Top EU Court Rules Public Interest Is More Important Than Protection Of Commercial Interests
from the healthy-precedent dept
As Techdirt noted some years back, there has been a steady push to strengthen the protection afforded to trade secrets. Similarly, the argument is often made that transparency must be subordinated to protecting commercial interests, as happened recently in an important struggle over access to information in the EU. It concerned the safety of the chemical glyphosate, widely used as a herbicide, for example in Roundup from Monsanto (now owned by the German chemical giant, Bayer). The EU body responsible for assessing risks associated with the food chain is EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). As part of the process of renewing approval for glyphosate, which was granted in 2017 for five more years, EFSA conducted a review of the toxicity and carcinogenicity of the chemical, drawing on a variety of published and unpublished data. Whether glyphosate increases the risk of cancer is a highly contentious area, with widely differing expert views:
In March 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) working group of experts classified Glyphosate in Group 2A (probable human carcinogens) with strong evidence for a genotoxic mechanism of carcinogenicity. The Joint WHO/FAO Expert Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR), which is responsible for assessing the risk of pesticide residues in Food in Codex, originally evaluated Glyphosate in 2004. JMPR did not find evidence for carcinogenicity in humans and assigned an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI).
In 2018, a US court ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million in damages to a former school groundkeeper who sued the company after he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, which he claimed was caused by his exposure to glyphosate. The award was later reduced to $78 million, still a significant sum.
In the EU, a group of four members of the European Parliament, and another individual, asked separately to see two key industry studies that were used by EFSA in coming to its decision in favor of approval. EFSA refused, because it claimed that disclosure of the information might seriously harm the commercial and financial interests of the companies that had submitted the data, and that there was no overriding public interest justifying disclosure. Those seeking access appealed to one of the EU's highest, but least-known, courts, the General Court of the European Union. Its job is to hear actions taken against the institutions of the EU, as in this case. The court has just issued its judgment (pdf):
an overriding public interest in disclosing the studies is deemed to exist. EFSA could not therefore refuse to disclose them on the ground that that would have an adverse effect on the protection of the commercial interests of the owners of the requested studies.
Potentially, that ruling could have a big impact on future cases where EU institutions seek to prevent information relating to health and the environment being released on the grounds it would allegedly harm commercial interests. It's also a setback for the general idea that business secrets should trump transparency.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: commercial interests, efsa, eu, glyphosate, public interest, roundup, studies, toxicity
Companies: bayer, monsanto
Reader Comments
The First Word
“The entire point of allowing corporations to exist in the first place is to ultimately serve the public by producing goods and providing services that the public deems beneficial, over the cost of providing them. This requires the public to be aware of the indirect cost as well in order to make informed decisions. Though the court made the right call this time, the fact that government decisions such as this rarely even consider public interest means that it's the public that's expected to be subordinate to commercial and financial interests of corporations.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A bit off topic, but wouldn't this court also be able to get the commission on the hook for GDPR breaches? It sounds too good to be true. Like there would be really some accountability for them. Unthinkable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was I the only one who saw the title and hoped that the article was talking about Article 13?
Then again, given the music publishers' complaint that they can't make money from parodies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
Queen Anne's copyright law (the first) was explicitly motivated by the need to protect the income of creators and licensed publishers (the artists get paid through the license). If copyright fails to deliver that protection, it no longer serves its original purpose. Therefore, creators have every right to "complain" if piracy or other developments have harmed their income.
American copyright law is more generous to the "public interest" but even that cites the need to incentivize creation. The best most on this site can come up with in response when something like this is pointed out is a vicious ad-hominem attack which reflects an underlying lack of charact er.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would you support author's rights?
It is a bit of cross-posting, but again: If I were to argue for author's rights, to replace copyright, but mostly in the same vein, only that such an author's right would be non-transferable (except by succession to heirs) and with a strict 5-year limit on exclusive licenses, all with the purpose of strengthening the position of authors against those of publishers, would you support me? If not, then please don't pretend to speak for authors (which I do not name creators, BTW).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wrong. The explicit motivation was to protect authors from publishers. When copyright strays from a limit on the predatory nature of publishers to an enabler thereof, it's been corrupted and needs to be restored to its original purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The entire point of allowing corporations to exist in the first place is to ultimately serve the public by producing goods and providing services that the public deems beneficial, over the cost of providing them. This requires the public to be aware of the indirect cost as well in order to make informed decisions. Though the court made the right call this time, the fact that government decisions such as this rarely even consider public interest means that it's the public that's expected to be subordinate to commercial and financial interests of corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Defamation law in the US doesn't serve the public interest when it immunizes big tech against lawsuits brought by those harmed by big tech (Section 230).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Section "230" DEFAMATION big Gvermnt mailing "lists" MASNICK mean Girls "alexander" Hamilton pirates THIEVES TODDLERS whining Sycophantic Copyright "outliers" illterate Knobs Google Shills and Minions quaint "fixation" what Smells like "Toast"?
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Asserts facts still not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"the fact that government decisions such as this rarely even consider public interest means that it's the public that's expected to be subordinate to commercial and financial interests of corporations"
In their minds ... meanwhile back at the ranch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except...
...DDT, Asbestos, GMO's, vaccines, and the latest... talcum powder.
BAD science (if a fiat decree can be called science) used to pass bans and laws.
You're not going to find a Judge and a jury of 12 biochemical engineers who can actually weigh the evidence - or even understand it in-context.
As to side effects, a few tens of millions of kids not blinded, crippled, or killed by malaria, malnutrition, small pox, tetanus, pertussis....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Except...
"BAD science "
Bad Corporations twisting what science has reveled into a money making endeavor regardless of the consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Except...
Sometimes. Freon12 comes right to mind. Supposedly caused ozone depletion - just as DuPont's patent expired. Amazingly, they had a replacement for it ready to ship...
On the other hand, DDT was banned on the basis of junk science "proof".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Except...
"DDT was banned on the basis of junk science"
Had not read that.
So DDT does not cause problems with avian egg thickness?
Perhaps the Condor did not need rescuing and the whole thing was fake news - LOL
Is this anti-anti-ddt a new thing like anti-vac or is it old like flat earth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protect Public Interest? Yeah right.
If it was more important to protect public interest than commercial interests, then they would’ve rejected the Copyright Directive reforms by now. But did they? Not at all. The EU has been pushing Article 13 and 11 through the entire legislative process against the will of the people, and now the rest of the world’s getting dragged down with it. Because keep in mind, the new Copyright Directive will not only affect the EU’s internet, but it will affect the world’s internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Protect Public Interest? Yeah right.
The role of the court only comes into sight when somebody has a proper case to be made, for example, when an beginning artist is repeatedly blocked on various platforms due to legally mandated filters (or filters that can be considered legally mandated under the doctrine of "measures having equivalent effect")
If the EU parliament approves article 13, we will first have to wait for national implementations that have this effect, and then see this traverse through one of the national court system. So we will only know in about four or five years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correlation with gluten intolerance and celiac
There are indications that glyphosate used in growing wheat and other grains may be related to increasing problems with gluten intolerance and celiac disease.
There are also indications that peanut oil is used as an adjuvant in vaccines, but not listed in the ingredients because of trade secrets. Someone told me they rotate the oils so it is hard to blame reactions on one particular oil.
Pathogens stimulate an immune response in a person, and sometimes bad things can happen.
Vaccines stimulate an immune response in a person, and sometimes bad things can happen.
Adjuvants enhance immune responses, and sometimes bad things can happen.
In some vaccine clinical trials, aluminum is used in the placebo, instead of using an inert placebo.
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Correlation with gluten intolerance and celiac
And then there were (are?) those clandestine experiments performed upon the unsuspecting public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Correlation with gluten intolerance and celiac
Such as the one performed by "Rational Vaccines" that was funded in part by Peter Thiel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Correlation with gluten intolerance and celiac
That is like saying because you are mostly water and tomatoes are mostly water eating tomatoes will give you kuru because it is essentially cannibalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Correlation with gluten intolerance and celiac
Peanut oil generally does not contain the proteins that trigger an allergic reaction, unless they're using a different kind of oil than is generally found on your grocery store shelf that is not "highly refined". Since allergic reactions to peanuts can be fatal, it seems highly unlikely any company would expose themselves to that sort of liability by using unrefined peanut oil in a vaccine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Interest More Important Commercial Interests
That's just COMMON LAW, kids.
Even Techdirt trumpets the principle when suits.
You who were demanding examples of my usage of the term, THIS is one.
And no matter how often "Gary" and Masnick or whoever try to claim that common law is JUST the consensus of courts, it's actually bedrock Law of The Public's Interest, which is based in the fact that We The People don't have to just allow corporations to do whatever is in narrow financial interests.
Corporations are NOT persons, DO NOT have Rights at all, let alone superior to the whole Public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Interest More Important Commercial Interests
Corporations are NOT persons, DO NOT have Rights at all, let alone superior to the whole Public.
Then tear down the RIAA and be done with it. Why does the RIAA get a free pass to sue corpses?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Interest
Hey blue can Jhon boy even get it up in the bedroom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Public Interest
I think someone else holds the copyright to that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
title
That title is very inaccurate... oh how I wish it where true!
Absolutes make fools of us all. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glyphosate
Pro-glyphosate scientist refuses to drink glyphosate after claiming it's perfectly safe to drink:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EFSA refused, because it claimed that disclosure of the information might seriously harm the commercial and financial interests of the companies that had submitted the data, and that there was no overriding public interest justifying disclosure.
Does this statement simply not contradict itself, or what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How so? Do you mean that harming the commercial and financial interests of private companies is strongly in the public interest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]