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

Global opposition to 'responsible' soy

Friends of the Earth International / Corporate Europe Observatory Media Advisory BRUSSELS (BELGIUM), 8 June 2010 – A proposed new label for ‘responsible’ soy will not stop deforestation, 235 civil society groups from across the globe warned in a letter today, ahead of a conference set to finalise the labeling scheme in Sao Paulo, Brazil. [1] The 235 groups, including Friends of the Earth International and Corporate Europe Observatory, have written to oppose the Round Table for Responsible Soy (RTRS) certification scheme, which they say could facilitate soy oil being used to meet the EU target for biofuels. This is despite evidence that soy biodiesel is worse for climate emissions than fossil fuels. [2] The scheme will also label genetically modified (GM) soy as ‘responsible’, despite growing evidence of its risks to human health and the environment. GM Soy resistant to the herbicide glyphosate is increasing the use of other dangerous chemicals as weeds develop resistance to glyphosate. [3] These chemicals have had devastating impacts on local communities in South America. The spread of soy has also led to violent evictions of small farmers [4]. The RTRS label has also been rejected by major players in the Brazilian soy industry, such as ABIOVE and APROSOJA, who are reluctant to sign up to even weak rules on preventing deforestation. [5] Kirtana Chandrasekaran from Friends of the Earth International said: “This scheme is a farce – it will brand genetically modified soy grown on deforested land as responsible. Companies that use it will just anger civil society and consumers in Europe and South America who are demanding GM-free food and genuine solutions to deforestation and climate change.” Vast tracts of tropical forest and grasslands are being destroyed every year in South America due to large scale soy production for animal feeds and biofuels in Europe [6]. In Europe factory farming relies on cheap soy imports for animal feed , causing pollution, health impacts and loss of rural livelihoods. Soy is also imported for use as biofuel. Kirtana Chandrasekaran added: “Rather than giving a 'responsible' label to an irresponsible product, we must overhaul factory farming in Europe. This would be good news for farmers, consumers and the environment and will reduce Europe’s global footprint. We need action to do this, not a green scam.” Nina Holland from the Brussels-based Corporate Europe Observatory said: “In South America communities are fighting against soy expansion that takes ever more land and resources. Only corporations such as Monsanto and Cargill stand to benefit from industrial soy production and they are also the predominant force behind this greenwashing label.” Friends of the Earth Europe and International and Corporate Europe Observatory and 235 other organisations are calling for: • phasing out industrial plantations of soy and instead promoting agro-ecological farming systems of local crops • genuine land reforms and land rights in soy producing countries • reducing overconsumption and waste in the industrialised world • abandoning intensive meat, dairy and egg production systems and moving towards low-input livestock systems • stopping the promotion of agrofuel production as a climate solution for rich countries and instead developing better transport systems that reduce demand for energy and fuel. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: In English Kirtana Chandrasekaran, FoEI Food Sovereignty Program Co-coordinator Tel: +44 (0) 20 7566 1669 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +44 (0) 20 7566 1669      end_of_the_skype_highlighting and +44 (0) 79619 86956 Nina Holland , Corporate Europe Observatory Tel: tel: +31 630 285 042 NOTES: [1] According to the RTRS principles agreed previously, “responsible” soy can be grown on land that has been deforested as recently as May 2009. “Responsible” soy can even be grown on land that will be deforested in the future. See www.responsiblesoy.org [2] The RTRS is trying to gain accreditation under the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED) that contains the widely opposed 10% agrofuel target. However recent research from the European Commission showed that soy biofuels can cause 4 times more emissions than fossil fuels. See “Soy production and certification: the case of Argentinean soy-based biodiesel”, Tomei, Semino et al, 2010. [2] For further information on the impacts of the RTRS and the full list of 235 signatories, see: http://www.corporateeurope.org/agribusiness/content/2010/06/open-letter-... [3] Figures from the United States Department of Agriculture show that 26% more pesticides are used on GM crops compared to conventional crops. In Brazil glyphosate use has increased almost 80% in the years of planting. See http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2008/Feb13_GM_crops_pesticide_poverty.html [4] For more information on the environmental and social impacts of soy please see: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/livestock_impacts.pdf [5] ABIOVE - representing 72 percent of Brazil's soybean processing volume and APROSOJA which represents soy producers from Mato Grosso state - responsible for around 30 percent of national production in Brazil - have turned their backs on the RTRS due to disagreements on the inclusion of even the very weak deforestation clause see http://www.nevedi.nl/UserFiles/File/ABIOVE%20uit%20RTRS.pdf [6] The EU uses over 16 million hectares of farmland every year, mostly from South America, to feed its livestock and increasingly to fuel its cars See http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/livestock_impacts.pdf
Related issues: 
 

This week's European Commission decision to extend Glyphosate's market authorisation points to many broader problems - here is a CEO overview of the issues at large.

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.

In recent times we have seen various examples of green activists “coming out” as GMO-proponents, arguing that GMOs are safe and have multiple benefits: reduced pesticide use, higher income for farmers, contributing to food security, reduced greenhouse gas emissions... As an essential part of their discourse, organisations that continue to reject GMO technology are depicted as old-fashioned and as acting in contradiction to their own aims.

Mark Lynas is a well known example of this in the UK, with an (in)famous public apology for his past role in the anti-GM movement that drew a lot of media attention. Lynas' move has been copied by others, like blogger Stijn Bruers in Belgium. This framing of the GMO debate has proven quite attractive to the media, even though it is not always clear why specifically these people are seen to have the credentials to merit this attention.

There are many fundamental flaws in the argumentation they are putting forward. Claire Robinson of GMWatch, at the request of Corporate Europe Observatory, has written a rebuttal of many of the claims made by these newly converted GMO proponents. For practical reasons, this rebuttal follows the argumentation and claims made in an article by Bruers on his blog about GMOs .

On 15 June 2016, the Commission will finally announce the long-awaited scientific criteria for EDCs. Time to do a recap of this last season’s main episodes.

A few weeks after the May coup against Dilma Rousseff by conservative parties backed by the country's largest corporations, Brazil's “interim” government, led by Michel Temer, signed an emergency loan to the State of Rio de Janeiro to help finance infrastructure for the 2016 Olympics. The bailout was conditional to selling off the State's public water supply and sanitation company, the Companhia Estadual de Águas e Esgotos (Cedae). 

When we interviewed City Councillor and chair of Rio’s Special Committee on the Water Crisis Renato Cinco, in December 2015, he was already warning against such privatisation threats and provided important background information on the water situation in Rio.

Corporate Europe Observatory's new report 'A spoonful of sugar' illustrates how the sugar lobby undermines existing laws and fights off much-needed measures that are vital for tackling Europe’s looming obesity crisis.

José Manuel Barroso's move to Goldman Sachs has catapulted the EU’s revolving door problem onto the political agenda. It is symbolic of the excessive corporate influence at the highest levels of the EU.

Corporate Europe Observatory, Friends of the Earth and LobbyControl today wrote to Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament, calling on him to investigate Angelika Nieber MEP over a possible conflict of interest.

 
 
 
 
 
-- placeholder --
 
 
 

The corporate lobby tour