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

EU trade secrets directive threat to health, environment, free speech and worker mobility

Multi-sectoral NGO coalition calls for greater protections for consumers, journalists, whistleblowers, researchers and workers

A new draft EU directive currently looked at by the European Parliament wants to protect companies' "trade secrets", but uses definitions so large and exceptions so weak that it could seriously endanger the work of journalists, whistle-blowers, unionists and researchers as well as severely limiting corporate accountability and the transparency of corporate data used for regulation. We publish a joint statement together with many other groups for the directive to be radically amended (main text is copied below).

We strongly oppose the hasty push by the European Commission and Council for a new European Union (EU) directive on trade secrets because it contains:

  • An unreasonably broad definition of “trade secrets” that enables almost anything within a company to be deemed as such;
  • Overly-broad protection for companies, which could sue anyone who “unlawfully acquires, uses or discloses” their so-called “trade secrets”; and
  • Inadequate safeguards that will not ensure that EU consumers,  journalists, whistleblowers, researchers and workers have reliable access to important data that is in the public interest.

Contrary to the Commission’s goals, this unbalanced piece of legislation would result in legal uncertainty. Unless radically amended by the Council and European Parliament, the proposed directive could endanger freedom of expression and information, corporate accountability, information sharing—possibly even innovation—in the EU.

Specifically, we share great concern that under the draft directive:

Companies in the health, environment and food safety fields could refuse compliance with transparency policies even when the public interest is at stake

  Health: Pharmaceutical companies argue that all aspects of clinical development should be considered a trade secret. Access to biomedical research data by regulatory authorities, researchers, doctors and patients—particularly data on drug efficacy and adverse drug reactions—is critical, however, for protecting patient safety and conducting further research and independent analyses. This information also prevents scarce public resources from being spent on therapies that are no better than existing treatments, do not work, or do more harm than good. Moreover, disclosure of pharmaceutical research is needed to avoid unethical repetition of clinical trials on people. The proposed directive should not obstruct recent EU developments to increase sharing and transparency of this data.

  Environment: Trade secret protection can be used to refuse the release of information on hazardous products within the chemical industry. Trade secret protection may, for example, be invoked by companies to hide information on chemicals in plastics, clothing, cleaning products and other items that can cause severe damage to the environment and human health. They could also use the directive to refuse disclosing information on the dumping of chemicals, including fracking fluids, or releasing toxins into the air.

  Food safety: Under EU law, all food products, genetically modified organisms and pesticides are regulated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Toxicological studies that the EFSA relies on to assess the risks associated with these products are, however, performed by manufacturers themselves.1 Scientific scrutiny of the EFSA's assessments is only possible with complete access to these studies. Companies argue, though, that this information contains confidential business information and strongly oppose its disclosure.2 It is essential that the risk assessment work of public bodies is properly monitored by the scientific community. All data that these public bodies use must therefore be exempt from the scope of the directive.

The right to freedom of expression and information could be seriously harmed
Under the proposed directive, whistleblowers can use undisclosed information to reveal misconduct or wrongdoing, but only if “...the alleged acquisition, use or disclosure of the trade secret was necessary for such revelation and that the respondent acted in the public interest”. Unfortunately, though, determining whether disclosure was necessary can often only be evaluated afterwards. In addition, it remains unclear whether many types of information (e.g., plans to terminate numerous employees) qualify as “misconduct” or “wrongdoing”. This creates legal uncertainty for journalists, particularly those who specialise in economic investigations, and whistleblowers.

The mobility of EU workers could be undermined
The proposed directive poses a danger of lock-in effects for workers. It could create situations where an employee will avoid jobs in the same field as his/her former employer, rather than risking not being able to use his/her own skills and competences, and being liable for damages. This inhibits one’s career development, as well as professional and geographical mobility in the labour market.

In addition, despite the Commission’s desire for a “magic bullet” that will keep Europe in the innovation game, closed-door trade secret protection may make it more difficult for the EU to engage in promising open and collaborative forms of research. In fact, there is a risk that the measures and remedies provided in this directive will undermine legitimate competition—even facilitate anti-competitive behaviour.

Unsurprisingly, the text is strongly supported by multinational companies. In fact, industry coalitions in the EU and the United States (US) are lobbying, through a unified Trade Secrets Coalition, for the adoption of trade secret protection.3 In the US, two new bills are pending before Congress.4 If passed, these texts would allow trade secret protection to be included in the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)—something that will be incredibly difficult to repeal in the future through democratic processes.5 Given that TTIP is expected to set a new global standard, its potential inclusion of trade secret protection is particularly worrisome.

We urge the Council and the European Parliament to radically amend the directive. This includes limiting the definition of what constitutes a trade secret and strengthening safeguards and exceptions to ensure that data in the public interest cannot be protected as trade secrets. The right to freely use and disseminate information should be the rule, and trade secret protection the exception.

(For comments and additional information, please check the joint statement for contact details.)

Image: Charlie Barker, #8, some rights reserved

  • 1. One of the EFSA’s most interesting objectives is to make its scientific opinions "reproducible" by others, a key validation criteria in scientific methodology.
  • 2. The EFSA has recently launched a Transparency Initiative to improve its credibility, and is considering providing independent scientists with access to this data. For more information see:
    http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/consultationsclosed/call/140717.htm. Unfortunately, this objective has been strongly criticised by the manufacturing industries (chemical, pesticide, seed, biotech, and additives), which argue that this toxicological data contain “confidential business information” that “should be protected from all disclosures and misuse at all times”. These industries openly threatened the EFSA with legal action should the Authority decide to publish this data. The EFSA would probably have a solid legal defense for such action because ensuring food safety serves as a strong justification. But this situation may change if the current directive on trade secrets covers such essential data.
  • 3. In the EU, a so-called “Trade Secrets & Innovation Coalition” is pushing for this directive. This coalition is even
    registered in the EU Transparency register under this name, see:
    http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/displaylobb.... This coalition includes Alstom, DuPont de Nemours, General Electric, Intel, Michelin, Air Liquide, Nestlé and Safran, who work together with the pharmaceutical and the chemical industries (see also http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/07/16/industry-
    groups-press-for-eu-us-action-on-trade-secret-protection).
  • 4. House Bill: Trade Secrets Protection Act of 2014 (H.R. 5233) -- https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5233 and Senate Bill: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2014 (S. 2267)-- https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2267/text.
  • 5. The US has made no secret of its explicit wish for strong language on trade secret protection in this agreement: see also http://transatlantic.sais-jhu.edu/publications/CRS_TTIP_report_Feb_2014.pdf, p 35.
We strongly oppose the hasty push by the European Commission and Council for a new European Union (EU) directive on trade secrets because it contains:An unreasonably broad definition of “trade secrets” that enables almost anything within a company to be deemed as such;Overly-broad protection for companies, which could sue anyone who “unlawfully acquires, uses or discloses” their so-called “trade secrets”; andInadequate safeguards that will not ensure that EU consumers,  journalists, whistleblowers, researchers and workers have reliable access to important data that is in the public interest.Contrary to the Commission’s goals, this unbalanced piece of legislation would result in legal uncertainty. Unless radically amended by the Council and European Parliament, the proposed directive could endanger freedom of expression and information, corporate accountability, information sharing—possibly even innovation—in the EU.Specifically, we share great concern that under the draft directive:Companies in the health, environment and food safety fields could refuse compliance with transparency policies even when the public interest is at stake  Health: Pharmaceutical companies argue that all aspects of clinical development should be considered a trade secret. Access to biomedical research data by regulatory authorities, researchers, doctors and patients—particularly data on drug efficacy and adverse drug reactions—is critical, however, for protecting patient safety and conducting further research and independent analyses. This information also prevents scarce public resources from being spent on therapies that are no better than existing treatments, do not work, or do more harm than good. Moreover, disclosure of pharmaceutical research is needed to avoid unethical repetition of clinical trials on people. The proposed directive should not obstruct recent EU developments to increase sharing and transparency of this data.  Environment: Trade secret protection can be used to refuse the release of information on hazardous products within the chemical industry. Trade secret protection may, for example, be invoked by companies to hide information on chemicals in plastics, clothing, cleaning products and other items that can cause severe damage to the environment and human health. They could also use the directive to refuse disclosing information on the dumping of chemicals, including fracking fluids, or releasing toxins into the air.  Food safety: Under EU law, all food products, genetically modified organisms and pesticides are regulated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Toxicological studies that the EFSA relies on to assess the risks associated with these products are, however, performed by manufacturers themselves.1 Scientific scrutiny of the EFSA's assessments is only possible with complete access to these studies. Companies argue, though, that this information contains confidential business information and strongly oppose its disclosure.2 It is essential that the risk assessment work of public bodies is properly monitored by the scientific community. All data that these public bodies use must therefore be exempt from the scope of the directive.The right to freedom of expression and information could be seriously harmedUnder the proposed directive, whistleblowers can use undisclosed information to reveal misconduct or wrongdoing, but only if “...the alleged acquisition, use or disclosure of the trade secret was necessary for such revelation and that the respondent acted in the public interest”. Unfortunately, though, determining whether disclosure was necessary can often only be evaluated afterwards. In addition, it remains unclear whether many types of information (e.g., plans to terminate numerous employees) qualify as “misconduct” or “wrongdoing”. This creates legal uncertainty for journalists, particularly those who specialise in economic investigations, and whistleblowers.The mobility of EU workers could be underminedThe proposed directive poses a danger of lock-in effects for workers. It could create situations where an employee will avoid jobs in the same field as his/her former employer, rather than risking not being able to use his/her own skills and competences, and being liable for damages. This inhibits one’s career development, as well as professional and geographical mobility in the labour market.In addition, despite the Commission’s desire for a “magic bullet” that will keep Europe in the innovation game, closed-door trade secret protection may make it more difficult for the EU to engage in promising open and collaborative forms of research. In fact, there is a risk that the measures and remedies provided in this directive will undermine legitimate competition—even facilitate anti-competitive behaviour.Unsurprisingly, the text is strongly supported by multinational companies. In fact, industry coalitions in the EU and the United States (US) are lobbying, through a unified Trade Secrets Coalition, for the adoption of trade secret protection.3 In the US, two new bills are pending before Congress.4 If passed, these texts would allow trade secret protection to be included in the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)—something that will be incredibly difficult to repeal in the future through democratic processes.5 Given that TTIP is expected to set a new global standard, its potential inclusion of trade secret protection is particularly worrisome.We urge the Council and the European Parliament to radically amend the directive. This includes limiting the definition of what constitutes a trade secret and strengthening safeguards and exceptions to ensure that data in the public interest cannot be protected as trade secrets. The right to freely use and disseminate information should be the rule, and trade secret protection the exception.(For comments and additional information, please check the joint statement for contact details.)Image: Charlie Barker, #8, some rights reserved 1. One of the EFSA’s most interesting objectives is to make its scientific opinions "reproducible" by others, a key validation criteria in scientific methodology. 2. The EFSA has recently launched a Transparency Initiative to improve its credibility, and is considering providing independent scientists with access to this data. For more information see:http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/consultationsclosed/call/140717.htm. Unfortunately, this objective has been strongly criticised by the manufacturing industries (chemical, pesticide, seed, biotech, and additives), which argue that this toxicological data contain “confidential business information” that “should be protected from all disclosures and misuse at all times”. These industries openly threatened the EFSA with legal action should the Authority decide to publish this data. The EFSA would probably have a solid legal defense for such action because ensuring food safety serves as a strong justification. But this situation may change if the current directive on trade secrets covers such essential data. 3. In the EU, a so-called “Trade Secrets & Innovation Coalition” is pushing for this directive. This coalition is evenregistered in the EU Transparency register under this name, see:http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/displaylobb.... This coalition includes Alstom, DuPont de Nemours, General Electric, Intel, Michelin, Air Liquide, Nestlé and Safran, who work together with the pharmaceutical and the chemical industries (see also http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/07/16/industry-groups-press-for-eu-us-action-on-trade-secret-protection). 4. House Bill: Trade Secrets Protection Act of 2014 (H.R. 5233) -- https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5233 and Senate Bill: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2014 (S. 2267)-- https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2267/text. 5. The US has made no secret of its explicit wish for strong language on trade secret protection in this agreement: see also http://transatlantic.sais-jhu.edu/publications/CRS_TTIP_report_Feb_2014.pdf, p 35.
Tag: 
 

Comments

Submitted by Sandra v. Linge... (not verified) on

Dear Sir or Madam,

On behalf of the Presidents of the German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR) and the German Group of the Association pour la Protection de la Propriété Intellectuelle (AIPPI), I am pleased to invite you to the upcoming GRUR-AIPPI Joint Brussels Workshop on "The proposed EU framework for protection of trade secrets - state of play and future challenges" to be held on 1 April 2015 in Brussels.

If you wish to attend, please view the programme and register online at www.grur.org/jointbrusselsworkshop2015 .

We look forward to welcoming you or (a) representative(s) of your Association to this event and remain at your disposal for any questions you may have.

Kind regards,

Sandra von Lingen
Manager Legal & International Affairs

German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR)
GRUR Head Office

Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 11 (RheinAtrium)
D-50668 Köln, Germany
Phone:+49 (0)221- 650 65-155
Fax:+49 (0)221- 650 65-205
E-Mails.vonlingen@grur.org
http://www.grur.org

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 proposal on scientific criteria defining endocrine disruptors (EDCs) is the latest dangerous outgrowth of a highly toxic debate. The chemical lobby, supported by certain Commission factions (notably DG SANTE and the Secretary-General) and some member states (UK and Germany), has put significant obstacles in the way of effective public health and environment regulation.

In the run up to the UK referendum on EU membership on 23 June, Corporate Europe Observatory has tabled a series of freedom of information requests to find out how UK finance lobbies have been influencing the referendum negotiations and the Capital Markets Union. But the Brexit-Bremain referendum seems to be a freedom of information black hole.

From the day a referendum on UK membership of the EU was first announced in 2013, the financial sector started using Cameron’s re-negotiation process to promote its deregulatory agenda. Sometimes lobbying was required, but more often the UK government did its work for them. 

A new report on carbon market reform has kicked off debate on the issue in the European Parliament. It promises new loopholes for the oil industry and other polluters.

The official EU assessment of glyphosate was based on unpublished studies owned by industry. Seven months later, the pesticide industry still fights disclosure and, so far, successfully. We obtained a copy of their arguments.

While CEO is not taking a position on the UK referendum, many of our publications are relevant to those who will have a vote, or those who are following the debate.

Biodiversity collapse, the future of agriculture, politics versus science, EU States and the European Commission shifting blame on each other, industry's capture of the regulatory process through data secrecy, a Commissioner caught between Juncker, EU States, lobby groups, and his own services... The glyphosate saga, coming to the end of its first phase tomorrow, has been an entry point into many broader problems. Overview.

The European Commission proposal on scientific criteria defining endocrine disruptors (EDCs) is the latest dangerous outgrowth of a highly toxic debate. The chemical lobby, supported by certain Commission factions (notably DG SANTE and the Secretary-General) and some member states (UK and Germany), has put significant obstacles in the way of effective public health and environment regulation.

The corporate lobby tour