The organizers of the Glyphosate European Citizens’ Initiative issued a press release today claiming victory. Here’s a snapshot of the campaign page for future reference.
Activist Organizations as Proxies
This is a battle of Monsanto and Bayer against small farmers, plain and simple. The patents on glyphosate have long since expired, and the sale of the product doesn’t result in high corporate profits any more. Bayer is in the process of acquiring Monsanto, and wants to sell farmers new solutions for controlling weeds, that are more expensive and patented. This is a similar situation as the banning of old TVs and light bulbs.
Glyphosate is an emotional issue. Many activists have been against it for a long time now, and in general against all use of pesticides. Glyphosate is particularly emotional for many of us, because we have come into contact with it through other gardeners, farmers and it’s even been used by local governments in urban areas. It’s a horrendous health and environmental issue, but for better or worse, it’s also a critical tool for many farmers.
There’s been very little direct news from Bayer of Monsanto on this issue. We hear things like ‘analysts say this ECI will cost Bayer millions of euros in Europe alone’ — but no confirmation from Bayer on this. Neither Bayer nor Monsanto seem the least bit opposed to this campaign. They are just sitting back and watching everything unfold.
Instead of involving themselves directly on the issue, these big companies are using a combination of fake activist organizations, together with other paid or tricked organizations, to promote their message and pretend this is some sort of activist issue.
There is no democratic control of this campaign, no way for participants to voice their opinions and influence the outcome. I believe many of the people and organizations that gave their name and reputations in support of this measure, are aghast at how this has become a vicious attack on Europe’s farmers, small and large, but have no real way to voice that opinion.
Unrealistic Amounts of Money
There was a time, as recently as 5-10 years ago, when some of these health and environmental organizations were credible. In particular, here in The Netherlands, for many people giving significant amounts of money to charitable organizations was an important part of their life. Some of these organizations became obscenely wealthy as a result. These days are gone, and people today realize if you give money to an environmental organization, your money is dwarfed by large corporate or philanthropist contributions, and as an individual donor you have no possibility of influencing them. In the end, your contribution often doesn’t support the kinds of causes you think it should.
On the other hand, corporations and the wealthiest individuals have become particularly adept at using these organizations for their own purposes.
To put things in perspective, one of the most important seed initiatives right now, the Open Source Seed Initiative, after several years of fund raising, mentioned recently on their web page they had raised on the order of tens of thousands of dollars. This isn’t really enough to hire a single person for an entire year. The glyphosate ECI on the other hand is clearly involving millions of euros, and tens, hundreds or even thousands of people, many of whom are very skilled and highly paid lobbyists.
No Evidence of Real Signatures Being Collected
Signatures on a petition are understandably low on the radar in terms of considering forgeries. At the same time, they are very susceptible to being manipulated with large amounts of money. You can for example pay a student minimum wage to collect signatures from their friends, but you can also pay thousands of students to do the same thing. You can also collect signatures at workplaces, under the watchful eye of their employers.
If you spend a lot of money this way, it can be visible, and people can ask questions about where the money is coming from. If you copy signatures from an earlier ECI, probably no one would notice. The same thing is true if you happened to have a list of people’s personal data, for example dates of birth and address, and forged the signatures as a sort of identity theft. Who would notice this, and who would investigate?
What I can say with respect to this blog is that it is visible in Google, shared on Facebook and very visible to anyone researching this ECI. Of the million plus people who signed it, only a few hundred were interested enough to research it on the Internet, and have ended up on this blog.
There’s no convincing publicly available evidence that any real persons have signed this initiative of their own free will.
Fake News, Fake Blogs and an Orchestrated Campaign
The Internet is swimming in fake and inconsequential news articles and blog posts on glyphosate right now. Very few of them are real news outlets, and certainly very few big name papers or news sites.
They all repeat the same stories over and over, just slightly rewritten from site to site. There’s no real debate, and very few offering different opinions or the perspective of farmers.
There have been very few announcements of events or promotional activities. No real compelling news has emerged during this campaign. The signatures have just appeared out of nowhere, without any reason or explanation. In addition, the signatures appeared just in time, as the organizers planned, right at the end of June.
Fake Science with Changing Rules
The debate over science is almost laughable. First all science has to be published articles, but most patent holders can block studies on their own products. At the same time, loads of unpublished studies and unsupported facts emerge from anonymous sources, and they are supposed to be considered by the Commission.
The EU is supposed to only use ‘real’ science, but all of the science available is funded by industry.
The ECI itself even includes language that could possibly force all future science to be paid for and approved by the pesticide manufactures themselves.
It’s all just a catch-22 and all the arguments and debates are looping back on themselves.
Farming Crisis
There is and has been for a long time now, a farming crisis in Europe. In the Netherlands, a tiny country of 17 million people, 10,000 farms are for sale now. Many farmers report their children are not interested in becoming farmers themselves, or taking over the family business. Not enough young people have the interest or financial means to start farming. There is land grabbing which is driving the price of the most desirable land sharply up, while farming communities are reeling from the collapse of the family farming economy and the unprecedented numbers of farms on the market.
Banning glyphosate is all that’s needed to drive many more farmers into bankruptcy.
This is a very serious situation.
No Compromise
The organizations behind the glyphosate ECI are relentless in where they stand. No compromises. Glyphosate must be banned. No sympathy for farmers.
The Real Solution
The real solution is extending the glyphosate license for 15 years, like the farmers are asking for, then highly regulate glyphosate. It should only be available to farmers, and it should not be used in public spaces or near people’s homes. Appropriate safety measures should be taken to avoid accidental contamination and contact with farm workers.
Genuine effort should be taken to encourage farmers to stop using glyphosate or any other pesticide, through education and incentives, rather than an absolute ban.
Consumers should have more information about what their food has been treated with, and have more opportunity to buy it from trustworthy sources.
Failing Europe
If the Commission accepts this ECI, and the arguements given for banning glyphosate, they are ignoring all their critics of an undemocratic Europe that ignores the wishes of the people.
