Tag Archives: evidence

Bees victory in pesticide battle – Bayer libel action dismissed Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




German chemical giant Bayer has failed in its attempt to sue Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND) over its claims that two of its pesitcide formulations harm bees.

A judge in Dusseldorf has ruled that BUND had a right to voice its concerns about Bayer’s ‘Calypso‘ and ‘Lizetan’ pesticide formulations, sold to consumers as “not toxic to bees”. Both contain the neonicotinoid Thiacloprid which is associated with harm to bees.

“We are delighted with this achievement”, said BUND’s pesticide expert Tomas Brückmann. “This is a victory for the bees and freedom.”

Just before last Christmas Bayer took out a restraining order against BUND at the District Court in Dusseldorf, preventing the group from publishing its view that the product was harmful to bees, under threat of a €250,000 fine or a detention of up to two years. Now that order has been overturned.

A spokesman for Bayer said the company “regrets the decision”, adding that the products “had officially been classified as ‘not harmful for bees’ and were labeled as such in accordance with binding legal regulations” after thorough testing both by Bayer and Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL)

Scientific evidence shows Thiaclopid harms bees

But according to BUND, there is “scientific evidence of impaired learning ability” to bees from Thiacloprid, as well as to “the ability to communicate and pollen foraging activity of bees”.

It also believes that by printing a “not toxic to bees” logo on products containing Thiacloprid, following the emergence of contrary evidence, there arose “the suspicion of a deliberate deception of the consumer by Bayer.”

A scientific paper by Professor Randolf Menzel used in evidence by BUND, says: “Sublethal doses of neonicotinoids interfere selectively with the homing flight component based on this cognitive map memory, reducing the probability of successful returns to the hive. Chronic exposure to the neonicotinoid Thiacloprid reduces the attractiveness of a feeding site and the rate of recruitment.”

Following its legal defeat, says Brückmann, Bayer Crop Sciences should immediately withdraw the offending bee-hazardous pesticides from the market.

“We call on all markets to stop the sale of Thiacloprid pesticides”, he continued. “In addition, the EU should withdraw the authorization of the Thiacloprid and the Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) withdraw product approvals for all Thiacloprid products.”

A paper published in the Journal PLOS ONE confirms that Thiacloprid, along with the neonicotinoids Imidacloprid and Clothianidin, affects bees’ navigational ability and behaviour, making it harder for them to find their way back to their hives.

It also shows that exposure to Thiacloprid can increase the likelihood of honeybees dying if they are already infected with diseases. A further study found that the toxicity of Thiacloprid to honey bees is increased over 1,000 fold when mixed with fungicides.

These bee-toxic pesticides must also be banned in the UK!

Back in London, Friends of the Earth bees campaigner Dave Timms said: “Bayer has been shown up as a corporate bully, trying to silence campaigners who are standing up for bees. 

“The ruling is a victory for Friends of the Earth Germany, freedom of speech and for the many thousands of people who have taken action to protect bees across Europe. 

Thiacloprid is used on various crops in the UK including oil seed rape (canola) and apples, and it is sold direct to the public in garden bug-killing products. Friends of the Earth is now asking the European Commission to take a precautionary approach by suspending all uses of Thiacloprid and to review its safety.

As in Germany, Bayer’s Thiacloprid products sold in the UK are described as “Bee Safe” or having “no risk to bees”. These include Calypso and Biscaya.

“Now we want to see action from the European Commission to ensure that any pesticides with evidence of harm to bees are taken off our shelves and out of our fields for good”, said Timms. In addition FoE will be contacting retailers asking them to stop selling products containing Thiacloprid.

In 2013 three other neonicotinoid pesticides (imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin) were subject to a temporary ban in the EU. This followed a review of evidence by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) which found they each posed a “high acute risk” to honey bees.

“Although Thiacloprid is not subject to that ban there is evidence that it can make bees more likely to die from common diseases and can impair their navigational abilities, making it harder for them to return to their hives”, Timms added.

Not just bees – the entire food chain is at risk!

Last year a group of 29 independent scientists on the Global Taskforce on Systemic Pesticides concluded that the widespread use of neonicotinoid pesticides is affecting earthworms, birds and bees and the quality of water and soils.

They examined over 1,000 peer reviewed papers before reaching this conclusion. They also found that the compounds which neonicotinoids break down into are often as, or more, toxic than the active ingredients.

In another legal action, Bayer and Sygenta are suing the European Commission to lift its temporary ban on the three neonicotinoids. “The Commission must stand form against these bully-buy tactics”, said Timms.

And Bayer is not ruling out an appeal against BUND’s legal victory. A spokesman said: “The court considered the allegations of BUND to be a free expression of opinion, which deserved special protection. Bayer CropScience will wait for the written grounds for the judgment and subsequently consider potential further steps.”

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




391197

Agroecology can feed Africa – not agribusiness Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




There is plenty of evidence that the livelihoods of farmers and communities can be improved, and that agroecology can deliver a huge range of other benefits.

At the beginning of March, the Guardian ran a chilling editorial warning of a looming global food crisis, saying that an “enduring lesson of history is that drought and famine feed conflict, and conflict breeds more privation, and despair.”

The good news is that there’s a whole host of ways going forward to address the challenge of sustainable food production. The bad news is that donors, development agencies and multilateral financial initiatives seem to want to move in the opposite direction.

There is now extremely good evidence that small-scale sustainable farming, or agroecology, can deliver as much if not more food than large-scale corporate-controlled agriculture.

For example, research by the UN showed that switching to agroecological farming methods has increased yields across Africa by 116% and by 128% in East Africa compared to conventional farming.

There is also plenty of evidence that the livelihoods of farmers and communities can be improved, and that agroecology can deliver a huge range of other benefits, including reducing the gender gap, creating jobs, improving people’s health, increasing biodiversity, and increasing the resilience of food systems to cope with climate change.

The malign influence of agri-corporations

So why are governments, development agencies, policy makers and funders so focused on large-scale, high-input solutions which marginalise poor and small-scale farmers, have a negative impact on our environment, and do little to increase the resilience of our food system as a whole?

The short answer is corporate power. A longer answer is that there is a significant economic and political bias in favour of large-scale industrial agriculture. This bias is created through an economic system which privileges industrial farming, large-scale land owners and monopolistic corporations, leading to political support for these vested interests.

A change in the ideological support for industrial agriculture towards agroecology and sustainable small-scale agriculture will require the political establishment and development agencies to design policies based on scientific evidence and the long-term viability of our global food system.

As the eminent agroecologist Professor Miguel Altieri has put it,

“The issue seems to be political or ideological rather than evidence or science based. No matter what data is presented, governments and donors influenced by big interests marginalize agroecological approaches focusing on quick-fix, external input intensive ‘solutions’ and proprietary technologies such as transgenic crops and chemical fertilisers.

“It is time for the international community to recognize that there is no other more viable path to food production in the twenty-first century than agroecology.“

There are many other barriers in place which prevent agroecology from being scaled up and helping to create a more robust and equitable food system.

Unfair trade rules and skewed research

For starters, there is the question of unfair trade rules and policies which force governments to sacrifice democratic decisions and priorities such as the ‘right to food’ in the name of free trade.

Many southern countries have had their agricultural sectors decimated as they have been forced to remove agricultural protections like quotas and tariffs, food stockpiles and price controls, and subsidised seeds and other inputs.

These are all seen as barriers to trade. This problem is compounded by the fact that many western countries are still allowed to subsidise agriculture, meaning small African farmers are being forced to compete with highly subsidised North American and European agribusiness.

But there’s no reason why trade has to work in this way. Trade could easily prioritise and promote the ability of small farmers to sell goods, just as certain fair trade schemes currently do.

What’s more, trade should primarily encourage local, national and regional trading relationships, ensuring countries feed themselves before throwing them into competitive relationships with established companies in the west where customers are able to spend more on food than in domestic markets.

Then there’s the question of research and investment. At the moment, most of the money for both is spent on high-tech conventional farming which relies on expensive inputs, such as chemical pesticides and fertilisers, and proprietary high-yielding seeds.

Instead, investments and research should be realigned towards sustainable farming and agroecology – particularly given the increasingly strong evidence of the benefits of these low-input practices on a wide range of environmental, social and economic indicators. Investments should not be tied to policy reforms which promote corporate-controlled economic growth at the expense of small-scale and poor farmers.

Land ownership

Finally there is the complex question of land ownership. An estimated 90% of rural land in Africa is unregistered, making it particularly susceptible to land grabs and unfair expropriation by governments on behalf of multinational corporations.

Behind the problem of insecure land tenure is a deeper rooted problem of land ownership inequality, which goes back to the colonial era and before and looms large to this day. Across the continent, households in the highest income per capita quartile control up to fifteen times more land than people in the lowest quartile.

Land tenure is a complex issue and improving tenure rights and the growth of private property rights can, in some cases, facilitate corporate land grabbing and strengthen private land ownership by already rich investors and farmers.

Corporations and other powerful actors can increase their control of land either directly, with medium and long-term leases, or through direct land purchases, but they can also control land and labour through contract farming arrangements.

Improving land tenure arrangements should go hand in hand with land reform and land redistribution which prioritises the needs of small-scale farmers and farming communities and reduces land ownership inequality.

All of these barriers can be overcome through policies which take power away from corporations currently pushing for a one-size-fits-all industrial model of agriculture, and give it back to the small-scale farmers who currently grow 70% of Africa’s food.

Democratic alternatives

At Global Justice Now, we campaign for a world where resources are in the hands of the many, not the few. We champion social movements and propose democratic alternatives to corporate power.

We need a complete shift in who controls our food system. Power must be taken away from corporations and put back into the hands of the people and communities that produce and consume food. Only a movement of people calling for food sovereignty and agroecology will create this sort of change.

 

 

Ian Fitzpatrick is a researcher with Global Justice Now.


This article is an excerpt of ‘From the roots up‘, a report about how agroecology can feed Africa. It was originally published by openDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.

Creative Commons License

 




391113

MPs’ GMO report is a scandalous cave-in to corporate demands Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The House of Commons Science and Technology select committee has just this morning published the results of its inquiry into genetically modified crops and our attitude to them within the EU.

I was one of a number of contributors of evidence to the select committee. I felt compelled to do so, despite my fears (which I made clear at the time along with a number of colleagues), that the stated reasons for conducting the inquiry prejudged the result.

Today’s publication, which is making headline news across the entire press, has sadly shown that these fears were well founded.

The preamble to the terms of reference for the inquiry declares that “GM is one of several technologies necessary to foster a ‘vibrant sector’ in UK agriculture”, but is being held back by EU red tape.

What ought to have been at best a potential conclusion of the research was thus its guiding principle. Instead of an invitation to open and honest discussion of the merits of the EU’s precautious stance, what we got was a call to find ‘scientific’ reasons to prop up foregone and pre-judged economic logic.

Easy not to find what you’re not looking for!

The main bone of contention is the EU’s use of the ‘precautionary principle‘. According to this principle, where practices such as the growing of GM crops carry with them an unknown level of risk (which may be small, but is more than zero) of catastrophic harm, the burden of proof should lie in demonstrating that they are safe, rather than that they are harmful.

There are sound reasons, both ethical and practical, for adopting this stance. If we wait for evidence of harm, it follows that harm – potentially catastrophic – would already have been done before we can step in with legislation.

Given any potential for catastrophe, however small, we ought not to accept this on moral or on prudential grounds. From an economic perspective, the cost of funding research to prove the practice is safe is placed on the corporations who stand to gain from it. This lifts the burden from EU taxpayers who stand to suffer from harm.

The preamble to the select committee inquiry stated that “the ‘precautionary principle’ has been criticized for holding back development of the technology, despite European Commission reports finding no scientific evidence associating GM organisms with higher risks for the environment or food and feed safety.”

This was either a disingenuous misrepresentation of the very concept of the precautionary principle, or merely an expression of premature rejection of the principle before any evidence had been submitted.

It was irrelevant that the Commission thus far had no evidence of harm, because they were not looking for evidence of harm but evidence of safety.

Clear scientific evidence of ‘no more risk’, claims report

Distressingly, deeply-worryingly, the published report now claims that “The scientific evidence is clear that crops developed using genetic modification pose no more risk to humans, animals or the environment than equivalent crops developed using more ‘conventional’ techniques.”

Despite the now much stronger claim, the grounds for this conclusion do not move beyond the lack of evidence of harm already referred to in the preamble.

This was precisely the logical mistake that I warned against in my submitted evidence, in which I brought to the attention of the committee my work on GM and precaution co-authored with Nassim Taleb, author of ‘The Black Swan‘.

The bottom line of that work was that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Merely that we arguably haven’t yet seen significant evidence of harm from GM food does nothing to support the claim that the potential for ruinous harm is not there.

And as reported on The Ecologist earlier this week, there is no scientific concensus that GM crops and food are safe, indeed: “The totality of research outcomes in the field of GM crop safety is nuanced; complex; often contradictory or inconclusive; confounded by researchers’ choices, assumptions, and funding sources; and, in general, has raised more questions than it has answered.”

A lack of conclusive evidence that GM poses a risk to us does not mean that we should give the big agro-tech firms free rein, turning Britain or Europe into a giant experiment from which there may be no going back.

A smoking gun?

A useful analogy here is the case of smoking. For years governments were prevented from instituting measures to curtail the sale of cigarettes, because the powerful tobacco companies blocked them at every turn by demanding incontrovertible evidence that cigarettes caused harm.

It took years before the medical profession had collected enough evidence to face up to the highly paid lawyers of the cigarette firms.

Challenges to advertising restrictions and proposals for plain packaging are being mounted even to this day, on the basis of a lack of evidence. Think how many lives could have been saved if we had adopted precautionary reasoning in this case, and required tobacco companies to prove their products were safe before we allowed them onto the market.

Did it ever make much sense to fill one’s lungs repeatedly with a cocktail of smoke and chemicals? Did we really have to wait for proof beyond reasonable doubt that smoking causes lung cancer to justify action to rein in the cigarette companies, their advertising, etc.?

The stakes in the case of GM are even higher. Smoking caused an ‘epidemic’ of mortality and morbidity, but it never threatened to ruin us altogether. Where there is a threat of ruin – where there is a risk to our entire ecosystems and food-systems – then we should not have to wait for the ‘evidence’ to come in before we act. For, by the time it comes in, it would be too late.

This is when precautionary reasoning is decisive: in cases where there is a risk of ruin. This is what Taleb and I have shown. This is what the Select Committee have palpably refused to think about, and set their face against: thus putting us all at risk.

EU pen-pushers standing in the way of British enterprise?

Sadly, the government will now no-doubt use the results of this ‘inquiry’ as a stick with which to beat the EU, and to bolster the Tory narrative of the EU as nothing more than a gang of small-minded foreign pen-pushers standing in the way of the proud British spirit of free enterprise.

Their report’s conclusion that “decisions about access to and use of safe products should be made by national governments on behalf of the populations that elected them, not by the EU”, and their call on the EU “not to unjustifiably restrict the choices available to other elected governments and the citizens whom they represent” are a demand to let GMOs rip without further ado.

We should be glad that for the moment this report has no power actually to influence EU procedure. It is a worrying glimpse of what this country would look like without the modest protection EU legislation currently provides from some of the worst excesses of corporate domination.

 

 

The report: ‘EU regulation on GMOs not ‘fit for purpose‘.

Dr. Rupert Read is Reader in Philosophy at the University of East Anglia, Chair of Green House, and a regular contributor to The Ecologist and to Resurgence. He is also the Green Party’s prospective parliamentary candidate for Cambridge in the 2015 general election.

More information: ‘The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms)‘ by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Rupert Read, Raphael Douady, Joseph Norman, Yaneer Bar-Yam.

 




390789

MPs’ GMO report is a scandalous cave-in to corporate demands Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The House of Commons Science and Technology select committee has just this morning published the results of its inquiry into genetically modified crops and our attitude to them within the EU.

I was one of a number of contributors of evidence to the select committee. I felt compelled to do so, despite my fears (which I made clear at the time along with a number of colleagues), that the stated reasons for conducting the inquiry prejudged the result.

Today’s publication, which is making headline news across the entire press, has sadly shown that these fears were well founded.

The preamble to the terms of reference for the inquiry declares that “GM is one of several technologies necessary to foster a ‘vibrant sector’ in UK agriculture”, but is being held back by EU red tape.

What ought to have been at best a potential conclusion of the research was thus its guiding principle. Instead of an invitation to open and honest discussion of the merits of the EU’s precautious stance, what we got was a call to find ‘scientific’ reasons to prop up foregone and pre-judged economic logic.

Easy not to find what you’re not looking for!

The main bone of contention is the EU’s use of the ‘precautionary principle‘. According to this principle, where practices such as the growing of GM crops carry with them an unknown level of risk (which may be small, but is more than zero) of catastrophic harm, the burden of proof should lie in demonstrating that they are safe, rather than that they are harmful.

There are sound reasons, both ethical and practical, for adopting this stance. If we wait for evidence of harm, it follows that harm – potentially catastrophic – would already have been done before we can step in with legislation.

Given any potential for catastrophe, however small, we ought not to accept this on moral or on prudential grounds. From an economic perspective, the cost of funding research to prove the practice is safe is placed on the corporations who stand to gain from it. This lifts the burden from EU taxpayers who stand to suffer from harm.

The preamble to the select committee inquiry stated that “the ‘precautionary principle’ has been criticized for holding back development of the technology, despite European Commission reports finding no scientific evidence associating GM organisms with higher risks for the environment or food and feed safety.”

This was either a disingenuous misrepresentation of the very concept of the precautionary principle, or merely an expression of premature rejection of the principle before any evidence had been submitted.

It was irrelevant that the Commission thus far had no evidence of harm, because they were not looking for evidence of harm but evidence of safety.

Clear scientific evidence of ‘no more risk’, claims report

Distressingly, deeply-worryingly, the published report now claims that “The scientific evidence is clear that crops developed using genetic modification pose no more risk to humans, animals or the environment than equivalent crops developed using more ‘conventional’ techniques.”

Despite the now much stronger claim, the grounds for this conclusion do not move beyond the lack of evidence of harm already referred to in the preamble.

This was precisely the logical mistake that I warned against in my submitted evidence, in which I brought to the attention of the committee my work on GM and precaution co-authored with Nassim Taleb, author of ‘The Black Swan‘.

The bottom line of that work was that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Merely that we arguably haven’t yet seen significant evidence of harm from GM food does nothing to support the claim that the potential for ruinous harm is not there.

And as reported on The Ecologist earlier this week, there is no scientific concensus that GM crops and food are safe, indeed: “The totality of research outcomes in the field of GM crop safety is nuanced; complex; often contradictory or inconclusive; confounded by researchers’ choices, assumptions, and funding sources; and, in general, has raised more questions than it has answered.”

A lack of conclusive evidence that GM poses a risk to us does not mean that we should give the big agro-tech firms free rein, turning Britain or Europe into a giant experiment from which there may be no going back.

A smoking gun?

A useful analogy here is the case of smoking. For years governments were prevented from instituting measures to curtail the sale of cigarettes, because the powerful tobacco companies blocked them at every turn by demanding incontrovertible evidence that cigarettes caused harm.

It took years before the medical profession had collected enough evidence to face up to the highly paid lawyers of the cigarette firms.

Challenges to advertising restrictions and proposals for plain packaging are being mounted even to this day, on the basis of a lack of evidence. Think how many lives could have been saved if we had adopted precautionary reasoning in this case, and required tobacco companies to prove their products were safe before we allowed them onto the market.

Did it ever make much sense to fill one’s lungs repeatedly with a cocktail of smoke and chemicals? Did we really have to wait for proof beyond reasonable doubt that smoking causes lung cancer to justify action to rein in the cigarette companies, their advertising, etc.?

The stakes in the case of GM are even higher. Smoking caused an ‘epidemic’ of mortality and morbidity, but it never threatened to ruin us altogether. Where there is a threat of ruin – where there is a risk to our entire ecosystems and food-systems – then we should not have to wait for the ‘evidence’ to come in before we act. For, by the time it comes in, it would be too late.

This is when precautionary reasoning is decisive: in cases where there is a risk of ruin. This is what Taleb and I have shown. This is what the Select Committee have palpably refused to think about, and set their face against: thus putting us all at risk.

EU pen-pushers standing in the way of British enterprise?

Sadly, the government will now no-doubt use the results of this ‘inquiry’ as a stick with which to beat the EU, and to bolster the Tory narrative of the EU as nothing more than a gang of small-minded foreign pen-pushers standing in the way of the proud British spirit of free enterprise.

Their report’s conclusion that “decisions about access to and use of safe products should be made by national governments on behalf of the populations that elected them, not by the EU”, and their call on the EU “not to unjustifiably restrict the choices available to other elected governments and the citizens whom they represent” are a demand to let GMOs rip without further ado.

We should be glad that for the moment this report has no power actually to influence EU procedure. It is a worrying glimpse of what this country would look like without the modest protection EU legislation currently provides from some of the worst excesses of corporate domination.

 

 

The report: ‘EU regulation on GMOs not ‘fit for purpose‘.

Dr. Rupert Read is Reader in Philosophy at the University of East Anglia, Chair of Green House, and a regular contributor to The Ecologist and to Resurgence. He is also the Green Party’s prospective parliamentary candidate for Cambridge in the 2015 general election.

More information: ‘The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms)‘ by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Rupert Read, Raphael Douady, Joseph Norman, Yaneer Bar-Yam.

 




390789

Illegal Swedish fishery is ‘certified sustainable’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Last week a lobster fishery in the Kattegat, the area of sea between northern Denmark and Sweden, is the proud recipient of a ‘sustainable fishing’ certificate through the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).

But only four months ago Citizen Inspectors of The Black Fish (TBF) – an Amsterdam-based environmental group dedicated to preventing illegal overfishing in European seas – observed fishermen illegally targetting protected cod stocks in the exact same fishery – and has the photographic and video evidence to prove it.

But the MSC has decided to disregard the evidence of illegal activity, prompting Wietse van der Werf, TBF’s International Director, to comment:

“Sustainability labels mean very little if certifiers are not digging deeper to find out what is really happening in fisheries. Surprise inspections and undercover investigators would be a good start.”

The evidence collected by TBF’s Citizen Inspectors will not be made public, pending its use in possible legal action, adds van der Werf: “We will continue to build on our findings as with more evidence we stand a stronger case.”

Good lobster, bad cod

The ‘sustainable’ fishery targets Norwegian lobster (also known as nephrops) with trawlers. But the Kattegat also contains important spawning areas for cod, which has been heavily overfished in the area over recent decades.

So the area contains two fisheries: a sustainable lobster fishery, and a very unsustainable cod fishery. Complicating the picture, Kattegat trawlers often catch the lobster and cod together in the same net, continuing the negative impacts on the troubled fish.

To protect the cod, while allowing the lobster fishery to continue, the Swedish authorities imposed new rules requiring fishers to fit specially designed grids in their trawl nets that create openings that adult cod caught up in the net can escape through, while retaining the lobsters.

But as one as of TBF’s Citizens Inspectors explains: “During the inspections we found multiple steel grids which weren’t properly attached to the trawl nets, allowing for an opening to be created underneath the grid, so cod could be caught.

“One net even used chains as weights to open up the net further, making the fitted grid totally useless. On another occasion we observed fishers re-attaching their nets upon return to the port, presumably for the net to meet the requirements during a possible inspection by fisheries officials.”

But the lobster will continue to carry the MSC label

In spite of the evidence of illegal ‘black’ cod fishing in the Kategat, products from the nephrops fishery will now bear the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) label for ‘sustainable fisheries’.

TBF notified the MSC about its findings but learned that the formal assessment period for the fisheries had already passed, so it was too late for their evidence to be taken into account.

Annual surveillance audits are carried out by the certification body but according to van der Werf, “we fear that these will yield little result in uncovering illegal activities, in part because they are publicly announced before they take place.”

By contrast, TBF’s Citizen Inspector Network carried out over 100 inspections in Swedish fishing ports last August, identifying numerous trawl nets illegally modified to prevent the cod’s escape.

 

 

Help: The Black Fish appeals to anyone who might have further information about illegal activities in the Swedish nephrop fishery to come forward. Our legal team can be contacted at legal@theblackfish.org.

Source: The Black Fish.

The Black Fish is an international organisation that works to end illegal overfishing. Our approach brings together people and the benefits of modern technology to protect the oceans through enforcement of environmental regulations. The Black Fish currently runs 28 projects in 12 countries around Europe, with an international team of 30 staff, countless volunteers and supporters around the world.

 




389954

Illegal Swedish fishery is ‘certified sustainable’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Last week a lobster fishery in the Kattegat, the area of sea between northern Denmark and Sweden, is the proud recipient of a ‘sustainable fishing’ certificate through the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).

But only four months ago Citizen Inspectors of The Black Fish (TBF) – an Amsterdam-based environmental group dedicated to preventing illegal overfishing in European seas – observed fishermen illegally targetting protected cod stocks in the exact same fishery – and has the photographic and video evidence to prove it.

But the MSC has decided to disregard the evidence of illegal activity, prompting Wietse van der Werf, TBF’s International Director, to comment:

“Sustainability labels mean very little if certifiers are not digging deeper to find out what is really happening in fisheries. Surprise inspections and undercover investigators would be a good start.”

The evidence collected by TBF’s Citizen Inspectors will not be made public, pending its use in possible legal action, adds van der Werf: “We will continue to build on our findings as with more evidence we stand a stronger case.”

Good lobster, bad cod

The ‘sustainable’ fishery targets Norwegian lobster (also known as nephrops) with trawlers. But the Kattegat also contains important spawning areas for cod, which has been heavily overfished in the area over recent decades.

So the area contains two fisheries: a sustainable lobster fishery, and a very unsustainable cod fishery. Complicating the picture, Kattegat trawlers often catch the lobster and cod together in the same net, continuing the negative impacts on the troubled fish.

To protect the cod, while allowing the lobster fishery to continue, the Swedish authorities imposed new rules requiring fishers to fit specially designed grids in their trawl nets that create openings that adult cod caught up in the net can escape through, while retaining the lobsters.

But as one as of TBF’s Citizens Inspectors explains: “During the inspections we found multiple steel grids which weren’t properly attached to the trawl nets, allowing for an opening to be created underneath the grid, so cod could be caught.

“One net even used chains as weights to open up the net further, making the fitted grid totally useless. On another occasion we observed fishers re-attaching their nets upon return to the port, presumably for the net to meet the requirements during a possible inspection by fisheries officials.”

But the lobster will continue to carry the MSC label

In spite of the evidence of illegal ‘black’ cod fishing in the Kategat, products from the nephrops fishery will now bear the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) label for ‘sustainable fisheries’.

TBF notified the MSC about its findings but learned that the formal assessment period for the fisheries had already passed, so it was too late for their evidence to be taken into account.

Annual surveillance audits are carried out by the certification body but according to van der Werf, “we fear that these will yield little result in uncovering illegal activities, in part because they are publicly announced before they take place.”

By contrast, TBF’s Citizen Inspector Network carried out over 100 inspections in Swedish fishing ports last August, identifying numerous trawl nets illegally modified to prevent the cod’s escape.

 

 

Help: The Black Fish appeals to anyone who might have further information about illegal activities in the Swedish nephrop fishery to come forward. Our legal team can be contacted at legal@theblackfish.org.

Source: The Black Fish.

The Black Fish is an international organisation that works to end illegal overfishing. Our approach brings together people and the benefits of modern technology to protect the oceans through enforcement of environmental regulations. The Black Fish currently runs 28 projects in 12 countries around Europe, with an international team of 30 staff, countless volunteers and supporters around the world.

 




389954

Illegal Swedish fishery is ‘certified sustainable’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Last week a lobster fishery in the Kattegat, the area of sea between northern Denmark and Sweden, is the proud recipient of a ‘sustainable fishing’ certificate through the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).

But only four months ago Citizen Inspectors of The Black Fish (TBF) – an Amsterdam-based environmental group dedicated to preventing illegal overfishing in European seas – observed fishermen illegally targetting protected cod stocks in the exact same fishery – and has the photographic and video evidence to prove it.

But the MSC has decided to disregard the evidence of illegal activity, prompting Wietse van der Werf, TBF’s International Director, to comment:

“Sustainability labels mean very little if certifiers are not digging deeper to find out what is really happening in fisheries. Surprise inspections and undercover investigators would be a good start.”

The evidence collected by TBF’s Citizen Inspectors will not be made public, pending its use in possible legal action, adds van der Werf: “We will continue to build on our findings as with more evidence we stand a stronger case.”

Good lobster, bad cod

The ‘sustainable’ fishery targets Norwegian lobster (also known as nephrops) with trawlers. But the Kattegat also contains important spawning areas for cod, which has been heavily overfished in the area over recent decades.

So the area contains two fisheries: a sustainable lobster fishery, and a very unsustainable cod fishery. Complicating the picture, Kattegat trawlers often catch the lobster and cod together in the same net, continuing the negative impacts on the troubled fish.

To protect the cod, while allowing the lobster fishery to continue, the Swedish authorities imposed new rules requiring fishers to fit specially designed grids in their trawl nets that create openings that adult cod caught up in the net can escape through, while retaining the lobsters.

But as one as of TBF’s Citizens Inspectors explains: “During the inspections we found multiple steel grids which weren’t properly attached to the trawl nets, allowing for an opening to be created underneath the grid, so cod could be caught.

“One net even used chains as weights to open up the net further, making the fitted grid totally useless. On another occasion we observed fishers re-attaching their nets upon return to the port, presumably for the net to meet the requirements during a possible inspection by fisheries officials.”

But the lobster will continue to carry the MSC label

In spite of the evidence of illegal ‘black’ cod fishing in the Kategat, products from the nephrops fishery will now bear the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) label for ‘sustainable fisheries’.

TBF notified the MSC about its findings but learned that the formal assessment period for the fisheries had already passed, so it was too late for their evidence to be taken into account.

Annual surveillance audits are carried out by the certification body but according to van der Werf, “we fear that these will yield little result in uncovering illegal activities, in part because they are publicly announced before they take place.”

By contrast, TBF’s Citizen Inspector Network carried out over 100 inspections in Swedish fishing ports last August, identifying numerous trawl nets illegally modified to prevent the cod’s escape.

 

 

Help: The Black Fish appeals to anyone who might have further information about illegal activities in the Swedish nephrop fishery to come forward. Our legal team can be contacted at legal@theblackfish.org.

Source: The Black Fish.

The Black Fish is an international organisation that works to end illegal overfishing. Our approach brings together people and the benefits of modern technology to protect the oceans through enforcement of environmental regulations. The Black Fish currently runs 28 projects in 12 countries around Europe, with an international team of 30 staff, countless volunteers and supporters around the world.

 




389954

Illegal Swedish fishery is ‘certified sustainable’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Last week a lobster fishery in the Kattegat, the area of sea between northern Denmark and Sweden, is the proud recipient of a ‘sustainable fishing’ certificate through the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).

But only four months ago Citizen Inspectors of The Black Fish (TBF) – an Amsterdam-based environmental group dedicated to preventing illegal overfishing in European seas – observed fishermen illegally targetting protected cod stocks in the exact same fishery – and has the photographic and video evidence to prove it.

But the MSC has decided to disregard the evidence of illegal activity, prompting Wietse van der Werf, TBF’s International Director, to comment:

“Sustainability labels mean very little if certifiers are not digging deeper to find out what is really happening in fisheries. Surprise inspections and undercover investigators would be a good start.”

The evidence collected by TBF’s Citizen Inspectors will not be made public, pending its use in possible legal action, adds van der Werf: “We will continue to build on our findings as with more evidence we stand a stronger case.”

Good lobster, bad cod

The ‘sustainable’ fishery targets Norwegian lobster (also known as nephrops) with trawlers. But the Kattegat also contains important spawning areas for cod, which has been heavily overfished in the area over recent decades.

So the area contains two fisheries: a sustainable lobster fishery, and a very unsustainable cod fishery. Complicating the picture, Kattegat trawlers often catch the lobster and cod together in the same net, continuing the negative impacts on the troubled fish.

To protect the cod, while allowing the lobster fishery to continue, the Swedish authorities imposed new rules requiring fishers to fit specially designed grids in their trawl nets that create openings that adult cod caught up in the net can escape through, while retaining the lobsters.

But as one as of TBF’s Citizens Inspectors explains: “During the inspections we found multiple steel grids which weren’t properly attached to the trawl nets, allowing for an opening to be created underneath the grid, so cod could be caught.

“One net even used chains as weights to open up the net further, making the fitted grid totally useless. On another occasion we observed fishers re-attaching their nets upon return to the port, presumably for the net to meet the requirements during a possible inspection by fisheries officials.”

But the lobster will continue to carry the MSC label

In spite of the evidence of illegal ‘black’ cod fishing in the Kategat, products from the nephrops fishery will now bear the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) label for ‘sustainable fisheries’.

TBF notified the MSC about its findings but learned that the formal assessment period for the fisheries had already passed, so it was too late for their evidence to be taken into account.

Annual surveillance audits are carried out by the certification body but according to van der Werf, “we fear that these will yield little result in uncovering illegal activities, in part because they are publicly announced before they take place.”

By contrast, TBF’s Citizen Inspector Network carried out over 100 inspections in Swedish fishing ports last August, identifying numerous trawl nets illegally modified to prevent the cod’s escape.

 

 

Help: The Black Fish appeals to anyone who might have further information about illegal activities in the Swedish nephrop fishery to come forward. Our legal team can be contacted at legal@theblackfish.org.

Source: The Black Fish.

The Black Fish is an international organisation that works to end illegal overfishing. Our approach brings together people and the benefits of modern technology to protect the oceans through enforcement of environmental regulations. The Black Fish currently runs 28 projects in 12 countries around Europe, with an international team of 30 staff, countless volunteers and supporters around the world.

 




389954

Illegal Swedish fishery is ‘certified sustainable’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Last week a lobster fishery in the Kattegat, the area of sea between northern Denmark and Sweden, is the proud recipient of a ‘sustainable fishing’ certificate through the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).

But only four months ago Citizen Inspectors of The Black Fish (TBF) – an Amsterdam-based environmental group dedicated to preventing illegal overfishing in European seas – observed fishermen illegally targetting protected cod stocks in the exact same fishery – and has the photographic and video evidence to prove it.

But the MSC has decided to disregard the evidence of illegal activity, prompting Wietse van der Werf, TBF’s International Director, to comment:

“Sustainability labels mean very little if certifiers are not digging deeper to find out what is really happening in fisheries. Surprise inspections and undercover investigators would be a good start.”

The evidence collected by TBF’s Citizen Inspectors will not be made public, pending its use in possible legal action, adds van der Werf: “We will continue to build on our findings as with more evidence we stand a stronger case.”

Good lobster, bad cod

The ‘sustainable’ fishery targets Norwegian lobster (also known as nephrops) with trawlers. But the Kattegat also contains important spawning areas for cod, which has been heavily overfished in the area over recent decades.

So the area contains two fisheries: a sustainable lobster fishery, and a very unsustainable cod fishery. Complicating the picture, Kattegat trawlers often catch the lobster and cod together in the same net, continuing the negative impacts on the troubled fish.

To protect the cod, while allowing the lobster fishery to continue, the Swedish authorities imposed new rules requiring fishers to fit specially designed grids in their trawl nets that create openings that adult cod caught up in the net can escape through, while retaining the lobsters.

But as one as of TBF’s Citizens Inspectors explains: “During the inspections we found multiple steel grids which weren’t properly attached to the trawl nets, allowing for an opening to be created underneath the grid, so cod could be caught.

“One net even used chains as weights to open up the net further, making the fitted grid totally useless. On another occasion we observed fishers re-attaching their nets upon return to the port, presumably for the net to meet the requirements during a possible inspection by fisheries officials.”

But the lobster will continue to carry the MSC label

In spite of the evidence of illegal ‘black’ cod fishing in the Kategat, products from the nephrops fishery will now bear the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) label for ‘sustainable fisheries’.

TBF notified the MSC about its findings but learned that the formal assessment period for the fisheries had already passed, so it was too late for their evidence to be taken into account.

Annual surveillance audits are carried out by the certification body but according to van der Werf, “we fear that these will yield little result in uncovering illegal activities, in part because they are publicly announced before they take place.”

By contrast, TBF’s Citizen Inspector Network carried out over 100 inspections in Swedish fishing ports last August, identifying numerous trawl nets illegally modified to prevent the cod’s escape.

 

 

Help: The Black Fish appeals to anyone who might have further information about illegal activities in the Swedish nephrop fishery to come forward. Our legal team can be contacted at legal@theblackfish.org.

Source: The Black Fish.

The Black Fish is an international organisation that works to end illegal overfishing. Our approach brings together people and the benefits of modern technology to protect the oceans through enforcement of environmental regulations. The Black Fish currently runs 28 projects in 12 countries around Europe, with an international team of 30 staff, countless volunteers and supporters around the world.

 




389954

Illegal Swedish fishery is ‘certified sustainable’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Last week a lobster fishery in the Kattegat, the area of sea between northern Denmark and Sweden, is the proud recipient of a ‘sustainable fishing’ certificate through the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).

But only four months ago Citizen Inspectors of The Black Fish (TBF) – an Amsterdam-based environmental group dedicated to preventing illegal overfishing in European seas – observed fishermen illegally targetting protected cod stocks in the exact same fishery – and has the photographic and video evidence to prove it.

But the MSC has decided to disregard the evidence of illegal activity, prompting Wietse van der Werf, TBF’s International Director, to comment:

“Sustainability labels mean very little if certifiers are not digging deeper to find out what is really happening in fisheries. Surprise inspections and undercover investigators would be a good start.”

The evidence collected by TBF’s Citizen Inspectors will not be made public, pending its use in possible legal action, adds van der Werf: “We will continue to build on our findings as with more evidence we stand a stronger case.”

Good lobster, bad cod

The ‘sustainable’ fishery targets Norwegian lobster (also known as nephrops) with trawlers. But the Kattegat also contains important spawning areas for cod, which has been heavily overfished in the area over recent decades.

So the area contains two fisheries: a sustainable lobster fishery, and a very unsustainable cod fishery. Complicating the picture, Kattegat trawlers often catch the lobster and cod together in the same net, continuing the negative impacts on the troubled fish.

To protect the cod, while allowing the lobster fishery to continue, the Swedish authorities imposed new rules requiring fishers to fit specially designed grids in their trawl nets that create openings that adult cod caught up in the net can escape through, while retaining the lobsters.

But as one as of TBF’s Citizens Inspectors explains: “During the inspections we found multiple steel grids which weren’t properly attached to the trawl nets, allowing for an opening to be created underneath the grid, so cod could be caught.

“One net even used chains as weights to open up the net further, making the fitted grid totally useless. On another occasion we observed fishers re-attaching their nets upon return to the port, presumably for the net to meet the requirements during a possible inspection by fisheries officials.”

But the lobster will continue to carry the MSC label

In spite of the evidence of illegal ‘black’ cod fishing in the Kategat, products from the nephrops fishery will now bear the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) label for ‘sustainable fisheries’.

TBF notified the MSC about its findings but learned that the formal assessment period for the fisheries had already passed, so it was too late for their evidence to be taken into account.

Annual surveillance audits are carried out by the certification body but according to van der Werf, “we fear that these will yield little result in uncovering illegal activities, in part because they are publicly announced before they take place.”

By contrast, TBF’s Citizen Inspector Network carried out over 100 inspections in Swedish fishing ports last August, identifying numerous trawl nets illegally modified to prevent the cod’s escape.

 

 

Help: The Black Fish appeals to anyone who might have further information about illegal activities in the Swedish nephrop fishery to come forward. Our legal team can be contacted at legal@theblackfish.org.

Source: The Black Fish.

The Black Fish is an international organisation that works to end illegal overfishing. Our approach brings together people and the benefits of modern technology to protect the oceans through enforcement of environmental regulations. The Black Fish currently runs 28 projects in 12 countries around Europe, with an international team of 30 staff, countless volunteers and supporters around the world.

 




389954