|
THE CHEMICAL COMPANY |
water integrity and business ethic |
||||
|
BASF in Brazil 2011
You only have to visit BASF’s website to learn that "economic interests do not take priority over safety, protection of the environment and the preservation of health". Indeed! In the sixties, BASF discovered a new herbicide, chloridazon. It is registered for beet crops. However, its manufacturing process had a major drawback. The process unavoidably produces iso-chloridazon, an isomer with no herbicidal action but with a polluting effect; it degrades neither in the soil nor in water. A necessary evil, in a way. At the end of the seventies, a new method was perfected. It was possible to avoid producing the inactive isomer. To protect this new manufacturing process, BASF filed a patent in 1982. But it made no use of it............... find out why, read AUDACE's report >>>
AUDACE's contribution towards a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides
|
BASF et le chloridazone :
BASF en chloridazon :
BASF und Chloridazon :
BASF
и хлоридазон :
|
BASF crée un Conseil du Développement durable
BASF establishes a Sustainability Council
" S'il existe des risques pour la santé ou pour l'environnement dus à notre activité, nous prendrons les mesures nécessaires en collaborant étroitement avec les collectivités et nous informerons immédiatement le public. " BASF s’engage avec l'initiative volontaire de l'industrie chimique, le "Responsible Care"
|
|||
|
À atenção dos deputados do Parlamento Europeu,
considerando as alterações ao regulamento proposto para substituir a
Directiva 91/414/CEE e da Directiva-Quadro para o uso sustentável de
produtos fitofarmacêuticos PPP
PYRAMIN ® é uma marca registrada da BASF |
A l’attention des membres du Parlement européen en charge de l’évaluation des amendements aux propositions de règlement et de directive relatifs aux produits phytopharmaceutiques PPP
La société BASF a sciemment mis sur le marché une spécialité herbicide (PYRAMINE) spécifique de la culture de la betterave sous une formulation contenant un agent hautement polluant (ISO-PCA) alors que l’état de sa propre technique lui en permettait l’élimination depuis plus de quinze ans.
L’association AUDACE a sollicité par différents courriers adressés à la Direction Générale de BASF qu’une explication soit apportée à cette situation pour le moins contestable.
L’absence de réponse de la firme est significative de son embarras à ne pouvoir se justifier autrement que par des raisons marketing dont l’intérêt économique fait abstraction de l’intérêt public tenant à la santé des personnes et à la préservation de l’environnement.
En substance ces actions relèvent :
· d’une atteinte à la santé et à l’environnement, · de tromperie sur les qualités substantielles d'un produit pour la fabrication duquel l'état de la technique est volontairement caché et inexploité, · d'une manipulation des textes communautaires visant à détourner les objectifs fondamentaux d'une directive (91/414/CEE) et d'un règlement (1610196 - CCPP) dans une seule logique de profit au détriment de l'intérêt général, · de l'utilisation d'un droit de propriété intellectuelle dont l'exercice devient l'instrument du recouvrement d'une position dominante, et · de déclarations mensongères devant la CJCE.
II convient de souligner que la démonstration de la violation par BASF de tous les principes directeurs auxquels l’industrie chimique affirme son attachement résulte exclusivement des actions et recherches d’AUDACE sans qu'aucun des organismes professionnels alertés (UIPP - FEDICHEM - PHYTOFAR) et auxquels BASF adhère, n'ait jamais estimé devoir apporter le moindre concours, la moindre vérification, non plus d'ailleurs que la moindre protestation.
LA SANTE ET L’ENVIRONNEMENT EST AUSSI LE FAIT DE L'INDUSTRIE.
Les utilisateurs de PPP entendent soumettre ce dossier à l’appréciation des parlementaires européens et souhaitent que sous leur autorité un audit de toutes les productions phytopharmaceutiques de BASF soit réalisé d’autant que l’autocontrôle dont ces organisations professionnelles revendiquent la charge est si peu probant, si extrêmement fallacieux vis a vis de l’opinion publique et si éloigné de celui dont la société exige débats et résolutions objectives.
La très grande place accordée principalement aujourd’hui au concept d'une agriculture durable et votre participation à en définir les principes nous paraissent suffisantes pour ne pas avoir à développer davantage nos motivations relatives a cette demande.
AUDACE se tient cependant à la disposition des parlementaires européens pour toute information complémentaire qu’ils jugeraient utile.
6 juin 2007 PYRAMINE® est une marque déposée de BASF |
EN
To the attention of European Members of Parliament considering amendments to the proposed regulation to replace directive 91/414/EEC and a Framework Directive for the sustainable use of plant protection product PPP
The company BASF knowingly put on the market a speciality weed killer (PYRAMIN), specific to the production of sugar beet, containing a highly polluting agent (ISO-PCA) even though their own technology has allowed its elimination for more than fifteen years.
The Association AUDACE has sought from the General Management of BASF an explanation for this situation which is, at the very least, questionable.
The absence of any response from the firm is significant indication of its embarrassment not to be able to justify itself, except by way of marketing reasons where the economic interest prevails, ignoring completely the public interest of people's health and the safeguard of the environment.
Basically the facts relate to :
· an attack on health and the environment, · deceit on the essential qualities of a product for which the available technique allowing to improve performance and toxicity is concealed voluntarily and unexploited, · manipulation of community legislation aiming at hijacking the fundamental objectives of a directive (91/414/EEC) and of a regulation (1610196 - CCPP) in a single logic of profit to the detriment of the general interest, · the use of intellectual property right the exercise of which becomes the instrument for recovering a dominant position, and · false declarations before the ECJ.
It is worth emphasizing that the demonstration of the violation by BASF of all the guiding principles to which the chemical industry asserts its commitment results exclusively from AUDACE’s actions and researches and that none of the alerted trade organisations (UIPP - FEDICHEM - PHYTOFAR) and to which BASF adheres, did consider having to bring the slightest assistance, the slightest verification, no more than the slightest protest.
HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT ARE ALSO A FACT OF INDUSTRY
The users of PPP wish to submit this dossier for the European Members of Parliament’s consideration and wish that under their authority an audit of all of BASF's agrochemical production be carried out since self-controls for which these professional organisations claim responsibility are so poorly convincing, so extremely deceptive towards public opinion and so remote from those for which society requests debates and objective resolutions.
The importance given, particularly today, to the concept of sustainable agriculture, and your participation in defining these principles appear to us to be sufficient not to have to expand on our motives relating to this request.
AUDACE remains however available to the Members of Parliament for any complementary information which they would consider useful .
June, 6th 2007 PYRAMIN® is a registered trade mark of BASF |
“ We will regardless of commercial interests, restrict or discontinue the commercialization and manufacture of products if the results of a risk assessment shows that this action is necessary to safeguard personal health or the environment. We will inform the public comprehensively about such issues. “ BASF commits itself to follow the chemical industry’s ‘Responsible Care’ (pdf) |
||
|
ECPA celebrates World Water Day 2007 « … the pesticide industry seeks to develop partnerships with all bodies involved with water quality. »
|
water integrity and business ethic
compromise or modern Machiavellianism |
|
“ We will regardless of commercial interests, restrict or discontinue the commercialization and manufacture of products if the results of a risk assessment shows that this action is necessary to safeguard personal health or the environment. We will inform the public comprehensively about such issues. “ BASF commits itself to follow the chemical industry’s ‘Responsible Care’ (pdf) |
||
|
|
|||||
|
The Commission concluded that from 1993 to 2000 the Anglo-Swedish drugs firm carried out persistent anti-competitive practices to inhibit competition
Directorate General for Competition COMP/37.507 - Generics/Astra Zeneca 19.07.2006
Publication of non-confidential version on the Web site
(pdf 1039
KB)
15.06.2005 Press
release 31.07.2003 Press
release
|
AstraZeneca's LOSEC® versus BASF's PYRAMIN®
The European Commission has fined the Anglo-Swedish group AstraZeneca €60 million for misusing the patent system and the procedures for marketing pharmaceuticals to block or delay market entry for generic competitors to its ulcer drug Losec.
Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes commented: « I fully support the need for innovative products to enjoy strong intellectual property protection so that companies can recoup their R & D expenditure and be rewarded for their innovative efforts. However, it is not for a dominant company but for the legislator to decide which period of protection is adequate. Misleading regulators to gain longer protection acts as a disincentive to innovate and is a serious infringement of EU competition rules. Health care systems throughout Europe rely on generic drugs to keep costs down. Patients benefit from lower prices. By preventing generic competition AstraZeneca kept Losec prices artificially high. Moreover, competition from generic products after a patent has expired itself encourages innovation in pharmaceuticals. »
A LANDMARK RULING This is the first case where misuse of regulatory procedures has been found to amount to an abuse of dominant position under competition rules. The actions undertaken by the company BASF to regain complete monopolist control over the active substance chloridazon goes far beyond what can be held against AstraZeneca in the LOSEC case.
LOSEC® is a registered trade mark of AstraZeneca PYRAMIN® is a registered trade mark of BASF |
The company systematically gave misleading information to national patent authorities in Belgium, UK, Denmark and Germany to obtain extended patent protection for the drug. It also took unfair advantage of rules on market authorisations to block generic medicines and stop parallel traders from competing with Losec in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. It thus kept the price for Losec artificially high, causing damage to consumers and competitors alike. Spokesperson Jonathan Todd estimated the extra profit made by AstraZeneca was ‘well in excess’ of the amount of the fine, which was not calculated with reference to illicit profit made. |
|||
BASF condamné à payer 62 millions $ aux agriculteurs
«
Le
jury a décidé que BASF s'était engagé dans des pratiques
commerciales peu scrupuleuses tenant à une injustice excessive.
|
pure Science and pure motivation
« With sales of €3,079 million in 2006, BASF’s Agricultural Products division is a leader in crop protection and a strong partner to the farming industry providing well-established and innovative fungicides, insecticides and herbicides. » « BASF is the world’s leading chemical company: The Chemical Company. Its portfolio ranges from chemicals, plastics, performance products, agricultural products and fine chemicals to crude oil and natural gas. As a reliable partner to virtually all industries, BASF’s high-value products and intelligent system solutions help its customers to be more successful. BASF develops new technologies and uses them to meet the challenges of the future and open up additional market opportunities. It combines economic success with environmental protection and social responsibility, thus contributing to a better future. BASF has over 95,000 employees and posted sales of €52.6 billion (approximately $66.1 billion) in 2006. Further information on BASF is available on the Internet at www.basf.com. » 31 May 2007 http://media.basf.com/en/presse/mitteilungen/pm.htm?pmid=2715
|
 |
|||
|
|
|||||
|
« BASF offers manufacturers, importers and users comprehensive services for REACH » 31 May 2007 « BASF's competence in product safety bundled with the Success sustainability service / Comprehensive support in all aspects of preregistration, registration and approval ... » (!) http://media.basf.com/en/presse/mitteilungen/pm.htm?pmid=2714 |
Reach « La société BASF, chef de file des industriels dans ce projet, a noyauté les institutions et les parlementaires européens, frôlant parfois la corruption d'élus allemands. Ils ont mis le paquet. De l'aveu même des représentants de l'Union Européenne, c'est la plus intense mobilisation de type lobbying qu'ait connue l'UE ... » Nouvel Observateur 1 juin 2007
entrée en vigueur de REACH |
« ... the report documents the prominent role of the German government and German chemicals giant BASF in leading the opposition to REACH in Brussels. BASF, which spearheaded an international campaign to mobilise the US and other non-EU governments to undermine REACH, admitted in 2005 that it had 235 politicians under contract in Germany alone. » chemical giants guilty of "corrosive lobbying" in attempt to water ... |
|||
|
|
|||||
|
PPP parallel imports by professional traders - distributors
Importations parallèles de PPP par les professionels du commerce et de la la distribution
FELUY in Belgium : BASF victime de la "nouvelle réalité économique" ? BASF victim of economic reality ?
|
FR Perméthrine et acéphate deux substances actives importées illégalement aux Etats Unis par BASF (U.S. EPA Enforcement and Compliance Update,September 18, 2001; U.S. EPA Civil Complaint, FIFRA-04-2001-3000, September 11, 2001)
En septembre 2001, le Ministère de l'Environnement américain (EPA) inculpait Microflo, filiale à 100% de BASF pour l'importation et la vente de millions de dollars de produits phytopharmaceutiques contrefaits aux Etats-Unis pendant une période qui couvre plusieurs années, un cas de 673 violations séparées du « Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act » américain (FIFRA). L’agence américaine de l’environnement a établi que la société avait mis sur le marché américain des produits phytopharmaceutiques (PPP) dont la composition différait des spécifications dans leur dossier d’autorisation de mise sur le marché (AMM). EPA a également inculpé Micro Flo pour des écrits falsifiés qui accompagnaient les expéditions de substances actives revendiquant qu'elles étaient fabriquées par un producteur autorisé par EPA. En réalité, les produits chimiques importés venaient de sociétés étrangères dont les productions n’avaient pas été homologuées par EPA.
United Phosphorus (UPL), un producteur d'acéphate et de perméthrine basé à Warrington (ROYAUME-UNI) avec des usines en Inde a poursuivi en justice BASF et Micro Flo pour avoir frauduleusement utilisé son nom et ses données protégées relatives aux dossiers d’autorisation de mise sur le marché. |
EN Permethrin and acephate two active substances imported illegally by BASF in the US (U.S. EPA Enforcement and Compliance Update,September 18, 2001; U.S. EPA Civil Complaint, FIFRA-04-2001-3000, September 11, 2001)
In September 2001, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) charged MicroFlow, BASF’s wholly owned subsidiary in the US with importing and selling millions worth of illegal, counterfeit pesticides in the U.S. over a several year period, a case of 673 separate violations of the U.S. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act. EPA's determined that the company offered plant protection products (PPP) for sale whose composition differed from the specification in their marketing authorisation (MA). EPA also charged that Micro Flo falsified notices accompanying shipments of active substances claiming that they were produced by an EPA-approved producer. In reality, the imported chemicals were from foreign companies whose products were not approved by EPA.
United Phosphorus (UPL), a producer of acephate and permethrin based in Warrington (UK) with production plants in India sued BASF and Micro Flo for fraudulently using its name and marketing authorisation proprietary data. |
|||
|
|
|||||
|
les ogm menacent l'autodétermination des peuples.
The 3rd « Entretiens d'Angers » à l'ESA d'Angers le 8 juin 2006 on gm crops with avec entre autre Marie-Hélène Aubert, députée européenne Verte, vice présidente de la Commission agriculture au Parlement européen et Hervé Kempf, journaliste au MONDE, auteur de 'La Guerre Secrète des OGM'
|
Gmo
« BASF and Monsanto Company announced a long-term joint research and development (R&D) and commercialization collaboration in plant biotechnology that will focus on the development of high yielding crops and crops that are more tolerant to adverse environmental conditions such as drought. The collaboration is effective immediately.. » 21 march 2007 http://media.basf.com/en/presse/mitteilungen/pm.htm?pmid=2622
|
farmers portrayed as pirates intellectual property rights
« A Brazil court has overturned an injunction against BASF for charging an indemnity for unauthorised use of its imidazolinone herbicide-tolerant Clearfield rice. "We are happy with the verdict. It sends a clear signal that Brazil backs the importance of industrial property rights," BASF's marketing manager for Brazil Gustavo Portis says. » extrac AGROW http://www.agrow.co.uk 26 April 2007 « BASF has taken action against a number of US rice farmers to prevent imidazolinone-tolerant rice crops grown from farm-saved seed to enter seed trade channels. On September 3rd, the company filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas seeking damages and a permanent injunction against the growers. BASF accuses the growers of violating the Clearfield rice stewardship agreement by planting saved seed and infringing patented technology . » extract AGROW http://www.agrow.co.uk 14 September April 2004 |
Lawsuit seeks damages as well as a permanent injunction. « "This is probably one of the largest events of piracies in the history of the industry, » … « We believe this involves several thousand acres of pirated seed - perhaps as much as 5,000 (acres . » says Randy Ouzts, general manager of Horizon Ag, LLC - the company that manages Clearfield rice seed varieties |
||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|||
|
Assoção Dos Usuários E Distribuidores De Agro-Quimicos Europa
Agri-cultural exemption and WTO
L'exception agri-culturelle et l'OMC
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
(0,140 MB)