corporate capture of UN processes.

3 June, European Parliament. A large flower garden (540m2) was set up in front of the European Parliament with ‘bee- and pollinator-friendly plants and flowers’. In  bird’s-eye view, the plants formed a large, 20 metre long bee. A Trojan bee perhaps?

BASF as a pesticide company has a great interest in sustained use of pesticides. Insecticides are of course in particular harmful for insects. BASF product fipronil (trade name Regent) was banned in 2004 by the French government for its harmful impact on bees. Even till years later, BASF kept promoting the use of Regent in particular together with other insecticides called neonicotinoids. In a 2008 publication “The Science behind Seed Treatments’, BASF’s Craig Lindholm boasts that BASF’s insecticide “gives you the best below ground insect control” especially when used in ‘synergy’ with neonicotinoids.Neonicotinoids are now shown to be very toxic to bees. Primary producer of these insect killers is Bayer with its product imidacloprid being sold under many different trade names such as Admire, Advantage, Gaucho and Winner. Syngenta’s insecticide Cruiser also belongs to this category. Imidacloprid has been banned by the French governement in 1999 for use on sunflower seeds and in 2004 for maize. Two new studies published in Science this March further increased the evidence that neonicotinoids are in particular damaging to bees.Both fipronil and neonicotinoids are insectides that are applied as seed coatings. They will then be found in the plant’s roots, leaves, stems, pollen and nectar, and that is why they are called ‘systemic’ pesticides. Bees and other pollinators are exposed to small doses of the poison every time they collect pollen or nectar from these plants.Clearly, it is in BASF’s interest to downplay the harmful role of pesticides, and instead stress other causes such as a lack of food (which can also be attributed to industrial high input farming). And that was exactly the message of the exhibit at the European Parliament last week. BASF’s project is on the one hand a classical example of greenwash and of using front groups; but it is also a classical lobbying strategy. Now that the disastrous bee decline is getting headlines, it is crucial for the company to shift the focus of media and decision makers on one of the causes that would not substantially hurt their interests in any way. Flower edges around fields of monoculture industrial farming – what better way to cover up this farming model’s failures!On the network’s website (www.bees-biodiversity-network.org), a search for BASF’s name does not give any results. It’s logo is absent. However, the domain name is registered by  Sandrine Leblond, a BASF employee in France. The website says that the Bees Biodiversity Network is “an NGO currently undergoing significant expansion” and that it was created in France by Philippe Lecompte, a “professional beekeeper in Champagne”. This website does not give any hint about the corporations behind it.In France however, the network is called “Réseau Biodiversité pour les Abeilles” and has a website that gives a lot more information. It shows that the network has 250 partners, including BASF and many other seed companies and industrial agricultural cooperatives. Philippe Lecompte features in a March 2011 publication by BASF called ‘Agricultural Dialogue’. In this publication, BASF again downplays the impacts of pesticides on bees and blames any impacts on the misuse of the product by the farmers:“According to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and long term studies in Germany and France, correlation between winter losses of honeybee colonies and high pesticide presence is rare. … BASF therefore works closely with partners to investigate the suspected pesticide impacts and eradicate human misuse of crop protection products.”The french website of the bees network echoes this position in a blatantly misleading way: “The cohabitation of bees and pesticides is very possible. If some pesticides (insecticides) pose a threat to bees, the risk of intoxication is close to zero when used respecting the user instructions. Intoxication only happens when products are not correctly used, applied on the wrong moment or in the wrong dose”.This statement seems highly doubtful in itself, but is very misleading precisely because these insecticides in question are often applied as seed coating, and therefore are not applied directly by the farmer. The farmer simply plants the treated seeds, after which the insecticide goes at work in the way it is meant to do by the designer of the product: it is present in the plant at all times, exposing pollinating insects to 
small quantities whenever it is feeding on the plant.The EFSA pesticides panel (PPR panel) has recently published a new opinion on the impacts of pesticides on bees. In this opinion, based on the work of an expert working group, the panel says there are gaps in the knowledge on low dose exposure.In France, the National Union of french beekeepers UNAF has been aware about the links between the Réseau Biodiversité pour les Abeilles and BASF. In an article in Les Echos in 2009, UNAF explains that it has been strongly attacking pesticides and their producers about bee decline and the fact that the Réseau focuses mainly on crop diversity is related to their support from BASF and other seed firms. Pierre Testu who runs the network in France justifies the BASF support as their presence would “reassure cooperatives or farmers”.It is not the first time that BASF uses a front group to divert attention from pesticides and to greenwash their activities as protecting the bees. BASF has used the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), a veteran lobby group which brings together some 200 companies, as a platform to promote their engagement in the ‘Le Réseau Biodiversité pour les Abeilles’ as a proof of their commitment to sustainable agriculture and biodiversity protection.Pollinators are of crucial importance to world food production and biodiversity. It is scandalous that the European Parliament allows its public space to be abused by a front group of the pesticides industry, misleadingly called the Bees Biodiversity Network. Corporate Europe Observatory has submitted a complaint to the Questors of the European Parliament, arguing that the exhibit was in fact a lopbby event intended to influence MEPs and that it failed to clarify the role of BASF.MEP Franco’s office confirmed that Mr Franco (see here on pictures of the events inauguration) was aware about the nature of the Bees Biodiversity Network as being set up by BASF. The role of the UNEP as partner, and the fact that BASF’s ‘bees biodiversity project’ is being applauded in the run up to Rio +20, is entirely inappropriate. This partnership is one of many examples of the growing corporate capture of UN processes.3 June, European Parliament. A large flower garden (540m2) was set up in front of the European Parliament with ‘bee- and pollinator-friendly plants and flowers’. In  bird’s-eye view, the plants formed a large, 20 metre long bee. A Trojan bee perhaps?
 

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

The European Commission has shelved a legal opinion confirming that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) produced through gene-editing and other new techniques fall under EU GMO law, following pressure from the US government. A series of internal Commission documents obtained under freedom of information rules reveal intense lobbying by US representatives for the EU to disregard its GMO rules, which require safety testing and labelling.

The EU Food Safety Authority refuses to disclose new Director's Declaration of Interests and its own assessment of this person's interests.

Companies who make the pesticide glyphosate refuse to disclose key scientific evidence about its possible risks in the name of trade secrets protection. CEO appeals to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to disclose all the possible original elements of three key scientific studies it used in assessing glyphosate as “unlikely” to cause cancer to humans. We also call MEPs to reject the Trade Secrets Directive in the April 2016 plenary vote on the final text.

Food safety, the environment, and consumer choice are at stake, as biotech industry lobbyists pressure decision makers to deregulate a new generation of genetic engineering techniques ahead of a crucial European Commission decision in February.

Corporate Europe Observatory is looking for an experienced campaigner to join our team and strengthen our work on exposing and challenging corporate lobbying capture of EU decision-making. Please respond before Wednesday May 18th 2016. The position is based in Brussels, in our office in the Mundo-B building in Brussels. Starting date July 1st 2016 (a later start date can be discussed).

You would be part of the 'lobbyocracy' team within CEO, covering issues including the corporate capture of advisory groups, lobbying secrecy, etc.

Splits occur within European Commission, as European Parliament, Ombudsman and NGOs increase the pressure for implementing UN rules for contacts with tobacco industry lobbyists.

The European Commission has shelved a legal opinion confirming that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) produced through gene-editing and other new techniques fall under EU GMO law, following pressure from the US government. A series of internal Commission documents obtained under freedom of information rules reveal intense lobbying by US representatives for the EU to disregard its GMO rules, which require safety testing and labelling.

It's make or break for the European Commission's advisory groups, known formally as Expert Groups. First Vice President Frans Timmermans, the man in charge of transparency, plans to bring out new horizontal rules to make the groups more balanced and more accountable in a matter of weeks, but will he listen to the concerns of the public?

The corporate lobby tour

Stop the Crop

Alternative Trade Mandate