The Trade secrets directive : a danger to public health
What is the problem?
Trade secrets are everything companies keep secret to stay ahead of competitors. A secret recipe or
manufacturing process, plans of a new product, a list of clients, prototypes... The theft of trade
secrets can be a real problem for companies, and is already punished in all EU Member States. But
there was no uniform legislation on the matter at the EU level.
A small group of lobbyists working for large multinational companies (Dupont, General Electric,
Intel, Nestlé, Michelin, Safran, Alstom...) convinced the European Commission to draft such a
legislation, and helped it all along the way. The problem is that they were too successful in their
lobbying: they transformed a legislation which should have regulated fair competition between
companies into something resembling a blanket right to corporate secrecy, which now threatens
anyone in society who sometimes needs access to companies' internal information without their
consent: consumers, employees, journalists, scientists...
The European Parliament is expected to debate on 13 April 2016 on the “Directive on the protection
of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful
acquisition, use and disclosure”. The text can no longer be changed. The directive initially drafted
by the European Commission favored companies’ economic rights at the expense of citizens’
political rights. Unfortunately, despite some improvements, the compromise text still does the same.
We think it is essential that MEPs reject it and ask the Commission to come up with a better one,
but they are under heavy pressure from multinational corporations to adopt it.
Trade secrets are everything companies keep secret to stay ahead of competitors. A secret recipe or
manufacturing process, plans of a new product, a list of clients, prototypes... The theft of trade
secrets can be a real problem for companies, and is already punished in all EU Member States. But
there was no uniform legislation on the matter at the EU level.
A small group of lobbyists working for large multinational companies (Dupont, General Electric,
Intel, Nestlé, Michelin, Safran, Alstom...) convinced the European Commission to draft such a
legislation, and helped it all along the way. The problem is that they were too successful in their
lobbying: they transformed a legislation which should have regulated fair competition between
companies into something resembling a blanket right to corporate secrecy, which now threatens
anyone in society who sometimes needs access to companies' internal information without their
consent: consumers, employees, journalists, scientists...
The European Parliament is expected to debate on 13 April 2016 on the “Directive on the protection
of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful
acquisition, use and disclosure”. The text can no longer be changed. The directive initially drafted
by the European Commission favored companies’ economic rights at the expense of citizens’
political rights. Unfortunately, despite some improvements, the compromise text still does the same.
We think it is essential that MEPs reject it and ask the Commission to come up with a better one,
but they are under heavy pressure from multinational corporations to adopt it.
ACT NOW
Petition MEPs to ask them to vote against the Trade Secrets Directive: https://act.wemove.eu/campaigns/whistleblowers-at-risk Share the fact sheet and press release with everyone you know: http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/attachments/factsheet_on_the_trade_secrets_directive.pdf http://corporateeurope.org/pressreleases/2016/03/new-secrecy-rights-business-no-thanks |
|
Trade Secrets and Health
How safe are products used every day by European consumers? Only independent scientific
scrutiny can tell. The scientific studies evaluating the risks of most products in Europe are done by
their producers, who then send them to public regulators for assessment. These then take the
decision to grant or not a market authorisation.
The problem is that producers systematically oppose the publication of these studies as they
consider that they contain trade secrets and, because they are costly, should not be seen and used by
competitors. A recent example took place in Rennes, France, where a man died during a clinical
trial. Scientists are now asking to access the data of this clinical trial to find out what happened, but
the company, Biotrial, refuses, claiming that it needs to protect its trade secrets. Another recent
example is glyphosate, the active substance in Monsanto's Roundup wide-spectrum herbicide:
industry-sponsored scientific studies at the basis of the EU's controversial assessment that it is
“unlikely” to cause cancer to humans (the WHO found the opposite 6 months earlier)
cannot be published and studied by independent scientists to make the debate progress because their owners
consider they are (and contain) trade secrets.
How safe are products used every day by European consumers? Only independent scientific
scrutiny can tell. The scientific studies evaluating the risks of most products in Europe are done by
their producers, who then send them to public regulators for assessment. These then take the
decision to grant or not a market authorisation.
The problem is that producers systematically oppose the publication of these studies as they
consider that they contain trade secrets and, because they are costly, should not be seen and used by
competitors. A recent example took place in Rennes, France, where a man died during a clinical
trial. Scientists are now asking to access the data of this clinical trial to find out what happened, but
the company, Biotrial, refuses, claiming that it needs to protect its trade secrets. Another recent
example is glyphosate, the active substance in Monsanto's Roundup wide-spectrum herbicide:
industry-sponsored scientific studies at the basis of the EU's controversial assessment that it is
“unlikely” to cause cancer to humans (the WHO found the opposite 6 months earlier)
cannot be published and studied by independent scientists to make the debate progress because their owners
consider they are (and contain) trade secrets.