Blog Posts: Europe

By Eve Mitchell, Food & Water Europe

Click to see a larger image.

Watching UK’s National Farmers Union (NFU) President Peter Kendall testify to the UK Parliamentary Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ inquiry into horse meat contamination of the EU beef supply on March 5, I was struck again by the inconsistencies in the NFU approach when it comes to GM animal feed.

I have three questions for the NFU:

1) In his testimony, Mr. Kendall repeated the position that short supply chains are the answer to predictable control of our meat supply and regaining consumer confidence. How does this tally with the repeated insistence that UK livestock farmers need industrial GM feed from the Americas traded through complex international commodity markets?

Much is made about the allegedly dwindling availability of non-GM soy (known in the UK as soya), but the non-GM soya industry itself paints a rather different picture. On February 26, Augusto Freire, Managing Director of Cert-ID (a company certifying non-GM soya supplies), said, “20-25% of Brazilian soybean production is free from genetic modification for the 2012/13 crop. China’s and India’s soy production is 100% Non-GMO….Estimates for 2013 are strongly up compared to earlier years due to adoption of the CERT ID and ProTerra [non-GM certification] programs by new operators in Brazil, as well as increased demand in Europe.”

In the current climate, before supply and demand reduce the cost of non-GM feed, it may well be a bit more expensive per tonne, but according to our calculations if non-GM feed costs an extra £14/tonne (about $21.00), this works out to be a mere 3p/dozen eggs (about 5 cents). Mr. Kendall asks, “Are we going to produce chickens in this country that are non-GM, but buy them in from Asia because they are 20% cheaper and they are fed on GM [feed]?” Is he perhaps confusing feed costs with the poor animal husbandry that keeps meat from many non-European factory farms cheap?

We also need to be careful in working out how much animal feed is actually GM – any amount of GM feed comingled with an otherwise non-GM shipment means the entire quantity, and all subsequent feed bags, are labelled GM. This does not mean that feed is anything like 100% GM, and in fact the bulk of any animal feed is probably non-GM.

2) If, as Mr. Kendall says, UK farmers need “confidence” in the market to invest and improve UK beef production levels, why does this logic not apply to the farmers in Brazil already growing non-GM soya but unable to risk the costs of certification without confirmed advance orders from the EU to ensure they gets a return?

Augusto Freire notes, “An additional volume of Brazilian soy meal representing 1.5 million metric tonnes of soybeans could have been certified [as non-GM] if EU buyers had expressed their demand early in the year.” The non-GM soya is there, and more can be grown, we just need to say we want it. It’s not hard.

Consumer demand should boost confidence enough to take this step. A 2010 GfK/NOP poll showed fewer than 40% of supermarket shoppers were aware that imported GM animal feed fuels British factory farming, and 89% wanted these products to be clearly labelled. In January of this year the UK Food Standards Agency published research showing again that two-thirds of respondents want all use of GM feed to be labelled. Even among those undecided about GM food and crops respondents felt “some form of labelling should be in place to help them determine GM content and avoid choosing foods containing GM if they so wish”. Overall there is a clear indication this need to identify GM use applies to animal products in particular. People don’t want GM feed in the food chain, and they want clear labels to help them see where it is – or isn’t.

3) I completely agree that there is, as Mr. Kendall told the Committee, “too much focus on price” in the food industry. If this is the case, why are industrial crops feeding industrial megafarm production to produce cheap meat worthy of such vocal support?

True, there are vested interests on both sides of the discussion, and there are rumours that Indian soya is less desirable than Brazilian. Overall we’d be far better off moving away from the industrial meat model. Yet this does not explain why supermarkets can’t do their part in delivering what the market demands now by placing clear orders for non-GM soya (or non-GM fed products) to give Brazilian farmers the confidence they need to grow and certify non-GM crops. The NFU position invokes the market, but goes directly against the basics of supply and demand. The more non-GM feed is demanded, the more will be supplied, and the costs will come down—unless vested interests interfere with the market. Large supermarkets and dairies in other parts of Europe seem to be able to manage it, so it is very difficult to see why the UK is different.

Mr. Kendall told the NFU 2013 conference, “Today I want to talk about a pact with the great British consumer to get things changed…We now need supermarkets to stop scouring the world for the cheapest products they can find and start sourcing high quality, traceable, product from farmers here at home…That may mean more dedicated supply groups. It will certainly mean longer-term thinking and a shorter supply chain.” We agree, and we’re here to help.

Mr. Kendall, if you truly “Do not want food safety and standards to be politicised,” as you told the Committee, why do you say GM skepticism is “directly comparable to Nazi book-burning in the 1930’s”? Why do you not support your members in providing what the market clearly wants?

The situation with regard to GM animal feed looks increasingly like lucrative supply lines controlled by shippers and importers, not farmers, attempting to force an end to non-GM supplies on an unwilling market. The NFU position, which wedges farmers uncomfortably between their market and these vested interests, remains very difficult to understand. The sooner the NFU applies the logic it uses in the meat chain to the feed chain, the sooner consumers will begin to regain confidence in our food.

Mr. Kendall also told your 2013 conference consumers should demand answers from the people they buy from. We agree European consumers can and should get what they want.

This action is a good first step.

The 2013 World Social Forum will be held this March 26-30 in Tunisia, where only two years ago, a revolution began and resulted into a historic change that created a ripple effect across the region. Now, Tunisia is an inspiration to movements both old and new, across the globe.

Food & Water Watch and Food & Water Europe are busy getting ready to participate in the World Social Forum on water, fracking and food sovereignty issues. As a coordinator of the European Water Movement, our main aim is to build up links with local and regional groups and set up a Euro-Mediterranean Alliance for Water to facilitate the exchange of experience and information. Many North African countries are currently facing the same problems we have in Europe namely with the threat of privatization of water services and unconventional energy sourcing projects such as hydraulic fracturation. The same private water companies and energy companies are trying to push through projects in the North African region which have been met with resistance by civil society in Europe. Read the full article…

Food & Water Europe has joined a growing group of civil society organisations in calling on the EU to abolish its Emission Trading System (ETS) to open space for truly effective climate policies.

More than 90 organisations from around the world launched this campaign called Time to Scrap the ETS with a declaration that lists the structural flaws of the ETS and the risks of trying to fix it.

Why are we supporting it?

The EU’s main policy to address climate change has taken attention away from the need to transform our dependency on fossil fuels and growing consumption. High prices were supposed to curb carbon emissions in the EU, instead prices have been very volatile and have been on a constant downward spiral since early 2011. Now that prices have dropped to less than 2.81€ per tonne, it is clear that this is not a solution to decreasing emissions and that it is time to make a new space for effective and fair climate policies.

Cap and trade policies have not been proven to work, they rely on unverifiable offsets and permit allocation schemes that benefit companies which are already polluting. The EU ETS is also being carried out at great public expense. European citizens are already going through austerity measures in a time of financial crisis and are being forced to bear the cost of running the ETS, including legislation, regulation and much of the quantification of emissions that carbon markets require. Read the full article…

By Eve Mitchell

If we’ve learned anything in the past few weeks, it must be that the UK Food Standards Agency’s “If you tell us it’s there, we’ll look for it” approach is not a recipe for food safety.

As far as we can tell now the situation is that Irish authorities, almost by accident when trialling a new protocol, found a good deal of horsemeat in foods processed in Irish facilities, including for export. This led to widespread product recalls, more testing in Ireland and the UK and rapid assurances all round that everything was under control.

Further testing revealed even more adulterated meat, including products labelled beef that tested at 100% horsemeat. The wider the net is cast, the bigger the problem is revealed to be, and it is all too clear we are nowhere near understanding what we have been feeding our kids quite yet. If this is “under control,” we’re in trouble.

Today’s revelation is that horsemeat from the UK exported to France into the human food chain, quite possibly for processing and re-entry to the UK, contained the veterinary drug phenylbutazone, often called Bute, which is unsafe for human consumption. There are now two very serious issues at play: 1) criminality in labelling due to what has all the hallmarks of major international fraud, and 2) criminality in presenting unfit meat for sale. Read the full article…

Recent price collapse shakes European belief in emissions trading.

By Geert deCock

There are still some people, who deny that climate change is happening, though recent events – record droughts, frequent hurricanes, floods – are perfectly in line with the predictions by climate scientists. In the camp of those who do recognize climate change as a serious threat, there is another divisive issue about how to effectively and efficiently reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The debate revolves in particular about the role that emissions trading should play. Emissions trading has received broad support among those political leaders in Europe and the U.S., who would like to see some action on addressing climate change. The European Union has led efforts to use emissions trading as a central policy to deliver on its climate targets. It established its Emission Trading System (ETS) in 2005 and the results so far have been underwhelming, to put it mildly. While the position of the ETS as Europe’s flagship policy was unquestionable until recently, last week’s price collapse led to an existential crisis for emissions trading in Europe.

What happened? The European Union and its Emission Trading System – the world’s largest carbon market – was supposed to be the cornerstone of the EU’s climate policy. However, carbon prices in Europe have been very volatile and they have been on a constant downward slide since early 2011. Over the last two years, prices have been sinking non-stop: From EUR 20 in early 2011, to about half at the end of 2011, to just EUR 5 per tonne of CO2 by the end of 2012. Despite this, policy-makers kept up the mantra that this system can be fixed. However, the tone of the debate changed, when carbon prices dropped to EUR 2.81 per tonne on January 24.

When the ETS was designed, it was expected that the prices of carbon credits would be around €30. Apart from a short peak, such high prices never materialized. Now, for the first time, key policy-makers in Brussels and across the EU admit the failure of the ETS to deliver emission reductions. For the first time, Connie Hedegaard, the European commissioner for climate, warned that the ETS is at risk of collapse, due to its low prices. The Italian Environment Minister Corrado Clini even went so far to describe the ETS as “irreparable” and expressed a move towards a carbon tax. Read the full article…

By Eve Mitchell

Eve Mitchell is EU Food Policy Advisor for Food & Water Europe.

This week The Telegraph splashed a story that the UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Owen Paterson, had announced the UK should grow and sell more genetically modified (GM) foods. The story was then picked up by other outlets, and a public outcry followed, including many strong comments on those papers’ websites against any such move.

Much of the media coverage was nearly identical, suggesting precious few sources were consulted, especially since some pieces repeated the same factual errors. Here are some of them:

• Paterson based his stand on his belief that GM crops have “real environmental benefits” saying, “I’m very clear it would be a good thing.” The UK ran Farm Scale Trials of GM crops to determine their safety. The results, published in 2004, showed damage to farmland wildlife, so GM cultivation was shelved – a fact conveniently forgotten by the UK government. The report also found that even if GM crops did ever manage to provide better environmental outcomes than conventional farming at some point in the future, what we do to our fields and streams now is extremely damaging and cannot be used as a comparison for anything called “sustainable”. In addition, countries growing GM crops like the U.S. are now suffering serious direct complications including the development of pests and weeds the technology cannot control and dramatically increased chemical applications by farmers trying to cope. The results for food production and toxic residues in food remain to be seen.
• There is a “block” or “ban” on GM cultivation in the EU. This is simply untrue. GM crops are grown in Spain and to a limited degree in a few other EU countries. The fact that more GM crops are not available for cultivation in the UK is due to the normal operation of the authorisation process and democracy. Even the pro-GM European Commission defended Europe’s right to operate it’s own approvals of GMOs when the U.S. complained to the WTO. The UK and the Commission now find the results of the democratic process inconvenient, so the Commission presses unwanted GMOs into the market, and the UK blames the EU for lack of “progress”. Read the full article…

By Gabriella Zanzanaini

Update: Firenze 10+10 brought together many civil society movements across Europe over 4 days of discussion and planning. Food & Water Europe coordinated the European Water Assembly where an agenda for 2013 was set for the water movement. We also participated in the convergence sessions on the Commons with groups working on food sovereignty, fracking, large infrastructures, health, education and sports. 

We invite all of you to join us on the following common European action dates decided in Firenze: 23-27 January 2013 will be a week against the financialization of nature and banks to coincide with the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, 22 March 2013 is World Water Day where decentralized actions on water will take place all over Europe with a common action in Brussels and 23 March 2013 will be an European Day of Action against the EU Summit in Brussels. Stay tuned and mark your calendars! 

What is Firenze 10+10 and How Is Food & Water Europe Central to It?

Food & Water Europe will participate in Firenze 10+10 by coordinating the pillar on the Commons; as part of the of the newly formed European Water Movement and through the Financialization of Nature network which fights to stop the “assetization” of our natural commons.

It has become increasingly evident that local movements need to coordinate at the European level as well. Local victories, though powerful, are no longer sufficient to withstand pressure coming from the Troika (European Commission, European Central Bank & International Monetary Fund), who is pushing through mass privatization through conditionalities for rescue funds.

Europe needs to build a new European Public Space. We need to look at the next 10 years with common objectives, agendas and strategies. The crisis –in its multiples facets – and austerity policies can be overcome, but we need to move beyond our fragmentation and our one-issue focuses to stand on common ground.

Ten years ago, Florence, Italy hosted the first ever European Social Forum. It constituted an extraordinary moment in the construction of a continent-wide demonstration, presenting analyses, proposals and solutions which – had they been translated into policies – would have helped to avoid the social and democratic crisis in which Europe finds itself now. 

Ten years on, there is neither nostalgia nor a desire to celebrate what we had then; even less do we intend today to repeat paths which belong to that time and that stage of development: the social movements have changed, new actors have emerged, there have been defeats but also victories, such as that of the water movement in Italy which won a crushing referendum against privatization last year.

So come join us in Firenze to build convergences and a common action for Europe. 

By Gabriella Zanzanaini

Update: On the 10 December 2012, mayors from Amsterdam, Brussels, Copenhagen, Genoa, Ghent, Leicester, Nantes, Naples, Paris and Vienna have joined forces with civil society and trade union campaigners to call for the implementation of the Human Right to Water and Sanitation into European Law.

___________

Have you heard of the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI)? It’s a new tool launched by the European Commission to help citizens play a more active role in European political processes. Available since April 2012, it enables citizens to put an issue on the political agenda through an “ECI,” which involves collecting 1 million signatures from at least seven different EU Member States. 

Not only do you need 1 million signatures, but an ECI has to be organised by at least seven people from seven different EU Member States. This group forms a so-called citizens’ committee, which is in charge of proposing the ECI and collecting signatures.

The first ECI approved by the European Commission is on the human right to water. Led by the European Public Services Federation, the citizens’ committee is formed largely by public service trade unions and supported by a broad variety of organizations working on implementation of the human right to water.

Food & Water Europe is working to support and promote this ECI because governments in the EU have to meet their obligation to provide water and sanitation services to all. The human right to water and sanitation means that all people are entitled to clean and safe water and sanitation. These services must be available, accessible, affordable and acceptable for the people. Currently, the criteria for clean and safe water and sanitation differ widely among and even within countries.

Read the full article…

By Mark Schlosberg

The Global Frackdown will unite people on five continents in over 100 events on September 22 to call for a ban on fracking in their communities, and to advocate for the development of clean, sustainable energy solutions. Initiated by Food & Water Watch, over 150 consumer, environmental and public health organizations including CREDO Action, Environment America, Democracy for America, Friends of the Earth and 350.org are taking part in the Global Frackdown.

To find an event in your area, click here.

To endorse the Global Frackdown, click here.

Don’t forget to check out the frackdown on Facebook and Twitter.

By Walker Foley

With the clock ticking down to the sixth World Water Forum in France, Food & Water Watch encourages you to Occupy this shameless marriage of corporate water lobbyists and our global leaders.  

We are dealing with a global water crisis due to the mishandling of our resources, which has left one in eight around the globe without access to clean water.  Water is necessary for life – it is a basic human right – but organizations like Veolia and Suez don’t see it that way.  Instead, water is a commodity, ready to package and sell.  All over the globe these organizations are manipulating the debate and using their influence to rewrite government policy on access to clean water.  The World Water Forum is just another means for these corporations to sit down with our politicians behind closed doors.   Read the full article…