How do agribusiness corporations impact decisions on our food system?
Beneath the Glyphosate headlines, a crucial battle for the future of EU pesticide approvals
In the last days before a key vote by EU national governements on glyphosate, the pesticides industry and its allies are waging a dirty battle to destroy the reputation of the International Agency for Research Against Cancer (IARC). One scientist in particular, Dr C. Portier, whose work exposed many flaws and limitations in the risk assessment of glyphosate performed by EU agencies, is the target of their attacks. This analysis tries to dispell the lies from the facts.
Pesticide lobby groups and national farmer unions been doing some last-minute lobbying ahead of the European Parliament hearing on the Monsanto Papers.
The pesticide industry had advance access to the European Food Safety Authority’s safety assessment of glyphosate, new CEO research shows. Shortly before the agency revealed its 2015 safety assessment for the world’s most widely-used herbicide, industry representatives were asked to file redaction requests and were even able to edit the documents at the very last minute.
Jess Rowlands, a US expert exposed in the "Monsanto Papers" in a possible collusion with Monsanto, intervened in EFSA's glyphosate assessment, providing information which comforted EFSA in its decision to discard the conclusions of a key study showing cancer in mice exposed to glyphosate. Following the revelation, EFSA told the press and civil society that it had double-checked Rowlands' information. But when requested by CEO to prove it had actually performed these double-checks, EFSA had nothing to show.
After many years of criticism and a very long drafting process, EFSA has finally adopted and published its new independence policy. But does it solve the problems it needs to solve? A lot remains unclear. Here is our first analysis.
Some of the world’s biggest companies producing chemicals for agricultural use, such as Bayer and Monsanto, are gearing up to join forces through mergers. This article exposes how the European Commission has consolidated its pro-merger track record over the past decades.
Nearly half (46%) of all experts sitting on the scientific panels of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) still are in a direct and/ or indirect financial conflict of interest situation with the agribusiness and food industries. EFSA's Management Board is to adopt new independence rules on 21 June 2017, but the draft policy is not sufficient despite repeated criticism from the European Parliament. The report concludes with recommendations for improvements.
At CEO, we are exposing how corporate lobby groups impact EU decisions on food and agriculture, and we are campaigning against their damaging influence on EU decisions. We’re asking for your financial support to continue and develop this work: producing in-depth research and campaigning is costly, and the best way to guarantee our independence is with donations from our readers and supporters. Any amount large or small will make a difference to our work!
Major news on the glyphosate front: the first ever independent analysis of the complete confidential data set sent by industry to the EU for the re-licensing of glyphosate, enabled by an exceptional disclosure, shows possible serious omissions in EFSA and ECHA's safety assessment. It is high time the complete data set is published in full to enable full scrutiny by the scientific community.
Six reasons why a Bayer-Monsanto merger would pose a grave danger to the planet and people worldwide.
Glyphosate specialists consulted by CEO argue that EFSA’s data disclosure to CEO could in principle allow limited scrutiny on the agency's glyphosate assessment work, and some insights, but in practice the data is very difficult to handle and cannot be used for publication, making it impossible for scientists to use.
We are a small team that works fully independently of funding from EU
institutions and corporations.
Every single donation helps us fight the hold of Big Business over the EU.