Influencing policy in the European Union without the need to become an elected politician is the hallmark of a good lobbyist. Brussels is known to be rife with industry specialists, or ‘public affairs professionals’, seeking to water down legislative proposals which might harm business interests.
New rules must be introduced to protect the legislative process from corporate capture- Anne Zammit
On the other side of the lobby arena, environmental campaigners are represented by citizens’ organisations within the European Environmental Bureau and international groups such as Birdlife and Greenpeace. Environmental organisations have been lobbying since the 1970s, yet rarely do they have the resources to stay with an issue all the way through detailed drafting of the final policy document.
Farmers make up another strong lobby and wherever there are farmers there are corporations, producers of agri-chemicals, biotechnology and so forth.
After the collapse of a bee colony was linked to a widely used pesticide, the French government introduced a ban on its use. The French health and safety agency ANSES reacted strongly to the presence of a sub-lethal dose of a molecule which appeared to confuse bees and disrupt the hive.
Swiss corporation Syngenta was given two weeks to prove that the neonicotinoid pesticide Cruiser was not behind the bee colony collapse. The corporation denied that its pesticides had anything to do with it.
The presence of certain Members of the European Parliament at corporate lobbying events has not gone unnoticed.
According to the Corporate Europe Observatory (COE), a research group campaigning to expose the power of corporate lobbying in the EU, Scottish MEP George Lyon was present at Syngenta’s Forum for the Future of Agriculture, last year:
“Syngenta staged Operation Pollinator, which sounds quite militaristic given that they were giving away cuddly bumblebees, fruits, rapeseed oil, port... glossy brochures of happy farmers praising pollinators on their farm and real bumblebees in glass cages.”
“The corporation was observed by COE to be putting itself forward as a friend of bees while allegedly contributing to funding of the British Beekeepers Association, which has endorsed a number of pesticides as ‘bee friendly’.”
A technical EU group on beekeeping (beelife.eu) reported in 2010 that Syngenta, along with Bayer and BASF corporations, had its own representatives inside working groups advising the European Commission on policies dealing with the impacts of pesticides on bees.
Despite what would seem to be damning evidence, the collapse of bee colonies remains difficult to pin on a single cause and is probably most likely to happen when several interacting factors are present.
Following the French ban, Lyon, who is noted to be an active promoter of debate on genetically-modified organisms and other farming issues, wrote to EU Health Commissioner John Dalli asking him not to bow to French pressure for an EU-wide ban on the pesticide.
Meanwhile, a recent study cited in the article Drugged Bees Go Missing in Science magazine’s September issue has further indicated how the chemical may decrease foraging success and survival in honey bees:
“Given the irreplaceable role of bees in crop pollination and honey production – not to mention their staggering economic value – it would seem most prudent to ban neonicotinoid pesticides while the jury is out.”
The European Commission is now waiting for an assessment by the European Food Safety Authority before deciding whether to introduce stricter controls on the pesticides.
Germany and Slovenia have also decided to limit use of the chemical in the field. A decision on whether to permanently ban the pesticide on a European level will be the next step after a European Food Safety Authority assessment. The article Subtle Poison appearing in March 2012 issue of The Economist magazine, called for more realistic trials in conditions that mimic nature as closely as possible:
“That might be more expensive than the present way of doing things, in which tests are mostly confined to laboratories and are concerned with finding out how much insecticide is needed to kill bees outright. But the growing evidence that bees are damaged in subtle ways means it would be money well spent.”
EFSA gives scientific advice to the Commission on all matters directly or indirectly related to food safety. However, Europe’s risk assessor has itself hardly been free from conflict of interest controversies.
The complex nature of the European public policy process was documented in a 2007 survey by the EU internal policies directorate. An unprecedented expansion of lobbying in Brussels led to somewhat better regulation of lobbyists at the time.
In spite of a firm resolve to regulate lobbyists and improve transparency, concerns over the extent of influence business corporations are able to exert on public policy still linger.
In May, the chair of the food safety authority’s management board finally resigned after calls from French Green MEP Jose Bove. After a staff member left EFSA in 2010 to become head of biotech regulatory affairs for Europe with Syngenta, the authority assured the European Ombudsman that preventative measures were in place to deter such damaging industry links.
The drawback is that European Commission officials mix almost exclusively with lobbyists while agribusiness lobby groups outspend their opponents by four to one.
If nothing changes, research money is set to be captured by corporate interests promoting their vested farming vision despite promising alternatives and a growing scientific consensus that such a policy is failing.
Transparency campaigners say Commission proposals to tackle the dominance of corporate lobbyists in its advisory groups do not go far enough and that new rules must be introduced to protect the legislative process from corporate capture.
www.alter-eu
www.beelife.eu
www.citizsensforeurope.eu
http://corporateeurope.org/publications/agribusiness-capturing-eu-research-money