This is a follow-up post to one I made a few weeks ago.
Fake News
Fake news is on people’s minds at the moment. It’s a very powerful tool for controlling public opinion and manipulating politics. It’s been around for a long time now, only people are just starting to see it for what it is and it’s becoming less effective. Social media platforms like Facebook have recently been criticized for spreading fake news, especially during the recent election campaign in the US, where some people blamed it for influencing the outcome and unfairly favoring Donald Trump.
Glyphosate European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI)
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weed killer Round-Up, is a disgusting chemical. There’s no doubt about this. Of course it should be banned. The root of the problem however is not a single product that we all hate so much, but the entire industrial food industry, who develops, markets and uses a chemical like this.
The issue at stake is the ability to patent glyphosate. It has now been on the market for 43 years, and the patents have all expired. It’s not profitable to sell any more, and no one is using similar but more profitable products, because glyphosate is too cheap and is widely sold as a generic product. It’s simply time to ban glyphosate, like traditional light bulbs and square TV screens, so the food industry can make more money by selling expensive alternatives.
Bayer already has a patent on a very similar product, called glufosinate, and there are many other products in the development pipeline.
The other part of this ECI, that the process of approving chemicals like this should be reformed, has no political meaning. To reform something might be a good thing, it might make matters worse and it might mean nothing at all. It’s just not something tangible like ban glyphosate is. Since there are no known independent groups, that might be able to stand up to the food industry and lobby for a positive outcome, it’s reasonable to assume a reform process like this could make matters much worse.
To support this campaign, and this ECI, is simply to support the food industry.
Good Side?
There are a number of risks associated with running an ECI. The most obvious is that you may get far fewer signatures than expected, making your cause look like it doesn’t have much support. There are also several other risks. I was involved in discussions on a possible ECI, so I have some experience with this.
ECI’s are very expensive to run. In general the advice is that it may cost as much as €1 per signature, so by starting an ECI you are pretty much committing to spending €1,000,000. This however is assuming things go well, and you are sponsoring a fairly popular initiative. If you are struggling to get signatures, you may have to spend a lot more money for a positive outcome. For example, if you have to pay a student legal minimum wage to collect signatures, you may have to pay €10-25 per signature, or more.
An ECI is a 1 year process, and cannot be stopped. You simply have to see it to the end. It’s very possible you get in the middle of it, and find yourself having to throw good money after bad, in order to avoid an embarrassing outcome.
It’s reasonable to assume the food industry will pay whatever they need to to get this passed, and a lot of money will be spent in the process. No independent organization, with good intentions, has this much money to spend on something like this.
Keep an eye on how the money is spent. For example, there are openings now advertised on the internet for country managers in Romania and France. Think about who is spending that money, and why.
Infiltration
If you support an activist organization, who is promoting this ECI, you should ask yourself what’s going on. You should ask them why they are supporting industrial agriculture, and think about the answer they give you.
Most environmental and activist organizations receive large financial support from corporations, or the worlds wealthy families, and as a result try to promote their interests. Maybe these are causes you don’t need to support any more?
Have a look at the ECI page on the Internet, and all the organizations who have let their logo be used for promoting it. At the very least these organizations were very careless, and at worst there are bad intentions. If you know these organizations, talk to them and find out the reason.
Above all else, talk with others. Talk with the people gathering the signatures and their organizations. Explain the situation to others who might give their signature. Talk about where the money is, and why it is being spent.
Together we can stop fake news in activist causes, and we can put pressure on activist organizations to support our causes, instead of telling us what to believe and support.
update: 12 march
Analysis of the Text
Subject-matter: We call on the European Commission to propose to member states a ban on glyphosate, to reform the pesticide approval procedure, and to set EU-wide mandatory reduction targets for pesticide use.
Main objectives: Ban glyphosate-based herbicides, exposure to which has been linked to cancer in humans, and has led to ecosystems degradation; ensure that the scientific evaluation of pesticides for EU regulatory approval is based only on published studies, which are commissioned by competent public authorities instead of the pesticide industry; set EU-wide mandatory reduction targets for pesticide use, with a view to achieving a pesticide-free future.
- “mandatory reduction targets” A target is an approximation. A mandatory approximation? This won’t have much meaning in practice. If these mandatory approximations are EU-wide, even estimating them will be a big challenge, and local authorities may not have the authority to enforce them.
- Banning one herbicide by name, glyphosate, will not benefit anyone. There are many others with other names, both on the market and under development.
- “approval is based only on published studies” This means taking into account public opinion is explicitly ruled out. Also unpublished studies will not be considered, for example when the manufacturer or patent holder refuses to give permission for a study to be published. Published studies nearly always reflect the wishes of the company that pays for them, which in this case will be the one seeking the approval for marketing the pesticide.
- “competent public authorities” In the era of privatization and industry self-regulation, these are controlled by the food industry.
- There is no pesticide industry. Pesticides are sold together with seeds, and are part of the food industry. Barring the pesticide industry from participating doesn’t accomplish anything.
- “a view to achieving a pesticide-free future” This is like a view to achieving a future free of nuclear weapons. We certainly all hope it happens, but the chances are pretty small. This statement has no political meaning.
