À l’endroit des gouvernements:

Aujourd’hui, nous vous invitons, par la présente lettre, à prendre l’initiative pour assurer que les pays du monde ne soient confrontés à une vague de poursuites de règlements des différends entre investisseurs et États (RDIE) en raison des mesures prises pour lutter contre la pandémie COVID-19 et la crise économique qui en découle.

Partout dans le monde, certains gouvernements prennent des mesures pour sauver des vies, endiguer la pandémie, protéger les emplois,lutter contre les catastrophes économiques et veiller à ce que les besoins fondamentaux des populations soient couverts. L’ampleur de ces mesures est sans précédent dans les temps modernes et la nécessité de ces actions est évidente. Cependant, la portée très étendue du mécanisme de RDIE pourrait exposer ces mesures gouvernementales cruciales à des plaintes avec demande d’indemnisation à hauteur de plusieurs millions de dollars de la part des investisseurs étrangers. Le nombre de ces plaintes pourrait également être sans précédent et imposer des charges financières considérables aux gouvernements qui   croulent déjà sous le fardeau des crises sanitaires et économiques dévastatrices.

Le RDIE est inclut sous diverses formes dans de nombreux accords de commerce et d’investissement. Il permet aux investisseurs étrangers – et uniquement aux investisseurs étrangers – de poursuivre les gouvernements devant des tribunaux secrets en dehors du système juridique national pour obtenir des montants bien plus élevés que ceux qui seraient disponibles devant les tribunaux nationaux.

Les avocats, qui profitent énormément du mécanise du RDIE, font déjà la chasse aux sociétés clientes qui souhaiteraient utiliser les tribunaux du RDIE pour soutirer des sommes importantes aux gouvernements en raison des mesures qu’ils ont prises en réponse à la crise du COVID-19. Les cabinets d’avocats^[1], les experts en commerce^[2], les organismes des Nations Unies^[3] et les experts en droits de l’homme^[4] ont déjà prédit une vague imminente de poursuites dans le cadre du mécanisme du RDIE. Les revues juridiques spécialisées estiment que “les dernières semaines pourraient marquer le début d’un boom” des poursuites liées au mécanisme RDIE.^[5] Les situations de crise dans le passé, comme la crise financière en Argentine ou le printemps arabe, ont donné lieu à de nombreuses poursuites judiciaires.

Les poursuites pourraient naître des mesures prises par de nombreux gouvernements dans le but de :

•  restreindre et suspendre les activités des entreprises afin de limiter la propagation du virus et de protéger les travailleurs ;
• sécuriser les ressources des systèmes de santé en exigeant l’utilisation des établissements hospitaliers privés, de placer les prestataires de soins privés sous contrôle public ou d’obliger des fabricants à produire des ventilateurs ;
• imposer pour les ménages et  les entreprises un allègement des paiements hypothécaires ou du loyer
• empêcher les étrangers de racheter des entreprises stratégiques frappées par la crise  ;
• garantir l’accès à l’eau potable pour le lavage des mains et l’assainissement par le gel des factures de services publics et la suspension des coupures;
• assurer que les médicaments, les tests et les vaccins soient abordables
• favoriser la restructuration de la dette.

Les réparations qui résulteraient de la vague des poursuites judiciaires en matière de RDIE liée au COVID pourraient être énormes. Sur les 1 023 poursuites de RDIE connues, treize ont donné lieu à des indemnisations ou à des règlements de plus d’un milliard de dollars, y compris des pertes de bénéfices futures.^[6] À la fin de 2018, des pays ont reçu l’ordre ou ont convenu de verser aux investisseurs dans le cadre des affaires de RDIE connues du public la somme de 88 milliards de dollars EU.^[7] Certains pays en développement ont des milliards de dollars d’impayés au titre de ces affaires.

À une époque où les ressources publiques sont mobilisées au maximum pour répondre à la crise, les fonds publics ne devraient pas être détournés de la sauvegarde de vies, des emplois et de moyens de subsistance pour payer des réparations ou des frais de justice pour lutter contre une plainte. Étant donné que la lutte contre COVID-19 va se poursuivre, une vague de poursuites pourrait entraîner un effet de “frilosité réglementaire”, dans lequel les gouvernements dilueraient, reporteraient ou retireraient les mesures de lutte contre la pandémie par crainte de ces paiements, une situation qui pourrait s’avérer mortelle.

Afin d’éviter cette situation, nous invitons instamment les gouvernements à prendre immédiatement et de toute urgence les mesures suivantes, avant que les premières poursuites ne soient intentées :

1. restreindre de façon permanente l’utilisation du mécanisme de RDIE sous toutes ses formes au titre des plaintes qui selon l’État se rapportent à des mesures liées au COVID-19 ;
2. suspendre tous les litiges en matière de RDIE concernant toute action contre tout gouvernement pendant qu’il lutte contre les crises du COVID-19 et que ses capacités doivent être concentrées sur la réponse à la pandémie ;
3. veiller à ce que des fonds publics ne soient dépensés pour payer aux sociétés des indemnisations liées au RDIE pendant la pandémie ;
4. cesser de négocier, signer et/ou ratifier tout nouvel accord prévoyant un mécanisme de RDIE ;
5. mettre fin aux accords existants qui prévoit un RDIE, assurer que les “clauses de survie” ne permettent pas d’engager des poursuites par la suite ;
6. compte tenu des menaces révélées par la pandémie, examiner de manière exhaustive les accords existants qui contiennent un mécanisme de RDIE   pour voir s’ils répondent à leur objectif.

De plus amples informations sur les modalités de mise en œuvre de ces mesures sont disponibles dans l’annexe à la présente lettre.

Nous vous prions instamment de prendre des mesures immédiates pour garantir que le devoir des gouvernements de réglementer dans l’intérêt public soit sauvegardé et exclu du champ des plaintes de RDIE

Signé,

Vous trouverez l’intégralité de la lettre et la liste des signataires ici.

Vous trouverez la version anglaise ici.
Vous trouverez la version espagnole ici. 

1. Voir par exemple: https://www.alston.com/en/insights/events/2020/04/the-coming-wave-of-covid-19- arbitration/, https://www.ropesgray.com/en/newsroom/alerts/2020/04/COVID-19-Measures- Leveraging-Investment-Agreements-to-Protect-Foreign-
   Investments, https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2020/05/reed-smith-quarterly- international-arbitration-focus, https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1222354/could-covid-19- emergency-measures-give-rise-to-investment-claims-first-reflections-from-italy, https://www.acerislaw.com/the-covid-19-pandemic-and-investment-arbitration/
2. https://www.iisd.org/library/investor-state-claims-amidst-covid-19
3. https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcbinf2020d3_en.pdf
4. http://ccsi.columbia.edu/2020/05/05/isds-moratorium-during-covid-19/
5. https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1261213/third-party-funders-business-is-booming- during-pandemic
6. https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement
7. Cálculo realizado sobre la base de datos de la UNCTAD para los casos hasta diciembre de 2018.

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

Un policy paper, ci-dessous (en anglais) a été publié ce jour :

Ending Gag Lawsuits in Europe Protecting Democracy and Fundamental Rights

The problem: gag lawsuits against public interest defenders

The EU must end gag lawsuits used to silence individuals and organisations that hold those in positions of power to account. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) are lawsuits brought forward by powerful actors (e.g. companies, public officials in their private capacity, high profile persons) to harass and silence those speaking out in the public interest. Typical victims are those with a watchdog role, for instance: journalists, activists, informal associations, academics, trade unions, media organisations and civil society organisations.

Recent examples of SLAPPs include PayPal suing SumOfUs for a peaceful protest outside PayPal’s German headquarters; co-owners of Malta’s Satabank suing blogger Manuel Delia for a blog post denouncing money laundering at Satabank; and Bollore Group suing Sherpa and ReAct in France to stop them from reporting human rights abuses in Cameroon. In Italy more than 6,000 or two-thirds of defamation lawsuits filed against journalists and media outlets annually are dismissed as meritless by a judge. When Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was brutally killed, there were 47 SLAPPs pending against her.

SLAPPs are a threat to the EU legal order, and, in particular:

• A threat to democracy and fundamental rights. The EU is founded on the rule of law and respect for human rights. SLAPPs impair the right to freedom of expression, to public participation and to assembly of those who speak out in the public interest, and have a chilling effect on the exercise of these rights by the community at large.
• A threat to access to justice and judicial cooperation. Cross-border judicial cooperation relies on the principles of effective access to justice across the Union and mutual trust between legal systems. That trust must be based on the legally enforceable upholding of common values and minimum standards. To the extent that they distort and abuse the system of civil law remedies, SLAPPs undermine the mutual trust between EU legal systems: member states must be confident that rulings issued by other member states’ courts are not the result of abusive legal strategies and are adopted as the outcome of genuine proceedings.
• A threat to the enforcement of EU law, including in connection to the internal market and the protection of the EU budget. The effective enforcement of EU law, including the proper functioning of the internal market, depends on the scrutiny of the behaviour of individual entities by the EU, member states and – crucially – informed individuals. Watchdogs, be it media or civil society actors, play a key enforcement role. Therefore, the absence of a system which safeguards public scrutiny is a threat to the enforcement of EU law. The same reasoning applies to the management of EU programmes and budget, which cannot be monitored through the sole vigilance of the European Commission.
• A threat to freedom of movement. The absence of rules to protect watchdogs from SLAPP has an impact on the exercise of the Treaty’s fundamental freedoms, since it affects the ability of media, civil society organisations and information services providers to confidently operate in jurisdictions where the risk of SLAPPs is higher, and discourages people from working for organisations where they can be the target of SLAPPs.

The solution: an EU set of anti-SLAPP measures

The EU can and must end SLAPPs by adopting the following complementary measures to protect all those affected by SLAPPs:

1. An anti-SLAPP directiveAn anti-SLAPP directive is needed to establish a Union-wide minimum standard of protection against SLAPPs, by introducing exemplary sanctions to be applied to claimants bringing abusive lawsuits, procedural safeguards for SLAPP victims, including special motions to contest the admissibility of certain claims and/or rules making the burden shifting to the plaintiff to demonstrate a reasonable probability of succeeding in such claims, as well as other types of preventive measures. The Whistle-Blower Directive sets an important precedent protecting those who report a breach of Union law in a work-related context. Now the EU must ensure a high standard of protection against gag lawsuits for everyone who speaks out – irrespective of the form and the context – in the public interest.The legal basis for an anti-SLAPP directive is to be found in multiple provisions of the Treaty; for example, Article 114 TFEU on the proper functioning of the internal market, Article 81 TFEU on judicial cooperation and effective access to justice and Article 325 TFEU on combating fraud related to EU programmes and budgets.
2. The reform of Brussels I and Rome II RegulationsBrussels I Regulation (recast) contains rules which grant claimants the ability to choose where to make a claim. This must be amended to end forum shopping in defamation cases, which forces defendants to hire and pay for defence in countries whose legal systems are unknown to them and where they are not based. This is beyond the means of most and falls foul of the principles of fair trial and equality of arms.Rome II Regulation does not regulate which national law will apply to a defamation case. This allows claimants to select the most favourable substantive law and therefore leads to a race to the bottom. Today, victims may be subject to the lowest standard of freedom of expression applicable to their case.
3. Support all victims of SLAPPsFunds are needed to morally and financially support all victims of SLAPPs, especially with legal defence. Justice Programme funds should be used to train judges and practitioners, and a system to publicly name and shame the companies that engage in SLAPPs, for example in an EU register, should be created.

Finally, the EU must ensure that the scope of anti-SLAPP measures include everybody affected by SLAPPs, including journalists, activists, trade unionists, academics, digital security researchers, human rights defenders, media and civil society organisations, among others.

This paper was signed by the following 119 organisations

• Abalone Alliance Safe Energy Clearinghouse Access Info Europe
• Access Now
• ACT Alliance Advocacy to the EU
• ActionAid International Adéquations
• Amigas de la Tierra
• Amis de la Terre France ANTICOR
• ARTICLE 19
• Association Justice and Environment, z.s.
• Bruno Manser Fonds
• CCFD – Terre Solidaire
• CEE Bankwatch Network
• Centre for Free Expression
• Citizens Network Watchdog Poland
• Civil Liberties Union for Europe
• Civil Rights Defenders
• Civil Society Europe
• Clean Air Action Group (Hungary)
• Committee to Protect Journalists
• Common Weal
• Consumer Association the Quality of Life (EKPIZO)
• Corporate Europe Observatory
• Defend Democracy
• European Digital Rights (EDRi)
• Electronic Frontier Foundation
• Environmental Partnership Association
• ePaństwo Foundation
• Environmental Paper Network International (EPN)
• Estonian Forest Aid / Eesti Metsa Abiks
• ETC Group
• Eurocadres / Council of European Professional and Managerial Staff
• European Center for Not-for-Profit Law
• European Centre for Press and Media Freedom
• European Civic Forum
• European Coalition for Corporate Justice
• European Coordination Via Campesina
• European Environmental Bureau (EEB)
• European Federation of Journalists
• European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU)
• European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC)
• Fern
• Fitug
• Forest Initiatives and Communities
• Forum Ökologie & Papier
• FOUR PAWS International
• Free Press Unlimited
• Friends of the Earth Europe
• Friends of the Earth Nuclear Network
• Friends of the Siberian Forests
• Fundacja Otwarty Plan
• Fundacja Strefa Zieleni
• Global Justice Ecology Project
• GM Watch
• Gong
• Government Accountability Project
• Green Light Foundation
• Greenpeace EU Unit
• Homo Digitalis
• IFEX
• Index on Censorship
• Institute for Sustainable Development Institute of Water Policy
• International Corporate Accountability Roundtable (ICAR)
• International Press Institute (IPI)
• Iraqi Journalists Right Defence Association
• JEF Europe
• Jordens Vänner
• Journalismfund.eu
• Justice Pesticides
• Legal Human Academy
• Maison des Lanceurs d’Alerte
• Mighty Earth
• Milieudefensie / Friends of the Earth Netherlands
• MultiWatch
• NGO Neuer Weg
• NGO Shipbreaking Platform
• Nuclear Consulting Group
• Nuclear Transparency Watch
• OGM dangers
• On ne se taira pas (We will not remain silent)
• Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP)
• Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa
• PEN International
• Polish Ecological Club Mazovian Branch
• Polish Ecological Club Pomeranian Branch
• Polish Institute for Human Rights and Business
• Protection International
• RECLAIM
• Reporters Without Borders
• Rettet den Regenwald e.V.
• Salva la Selva
• Sciences Citoyennes
• Sherpa
• Sinergia Animal
• Society for Threatened Peoples Switzerland
• SOLIDAR
• SOMO
• Stowarzyszenie Ekologiczno-Kulturalne
• SumOfUs
• The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation
• The Ethicos Group
• The Good Lobby
• The Signals Network
• Transnational Institute
• Transparency International EU
• Umweltinstitut München e.V.
• Vouliwatch
• Vrijschrift
• vzw Climaxi
• Chceme zdravú krajinu / We want a healthy country
• WeMove Europe
• Whistleblower Network Germany
• Whistleblowing International Network (WIN)
• WildLeaks / Earth League International
• Women Engage for a Common Future (WECF)
• Wspólna Ziemia / Common Earth
• XNet
• Zielone Wiadomości

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

• ¹Laboratoire VEAC, Faculté des Sciences, Univ. Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay, France
• ²Pôle Risques MRSH-CNRS, Université de Caen, Caen, France
• ³CRIIGEN, Paris, France
• ⁴Fondation Sciences Citoyennes, Paris, France

In the current context of research and innovation that are increasingly driven by short-term industrial interests, science and technology require thorough social, political, ethical, and legal changes leading to better democratic control. A huge gap has opened between citizens and scientists, with the latter sometimes inspiring more mistrust than trust. Major health and environmental scandals of past years (for example, asbestos, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, PCBs, and nuclear disasters) may be related to this situation.

To restore the links between science, policy makers, and civil society is a difficult task with many challenges. This involves (a) substituting a research approach strictly entrusted to the scientific community, with approaches based on a willingness to access and respect various forms of knowledge; (b) taking into account, at a very early stage in public research policy, the societal challenges of science and the tools for its democratic orientation; (c) expanding access to scientific knowledge in society, allowing those that are often wrongly called “ignorant” to interact with researchers in a balanced dialog and a co-construction of knowledge. How is it conceivable, for instance, to develop an agricultural research project without a close exchange and collaboration with those people who invented agriculture – not the researchers, or even the agronomists, but farmers? Moreover, in a knowledge society, in which innovation does not necessarily mean “progress,” citizens may be especially willing to participate in choosing scientific and technological orientations.

Such a task implies in particular the setting up of systems enabling civil society to access opportunities to develop scientific knowledge, as well as for innovation and expertise (1). Participatory research, which is joint research work with equal partnerships between non-profit organizations from civil society or groups of citizens and academic researchers (from universities or major research organizations), is an integral part of this process of democratization of science. Several public programs successfully promote participatory research. Examples include the Canadian program of Community-University Research Alliances (ARUC)¹; several regional research programs in France, such as Partnerships between Institutions and Citizens for Research and Innovation (PICRI),² set up by the Region Ile-de-France under the leadership of the Fondation Sciences Citoyennes organization³; and the Social Appropriation of Sciences (ASOSC),⁴ developed by the Brittany Region.

A project resulting from collaboration between researchers and actors of civil society often addresses a societal issue. Thus, participatory research involves mainly applied research projects and projects that fall within the field of expertise (health, environmental, ethical, etc.). For basic research, i.e., research that is conducted solely for the sake of increasing human knowledge, such collaborations are more difficult to consider, since this research generally falls into skills that are specifically those of scientists. However, citizens can participate in some basic research projects, by collecting data on a large scale (for example, in the field of biodiversity). In this case, participants train themselves with the files and protocols that are given beforehand. Besides, citizens could be consulted about the fundamental questions that they are concerned with and that they would like to be addressed by scientists.

The requirement for openness of science to civil society is particularly striking in the area of technologies and the products of technology. The phenomenon of lucrative research driven by industrial interests that require rapid returns on investment leads to negative consequences in terms the quality and transparency of health and environmental assessment. The time required to conduct these assessments with proper rigor is not compatible with the urgency of patents and profits, and commercial confidentiality is used to justify the failure to communicate raw data from regulatory tests.

Many civil society organizations have emerged to oppose the possible assessment deficiencies of new products placed on the market. These organizations play an important role at the interface between the assessment authorities and civil society as a whole, not as mediators, but as shields designed to protect citizens from potential hazards resulting from inadequate assessments. Participatory research projects provide an opportunity for civil society organizations to intervene as interlocutors and collaborators with scientists who are engaged in research on assessment issues. These organizations are then able to relay the results to the general public and decision makers and develop arguments for possible revision of assessment regulations by public authorities.

An example of this was provided by the international conference on “Assessment and Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and Pesticides,”⁵ held in France at the Orsay Scientific Centre (University of Paris-Sud) on 12 and 13 November 2015.

The originality of this symposium was the fact that it was open to civil society (with French/English simultaneous translation), organized as part of a participatory research (PICRI project, funded by the Île-de-France Region), and managed collaboratively between University Paris-Sud and two associations: Générations Futures⁶ and the Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN).⁷ This project⁸ focuses on the study of the “substantial equivalence” principle (i.e., close nutritional and element similarity between two crop-derived foods), which has been used as the basis to allow the commercial approval of all agricultural GMOs cultivated across the world. This concept, adopted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1993 and endorsed by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) in 1996, is registered in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation (Part IX: Foods derived from New Plant Varieties) and was used to claim that GM crops are as safe and nutritious as currently consumed plan-derived foods (2). Since this concept applies at the chain end (i.e., to the food from these plants), it should consider the context of the growing crops. Precisely, in the case of herbicide-tolerant GM crops, this context is not the same as for their conventional counterparts since the former are sprayed with the herbicide. Surprisingly, during substantial equivalence studies, either the tested plants are not sprayed with the recommended herbicide (3) or the herbicide residues are not measured anyway (4).

The international dimension of the conference was not only due to the panel of speakers but also to those who attended. Among the 140 participants, many came from different countries (not only in Europe but also in America and Africa).

According to the spirit of participatory research, this conference allowed the creation of a bridge between academic research and the “scientific third sector” (citizens, associations, NGOs, policy makers), with presentations of experimental scientific data, made accessible to the general public, as well as round tables bringing together civil society stakeholders. Both were followed by long interactions with the public. This spirit was also the reason why we chose to organize this conference at the Orsay Scientific Centre: because companies are allowed to sit on university boards of directors, it was important for my colleagues and myself, concerned about the democratization of science, to offer the opportunity for citizens to penetrate inside the walls of the university.

Together with results from Brazilian (5) and Norwegian (6) research groups, some of the results of the PICRI project (7) questioned the relevance of the substantial equivalence principle, especially when used to approve the commercialization of herbicide-tolerant GM crops. The second scientific session offered a state-of-the-art review of experimental data showing the insufficiencies of regulatory toxicity tests of GMOs and pesticides (8, 9). It was emphasized that the duration of feeding trials is insufficient to detect potential chronic (long-term) toxic effects and that contamination of laboratory rodent diets by toxic environmental pollutants is a confounding factor in regulatory tests. Some of the results presented at this conference showed that commercial formulations of pesticides are always more toxic than their so-called “active principles.” Yet, the latter are tested alone to calculate safety thresholds, even though they are never used in isolation, but always mixed with toxic adjuvants. Last but not least, it was explained that regulatory tests are unable to detect endocrine disrupting effects, a common toxic mechanism shared by many pesticides. During the third scientific session, the panel of speakers showed the detrimental effects of pesticides and GMOs on soil ecosystems, for example, on rhizosphere microflora and earthworms (10), and on food microorganisms (11).

Round tables allowed exchanges on various models of participatory research and highlighted the need to involve civil society in research programs and in the choice of major research directions. The regulation of pesticides and GMOs (including those resulting from the use of new genetic engineering technologies other than transgenesis) at national and European levels was also widely discussed. There was a particular emphasis on the questions of data transparency, conflicts of interests in assessment committees, and the responsibility of experts and policy makers. Finally, a farmer, an agronomist, a physician, and a company manager producing flour and animal feed explained and exchanged their views on the question of agricultural sustainability and food choices in the future.

These 2 days of exchanges, where multiple participants from different backgrounds contributed to a unified collective intelligence, were particularly rich and intense. They confirmed the need to open up science to the public, not only to share results but also to build on each other’s knowledge.

To this end, and in line with proposals made by Fondation Sciences Citoyennes,⁹ the following arrangements must be implemented:

(a) integrating participatory research programs in all public research policies;

(b) taking into consideration the value of the participation of civil society (non-profit) to research;

(c) setting up evaluation criteria for researchers involved in participatory research projects;

(d) supporting the mobility of researchers toward civil society organizations;

(e) expanding communication on participatory research to researchers, students, and civil society.

There are professional scientists – the researchers – and professional politicians, including elected officials. But the scientific approach, like political action, belongs to everyone. It is time to move toward a new science, considering the “substantial equivalence” between professional scientists and citizens.

Author Contributions

CV is the scientific coordinator of the international conference and of the participatory research project reported in this article.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The opinions and conclusions in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the institutions with which he is affiliated: University Paris-Sud, Pôle Risques, MRSH, CNRS, and University of Caen.

Acknowledgments

This project (including international conference) was supported by the non-governmental organization “Générations Futures” and the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), in the framework of a participatory research project. It received funding from the Regional Council Ile-de-France and the University Paris-Sud. The author thanks Claire Robinson for correcting the English.

Footnotes

1. ^http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/programs-programmes/cura-aruc-fra.aspx
2. ^http://www.iledefrance.fr/competence/picri
3. ^http://sciencescitoyennes.org
4. ^http://xnet1.region-bretagne.fr/Recherche
5. ^http://picriogm.weebly.com/colloque.html
6. ^http://www.generations-futures.fr
7. ^http://www.criigen.org
8. ^http://www.picri-ogm.fr
9. ^https://sciencescitoyennes.org/rubrique/tiers-secteur-de-la-connaissance/recherche-participative/

References

1. Gall E, Millot G, Neubauer C. Participation of civil society organisations in research. A Report from the European Project STACS – Civil Society Organisations – Actors in the European System of Research and Innovation, Fundation Citizen Sciences. (2009). Available from: https://sciencescitoyennes.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/02/STACS_Final_Report.pdf

Google Scholar

2. Aumaitre LA. New feeds from genetically modified plants: substantial equivalence, nutritional equivalence and safety for animals and animal products. Prod Anim (2002) 15:97–108.

Google Scholar

3. Millstone E, Brunner E, Mayer S. Beyond ‘substantial equivalence’. Nature (1999) 401:525–6. doi: 10.1038/44006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Cuhra M. Review of GMO safety assessment studies: glyphosate residues in Roundup Ready crops is an ignored issue. Environ Sci Eur (2015) 27:20. doi:10.1186/s12302-015-0052-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Bøhn T, Cuhra M, Traavik T, Sanden M, Fagan J, Primicerio R. Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans. Food Chem (2014) 153:207–15. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.12.054

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Agapito-Tenfen SZ, Vilperte V, Benevenuto RF, Rover CM, Traavik TI, Nodari RO. Effect of stacking insecticidal cry and herbicide tolerance epsps transgenes on transgenic maize proteome. BMC Plant Biol (2014) 14:346. doi:10.1186/s12870-014-0346-8

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Nicolas V, Oestreicher N, Vélot C. Multiple effects of a commercial Roundup^® formulation on the soil filamentous fungus Aspergillus nidulans at low doses: evidence of an unexpected impact on energetic metabolism. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int (2016). doi:10.1007/s11356-016-6596-2

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Séralini GE, Mesnage R, Defarge N, Spiroux de Vendômois J. Conclusiveness of toxicity data and double standards. Food Chem Toxicol (2014) 69:357–9. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2014.04.018

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Mesnage R, Defarge N, Spiroux de Vendomois J, Séralini G-E. Potential toxic effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations below regulatory limits. Food Chem Toxicol (2015) 84:133–53. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2015.08.012

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Zaller JG, Heigl F, Ruess L, Grabmaier A. Glyphosate herbicide affects belowground interactions between earthworms and symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi in a model ecosystem. Sci Rep (2014) 4:5634. doi:10.1038/srep05634

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Clair E, Linn L, Travert C, Amiel C, Séralini G-E, Panoff J-M. Effects of Roundup(^®) and glyphosate on three food microorganisms: Geotrichum candidum, Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris and Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus. Curr Microbiol (2012) 64:486–91. doi:10.1007/s00284-012-0098-3

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Keywords: co-construction of knowledge, participatory research, risk assessment, GMOs, pesticides, civil society

Citation: Vélot C (2016) Scientists and Civil Society Must Move Together toward a New Science. Front. Public Health 4:96. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00096

Received: 11 January 2016; Accepted: 28 April 2016;
Published: 11 May 2016

Edited by:

Efstratios Vogiannis, Evangeliki Model School of Smyrna-Athens, Greece

Reviewed by:

Dionysios Koulougliotis, Technological Educational Institute (TEI) of Ionian Islands, Greece

Copyright: © 2016 Vélot. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Christian Vélot, christian.velot@u-psud.fr

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

An Open Letter to the European Parliament’s Budget Control Committee

cc : Members of the Management Board of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Commissionner V. Andriukaitis, DG SANTE, European Commission

Brussels, 2 March 2016

Dear Members of the European Parliament’s Budget Control Committee,

On 26 January 2016, EFSA announced it was hiring a new director of communications, Ms Barbara Gallani, starting next May 1st. Ms Gallani has a long career in the food sector. There is a question, though: today, this person still is the Chief Scientist of the Food and Drink Federation, the food industry’s trade federation in the UK. As a lobbyist, Ms Gallani was also applying to become a member of EFSA’s Management Board, in one of the seats kept for “representatives of the food chain” there. She since withdrew her application.¹

With this appointment, EFSA once again indicates that, at best, it does not understand its political environment, or that, at worst, it does not care about its independence from the sector it is regulating. Whichever way, this decision was a disaster for what was left of EFSA’s credibility.

Enough is enough. We are writing to you to express our dismay. We have been discussing for many years with EFSA to try to convince this EU agency to reinforce its integrity, become more transparent and independent. We have been patient and constructive, participated in countless public and private consultations, open discussions and conferences. The European Parliament also, year after year since 2011, across political groups, made clear it wanted the agency to improve its reputation and in particular impose for two years a cooling off period on financial conflicts of interests.

In its follow-up report to the Parliament’s demands, the agency promised improvements but refused to close the loophole allowing conflicts of interest to happen (point 10). Experts with financial interests in companies regulated by EFSA can still be found in its scientific panels (and working groups), because the agency keeps evaluating these persons’ interests only according to the specific topic of the group, not whether these interests are de facto regulated by EFSA. The more specific the topic, the bigger the loophole. With this system, a scientist’s research on fries paid by a fast food company can be appointed to a scientific panel on hamburgers; different topic indeed, but is this really convincing as an independence policy?

Some things did change at the agency. Small things. But too small. After a series of critical rulings on EFSA’s independence policy, the European Ombudsman suggested she might launch a self-task investigation into EFSA’s procedures on independence. Media reports keep accumulating² on the existence of conflicts of interest at the agency, which now is so afraid of media exposure that it regularly declines media requests. The agency keeps blaming bad journalism and says it needs to improve its communications. By hiring a lobbyist from the food industry?

EFSA fears not being able to find enough qualified experts to fill its panels would it implement the Parliament’s demand. But there are simple solutions to this, such as hearing any expert whose expertise would be considered interesting but not giving him/her a say on the panel’s work.

The agency has another, much better excuse: it cannot pay these experts and hardly has any budget to do research on its own. Free help is rare, and public help, from national agencies, research centers and universities, is being cut. That leaves lobbyists more space.

Having to sacrifice independence to operational constraints is a rather desperate situation for a public risk assessment agency. But the blame falls essentially on the Commission for not giving EFSA a budget to at least pay 200 independent experts for the EU’s 500 million citizens’ food safety. EFSA’s budget is even facing cuts. The European Commission has systematically dismissed MEPs’ concerns on conflicts of interest at EFSA for the past years.

We now ask you to do two things:

– postpone EFSA’s budget discharge as long as they do not enact a serious independence policy on regulated commercial interests. They have the perfect opportunity to do it now since they have planned a revision of their independence policy for this year.

– postpone EFSA’s budget discharge as long as the European Commission does not credibly commit to provide substantial additional budget to EFSA to pay independent experts and develop in-house research.

With hope,

Corporate Europe Observatory
Fondation Sciences Citoyennes
GMWatch
Groupe international d’études transdisciplinaires (GIET)
Health & Environment Alliance (HEAL)
Pesticides Action Network Europe
Testbiotech

Lettre ouverte

Appendix

Conflicts of interest scandals at EFSA – A non-exhaustive chronology of recent events

– 10 November 2009: Suzy Renckens, leading staff member of EFSA’s GMO Panel, found to have left the authority for biotech company Syngenta without cooling-off period. On 29 May 2013, the EU Ombudsman declared that EFSA failed to take adequate measures to prevent conflict of interests arising from this step.

– 9 September 2010 : EFSA’s Management Board’s chair (Banati) found by MEP José Bové to have a conflict of interest with the food industry (ILSI Europe). Ms Banati declares leaving her ILSI position.

– 1 December 2010: leading members of EFSA’s GMO Panel (Harry Kuiper, Gijs Kleter) found to have close connections to ILSI, report by Testbiotech.

– 23 February 2011 : four members of the Management Board (Kovac, Horst, Ruprich, Vanthemsche) are found to have links with industry by CEO.

– 15 June 2011 : 11 out of the 20 members of the ANS panel have COIs with industry, report by CEO. Four also did not declare links with ILSI Europe.

– 17 octobre 2011 : NDA panel chair (Flynn) has COI with industry, report by Süddeutsche Zeitung

– November 2011 : 12 out of 21 members of the GMO panel have COIs with industry, notably the panel’s chair (Kuiper) – CEO report.

– December 2011: EFSA adopts a new independence policy (main feature: industry employees are no longer allowed to become experts for EFSA) stating that “only evident and general conflicts of interest should be banned”.

– December 2011 : 10 out of 13 members of EFSA’s working group on TTC have COIs with industry, report by PAN Europe

– February 2012: EFSA’s Director publishes the implementing rules of the agency’s new independence policy. The main current loophole in EFSA’s independence policy (interests assessed according to the panel’s mandate) is introduced.

– May 2012: EFSA’s Management Board chair (D. Banati) resigns her position as chair to become the executive director of ILSI.

– May 2012: the European Parliament postpones EFSA’s budget discharge for 6 months because of its bad management of conflicts of interests.

– October 2012: an investigation by the European Court of Auditors finds EFSA’s management of conflicts of interest situations  »inadequate » and called for reform. But since these findings were related to the pre-2011 policy EFSA considers the job is already done.

– December 2012: Le Monde describes how almost half of the members of EFSA’s working group on endocrine disruptors have conflicts of interest.

– October 2013: a joint investigation by CEO & Stéphane Horel finds that almost 60% of EFSA experts have at least one conflict of interest. Wide coverage in Le Monde, New York Times, Der Spiegel.

– December 2013 : investigative TV report (Envoyé Spécial, France 2) finds  »more than half » of EFSA’s experts have COIs – shocking images of EFSA in denial of an obvious case (D. Parent-Massin, ANS panel)

– February 2014 : 52 % of scientists working on pesticides mixtures in food for EFSA have ties with industry, report by Pesticides Action Network Europe

– 3 April 2014: as part of EFSA’s budget discharge procedure, the European Parliament adopts a resolution demanding that the agency imposes “a two-year cooling-off period to all material interests related to the commercial agrifood sector”.

– April-May 2014 : case of I. Rietjens, member of CONTAM panel and former chair of ANS panel, failed to declare 50,000€ income from food company Royal Wessanen,  »resigned » by EFSA after investigation by specialised website EU Food Policy.

– July 2014: EFSA publishes a reworded and slightly improved version of its independence policy, but the main loopholes remain. The European Parliament demands are refused.

– 30 November 2014: German public TV ARD reveals that several experts involved in EFSA’s 2011 scientific opinion on the toxicity of endosulfan as a fish feed additive have a conflict of interest.

– January 2015: the European Ombudsman found that “EFSA has failed to take adequate account of the changing nature of universities in its conflict of interest rules and its Declarations of Interests forms” by not requesting details upon universities’ contractual engagements with private companies and demanded that “EFSA should revise its conflict of interest rules, and the related instructions and forms it uses for declarations of interests.”

– 29 April 2015: as part of EFSA’s budget procedure discharge, the European Parliament adopts a resolution where it “strongly regrets that the main loopholes in the Authority’s implementing rules have not been closed” despite EFSA’s policy review and “reiterates its call that the Authority should apply a two-year cooling-off period to all material interests related to the commercial agri-food sector, including research funding, consultancy contracts and decision-making positions in industry-captured organisations”.

– 31^st May 2015: an in-depth investigation on ethoxyquin by public German TV ZDF is denied an interview by EFSA to explain how it evaluates this substance, used in animal feed and at the centre of many concerns documented in the film, in particular in salmon. One of EFSA’s experts involved in the opinion has a conflict of interest documented in the report. EFSA explained it could not talk to a TV crew before its work on the substance was finished (its November 2015 scientific opinion was inconclusive).

– October 2015: EFSA sends its follow-up report to the European Parliament and explains that, again, it refuses the Parliament’s demand, considering that its current independence policy “guarantees a robust and sophisticated way to avoid potential conflicts while at the same time

allowing EFSA to attract and retain suitable scientific expertise”. The agency promises to introduce two-years cooling-off periods for certain interests of experts working in EFSA panels, but since these will be only assessed taking account the panel mandate and not the Agency’s broader remit to be independent from economic interests it regulates, the change is likely to be very limited.

– 1^st February 2016: Swedish radio reveals several conflicts of interest among the authors of EFSA’s 2010 scientific opinion on sugar and obesity.

– 28 February 2016: the documentary “Light, mensonges et calories” on French public TV France 5 points to the conflicts of interest of several EFSA experts involved in the agency’s 2013 scientific opinion on aspartame.

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

Une vidéo en anglais sous-titrée en français (sous-titre à activer via le bouton dédié dans la barre de contrôle de la vidéo) explique les enjeux et dangers de cette directive :

N’hésitez pas à diffuser l’information et à retweeter notre appel : https://twitter.com/fsc_infos/status/699559325409243136

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

On 28 January 2016, the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee will vote to accept or reject the text of the EU Trade Secrets Directive agreed in trilogues at the end of 2015.
We call on its members to reject it.

The text is the result of negotiations between the European Commission, EU Member States and the European Parliament, which spent half of 2015 debating and amending it. The negotiators have made clear that further amendment is not welcome. But this text is also a result of the lobbying of multinational corporations from the US and the EU, whose lobbyists helped a few officials at DG Internal Market draft and push for its publication. Of course, right now the companies appearing publicly to defend the text are only European SMEs and innovative start-ups.

Too much is at stake. The Parliament improved the text, but the starting point was too bad. Journalists, whistle-blowers still face legal ambiguities: Article 4 contains a very restrictive and vague list of the situations in which business information can be disclosed. And the directive concerns many more: employees, consumers, patients, those whose health is affected by living or working in proximity to instances of industrial malpractice… The impact of this text on the legal regime of public interest disclosures (such as crucial information on medicines’ safety and efficacy – clinical trials data…) remains unclear too. As secrecy becomes the default status for internal corporate information, the price of these legal ambiguities will be paid by everyone.

More than that, this Directive only sets minimum standards. The scandalous criminal measures foreseen by the French government in January 2015, when it tried to introduce key elements of this Directive into French law, could be re-introduced at Member State level with this text, with opportunities for companies to use the most favorable national regime for legal action in the EU.

This new legislation extensively refers to an intellectual property framework and is not limited to preventing anti-competitive behaviour. Its adoption would therefore broaden the scope to everyone in society who “acquires, uses or publishes” information considered a trade secret. The new legal regime would be closer to the USA’s, where new federal legislation is also being passed – no doubt this would be included into the TTIP if signed, making change very difficult.

The directive initially drafted by the European Commission favored companies’ economic rights at the expense of citizens’ political rights. Unfortunately the compromise text still does the same. If companies are given the means to consider almost any internal information as their quasi-intellectual property, they can prevent their employees, the main target of the text, from using any professionally relevant information learned in their jobs in another company for six years.

With companies protecting their reputation more and more aggressively, whistle-blowers are becoming the last sources of inside information on the brutality of corporate practices. We do not think that this last small light will remain if the media can be sued for the publication of any internal information which could be deemed a trade secret.
Trade secrets must not be protected at such a dramatic price. Please reject this text and ask the European Commission to propose a better one, this time not exclusively relying on industry lobbyists and lawyers for advice.

Respectfully,

Centre national de coopération au développement – CNCD-11.11.11
Corporate Europe Observatory
European Public Health Alliance
Fondation Sciences Citoyennes
Health Action International
Public Concern at Work
Vrijschrift
Xnet

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

                 …………………………………………………………………

MANIFESTO FOR A RESPONSIBLE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Preamble

>> The scale and the irreversibility of the interdependences created between humans, between societies, and between humanity and the biosphere, constitute a radically new situation in the history of humanity, which requires a global and urgent response.

>> Facing health and ecological risks, our societies are becoming totally irresponsible:

> Non-accountability of states, which are locked into an out-dated vision of their sovereignty and are more preoccupied with economic, police and military competition than with the common good of the populations;

> Non-accountability of businesses, whose preoccupations are almost exclusively about profits, and who avoid responsibility in the face of insufficient or overlooked knowledge of risks, and who operate outside of control by citizens or states;

> Non-accountability of institutional decision-makers and politicians, and all those who make decisions that are unethical, going against the health of populations and the protection of the environment. They deny risks hiding behind rarely independent expert advice while ignoring the wealth and diversity of knowledge;

> Non-accountability of researchers, who consider that their ethical responsibility is not invested as scientists or as experts.

Further, we note that

>> On a global scale, the current economic rush is generating an irrational race for research contracts – with an instrumentalised science at the heart – and an exaggerated claim for technologies, in the name of innovation, which will bring more competition and growth, without questioning the relevance or consequences.

>> In the intensified competitive system that the world of research has become, researchers and teacher-researchers are caught up in an ever present battle to obtain jobs, students, financing and publication of their work.

>> The researcher finds him/herself dispossessed of the means to practice his/her profession losing the power of personal responsibility: s/he becomes a cog in the vast machine which is technoscience*.

>> Civil society, on the other hand, finds itself dispossessed of choices about its future and that of the biosphere.

We are aware that:

>> Historically, research was in part developed in a framework of « knowledge for knowledge’s sake » and of « freedom of the researcher » who claimed non-accountability for the uses and consequences of the developed knowledge.

>> This reflects back to the assumed existence of a neutral science and independent researchers and the belief that science and researchers, whatever they do, contribute essentially to the progress of humanity.

>> This demand for non-accountability, with implicit reference to former times perceived as more favourable, is today taken up by certain researchers in an attempt to get out of contemporary ethical dilemmas in which they are caught.

And finally:

>> This conception of science has historically permitted, and permits today more than ever, dominant actors, dominant classes and nations, to control the orientation and the utilisation of science. In return, researchers obtain social recognition from their profession, and the granting of a certain degree of self-organisation and protection from conflict of interest and from responsibility for damages attributed as coming from their work.

>> This faustian pact leads to irresponsible research towards society because, not having the common good as a primary objective, research encourages the rushing ahead of technoscience and pulls us into a global social and ecological impasse, which carries considerable threats for the survival of humanity.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

We refuse this conception of science with its claimed non-accountability as well as the current organisational system for research, which adds to the non-accountability of researchers.

We challenge the affirmation according to which damages created by technoscience are said to be automatically corrected by later developments of the same technoscience.

We denounce the impunity which benefits those who, to obtain research financing, systematically stress only the promises of innovation, without worrying about risks or negative consequences. We regret the absence of established measures which would take away this impunity and place the blame of responsibility on the promoters of innovation when they neglect or minimise what would only be « collateral damage », whether these promoters come from the military industrial sphere, research or politics. We consider that responsibility is incontrovertible when damage caused is irreversible.

We affirm that the responsibility of each person is in proportion to their assets, power and knowledge and that nothing can exonerate that responsibility if, in the name of powerlessness, their has been no effort to unite with others, or if, in the name of ignorance, no effort has been made to learn. In this capacity, the researcher is a responsible actor and not a powerless cog.

Consequently, we demand that researchers and scientific institutions admit their co-responsibility in techno-industrial development, which we today know endangers the common future, and that they make themselves capable of effectively joining together those who are concerned with the future of the questions of research orientations and their implications.

We call on all researchers and their institutions:

>> To claim their part in the ecological and social transition to sustainable societies and well-being – through the development of a new contract between society and science for which the key words are methodological rigour, democratisation and transparency of choices and of practices, participation and collective building of knowledge, leading to the orientation of scientific priorities destined to allow for this systemic transition.

>> To develop responsible scientific research, characterised by:

> Democratic elaboration of general goals and budgets for the politics of research and innovation, for the setting of thematic priorities and the allocation of resources for researchers. This calls for the creation of new or reformed science authorities which can challenge established authority and which are equipped with the tools, such as the Citizen Convention*, which make them competent for this task.

> The support and implementation of the further development of participatory research* – meaning the collective construction of knowledge in the framework of groups bearing a wide variety of knowledge and competence, including researchers and other professionals and actors of civil society. That would imply a profound reorientation of the financing of the varieties of research and a redoing of the mechanism of evaluation of the activities of researchers and teacher-researchers.

> The support of research activity that is not finalized.

> The opening of collective scientific expertise to specialists of different fields (such as social sciences) and positions, with demands for the rigour of procedures and of non-capture by dominant actors. This expertise must not be confused with the preliminary question – submitted to democratic deliberation beforehand – of the social usefulness of an innovation and its possible alternatives;

> The autonomy and the critical reflexivity of the researchers, their capacity to discern the political meaning of technoscientific innovations and the mechanisms of dominance at work, the recognition of their role or even their duty as whistle-blowers*, by loyalty towards society.

>>  To be oriented towards research-development for which the principal priority should today be the setting up of sustainable production and distribution networks.

We are aware that this type of research, geared towards the common good and in which citizens have a central role, calls for profound changes in the training as well as the missions of researchers and teacher-researchers, and in the role and functions of research institutions and in the aims of the politics of research.

To resume, we call for responsible scientific research – which we consider as the only kind able to rebuild confidence between science and society and able to ensure that science is committed to a sustainable society of well-being.

English version of the text : SciencesCitoyennes_Manifesto_EN_v1

French version of the text : SciencesCitoyennes_Manifeste_FR_v1

*For more information, refer to the website of the Fondation Sciences Citoyennes : http://sciences-citoyennes.org

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

La société britannique Oxitec prévoit la libération de mouches de l’olive génétiquement modifiés, en Catalogne (Espagne). Ces insectes sont modifiés de façon à ce que les descendantes femelles meurent (à l’état larvaire, dans les olives), tandis que les générations mâles survivent. L’objectif de la société Oxitex est de libérer jusqu’à 5000 mouches par semaine, dans une région proche de Tarragone, sur une zone expérimentale d’environ 1000m2. Face aux risques de modification de la biodiversité et de dissémination, y compris dans des productions d’agriculture biologique, des organisations, dont la Fondation Sciences Citoyennes, demandent l’interdiction de toute libération de ces espèces.

Une information plus complète est disponible en anglais ci-dessous :

UK company plans to release genetically engineered flies in Spain

Further Informations:
Oxitec application for trials: http://gmoinfo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/gmo_report.aspx?CurNot=B/ES/15/06 More information on Oxitec technology: www.genewatch.org/sub-566989
Previous media release: www.testbiotech.org/node/875

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

Nanotechnology uses a powerful new set of technologies to change substances at the very smallest scale so that have new properties that they do not have at a larger scale. Nanomaterials are being used in a variety of products. In the last five years, chemical companies have been introducing more and more consumer products containing nanoparticles. The Wilson Center in the US has found more than 1000 nano-consumer products in the US market, the BEUC/ANEC inventory and the BUND inventory found that more than 800 nano consumer products are being sold in Europe.

Jurek Vengels of Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND), Germany declared: “The challenge is that none of these products have been tested to assure consumers that they are safe. Product manufacturers and distributors bear the burden of proof to demonstrate the safety of their products. If there is no independent health and safety review of each product as it is formulated, then the products should be taken off the market.”

Jaydee Hanson from the International Center for Technology Assessment, which has filed legal challenges to the US Environmental Policy Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, called “for the protection of workers and the public from exposure to nanomaterials that have not been proven safe.”

Paolo Martins, Coordinator of the Brazilian Research Network in Nanotechnology, Society and the Environment called for review of nanotechnologies that will have wide-ranging effects on workers and consumers in the developing world. He noted that there must be, “full consideration of the ethical and social impacts of these technologies.”

Claudia Neubauer of Fondation Sciences Citoyennes (France) called for “full and meaningful public participation in decisions about research and innovations related to nanotechnologies.”
Ian Illuminato of Friends of the Earth-US demanded that “a full lifecycle analysis must be completed prior to any commercialization of nano-products.”

Dorothée Browaeys, Director General of VivAgora (France) noted that “nanomaterials must be classified as new substances and subject to nano-specific regulation. France has initiated mandatory declaration for producers and importers, this should be expanded to include all formulators and retailers of products containing nanomaterials. Other countries should do likewise.”

Louise Duprez from the European Environmental Bureau in Brussels called upon the European Commission to “rapidly agree on a definition for nanomaterials and propose long-awaited legislation to ensure that their applications are safe for people’s health and the environment”.

Pat Mooney, Executive Director of the ETC Group, with offices in Canada, the Philippines, Mexico, and the US called for a moratorium on the commercialization of nano-products, but noted that all “Nano-industries must be fully accountable for liabilities caused by their products if they come on the market.”

Participants included the following organisations:
Center of International Environmental Law (Switzerland)
Arbeit & Gesundheit (Germany)
Brazilian Research Network in Nanotechnology, Society, and Environment
BUND (Germany)
Center for Food Safety (US)
Deutsches Institute für Normund e.V.
ETC Group (Canada, Phillippines, Mexico, US)
European Environmental Bureau
Fondation Sciences Citoyennes (France)
Friends of the Earth (US)
International Center for Technology Assessment (US)
Natural Resources Defense Council (US)
Vivagora (France)
WECF/Women for a Common Future in Europe (Germany)

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

Nanotechnology uses a powerful new set of technologies to change substances at the very smallest scale so that have new properties that they do not have at a larger scale. Nanomaterials are being used in a variety of products. In the last five years, chemical companies have been introducing more and more consumer products containing nanoparticles. The Wilson Center in the US has found more than 1000 nano-consumer products in the US market, the BEUC/ANEC inventory and the BUND inventory found that more than 800 nano consumer products are being sold in Europe.

Jurek Vengels of Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND), Germany declared: “The challenge is that none of these products have been tested to assure consumers that they are safe. Product manufacturers and distributors bear the burden of proof to demonstrate the safety of their products. If there is no independent health and safety review of each product as it is formulated, then the products should be taken off the market.”

Jaydee Hanson from the International Center for Technology Assessment, which has filed legal challenges to the US Environmental Policy Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, called “for the protection of workers and the public from exposure to nanomaterials that have not been proven safe.”

Paolo Martins, Coordinator of the Brazilian Research Network in Nanotechnology, Society and the Environment called for review of nanotechnologies that will have wide-ranging effects on workers and consumers in the developing world. He noted that there must be, “full consideration of the ethical and social impacts of these technologies.”

Claudia Neubauer of Fondation Sciences Citoyennes (France) called for “full and meaningful public participation in decisions about research and innovations related to nanotechnologies.”
Ian Illuminato of Friends of the Earth-US demanded that “a full lifecycle analysis must be completed prior to any commercialization of nano-products.”

Dorothée Browaeys, Director General of VivAgora (France) noted that “nanomaterials must be classified as new substances and subject to nano-specific regulation. France has initiated mandatory declaration for producers and importers, this should be expanded to include all formulators and retailers of products containing nanomaterials. Other countries should do likewise.”

Louise Duprez from the European Environmental Bureau in Brussels called upon the European Commission to “rapidly agree on a definition for nanomaterials and propose long-awaited legislation to ensure that their applications are safe for people’s health and the environment”.

Pat Mooney, Executive Director of the ETC Group, with offices in Canada, the Philippines, Mexico, and the US called for a moratorium on the commercialization of nano-products, but noted that all “Nano-industries must be fully accountable for liabilities caused by their products if they come on the market.”

Participants included the following organisations:
Center of International Environmental Law (Switzerland)
Arbeit & Gesundheit (Germany)
Brazilian Research Network in Nanotechnology, Society, and Environment
BUND (Germany)
Center for Food Safety (US)
Deutsches Institute für Normund e.V.
ETC Group (Canada, Phillippines, Mexico, US)
European Environmental Bureau
Fondation Sciences Citoyennes (France)
Friends of the Earth (US)
International Center for Technology Assessment (US)
Natural Resources Defense Council (US)
Vivagora (France)
WECF/Women for a Common Future in Europe (Germany)

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes