CropLife Europe (formerly European Crop Protection Association)

Background

CropLife Europe is a trade association representing the agrichemical industry in Europe. Its corporate members include Adama, BASF, Bayer Crop Science, Corteva Agriscience, FMC, Syngenta, and UPL.¹

The organization was known as the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) until January 2021, when it rebranded to CropLife Europe. Announcing the name change, CropLife Europe Director General Géraldine Kutas said in a statement that sustainable food models were “best achieved through a holistic approach, so an agile association representing a host of technologies under one roof will be better equipped to represent the integrated solutions needed to deliver sustainable agriculture and respond to the rapidly changing demands from society and evolving policy frameworks.”²

CropLife Europe is a member association of CropLife International, a trade association for the world’s main agrochemical and agricultural biotech companies that describes itself as “the voice of the global plant science industry.”³ ⁴

CropLife Europe states that it “represents sustainable crop protection solutions” that are “innovative and science-based” and “contribute to providing Europeans with a safe, affordable, healthy, and sustainable food supply.”

However, the organization has been criticized for pushing back against the EU’s Farm to Fork strategy, which aims to make agriculture more sustainable.⁵ While the company says that it supports the underlying objectives of the strategy, it has repeatedly critiqued the EU’s targets for reducing fertilizer and pesticide use in particular, two cornerstones of the strategy which will eventually be legally binding for member states.

It also states that it “promote[s] modern farming practices and champion[s] the use of innovation and technology for a more sustainable model of agriculture.”⁶

On its website, CropLife Europe provides information on the production of counterfeit and illegal pesticides and states that “increasing quantities of fake pesticides are being produced, marketed and sold by criminals around the world.”⁷

In 2014, CropLife Europe, then ECPA, developed a social media campaign to raise awareness among farmers about illegal and counterfeit pesticides across Europe. The campaign was a collaboration with authorities from 35 countries, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), and the European Commission’s DG Sante.⁸

In October 2020, Le Monde reported that scientists and NGOs were concerned after the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) signed a “letter of intent” formalizing a strategic alliance with CropLife International.⁹ ¹⁰ Over 300 scientists signed a letter urging the Director-General of FAO, Qu Dongyu, to withdraw the partnership proposal and to instead “renew and strengthen FAO’s commitment to an agroecological transformation of our food and farming systems and to the reduction of reliance on hazardous chemical pesticides and those technologies designed to perpetuate their use.”¹¹

In August 2022, following widespread complaints, FAO told Pesticide Action Network (PAN) and other NGOs that it did not have a formal partnership with CropLife. PAN and others urged the organization to formally “rescind its indefinite agreement with CLI and finally end its “intent” to collaborate with the biggest players in the pesticide industry.”¹²

In October 2021, CropLife Europe elected Olivier de Matos as its new director general. On his appointment, de Matos stated:¹³

“I am delighted to represent a sector that is working hard to address global challenges such as climate change and food security in a sustainable way. With our 2030 Commitments we, Croplife Europe and its members, will continue to drive change and contribute to the ambitious objectives of the European Green Deal.”

Following de Matos’ election, Politico Europe reported that CropLife Europe’s former Director General, Géraldine Kutas, had joined global animal health company Ceva as the executive vice-president of corporate affairs and communication.¹⁴

Stance on Climate Change

CropLife Europe states that it promotes “modern farming practices and champions the use of crop protection technology important for the sustainable intensification of agriculture.”¹⁵

CropLife Europe runs a campaign called “More With Less,” which calls for more innovation in agriculture and precision farming to improve crop yields and efficiency. CropLife Europe says that a challenge for farmers is producing “the high-quality, safe, and affordable foods that consumers demand,” while also “protecting and using less of the earth’s valuable – and limited – natural resources.”“¹⁶

According to its entry on the European Commission Transparency Register, CropLife Europe spent 469,000 euros on the campaign in 2021.¹⁷

CropLife Europe encourages farmers to use no-till practices as they “[moderate] the effects of climate change.” The group states that “certain crop protection products” can assist with no-till practices by reducing the need to plough or till the soil, preventing soil erosion and preserving biodiversity. CropLife Europe argues that farmers need pesticides, including glyphosate, in order to use regenerative agriculture practices such as no-till.¹⁸

“Soil is an important carbon sink that stores 10% of the world’s CO2. When soil is tilled, CO2 is released and contributes to global warming. Crop protection products enable farmers to use sustainable practices such as no-till, keeping carbon in the soil,” CropLife Europe tweeted in March 2020.”¹⁹

The benefits of no-till practices for carbon sequestration and soil health have been contested by scientists, and are considered unproven or overstated by many academics and NGOs.²⁰ ²¹ ²² Some farmers have also said that they would need to use more pesticides if they transitioned to no-tillage techniques.²³ The use of no-till alongside continued pesticide use may in fact undermine soil health, which is central to its ability to capture carbon. A 2019 report by Friends of the Earth warned: “Not only do pesticides pose a threat to the core aims of regenerative agriculture by harming the complex living community of the soil, mounting evidence shows that overuse of pesticides is decimating pollinators and other insects that are central to a sustainable food system.”²⁴

Croplife Europe contends that pesticides “facilitate” conservation tillage as a more sustainable technique for farmers to use in “preventing soil erosion & increasing carbon sequestration.”²⁵

In 2018 the EU approved a ban on neonicotinoid agricultural pesticides.²⁶ In 2018, CropLife Europe, then the ECPA, argued that the neonicotinoid ban in Europe was affecting harvests and biodiversity, and increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The group also published an infographic, using data from a paper by scientific consultants HFFA, on the economic and environmental costs of banning neonicotinoids in the European Union. The infographic stated that banning the pesticide results in additional greenhouse gas emissions, along with increasing land use and water consumption. It stated that the research paper was financed by Bayer Division Crop Science and Syngenta.²⁷

In a September 2020 press release announcing the group’s 2030 commitments to support the European Green Deal, ECPA Director General Géraldine Kutas said, “We are serious about contributing and aligning with the Green Deal policy initiatives which is why our companies have joined together to set our own voluntary, sector-specific, measurable goals in their support.”²⁸ However, as outlined below, the group has repeatedly contested EU ambitions to reduce pesticide use by 50 percent by 2030, a central element of the Green Deal.

The group’s stated list of goals includes “invest[ing] 10 billion euros into innovation in precision and digital technologies by 2030,” in addition to €4 billion for “innovation in biopesticides” to develop targeted methods of protecting crops that would have less environmental impact.²⁹

Genetically Modified Organisms

Gene editing in agriculture is the process of adding, enhancing or removing specific traits from the DNA of an organism.³⁰ Genetic modification can make organisms more resistant to certain environmental conditions, including pests, chemicals, diseases and weather. While some scientists and industry representatives argue that the more widespread use of gene editing techniques will lead to significant environmental benefits, others have claimed there are “potentially harmful” consequences associated with their use.³¹

Certain studies suggest that the adoption of genetically modified insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant technology has reduced pesticide spraying, decreasing the environmental impact associated with herbicide and insecticide use on these crops.³² However, other studies suggest that weeds become more resistant, leading farmers to use additional chemicals, in larger quantities.³³

Most studies conclude that there is still not enough data in order to assess the long term safety of such new crops, nor their environmental impact.³⁴

In September 2021, CropLife Europe published a position paper on GMOs.³⁵The paper stated that GMOs have the “potential to contribute to sustainable agri-food systems, in line with the Green Deal objectives” by “accelerating the development of resilient plant varieties for sustainable food production.”³⁶

In 2019, the EU began to revise its rules on plant and forest reproductive material. The revision had several aims, particularly aligning legislation with the Green Deal’s Farm to Fork, Biodiversity and other relevant strategies.³⁷

The risks associated with new genomic techniques (NGTs) remain widely contested. Industry members and some policymakers suggest that these techniques can create plant varieties that are similar to those produced “more slowly by natural breeding processes.” Proponents argue that GMTs should be considered as low risk as a result.³⁸ However, critics say that this argument is “false and misleading”³⁹ and that NGTs are a new form of genetic modification, could have serious unintended consequences outside of lab conditions and if mistakes are made, and will further concentrate control of agriculture in the hands of a few corporations.⁴⁰

In April 2021 the European Commission published a study looking at how NGTs are treated under EU law, and found that the current EU GMO directive was “not fit for purpose for some new genomic techniques and their products,” and that legislation “needs to be adapted to scientific and technological progress.”⁴¹

In response to the EU’s study, Géraldine Kutas, then-director general of CropLife Europe, signed a joint letter with industry groups including the European Chemical Industry Council and Euroseeds. The letter welcomed the findings of the study and called on EU Ministers of Agriculture to act on them in the context of challenges from climate change and the European Green Deal. It stated that the study “confirms” that NGTs could “contribute to various goals of the European Green Deal by saving land resources, allowing a more sustainable use of crop protection products, antibiotics and emissions while stabilizing and increasing crop yields and improving animal health and welfare to ensure food security.”⁴²

The European Commission study was criticized in September 2021 by over 50 organizations including Corporate Europe Observatory, European Coordination Via Campesina, and Friends of the Earth, who argued that the Commission’s consultation:⁴³

Was biased by a “majority of inputs (74%) from the agricultural GMO industry”
Was over reliant “on the unverifiable promises of the industry”
“Misleadingly” downplayed the dominance of herbicide tolerance in new GMO crops
Ignored “a large body of scientific evidence and analysis pointing to the risks of new GM techniques”
And “Uncritically” followed “the GMO industry’s “wish list” for deregulation”.

Role in Pesticides Controversy

According to the EU Transparency Register, in 2019 CropLife Europe, then the ECPA, spent €410,000 running a “communication campaign which explains the benefits of pesticides” called ‘#WithOrWithout’. The campaign argued for continued authorization of glyphosate using the hashtag #glyphosateisvital.⁴⁴ In a 2017 tweet, ECPA stated that “glyphosate helps reduce CO2 emissions, minimise soil erosion & improve soil quality.”⁴⁵

Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used weed killer.⁴⁶ The International Agency for Research on Cancer stated in 2015 that glyphosate “probably carcinogenic to humans.” The EU re-approved glyphosate 2017.⁴⁷ In January 2020, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a statement stating the agency had concluded that “there are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used according to the label and that it is not a carcinogen.”⁴⁸

Responding to European Parliament votes on two own-initiative reports in 2016, “Technological solutions for sustainable agriculture” from Conservative Member Anthea McIntyre, and “Enhancing innovation and economic development in future European farm management” from Renew Europe Member Jan Huitema, ECPA said that “pesticides and other plant science innovations boost crop yields, minimise pre-and post-harvest losses and improve the efficient use of natural resources such as land, water and energy.”⁴⁹

According to a 2017 report from the NGO Corporate Europe Observatory, European Parliament members were invited by the Irish Farmers Association and the British Farm Bureau “in partnership with the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA)” to “discuss the possible impact of what a ban on Glyphosate could mean for EU agriculture sector.”⁵⁰

CropLife Europe was a stakeholder in the European Commission’s series of consultation events on the sustainable use of pesticides directive (SUP),⁵¹ which “aims to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides in the EU by reducing the risks and impacts of pesticide use.”⁵² In a presentation during the first stakeholders meeting in January 2021, CropLife Europe stated that “to tackle an increasing range of pests and diseases, pesticides and biopesticides are both essential elements in the toolbox” of the European Integrated Pest Management plan.⁵³

In the same presentation, CropLife Europe wrote, “Any [pesticide] reduction targets must be practical, science based and preceded by a comprehensive and holistic impact assessment.”

In April 2020, CropLife Europe published a report it had commissioned from Steward Redqueen, a strategy consultancy that “focuses on integrating sustainability.”⁵⁴ The report claimed the EU’s decision to remove certain “critical pesticide active substances” products from the market would “deplete” farmers’ ability to protect their crops.⁵⁵ The report also stated that “the socio-economic impact of this depletion has received much less attention than the environmental, biodiversity and health impacts of pesticides.”

Low Yield II was the second stage of a report from Steward Redqueen published by CropLife Europe, titled Low Yield Report.⁵⁶ A scientist named as a co-author of each report received a PhD from Netherlands-based Wageningen University & Research. Two reviewers of the reports were based at the university.

In April 2021, CropLife Europe said that new regulations designed to make the process of approving pesticides in the EU more transparent would present “a big logistical challenge,” and that CropLife Europe had “committed significant resources to ensuring that the transition to the new system is as smooth and inclusive as possible for our stakeholders.”⁵⁷ ⁵⁸

On May 25, 2021, three days before the European Parliament was due to vote on the Motion for Resolution for the extension of the approval periods for several active substances including Sumitomo’s flumioxazin, CropLife Europe sent members of the Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) Committee a position paper backing the renewal of flumioxazin. CropLife Europe wrote that “the extension of the approval period for these substances is not due to any scientific concern,” and stated that not extending the approval period would be “taking away solutions from EU growers and farmers.”⁵⁹

In July 2021, the European Commission’s in-house science service, the Joint Research Center, published an analysis predicting that targets to cut back on chemical pesticides and fertilizers in the EU Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies could cause a 20 percent reduction in agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.⁶⁰

CropLife responded that the sector “continues to lack good data around the choices involved in making [sustainability goals] happen” and proposed commissioning an impact assessment on the pesticide and fertilizer reduction targets within Farm to Fork from Wageningen University.⁶¹

In October 2021, Wageningen University published its report on the impact of the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies. A university announcement of the report’s release stated that a “probable consequence” of the policies would be “that the yields of agricultural crops will decline,” and that the decline in yield could lead to price increases, fewer European exports and “more imports of agricultural products from outside Europe.” The announcement acknowledged that “Researchers of Wageningen University & Research have calculated this in a study commissioned by CropLife Europe and CropLife International with involvement of other stakeholders in the food supply chain.”⁶²

In October 2021, CropLife Europe sponsored and supported a “scientific dialogue” with European media company EURACTIV titled “Farm To Fork: What the Analysis and Data Tell Us.” Johan Bremmer, a senior researcher in plant health and market intelligence at Wageningen University who was involved with the report, spoke on the panel.⁶³

Industry group COPA-COGECA also emailed Members of the European Parliament stating that Wageningen University was “finalising an impact assessment on the Farm to Fork,” which they believed members of the Parliament should take into account during upcoming votes on the policy.⁶⁴

On October 12, 2021, COPA-COGECA also signed a joint letter with other agribusinesses which stated that pursuing the Farm to Fork objectives presented challenges which had not been taken into account, suggesting that a study by Wageningen University would present a comprehensive assessment on the impact of Farm to Fork measures. The signatories, which included CropLife Europe and Fertilizers Europe, also stated that “with innovation and further support at the forefront of EU agricultural policy, farmers will continue to produce in an even more sustainable manner.”⁶⁵

A 2021 paid Twitter ad by CropLife Europe stated that the Farm to Fork Strategy would “significantly decrease food production in the EU, Negatively impact EU farmers’ revenues, [and] cost EU citizens more in their weekly food shop while exporting the EU’s carbon footprint to other countries.”⁶⁶

Lobbying

According to the EU Transparency Register, CropLife spent between €600,000 – €699,999 on lobbying in 2019 and 2020.⁶⁷ CropLife Europe has held 24 meetings with commissioners, members of their cabinets or directors-general of the European Commission between December 1 ,2014 and August 19, 2020.⁶⁸ The group’s lobbying interests are listed as: Agriculture and Rural Development, Business and Industry, Competition, Consumers, Customs, Enlargement, Environment, Food Safety, Institutional affairs, Public Health, Research and innovation, Taxation and Trade.⁶⁹

In December 2020, CropLife Europe disagreed with the proposed reformation of the EU comitology system.⁷⁰ According to the EU Comitology Register, the EU comitology system is the “set of procedures, including meetings of representative committees, that give EU countries a say in implementing acts.”⁷¹

CropLife Europe signed a joint statement alongside COPA-COGECA and other agribusiness groups that represent manufacturers of animal medicines, vaccines and other animal health products in Europe. The statement said that the proposed changes would “make the processes for product authorisations more complex, lengthy and less predictable.”⁷²

The statement added:

“The proposal after amendments by the European Parliament will revert the logic from currently ‘approve when safe’ to ‘approve only when popular’. The Parliament’s amendments would enable a minority of Member States to block the authorisations of products, even if their safety is confirmed by the risk assessment agencies. This would make authorisations of certain products de facto impossible and would undermine science-based decision-making processes.”⁷³

As of November 2021, CropLife Europe had held four meetings with Commissioners and Members of their Cabinets in the European Commission of Agriculture and the Green Deal since the beginning of the year. In addition, CropLife Europe had held five meetings with Commissioners and Members of their Cabinets in the European Commission of Agriculture and Health. According to the European Transparency Register, these meetings were related to the Farm to Fork Strategy, the European Green Deal and sustainable food systems.⁷⁴

In 2020, CropLife spent between €25,000 – €49,999 on the services of Fleishman Hillard, a political consulting group registered in the European Union.⁷⁵

According to the EU Transparency Register, ECPA received no funding from the EU institutions during the 2018-2019 or 2019-2020 fiscal years. CropLife Europe’s website doesn’t say how much funding it receives from its own members.⁷⁶

Funding

According to the EU Transparency Register, ECPA received no funding from the EU institutions during the 2018/19 financial year. CropLife Europe’s website doesn’t say how much funding it receives from members. [9]