Xavier Prats Monné
Hvis nogen har et stort ansvar for beslutninger, som påvirker sundheden og sikkerheden hos de ca 508 millioner borgere, som lever i Europa Unionens medlemsstater, ville vi gerne tro, at de tager deres moralske ansvar meget, meget alvorlig.
Ja, det kan godt være, at det chokerer dig, men de ansigtsløse bureaukrater, der i dag administrerer politikken i EUs DG SANTE, er tilsyneladende helt ligeglade med deres afgørelsers moralske implikationer.
'Maladministration' eller kriminel opførsel?
Den 18. februar 2016 offentliggjorde EU's Ombudsman en dom der erklærede, at EU kommissionens sundhedsadministration, DG SANTEs, praksis med at godkende pesticider, selvom der mangler vigtige sikkerhedsdata, er et tilfælde af maladministration.
Der er endog et smart navn til at dække over denne udøvelse af maladministration, hvilket afslører, hvor indgroet den er blevet. Denne praksis er kendt som den såkaldte "confirmatory data procedure" (CPD) [Svarer omtrent til 'bekræftende dataprocedure'].
Lige der begynder vi at lugte en stærk stank, DG SANTE's Confirmatory Data Procedure består i at godkende ikke testede pesticider uden bekræftende data eller "confirmatory data." Dette er den såkaldte procedure.
Kommentar: Delvist oversat af Sott.net fra 'Maladministration' or criminal behavior? EU commission illegally approved high risk pesticides.
Som man kan læse sidst i artiklen har DG SANTE nu to år til at vise, at de har rettet op på det. Når man tager i betragtning, at sagen allerede blev indledt den 30 januar 2013, og tre år er den normerede til at skriver en hel PhD, så har ombudsmandens undersøgelse ikke haft høj prioritet. Sagt på en anden måde kom 508 millioner menneskers sundhed bag i køen.
Sagen om pesticder blev forelagt EUs ombudsmand af PAN Europe (Pesticide Action Network).
Læs om samme sag: 'Unlawful'! EU's hasty approval of pesticides condemned
Many European Pesticide Approvals Are "unlawful" says EU Ombudsman
Og Corrupting influence: EU commission relying on chemical industry safety studies in decision to re-license glyphosate
According to a detailed report by the private watchdog group, Pesticide Action Network (PAN), CDP in practice has meant CDP pesticides could be approved with serious data gaps and with high risks, allowing industry to submit additional information only in future, or never. PAN documented back in 2012 that the CDP procedure was used as standard procedure by SANCO, the EU's Directorate General for Health and Consumer Affairs, placing the public and the environment at unknown and potentially serious health risks.
Almost three years after Hans Muilerman, on behalf of Pesticide Action Network Europe, filed a complaint with the Office of Emily O'Reilly, European Ombudsman, O'Reilly, the Ombudsman now concludes that these practices were unlawful in the past and currently not restricted as legally required. She concluded in her ruling that the "Commission may be too lenient in its practices and might not be taken sufficiently account of the precautionary principle," declaring in the ruling that all required data should be present before a decision is taken - chemical industry gaping loophole closed.
Only a tiny step, but a step
It is not a clear 100% victory for human health and safety from toxic pesticide contamination, only a tiny step. The Ombudsman also ruled that DG SANTE must prove in a report to the Ombudsman that they have implemented the changes. The report is not due for two years from today's ruling, giving the pesticide industry lobby - Bayer, Syngenta, Monsanto and such - ample time to find a way around what should be a clear directive.
One of the most brazen cases documented in the EU Ombudsman's decision was the finding that even when the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA, calculated high risks based on the available scientific evidence, DG SANTE in several cases approved the pesticide involved, nonetheless.
The Ombudsman writes, it is "difficult to understand how the Commission could legitimately decide...that these substances have no harmful effect or no unacceptable influence on the environment, and that a satisfactory explanation has not been provided by Commission." Many of these high risks concern the environment, such as birds.
O'Reilly concluded that in their reports and decisions DG SANTE tried to hide the high risks and data gaps observed by EFSA and then claimed to the public that the pesticides are safe. The Ombudsman O'Reilly's ruling went to state that the EU Commission's DG SANTE, the Directorate General for Health and Food Safety, had approved as safe "active substances for (pesticides) where the legal requirements are not met, in particular because of insufficient data" which allowed the faceless bureaucrats of DG SANTE to "exclude risks for human health, animal health, groundwater and the environment."
The EU Ombudsman writes that the "Ombudsman could understand the complaintant's impression that the Commission's review reports and approval decisions are misleading and inaccurate."
The faceless bureaucrat responsible
That dear EU Ombudsman is an understatement. It's useful to put a spotlight on the normally faceless EU bureucrats who normally get away scot-free with literally murder buried within their supranational, protected places of power in Brussels, not answerable to any voters.
The high-ranking faceless EU bureaucrat responsible for the criminal "maladministration" practices of the European Commission's DG SANTE regarding allowance of unproven pesticides as supposedly safe, even ones that the very liberal pro-industry EFSA has ruled risk-laden is a Spanish-born, Italy and Belgium-educated bureaucrat named Xavier Prats Monné. According to his official bio, his qualifications to make complex rulings on health and safety of pesticides include a degree in social anthropology and later in European Studies.
On their website, Xavier Prats Monné's DG SANTE states their purpose:
- protect and improve public health;
- ensure Europe's food is safe and wholesome;
- protect the health and welfare of farm animals;
- protect the health of crops and forests.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".
Kommentar: