In humans, long-chain omega-3 fatty acids are important for heart health, brain development and function, and the immune system.

They are naturally found in oily fish and algae. Many people take supplements of omega-3 oils produced in algae to boost their health status and alleviate allergies, arthritis and other diseases.

Recently, scientists have genetically engineered GM canola and camelina (also known as ‘false flax’) to contain long-chain omega-3 fatty acids.

Rothamsted Research in the UK has applied for approval to conduct open field trials of the GM camelina this year following an initial 2014 approval. The crop is being promoted not as a health supplement for humans but for feeding farmed fish in the aquaculture industry.

Like humans, fish need omega-3 fatty acids for healthy development. Currently, farmed fish are fed fish oils to provide them with enough omega-3 fatty acids to keep them as healthy as their wild counterparts, which enjoy a diet naturally rich in these oils.

But as fish stocks become more limited, Rothamsted is developing and promoting crops genetically engineered to produce long chain omega-3 fatty acids as a way of providing “new and sustainable sources of healthy omega-3 fish oils for the fish feed industry to reduce the burden on marine fish oil stocks”.

Can we conclude that these are the healthy and sustainable GMOs that we’ve been promised for two decades? A shocking new study suggests they may be anything but, when the wider ecological context is considered.

Butterflies’ unexpected wing deformities

Researchers found that when the long chain omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oil – eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) were fed to an insect, the cabbage white butterfly, the insects grew into heavier adults and had a higher frequency of wing deformities.

The team was careful to test realistic doses that might be expressed in GM omega-3-producing crops and ingested by butterflies feeding on them.

The researchers, most of whom are based at Ryerson University in Ontario, Canada, concluded that “further research on the environmental impacts of EPA and DHA production on terrestrial biota is advisable.”

The problem with GM omega-3-producing crops lies in the fact that genetic engineers have introduced a compound from the sea into a terrestrial environment. Neither this butterfly nor any other invertebrates that feed on these plants have ever been exposed to these molecules in their diets.

Some might rejoice that such GM omega-3-producing crops will have the unexpected added benefit of harming a butterfly that is considered to be crop pest. But that would be to ignore the potential effects on beneficial insects such as non-pest butterflies, bees, and other pollinators. It is also not known what effects may occur further up the food chain, such as on predators that consume such insects.

In an objection to the field trial of the GM camelina – filed before these findings were published – campaigners warned of a high risk that the plant could spread into the environment:

“Pollen and seeds could escape from the trial site through dispersal by wind, wildlife or machinery. Human error and mix ups could also result in accidental releases, not only to the environment but also to the human food chain or even directly to humans.”

GM crop developers fail to consider ecological risk

Amid the claims of sustainability surrounding the UK omega-3 camelina trial, it seems that no one considered the potential side-effects on the fauna of terrestrial ecosystems. And that includes the genetic engineers who developed the crop.

Professor Johnathan Napier, who led the GM camelina programme at Rothamsted Research, hailed the crop as “a landmark moment in the effort to develop truly sustainable sources of feed for fish farms”.

Napier has published three scientific studies (here, here and here) focusing on the successful genetic engineering of the crop and its suitability as fish feed. But none of these papers so much as mention the possibility of unforeseen harmful consequences to ecosystems.

Dr Angelika Hilbeck, senior scientist at the Institute of Integrative Biology at ETH Zurich, Switzerland, has researched the risks of GM Bt insecticidal crops on beneficial and non-target insects. She commented on the surprise nature of the new findings:

“The fact that these compounds [long-chain omega-3 fatty acids] are novel in terrestrial systems has been entirely overlooked until this study. I congratulate the authors for having raised the issue of this important ecological risk before these crops are planted on a significant scale.”

New organisms, new toxicologies

Dr Hilbeck cautions that one uncertainty remains to be clarified. The new study did not test the omega-3 fatty acids as they are expressed in the actual GM plants. Instead the researchers used omega-3 fatty acids derived from non-GM algae, which will not be identical to the omega-3 fatty acids produced in the GM crops.

Likewise the GMO industry, when safety testing its products for regulatory authorizations, often does not test the new protein as produced in the actual GM plant. Instead it tests a surrogate protein produced in microbes genetically engineered with the same GM gene construct as is used to transform the plant. Yet the protein may have different toxicological properties when expressed in GM microbes than when expressed in the GM plant. The context of the GM gene construct is crucial.

Thus when assessing the risks of GM omega-3-producing crops, Dr Hilbeck points out, generically sourced omega-3 fatty acids “can only serve as a proxy for the real thing – the GM plant.” Nonetheless, Dr Hilbeck says the new study’s findings clearly show that GM omega-3 crops must be thoroughly tested for ecological effects before commercialisation:

“Mandatory extensive testing should be carried out with the actual GM plant, not only on pest herbivores, but also on beneficial insects, butterflies, pest predators, parasites, bees, and pollinators. Concerned scientists like myself have been calling for such testing for decades.”

In other words, the burden is now firmly on GMO crop developers to show that what these researchers found with non-GM omega-3 oil will not happen with the transgenic omega-3 oil in GM plants. And for that, they have to test the actual GM plants.

Remaining questions over human safety

The new study does not imply a health risk for humans or other mammals, for whom omega-3 fatty acids are generally accepted to be beneficial, says Dr Michael Antoniou, a London-based molecular biologist:

“Although these findings have a clear implication for the well-being of insect populations that feed on GM oilseed crops that produce high levels of omega-3/omega-6 long chain fatty acids, these same fats are essential nutrients for mammals, including humans. Thus they do not pose any risk, but rather contribute to health.”

But Dr Antoniou, who uses genetic engineering in his work on gene therapies, says that other questions remain over the potential effects on human health of omega-3-producing GM crops:

“The GM transformation process can produce unexpected outcomes, leading to the production of novel toxins. That’s especially the case when the genetic engineering process alters the core biochemistry of the GM plant, as in the case of omega-3-producing GM crops.

“Thus all GM crops producing omega-3/omega-6 long chain fatty acids that are earmarked for direct use as human food supplements as well as in farmed fish feed must be generically evaluated for toxicity in long-term laboratory animal toxicity studies. This could help ensure that no unexpected toxins have been produced, which may be present in the final marketed product.”

Beware the hyperbolic claims

The lesson to be learned from the new study seems to be that we should be wary of the claims of genetic engineers that their products are safe and sustainable when those claims are not substantiated through rigorous testing.

In making such claims, they often restrict their framework to narrow and self-serving considerations, such as whether the GM crop expresses the desired trait and delivers an acceptable product when fed to livestock – in this case, farmed fish. They ignore the wider context in which the GM crop is grown and consumed. In this way, the genetic engineer’s claimed ‘sustainability’ success can turn out to be a hazard for ecosystems.

The study also raises a major question over whether the GM camelina field trial application should be immediately rejected. According to the scientists, “the next step in risk assessment should involve using the actual plants (both in laboratory and in fully contained field trials) engineered to produce EPA and DHA to validate our findings.” (my emphasis).

They also warn, “we do not know the full scope of potential effects that access to dietary EPA and DHA during the larval period might have on post-emerged adults; for example, how these FA [fatty acids] may affect adult lifespan, flying ability, sensory ability, and/or overwintering and reproductive success …

“We suggest that, in order to make informed decisions with respect to agricultural and environmental policies and management of genetically engineered oilseeds … studies similar to ours (as well as contained field studies) need to be conducted in order to understand more completely the potential global environmental impacts of widespread commercial production of these novel crops on agroecosystems.”

I could not agree more!

Claire Robinson is managing editor at GMWatch, a public news and information service on issues surrounding GM crops and foods. GMWatch is one of the UK-based NGOs that objected this year to the ongoing GM camelina trial at Rothamsted.

The paper: ‘Long-Chain Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids Have Developmental Effects on the Crop Pest, the Cabbage White Butterfly Pieris rapae‘ by Stefanie M. Hixson , Kruti Shukla, Lesley G. Campbell, Rebecca H. Hallett, Sandy M. Smith, Laurence Packer, Michael T. Arts is published in PLOS One.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Campaigners’ No to UK field trials of GM potatoes, oilseeds‘.

The Stop TTIP colation warned today that the CETA, the Canada-EU Trade Agreement, could come into force without ever being voted on by either EU or national parliaments.

That’s because the agreement as negotiated contains a ‘stealth clause’ that would allow large parts of it to enter into force without having ever been agreed upon in any parliament – including the much-loathed ‘investor state dispute settlement’ (ISDS) which allows corporations to sue governments in secret courts run by corporate lawyers.

“Right now, executives throughout Europe are silently preparing CETA’s entry intro force through this back door, which would allow CETA to enter into force once the Council of the European Union, but none of the European Parliaments – gave its consent”, writes Stop TTIP’s Felix Heilmann in ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘.

The backdoor stealth clause was described by the German ministry of economics as “perfectly democratic“ just last month, adds Heilmann – a paradoxical use of the word when applied to a deliberate evasion of normal democratic accountability via elected representatives.

So why does this matter so much? First, Canadian corporations, mining and fossil fuel corporations in particular, are aggressive users of ISDS mechanisms, with numerous legal actions under way under various free trade agreements with Colombia, El Salvador, Romania and even the USA – which is being sued for $15 billion for turning down the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Second, CETA would act as a ‘back door’ for US corporations if the EU-US TTIP (Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership) deal is delayed or abandoned. As Maude Barlow wrote on The Ecologist, “CETA could act as a ‘back room’ for American corporations whether TTIP is adopted or not.“

That’s because all a US corporation would have to do is start up a subsidiary in Canada and put all its EU investments through it, to be ‘protected’ by CETA’s ISDS provisions.

Just 15 of 28 governments can force CETA into effect

Under the ‘stealth clause’ allowing for ‘provisional implementation’ of CETA “probably 95 per cent“ of the agreement would come into force once 15 out of the 28 EU member states’ governments gave their consent, according to the Canadian chief negotiator Steve Verheul.

This 95% would include corporate courts, as Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s committee on international trade, admitted. “In clear words”, writes Heilmann: “Neither the European Parliament, nor any national parliament, would have to give their consent to CETA and it would still be put in practice!”

Once provisionally implemented, the agreement could continue to be in force indefinitely without having ever been discussed in a parliament – as there would be no deadline on when a parliament would need to vote on it in order for the agreement to be fully implemented.

And even if a parliament of a member state decides to reject CETA, there would be no legal duty for the EU to withdraw from the treaty, as the scientific advisory board of the German Bundestag acknowledges.

The only way to leave CETA would be with a vote in the EU’s Council of Ministers, which includes only representatives of member state governments. As such it is not directly affected by parliamentary decisions: depending on national procedures, parliaments’ democratic decisions need not make any difference.

CETA will remain in force for three years after leaving

Even EU Member States that defy the European Commission to withdraw from CETA would be subject to corporate lawsuits for three full years after exiting.

Article 30.8 of the CETA agreement (page 228) states that ISDS claims “may be submitted … if … no more than three years have elapsed since the date of suspension or termination of the agreement.”

One shocking example of where this leads to was provided in 2014, when Russia was forced to pay $50 billion due to an ISDS lawsuit made possible by a treaty the country had only provisionally implemented and actually decided to leave in 2009 – however, due to a clause comparable to the one found in CETA, Russia has still been forced to pay.

“So let’s wrap this up”, concludes Heilmann. “Due to provisional implementation, an agreement with severe consequences for our democracy will enter into force without any debate in a democratically elected body – and even if the agreement were suspended, its most harmful clauses would not cease to exist.”

But while TTIP is arousing all the political controversy and media attention, even many dedicated TTIP campaigners have never even heard of CETA, never mind grasped how it could put into effect many of TTIP’s worst provisons without a single democratic vote by any European country.

Petition: oppose TTIP and CETA at Stop TTIP.

Principal source: ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘ by Felix Heilmann.

Stop TTIP is an alliance of more than 500 European organisations running campaigns and actions against TTIP and CETA. “We believe that these two trade and investment agreements must be stopped because they pose a threat to democracy, the rule of law, the environment, health, public services as well as consumer and labour rights.”

The Stop TTIP colation warned today that the CETA, the Canada-EU Trade Agreement, could come into force without ever being voted on by either EU or national parliaments.

That’s because the agreement as negotiated contains a ‘stealth clause’ that would allow large parts of it to enter into force without having ever been agreed upon in any parliament – including the much-loathed ‘investor state dispute settlement’ (ISDS) which allows corporations to sue governments in secret courts run by corporate lawyers.

“Right now, executives throughout Europe are silently preparing CETA’s entry intro force through this back door, which would allow CETA to enter into force once the Council of the European Union, but none of the European Parliaments – gave its consent”, writes Stop TTIP’s Felix Heilmann in ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘.

The backdoor stealth clause was described by the German ministry of economics as “perfectly democratic“ just last month, adds Heilmann – a paradoxical use of the word when applied to a deliberate evasion of normal democratic accountability via elected representatives.

So why does this matter so much? First, Canadian corporations, mining and fossil fuel corporations in particular, are aggressive users of ISDS mechanisms, with numerous legal actions under way under various free trade agreements with Colombia, El Salvador, Romania and even the USA – which is being sued for $15 billion for turning down the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Second, CETA would act as a ‘back door’ for US corporations if the EU-US TTIP (Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership) deal is delayed or abandoned. As Maude Barlow wrote on The Ecologist, “CETA could act as a ‘back room’ for American corporations whether TTIP is adopted or not.“

That’s because all a US corporation would have to do is start up a subsidiary in Canada and put all its EU investments through it, to be ‘protected’ by CETA’s ISDS provisions.

Just 15 of 28 governments can force CETA into effect

Under the ‘stealth clause’ allowing for ‘provisional implementation’ of CETA “probably 95 per cent“ of the agreement would come into force once 15 out of the 28 EU member states’ governments gave their consent, according to the Canadian chief negotiator Steve Verheul.

This 95% would include corporate courts, as Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s committee on international trade, admitted. “In clear words”, writes Heilmann: “Neither the European Parliament, nor any national parliament, would have to give their consent to CETA and it would still be put in practice!”

Once provisionally implemented, the agreement could continue to be in force indefinitely without having ever been discussed in a parliament – as there would be no deadline on when a parliament would need to vote on it in order for the agreement to be fully implemented.

And even if a parliament of a member state decides to reject CETA, there would be no legal duty for the EU to withdraw from the treaty, as the scientific advisory board of the German Bundestag acknowledges.

The only way to leave CETA would be with a vote in the EU’s Council of Ministers, which includes only representatives of member state governments. As such it is not directly affected by parliamentary decisions: depending on national procedures, parliaments’ democratic decisions need not make any difference.

CETA will remain in force for three years after leaving

Even EU Member States that defy the European Commission to withdraw from CETA would be subject to corporate lawsuits for three full years after exiting.

Article 30.8 of the CETA agreement (page 228) states that ISDS claims “may be submitted … if … no more than three years have elapsed since the date of suspension or termination of the agreement.”

One shocking example of where this leads to was provided in 2014, when Russia was forced to pay $50 billion due to an ISDS lawsuit made possible by a treaty the country had only provisionally implemented and actually decided to leave in 2009 – however, due to a clause comparable to the one found in CETA, Russia has still been forced to pay.

“So let’s wrap this up”, concludes Heilmann. “Due to provisional implementation, an agreement with severe consequences for our democracy will enter into force without any debate in a democratically elected body – and even if the agreement were suspended, its most harmful clauses would not cease to exist.”

But while TTIP is arousing all the political controversy and media attention, even many dedicated TTIP campaigners have never even heard of CETA, never mind grasped how it could put into effect many of TTIP’s worst provisons without a single democratic vote by any European country.

Petition: oppose TTIP and CETA at Stop TTIP.

Principal source: ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘ by Felix Heilmann.

Stop TTIP is an alliance of more than 500 European organisations running campaigns and actions against TTIP and CETA. “We believe that these two trade and investment agreements must be stopped because they pose a threat to democracy, the rule of law, the environment, health, public services as well as consumer and labour rights.”

The Stop TTIP colation warned today that the CETA, the Canada-EU Trade Agreement, could come into force without ever being voted on by either EU or national parliaments.

That’s because the agreement as negotiated contains a ‘stealth clause’ that would allow large parts of it to enter into force without having ever been agreed upon in any parliament – including the much-loathed ‘investor state dispute settlement’ (ISDS) which allows corporations to sue governments in secret courts run by corporate lawyers.

“Right now, executives throughout Europe are silently preparing CETA’s entry intro force through this back door, which would allow CETA to enter into force once the Council of the European Union, but none of the European Parliaments – gave its consent”, writes Stop TTIP’s Felix Heilmann in ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘.

The backdoor stealth clause was described by the German ministry of economics as “perfectly democratic“ just last month, adds Heilmann – a paradoxical use of the word when applied to a deliberate evasion of normal democratic accountability via elected representatives.

So why does this matter so much? First, Canadian corporations, mining and fossil fuel corporations in particular, are aggressive users of ISDS mechanisms, with numerous legal actions under way under various free trade agreements with Colombia, El Salvador, Romania and even the USA – which is being sued for $15 billion for turning down the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Second, CETA would act as a ‘back door’ for US corporations if the EU-US TTIP (Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership) deal is delayed or abandoned. As Maude Barlow wrote on The Ecologist, “CETA could act as a ‘back room’ for American corporations whether TTIP is adopted or not.“

That’s because all a US corporation would have to do is start up a subsidiary in Canada and put all its EU investments through it, to be ‘protected’ by CETA’s ISDS provisions.

Just 15 of 28 governments can force CETA into effect

Under the ‘stealth clause’ allowing for ‘provisional implementation’ of CETA “probably 95 per cent“ of the agreement would come into force once 15 out of the 28 EU member states’ governments gave their consent, according to the Canadian chief negotiator Steve Verheul.

This 95% would include corporate courts, as Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s committee on international trade, admitted. “In clear words”, writes Heilmann: “Neither the European Parliament, nor any national parliament, would have to give their consent to CETA and it would still be put in practice!”

Once provisionally implemented, the agreement could continue to be in force indefinitely without having ever been discussed in a parliament – as there would be no deadline on when a parliament would need to vote on it in order for the agreement to be fully implemented.

And even if a parliament of a member state decides to reject CETA, there would be no legal duty for the EU to withdraw from the treaty, as the scientific advisory board of the German Bundestag acknowledges.

The only way to leave CETA would be with a vote in the EU’s Council of Ministers, which includes only representatives of member state governments. As such it is not directly affected by parliamentary decisions: depending on national procedures, parliaments’ democratic decisions need not make any difference.

CETA will remain in force for three years after leaving

Even EU Member States that defy the European Commission to withdraw from CETA would be subject to corporate lawsuits for three full years after exiting.

Article 30.8 of the CETA agreement (page 228) states that ISDS claims “may be submitted … if … no more than three years have elapsed since the date of suspension or termination of the agreement.”

One shocking example of where this leads to was provided in 2014, when Russia was forced to pay $50 billion due to an ISDS lawsuit made possible by a treaty the country had only provisionally implemented and actually decided to leave in 2009 – however, due to a clause comparable to the one found in CETA, Russia has still been forced to pay.

“So let’s wrap this up”, concludes Heilmann. “Due to provisional implementation, an agreement with severe consequences for our democracy will enter into force without any debate in a democratically elected body – and even if the agreement were suspended, its most harmful clauses would not cease to exist.”

But while TTIP is arousing all the political controversy and media attention, even many dedicated TTIP campaigners have never even heard of CETA, never mind grasped how it could put into effect many of TTIP’s worst provisons without a single democratic vote by any European country.

Petition: oppose TTIP and CETA at Stop TTIP.

Principal source: ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘ by Felix Heilmann.

Stop TTIP is an alliance of more than 500 European organisations running campaigns and actions against TTIP and CETA. “We believe that these two trade and investment agreements must be stopped because they pose a threat to democracy, the rule of law, the environment, health, public services as well as consumer and labour rights.”

The Paris Agreement makes it impossible for any country or any sector to say climate change isn’t their problem.

It has created unprecedented momentum for all sectors in all countries to take action and be part of the solution.

The shipping industry plays a fundamental role in boosting global trade and prosperity. Maritime leaders have rightly recognised the need to invest in more energy-efficient vessels and to apply measures like slow-steaming.

But to ensure a level playing field, collective action is urgently needed across the sector. Because maritime carbon pollution happens beyond national boundaries, emissions from shipping did not get a specific reference in the final text agreed at the Paris climate conference.

That is why the industry is gathering this week at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in London from (18th-22nd April) with the aim of agreeing a plan for the sector to manage its emissions.

Failure to get an agreement could put the integrity of the Paris Agreement – and the safety of us all – at risk.

Soaring shipping emissions cannot be allowed!

The IMO predicts that emissions from shipping may rise by 50-250% by 2050 from 2012 levels. That would take the shipping sector from a carbon footprint the size of Germany, at 3% of global emissions, to one nearly the size of the entire EU.

We need robust sustainability regulations for shipping that are internationally recognised and respected. This will ensure shipping plays its part in the global transition to carbon neutrality.

It is now a year since the Marshall Islands called for measures to help the shipping sector to reduce its emissions. That proposal gained support but countries agreed to wait and see what the climate summit agreed. In fact, the level of ambition agreed in Paris went far beyond what many had expected, with 195 governments signing up to a global goal of reaching ‘net zero’ emissions in the second half of the century.

Now the Marshall Islands have resubmitted their plan for the shipping industry to manage its pollution whilst maintaining a thriving maritime sector. They are joined by France, Germany, Morocco, the Solomon Islands and Belgium. These countries are supported by ever louder calls from ship owners and builders calling for a plan for the shipping industry to manage its pollution within a strategy to ensure a thriving industry of opportunity.

In February, the International Chamber of Shipping called for the shipping sector to put forward its own ‘intended nationally determined contribution’ or INDC, following the national climate plans that countries announced ahead of the COP21 climate summit.

The Sustainable Shipping Initiative, backed by Maersk, Cargill and China Navigation Company, launched a sustainability roadmap last month, and has called for more focused, urgent action to be adopted.

So why is the UK prevaricating?

However the UK’s position remains unclear. It has not joined with other nations to drive forward ambitious emissions reductions in international shipping.

On 1st March Lord Bourne, Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, stated the UK’s intention to work through the IMO “to develop mechanisms which deliver emissions reductions, in line with the long term goal agreed in Paris of keeping average global temperature rise well below 2 degrees.”

In response to a parliamentary question tabled by Barry Gardiner, energy minister Andrea Leadsom confirmed that action on international shipping “will be an important part” of meeting the long-term goals at the heart of the Paris Agreement.

But these bland statements give little cause for confidence that bold and decisive action will now follow. Leadsom downplayed IMO discussions on reducing emissions as being at an “early stage”. And she failed to clarify the Government’s response, and DECC’s reaction, to the proposal under debate today – to determine shipping’s ‘fair share’ in meeting global decarbonisation goals.

The fear is that beneath the usual warm words there may lurk a desire to delay, confuse and obfuscate in order to delay the prospects of agreement, and promote the short term economic interests of the shipping industry.

In the Labour Party we are absolutely united in our belief that shipping must define its ‘fair share’ of tackling climate change, and develop an emissions reduction plan for the sector. In the words of the Sustainable Shipping Initiative, this is “the minimum” that countries must agree in London this week.

The new IMO Secretary-General, Kitack Lim, has called tackling climate change “a top priority for IMO”. It must be a top priority for the UK government as well!

Barry Gardiner is Labour’s shadow climate change minister.

Richard Burden is shadow transport minister.

The Stop TTIP colation warned today that the CETA, the Canada-EU Trade Agreement, could come into force without ever being voted on by either EU or national parliaments.

That’s because the agreement as negotiated contains a ‘stealth clause’ that would allow large parts of it to enter into force without having ever been agreed upon in any parliament – including the much-loathed ‘investor state dispute settlement’ (ISDS) which allows corporations to sue governments in secret courts run by corporate lawyers.

“Right now, executives throughout Europe are silently preparing CETA’s entry intro force through this back door, which would allow CETA to enter into force once the Council of the European Union, but none of the European Parliaments – gave its consent”, writes Stop TTIP’s Felix Heilmann in ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘.

The backdoor stealth clause was described by the German ministry of economics as “perfectly democratic“ just last month, adds Heilmann – a paradoxical use of the word when applied to a deliberate evasion of normal democratic accountability via elected representatives.

So why does this matter so much? First, Canadian corporations, mining and fossil fuel corporations in particular, are aggressive users of ISDS mechanisms, with numerous legal actions under way under various free trade agreements with Colombia, El Salvador, Romania and even the USA – which is being sued for $15 billion for turning down the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Second, CETA would act as a ‘back door’ for US corporations if the EU-US TTIP (Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership) deal is delayed or abandoned. As Maude Barlow wrote on The Ecologist, “CETA could act as a ‘back room’ for American corporations whether TTIP is adopted or not.“

That’s because all a US corporation would have to do is start up a subsidiary in Canada and put all its EU investments through it, to be ‘protected’ by CETA’s ISDS provisions.

Just 15 of 28 governments can force CETA into effect

Under the ‘stealth clause’ allowing for ‘provisional implementation’ of CETA “probably 95 per cent“ of the agreement would come into force once 15 out of the 28 EU member states’ governments gave their consent, according to the Canadian chief negotiator Steve Verheul.

This 95% would include corporate courts, as Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s committee on international trade, admitted. “In clear words”, writes Heilmann: “Neither the European Parliament, nor any national parliament, would have to give their consent to CETA and it would still be put in practice!”

Once provisionally implemented, the agreement could continue to be in force indefinitely without having ever been discussed in a parliament – as there would be no deadline on when a parliament would need to vote on it in order for the agreement to be fully implemented.

And even if a parliament of a member state decides to reject CETA, there would be no legal duty for the EU to withdraw from the treaty, as the scientific advisory board of the German Bundestag acknowledges.

The only way to leave CETA would be with a vote in the EU’s Council of Ministers, which includes only representatives of member state governments. As such it is not directly affected by parliamentary decisions: depending on national procedures, parliaments’ democratic decisions need not make any difference.

CETA will remain in force for three years after leaving

Even EU Member States that defy the European Commission to withdraw from CETA would be subject to corporate lawsuits for three full years after exiting.

Article 30.8 of the CETA agreement (page 228) states that ISDS claims “may be submitted … if … no more than three years have elapsed since the date of suspension or termination of the agreement.”

One shocking example of where this leads to was provided in 2014, when Russia was forced to pay $50 billion due to an ISDS lawsuit made possible by a treaty the country had only provisionally implemented and actually decided to leave in 2009 – however, due to a clause comparable to the one found in CETA, Russia has still been forced to pay.

“So let’s wrap this up”, concludes Heilmann. “Due to provisional implementation, an agreement with severe consequences for our democracy will enter into force without any debate in a democratically elected body – and even if the agreement were suspended, its most harmful clauses would not cease to exist.”

But while TTIP is arousing all the political controversy and media attention, even many dedicated TTIP campaigners have never even heard of CETA, never mind grasped how it could put into effect many of TTIP’s worst provisons without a single democratic vote by any European country.

Petition: oppose TTIP and CETA at Stop TTIP.

Principal source: ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘ by Felix Heilmann.

Stop TTIP is an alliance of more than 500 European organisations running campaigns and actions against TTIP and CETA. “We believe that these two trade and investment agreements must be stopped because they pose a threat to democracy, the rule of law, the environment, health, public services as well as consumer and labour rights.”

The Stop TTIP colation warned today that the CETA, the Canada-EU Trade Agreement, could come into force without ever being voted on by either EU or national parliaments.

That’s because the agreement as negotiated contains a ‘stealth clause’ that would allow large parts of it to enter into force without having ever been agreed upon in any parliament – including the much-loathed ‘investor state dispute settlement’ (ISDS) which allows corporations to sue governments in secret courts run by corporate lawyers.

“Right now, executives throughout Europe are silently preparing CETA’s entry intro force through this back door, which would allow CETA to enter into force once the Council of the European Union, but none of the European Parliaments – gave its consent”, writes Stop TTIP’s Felix Heilmann in ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘.

The backdoor stealth clause was described by the German ministry of economics as “perfectly democratic“ just last month, adds Heilmann – a paradoxical use of the word when applied to a deliberate evasion of normal democratic accountability via elected representatives.

So why does this matter so much? First, Canadian corporations, mining and fossil fuel corporations in particular, are aggressive users of ISDS mechanisms, with numerous legal actions under way under various free trade agreements with Colombia, El Salvador, Romania and even the USA – which is being sued for $15 billion for turning down the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Second, CETA would act as a ‘back door’ for US corporations if the EU-US TTIP (Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership) deal is delayed or abandoned. As Maude Barlow wrote on The Ecologist, “CETA could act as a ‘back room’ for American corporations whether TTIP is adopted or not.“

That’s because all a US corporation would have to do is start up a subsidiary in Canada and put all its EU investments through it, to be ‘protected’ by CETA’s ISDS provisions.

Just 15 of 28 governments can force CETA into effect

Under the ‘stealth clause’ allowing for ‘provisional implementation’ of CETA “probably 95 per cent“ of the agreement would come into force once 15 out of the 28 EU member states’ governments gave their consent, according to the Canadian chief negotiator Steve Verheul.

This 95% would include corporate courts, as Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s committee on international trade, admitted. “In clear words”, writes Heilmann: “Neither the European Parliament, nor any national parliament, would have to give their consent to CETA and it would still be put in practice!”

Once provisionally implemented, the agreement could continue to be in force indefinitely without having ever been discussed in a parliament – as there would be no deadline on when a parliament would need to vote on it in order for the agreement to be fully implemented.

And even if a parliament of a member state decides to reject CETA, there would be no legal duty for the EU to withdraw from the treaty, as the scientific advisory board of the German Bundestag acknowledges.

The only way to leave CETA would be with a vote in the EU’s Council of Ministers, which includes only representatives of member state governments. As such it is not directly affected by parliamentary decisions: depending on national procedures, parliaments’ democratic decisions need not make any difference.

CETA will remain in force for three years after leaving

Even EU Member States that defy the European Commission to withdraw from CETA would be subject to corporate lawsuits for three full years after exiting.

Article 30.8 of the CETA agreement (page 228) states that ISDS claims “may be submitted … if … no more than three years have elapsed since the date of suspension or termination of the agreement.”

One shocking example of where this leads to was provided in 2014, when Russia was forced to pay $50 billion due to an ISDS lawsuit made possible by a treaty the country had only provisionally implemented and actually decided to leave in 2009 – however, due to a clause comparable to the one found in CETA, Russia has still been forced to pay.

“So let’s wrap this up”, concludes Heilmann. “Due to provisional implementation, an agreement with severe consequences for our democracy will enter into force without any debate in a democratically elected body – and even if the agreement were suspended, its most harmful clauses would not cease to exist.”

But while TTIP is arousing all the political controversy and media attention, even many dedicated TTIP campaigners have never even heard of CETA, never mind grasped how it could put into effect many of TTIP’s worst provisons without a single democratic vote by any European country.

Petition: oppose TTIP and CETA at Stop TTIP.

Principal source: ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘ by Felix Heilmann.

Stop TTIP is an alliance of more than 500 European organisations running campaigns and actions against TTIP and CETA. “We believe that these two trade and investment agreements must be stopped because they pose a threat to democracy, the rule of law, the environment, health, public services as well as consumer and labour rights.”

The Stop TTIP colation warned today that the CETA, the Canada-EU Trade Agreement, could come into force without ever being voted on by either EU or national parliaments.

That’s because the agreement as negotiated contains a ‘stealth clause’ that would allow large parts of it to enter into force without having ever been agreed upon in any parliament – including the much-loathed ‘investor state dispute settlement’ (ISDS) which allows corporations to sue governments in secret courts run by corporate lawyers.

“Right now, executives throughout Europe are silently preparing CETA’s entry intro force through this back door, which would allow CETA to enter into force once the Council of the European Union, but none of the European Parliaments – gave its consent”, writes Stop TTIP’s Felix Heilmann in ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘.

The backdoor stealth clause was described by the German ministry of economics as “perfectly democratic“ just last month, adds Heilmann – a paradoxical use of the word when applied to a deliberate evasion of normal democratic accountability via elected representatives.

So why does this matter so much? First, Canadian corporations, mining and fossil fuel corporations in particular, are aggressive users of ISDS mechanisms, with numerous legal actions under way under various free trade agreements with Colombia, El Salvador, Romania and even the USA – which is being sued for $15 billion for turning down the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Second, CETA would act as a ‘back door’ for US corporations if the EU-US TTIP (Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership) deal is delayed or abandoned. As Maude Barlow wrote on The Ecologist, “CETA could act as a ‘back room’ for American corporations whether TTIP is adopted or not.“

That’s because all a US corporation would have to do is start up a subsidiary in Canada and put all its EU investments through it, to be ‘protected’ by CETA’s ISDS provisions.

Just 15 of 28 governments can force CETA into effect

Under the ‘stealth clause’ allowing for ‘provisional implementation’ of CETA “probably 95 per cent“ of the agreement would come into force once 15 out of the 28 EU member states’ governments gave their consent, according to the Canadian chief negotiator Steve Verheul.

This 95% would include corporate courts, as Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s committee on international trade, admitted. “In clear words”, writes Heilmann: “Neither the European Parliament, nor any national parliament, would have to give their consent to CETA and it would still be put in practice!”

Once provisionally implemented, the agreement could continue to be in force indefinitely without having ever been discussed in a parliament – as there would be no deadline on when a parliament would need to vote on it in order for the agreement to be fully implemented.

And even if a parliament of a member state decides to reject CETA, there would be no legal duty for the EU to withdraw from the treaty, as the scientific advisory board of the German Bundestag acknowledges.

The only way to leave CETA would be with a vote in the EU’s Council of Ministers, which includes only representatives of member state governments. As such it is not directly affected by parliamentary decisions: depending on national procedures, parliaments’ democratic decisions need not make any difference.

CETA will remain in force for three years after leaving

Even EU Member States that defy the European Commission to withdraw from CETA would be subject to corporate lawsuits for three full years after exiting.

Article 30.8 of the CETA agreement (page 228) states that ISDS claims “may be submitted … if … no more than three years have elapsed since the date of suspension or termination of the agreement.”

One shocking example of where this leads to was provided in 2014, when Russia was forced to pay $50 billion due to an ISDS lawsuit made possible by a treaty the country had only provisionally implemented and actually decided to leave in 2009 – however, due to a clause comparable to the one found in CETA, Russia has still been forced to pay.

“So let’s wrap this up”, concludes Heilmann. “Due to provisional implementation, an agreement with severe consequences for our democracy will enter into force without any debate in a democratically elected body – and even if the agreement were suspended, its most harmful clauses would not cease to exist.”

But while TTIP is arousing all the political controversy and media attention, even many dedicated TTIP campaigners have never even heard of CETA, never mind grasped how it could put into effect many of TTIP’s worst provisons without a single democratic vote by any European country.

Petition: oppose TTIP and CETA at Stop TTIP.

Principal source: ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘ by Felix Heilmann.

Stop TTIP is an alliance of more than 500 European organisations running campaigns and actions against TTIP and CETA. “We believe that these two trade and investment agreements must be stopped because they pose a threat to democracy, the rule of law, the environment, health, public services as well as consumer and labour rights.”

The Stop TTIP colation warned today that the CETA, the Canada-EU Trade Agreement, could come into force without ever being voted on by either EU or national parliaments.

That’s because the agreement as negotiated contains a ‘stealth clause’ that would allow large parts of it to enter into force without having ever been agreed upon in any parliament – including the much-loathed ‘investor state dispute settlement’ (ISDS) which allows corporations to sue governments in secret courts run by corporate lawyers.

“Right now, executives throughout Europe are silently preparing CETA’s entry intro force through this back door, which would allow CETA to enter into force once the Council of the European Union, but none of the European Parliaments – gave its consent”, writes Stop TTIP’s Felix Heilmann in ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘.

The backdoor stealth clause was described by the German ministry of economics as “perfectly democratic“ just last month, adds Heilmann – a paradoxical use of the word when applied to a deliberate evasion of normal democratic accountability via elected representatives.

So why does this matter so much? First, Canadian corporations, mining and fossil fuel corporations in particular, are aggressive users of ISDS mechanisms, with numerous legal actions under way under various free trade agreements with Colombia, El Salvador, Romania and even the USA – which is being sued for $15 billion for turning down the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Second, CETA would act as a ‘back door’ for US corporations if the EU-US TTIP (Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership) deal is delayed or abandoned. As Maude Barlow wrote on The Ecologist, “CETA could act as a ‘back room’ for American corporations whether TTIP is adopted or not.“

That’s because all a US corporation would have to do is start up a subsidiary in Canada and put all its EU investments through it, to be ‘protected’ by CETA’s ISDS provisions.

Just 15 of 28 governments can force CETA into effect

Under the ‘stealth clause’ allowing for ‘provisional implementation’ of CETA “probably 95 per cent“ of the agreement would come into force once 15 out of the 28 EU member states’ governments gave their consent, according to the Canadian chief negotiator Steve Verheul.

This 95% would include corporate courts, as Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s committee on international trade, admitted. “In clear words”, writes Heilmann: “Neither the European Parliament, nor any national parliament, would have to give their consent to CETA and it would still be put in practice!”

Once provisionally implemented, the agreement could continue to be in force indefinitely without having ever been discussed in a parliament – as there would be no deadline on when a parliament would need to vote on it in order for the agreement to be fully implemented.

And even if a parliament of a member state decides to reject CETA, there would be no legal duty for the EU to withdraw from the treaty, as the scientific advisory board of the German Bundestag acknowledges.

The only way to leave CETA would be with a vote in the EU’s Council of Ministers, which includes only representatives of member state governments. As such it is not directly affected by parliamentary decisions: depending on national procedures, parliaments’ democratic decisions need not make any difference.

CETA will remain in force for three years after leaving

Even EU Member States that defy the European Commission to withdraw from CETA would be subject to corporate lawsuits for three full years after exiting.

Article 30.8 of the CETA agreement (page 228) states that ISDS claims “may be submitted … if … no more than three years have elapsed since the date of suspension or termination of the agreement.”

One shocking example of where this leads to was provided in 2014, when Russia was forced to pay $50 billion due to an ISDS lawsuit made possible by a treaty the country had only provisionally implemented and actually decided to leave in 2009 – however, due to a clause comparable to the one found in CETA, Russia has still been forced to pay.

“So let’s wrap this up”, concludes Heilmann. “Due to provisional implementation, an agreement with severe consequences for our democracy will enter into force without any debate in a democratically elected body – and even if the agreement were suspended, its most harmful clauses would not cease to exist.”

But while TTIP is arousing all the political controversy and media attention, even many dedicated TTIP campaigners have never even heard of CETA, never mind grasped how it could put into effect many of TTIP’s worst provisons without a single democratic vote by any European country.

Petition: oppose TTIP and CETA at Stop TTIP.

Principal source: ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘ by Felix Heilmann.

Stop TTIP is an alliance of more than 500 European organisations running campaigns and actions against TTIP and CETA. “We believe that these two trade and investment agreements must be stopped because they pose a threat to democracy, the rule of law, the environment, health, public services as well as consumer and labour rights.”

The Stop TTIP colation warned today that the CETA, the Canada-EU Trade Agreement, could come into force without ever being voted on by either EU or national parliaments.

That’s because the agreement as negotiated contains a ‘stealth clause’ that would allow large parts of it to enter into force without having ever been agreed upon in any parliament – including the much-loathed ‘investor state dispute settlement’ (ISDS) which allows corporations to sue governments in secret courts run by corporate lawyers.

“Right now, executives throughout Europe are silently preparing CETA’s entry intro force through this back door, which would allow CETA to enter into force once the Council of the European Union, but none of the European Parliaments – gave its consent”, writes Stop TTIP’s Felix Heilmann in ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘.

The backdoor stealth clause was described by the German ministry of economics as “perfectly democratic“ just last month, adds Heilmann – a paradoxical use of the word when applied to a deliberate evasion of normal democratic accountability via elected representatives.

So why does this matter so much? First, Canadian corporations, mining and fossil fuel corporations in particular, are aggressive users of ISDS mechanisms, with numerous legal actions under way under various free trade agreements with Colombia, El Salvador, Romania and even the USA – which is being sued for $15 billion for turning down the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Second, CETA would act as a ‘back door’ for US corporations if the EU-US TTIP (Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership) deal is delayed or abandoned. As Maude Barlow wrote on The Ecologist, “CETA could act as a ‘back room’ for American corporations whether TTIP is adopted or not.“

That’s because all a US corporation would have to do is start up a subsidiary in Canada and put all its EU investments through it, to be ‘protected’ by CETA’s ISDS provisions.

Just 15 of 28 governments can force CETA into effect

Under the ‘stealth clause’ allowing for ‘provisional implementation’ of CETA “probably 95 per cent“ of the agreement would come into force once 15 out of the 28 EU member states’ governments gave their consent, according to the Canadian chief negotiator Steve Verheul.

This 95% would include corporate courts, as Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s committee on international trade, admitted. “In clear words”, writes Heilmann: “Neither the European Parliament, nor any national parliament, would have to give their consent to CETA and it would still be put in practice!”

Once provisionally implemented, the agreement could continue to be in force indefinitely without having ever been discussed in a parliament – as there would be no deadline on when a parliament would need to vote on it in order for the agreement to be fully implemented.

And even if a parliament of a member state decides to reject CETA, there would be no legal duty for the EU to withdraw from the treaty, as the scientific advisory board of the German Bundestag acknowledges.

The only way to leave CETA would be with a vote in the EU’s Council of Ministers, which includes only representatives of member state governments. As such it is not directly affected by parliamentary decisions: depending on national procedures, parliaments’ democratic decisions need not make any difference.

CETA will remain in force for three years after leaving

Even EU Member States that defy the European Commission to withdraw from CETA would be subject to corporate lawsuits for three full years after exiting.

Article 30.8 of the CETA agreement (page 228) states that ISDS claims “may be submitted … if … no more than three years have elapsed since the date of suspension or termination of the agreement.”

One shocking example of where this leads to was provided in 2014, when Russia was forced to pay $50 billion due to an ISDS lawsuit made possible by a treaty the country had only provisionally implemented and actually decided to leave in 2009 – however, due to a clause comparable to the one found in CETA, Russia has still been forced to pay.

“So let’s wrap this up”, concludes Heilmann. “Due to provisional implementation, an agreement with severe consequences for our democracy will enter into force without any debate in a democratically elected body – and even if the agreement were suspended, its most harmful clauses would not cease to exist.”

But while TTIP is arousing all the political controversy and media attention, even many dedicated TTIP campaigners have never even heard of CETA, never mind grasped how it could put into effect many of TTIP’s worst provisons without a single democratic vote by any European country.

Petition: oppose TTIP and CETA at Stop TTIP.

Principal source: ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘ by Felix Heilmann.

Stop TTIP is an alliance of more than 500 European organisations running campaigns and actions against TTIP and CETA. “We believe that these two trade and investment agreements must be stopped because they pose a threat to democracy, the rule of law, the environment, health, public services as well as consumer and labour rights.”