Perrier Scandal Bubbles Up As French Parliament Slams Cover-up
In recent years the Swiss food and drinks conglomerate has been under pressure over its Perrier and other brands as EU regulations strictly limit what treatments are allowed for any product marketed as natural mineral water.
"In addition to Nestle Waters' lack of transparency, it is important to highlight the state's lack of transparency, both towards local and European authorities and towards the French people," said the report by a commission of inquiry of the French Senate.
The report follows a six-month-long Senate inquiry involving more than 70 hearings.
"This concealment is part of a deliberate strategy, addressed at the first interministerial meeting on natural mineral waters on October 14, 2021," said the report.
"Nearly four years later, transparency has still not been achieved," said the report.
Perrier -- one of the most famous mineral waters in the world, obtained from a spring in southern France and traditionally served on ice with a slice of lemon -- was acquired by Nestle in the early 1990s.
In late 2020, new management at Nestle Waters claims to have discovered the use of prohibited treatments for mineral water at its Perrier, Hepar and Contrex sites.
The company reached out to the government to submit a plan to tackle the problem in mid-2021, and the Elysee Palace afterwards.
Eighteen months later, a plan to replace prohibited ultraviolet treatments and activated carbon filters with microfiltering was approved by the authorities.
The method can be used to remove iron or manganese but the producer has to prove that the water has not been altered.
European law stipulates that natural mineral waters cannot be disinfected or treated in any way that alters its characteristics.
The report said that "despite the consumer fraud represented by water disinfection", the authorities have not taken legal action in response to the 2021 revelations.
"It was at the highest level of the state that the decision to authorise micro-filtration below the 0.8-micron threshold was taken," the report said.
"We understand better why the French government did not inform the European Commission -- it was clearly too busy covering up a massive fraud," said Ingrid Kragl of the NGO Foodwatch, claiming the cover-up "allowed Nestle to sell fraudulent products and deceive consumers".
The independent food monitor has filed a complaint against Nestle Waters, accusing it of deceiving consumers. An investigation has been launched by a Parisian judge.
During her hearing before the committee on March 19, Nestle Waters chief executive Muriel Lienau stated that "all" of the group's waters were "pure at the source".
But on Monday senator Antoinette Guhl announced that she was taking legal action over this comment for "possible perjury".
In a statement, Lienau said she acknowledged the report, which "recognises the importance of sectoral issues requiring regulatory clarification and a stable framework applicable to all."
Nestle Waters also insisted that it had "never contested" the legitimacy of the Senate's work.
Nestle has already been under pressure in France after its French subsidiary was charged in a case involving contaminated Buitoni-branded pizzas that are suspected of having led to the death of two children in 2022.
The move to allow microfiltration was in line with decisions taken by the authorities, including the office of then-prime minister Elisabeth Borne, even though she did not appear to have been informed, the report added.
The commission also charged that President Emmanuel Macron's office "had known, at least since 2022, that Nestle had been cheating for years".
Alexis Kohler, then secretary general at the Elysee who stepped down earlier this year after eight years in the post, had met with Nestle executives.
Macron in February denied any acknowledgement of the case.
In 2024, Nestle Waters admitted using banned filters and ultra-violet treatment on mineral waters.
The company paid a two-million-euro ($2.2-million) fine to avoid legal action over the use of illegal water sources and filtering.
It said at the time though that the replacement filters were approved by the government and that its water was "pure". Perrier is one of France's most iconic spring waters AFP The scandal has ramifications all the way to the Elysee AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Int'l Business Times
15 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
E.Guinea Launches ICJ Case Against France Over Paris Mansion
Equatorial Guinea launched a case against France at the top United Nations court on Friday, the latest salvo in a long-running legal battle over a swanky Paris mansion confiscated by French authorities. The west African nation asked the International Court of Justice to issue emergency orders against France over a building seized after the conviction of Vice President Teodorin Obiang for corruption. It asked the court to order France not to sell the mansion, located on the upscale Avenue Foch near the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, which the two countries have been squabbling over for several years. French authorities seized the property, which boasts a cinema, hammam and marble and gold water taps, after convicting Obiang under a law targeting fortunes fraudulently amassed by foreign leaders. In 2021, France's top appeals court gave Obiang -- the eldest son of the long-standing president of Equatorial Guinea, Teodoro Obiang -- a three-year suspended sentence and 30 million euros in fines. France also confiscated assets, including the luxurious Avenue Foch building with an estimated value well above 100 million euros. In its latest complaint to the ICJ, dated July 3 but published by the court on Friday, Equatorial Guinea says French police entered the property last month and changed the locks on several of the doors. Equatorial Guinea called on the court to order France to give it "immediate, complete and unhindered access" to the building. The mansion was also at the centre of an earlier case filed by Equatorial Guinea in 2016 at the ICJ, which rules on disputes between UN member states. Equatorial Guinea argued the building served as the country's embassy in France and that France had broken the Vienna Convention, which safeguards diplomats from interference by host countries. But the UN court sided with France, which said the building was merely Teodorin Obiang's residence and served no diplomatic purpose. The ICJ upheld France's objections that Equatorial Guinea had only tried to designate it as such after the investigation began into Obiang, and that the country already had an embassy in Paris. A request for emergency orders -- provisional measures, in the court's jargon -- takes precedence over all other court business. The ICJ is currently wrestling with a busy caseload, including a high-profile case brought by South Africa against Israel alleging breaches of the UN Genocide Convention in Gaza. It is also expected to deliver a key ruling on countries' climate change obligations within months. While the ICJ is the top United Nations court, whose rulings are binding, it has no way of enforcing its decisions. For example, it has ordered Russia to stop its invasion of Ukraine -- to no avail.
DW
17 hours ago
- DW
Will Germany's military spending bring economic growth? – DW – 07/04/2025
The German arms industry is thriving thanks to a major state-run investment program. But will the country's wider economy benefit? March 18, 2025, will go down in Germanhistory as the day when a two-thirds parliamentary majority cleared the way for the country to take on unprecedented debt. German lawmakers approved an infrastructure investment package worth billions, while also lifting the cap on national defense spending. The aim is to provide the necessary funds to make Germany and its armed forces, the Bundeswehr, "ready for war," as Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has repeatedly demanded since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Shortly after he took office as chancellor earlier this year, Friedrich Merz said he wanted to make the BundeswehrEurope's strongest conventional army. This spending spree is great news for companies that build roads and bridges, lay rail tracks and manufacture high-speed fiber-optic internet cables. The German defense industry stands to benefit even more. For decades, the sector had been losing economic importance. Who in Germany, after all, was interested in buying tanks? In 2020, shares in Rheinmetall, Germany's largest arms manufacturer, sold for €59 — by June 2025, they were trading between €1,700 and €1,800 ($2,116) each. Swiss bank UBS has forecast further share price growth, currently estimating a rise to €2,200. These are golden times for German arms manufacturers, with industry top brass insisting that defense spending not only benefits their sector but the economy as a whole. "Defense spending is a gigantic economic stimulus program," Oliver Dörre, CEO of defense contractor Hensoldt, told DW at an event in Frankfurt in March. Lawmakers hope the spending spree will help modernize German industry and boost economic growth. Economists, however, were less euphoric even before parliament agreed the investment package. "The increase in government military spending will give the German economy a boost, but the economic stimulus will be rather moderate," wrote Tom Krebs, an economics professor at the University of Mannheim, in a statement for the Bundestag's budget committee. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Krebs and his colleague Patrick Kaczmarczyk conducted a study examining the extent to which additional government spending will increase Germany's gross domestic product, or total value of economic output. The researchers found that military spending would have a maximum impact of 0.5 — meaning that, in the best-case scenario, €1 of government spending will generate just 50 cents of additional economic activity. Investments in infrastructure, education, child care facilities, day care centers and schools would, however, double or even triple the return on investment. "From an economic perspective, the planned militarization of the German economy is a risky gamble with a low overall economic return," said Krebs. The explanation for this is simple. After a tank is built, it is either parked somewhere or, in the worst case, destroyed in battle. A tank, in other words, does not create any additional economic value. Defense spending is, however, like taking out insurance. You make the payments so that you have protection in case of an emergency. If you don't need the insurance, the money is simply gone. If, on the other hand, the state invests in transport infrastructure, goods can be transported to businesses via these roads, bridges and railways. There, they can be used to manufacture products that are then sold. If kindergartens are built, parents are freed up to work and earn money. Investments in schools mean young people get the education they need for their future. Defense production currently only contributes very little to overall economic growth, although German arms companies have seen orders surge. Rheinmetall, for example, had an order backlog worth some €63 billion ($74 billion) in the first quarter of 2025. Before the start of the Ukraine war, it stood at just over €24 billion ($28 billion). Other German defense companies are also busy, with production at full capacity. But if supply is limited and demand increases, this usually causes prices to are already warning this could happen. Krebs and Kaczmarczyk write that "greater defense spending does more to grow arms companies' profit margins and dividends than improve [Germany's] defense capabilities." Companies currently operating outside the defense sector are also looking to get in on the business, especially those suffering amid Germany's economic malaise. Cologne-based Deutz AG, for example, produces engines for lifting platforms, agricultural vehicles, excavators and other large machines. Due to the weak economy, company sales slumped by some 12% in 2024. Deutz, which also manufactures engines for military vehicles, is now set to significantly expand this previously small line of business. "Defense is a very important and interesting market for us with great growth potential," CEO Sebastian Schulte told DW in March. German carmaker Volkswagen is another example. The company is in crisis and has already cut thousands of jobs, with its Osnabrück plant facing closure. Now, Rheinmetall is looking into whether tanks could be built there instead. These are two examples that show how greater defense spending could benefit the wider economy by offsetting losses, rather than generating additional growth. That said, even companies that are doing well are switching to arms production, with demand surging in the metalworking industry.
DW
17 hours ago
- DW
Do EU structures enable far-right misuse of public money? – DW – 07/04/2025
A leaked audit accuses far-right parties of improperly spending millions in EU funds. Critics say it's not just a scandal but a symptom of the EU system's deeper problems. From donations to dog shelters to questionable contracts with politically affiliated companies, far-right members of the European Parliament have been accused of funnelling public funds towards personal or ideological allies. An internal parliamentary audit obtained by a group of investigative journalists from German broadcaster ARD's magazine show Kontraste, German newspaper , French newspaper and Austrian media outlet, Falter, reveals that the now-defunct far-right Identity and Democracy group, commonly referred to as ID, may have spent at least €4.3 million ($5.1 million) in EU operating funds on what the European Parliament's own administration calls "unjustified and potentially unlawful" transactions. Every year the European Parliament allocates funds for the administrative and operational expenses of each political grouping in it, usually between €6 million to €7 million annually. Those funds are meant to support legislative work — such as funding policy research, running public events related to EU politics, or producing communications materials that explain their activities to citizens. Around 5% of this budget can be transferred to external organizations but donations to local charities, national campaign efforts, or groups with no clear link to EU-level work are explicitly prohibited. However the internal audit alleges that around 80 of the ID group's expenses do not meet that requirement. The improper spending allegedly includes fictitious service contracts, improper tender procedures and donations to associations unrelated to parliamentary activities and connected to far-right figures, the investigating publications reported. The scale of the findings suggest that this was more than administrative sloppiness and raises deeper questions about how the EU's own structures may be enabling such abuses. As an example, the report says the ID group — which disbanded in the summer of 2024 but previously included Marine Le Pen's Rassemblement National, or RN, Germany's Alternative for Germany, or AfD, Italy's Lega and Austria's Freedom Party, or FPÖ — donated €1,000 ($1200) to the president of a French-Russian cultural association, Teremok. She is the spouse of Gregoire Eury, an RN councillor for the Grand Est region. This was just one of many connections between the associations that benefited from ID donations and far-right officials from ID-affiliated parties. Other donations simply reflected the broader political affinities of ID elected officials. In Germany, SOS Leben (or "SOS Life," in English), which is linked to the AfD, received €3,500 to support anti-abortion campaigns. In France, €1,000 went to the Catholic identitarian association SOS Calvaires to restore a parish. Around €600,000 reportedly landed with , a far-right Austrian newspaper close to the FPÖ, with ID paying for advertising far above market rates. Money also went to animal shelters and charities — not necessarily a bad thing, but also not acceptable under EU rules. French companies close to Marine Le Pen were among the biggest beneficiaries: Two firms tied to her longtime political allies reportedly received more than €3 million in total. One of them has previously been implicated in another EU funding scandal. The former secretary general of now defunct ID group, Philip Claeys, denied any wrongdoing and told the investigating journalists that all the payments were "duly invoiced and justified." Claeys said that an external auditor and then the European Parliament had approved the ID group's yearly financial statements. Donations by the group were apparently based on a rule called "Article 68." Only thing is, the investigative journalists found, there's no such thing as "Article 68." Yet it appeared in multiple years of published accounts without triggering alarms. When contacted, the Belgian auditors responsible declined to comment. "This is not an isolated incident," Nick Aiossa, director at Transparency International EU, told DW. "This seems to be a scheme that that ran over many years, involved many entities cross-border." Without the proper checks in place, he adds, this could easily happen again today. It is true that this is far from the first time that European MEPs have been caught misusing EU money. In March, Marine Le Pen was sentenced in France to four years probation and banned from holding political office after being found guilty of embezzling European parliamentary funds through a fake jobs scam. She has appealed the ruling. And it's not only the far right. Past scandals have implicated politicians across the spectrum. The so-called Qatargate scandal in 2023 exposed bribery and cash-for-influence schemes involving current and former MEPs. And in 2018, investigative journalists went to court seeking further information on what's known as "general expenditure allowance," or GEA, an amount paid monthly to MEPs for expenses like running an office and travel. MEPs get over €4,000 a month in GEA — this adds up to over €40 million a year — but don't have to provide information on how they've spent it. At the time, investigative journalists found over 200 of what they called "ghost offices." A court denied the journalists the information and the lack of transparency and accountability around the GEAs has remained a sore point. Despite repeated scandals, the European Parliament has failed to implement meaningful reforms, Aiossa says. He argues that the institution has done itself lasting damage — first by refusing to respond decisively when issues arose, and then by continuing to tolerate weak accountability and integrity systems. The result, he warns, is a steady erosion of public trust. At the core of the problem lies the structure of parliamentary finances, according to Aiossa. Instead of managing budgets directly, the European Parliament delegates this responsibility to the political groups themselves. Groups are required to conduct annual audits but those are done according to random sampling, which means misuse of funds may not be detected. This means that the responsibility of how party group money is spent lies primarily with its party leadership, particularly its financial officers and secretary general. This, according to Aiossa, has to change. "The parliament needs to take a much more proactive approach in managing this money itself and not delegating that responsibility just to the political groups." German MEP Niclas Herbst, a member of the conservative Christian Democrats, who chairs the Parliament's committee on budgetary control, agrees. "This is taxpayers money and we want it back," he told journalists. He plans to push for criminal charges on this latest case at the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO), to show that there must be accountability. Aiossa warns that unless the European Parliament seizes this moment to enact serious reforms, including transparency on allowances, competitive bidding for contracts and direct control over group budgets, public trust in the body will only continue to erode.
