US is demanding increased access for GMOs to the European market
EXCERPT (item 5): John Hilary, Executive Director of War on Want, commented: "The TTIP negotiations will never survive this leak. The only way that the European Commission has managed to keep the negotiations going so far is through complete secrecy as to the actual details of the deal under negotiation. Now we can see the details for ourselves, and they are truly shocking. This is surely the beginning of the end for this much hated deal."
1. US challenging European consumer protections in trade talks, TTIP documents show
2. TTIP documents revealed
3. Leaked TTIP documents cast doubt on EU-US trade deal
4. TTIP leaks: confidential TTIP papers unveil US position
5. TTIP document leak – selected text preview
—
1. US challenging European consumer protections in trade talks, TTIP documents show
By Alexander Hagelüken, Silvia Liebrich und Jan Willmroth
SZ, 1 May 2016
http://international.sueddeutsche.de/post/143694648065/us-challenging-european-consumer-protections-in
Jack Bobo was on a mission when he entered the windowless meeting room in Washington. The message he delivered this spring was a simple one: only genetic engineering can heal the rift between agriculture and the environment. But this could only happen if people first began to accept genetic engineering. He believes that “the apple is the product that may be able to sway consumers.” Bobo, however, is required to voice such opinions since he is a lobbyist for the U.S. genetic engineering company “Intrexon,” which dabbles in medical supplies as well as agricultural solutions. His eyes light up while describing so-called “Arctic Apples,” which are apples that do not oxidize when cut. They are also the first genetically modified apple of the “Granny Smith” variety nearly ready for release, and its flesh is as white as the eternal ice of the Arctic.
Is this a dream come true, or our worst nightmare? To consumers within the European Union, it is a horrifying thought, just as much as is the importing of meat from animals whose growth has been amplified through the use of hormones. Both of these types of products are widely prohibited within the EU. According to the responsible European authorities, it is unclear what could be the consequences to human health after consuming these products. Further reasons include the possibly detrimental consequences to the environment. But in the U.S. genetically modified food and hormone-treated meat are mass-produced products and American producers want to now sell these items in Europe, with the help of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) trade agreement.
The confidential papers obtained by Süddeutsche Zeitung and the German radio and television stations WDR and NDR, which reveal details of the TTIP negotiations, demonstrate that risk evaluation is a central point of contention in these ongoing talks; two very different approaches to this topic being at the heart of the debate. In the U.S., the scientific principle reigns supreme, meaning that a product is considered safe until the opposite can be proven to be true. Europe on the other hand follows the prevention principle which can prompt bans to be passed even if only the slightest hint of possibly detrimental consequences exists.
The documents demonstrate, for the first time, how invested the U.S. is in annulling the prevention principle. The scientific principle is stressed in several places, such as where hygiene regulations are concerned. The U.S. demands that when “undertaking a risk assessment appropriate to the circumstances, each party shall ensure that it takes into account…the relevant available scientific evidence.” The EU does not exactly reject this proposal but insists on “preserving each Party’s right to protect human, animal or plant life and health in its territory and respecting each Party’s regulatory systems, risk assessment, risk management and policy development processes.”
But what exactly is the scientific principle? “It does, initially, sound very sensible but it hides a perfidious concept which is supposed to enable companies to halt any regulatory legislation processes,” says Bärbel Höhn of the Green Party. The impending ban of a product could therefore be prevented, based on the fact that not enough scientific evidence that relates to its potential dangers has yet come to light. In fact, the U.S. feels that there is a need for both “parties…[to] strengthen their cooperation in the field of standards, technical regulations, and conformity assessment procedures to reduce and eliminate unnecessary technical barriers to trade.” Translated into plain English this means that bans that are not based on the scientific principle are “unnecessary technical barriers to trade,” and that these need to be reduced and eliminated.
Höhn fears that laws regarding health and safety protection at work, as well as consumer or environmental protection regulations, may be weakened or delayed indefinitely by applying this approach.
Christoph Then of “Testbiotech,” which is critical of genetic engineering, adds that “most people imagine independent research upon hearing the term “scientific principle,” but that is not the case. The documents that we evaluate for licensing of genetically modified plants lack independent verification.” The most important goal seems to be to develop new technologies, he adds. But at the same time, the concept of protection is being neglected. This constitutes a problem in Then’s eyes, seeing as American producers will enter the market with a large number of new developments in plant and animal husbandry in the coming years. According to American wishes, the modalities for the licensing of “modern agricultural technologies” is to be anchored in the TTIP agreement. The U.S. further demands “to develop an approach or set of approaches to manage low-level presence in order to reduce unnecessary disruptions affecting trade,” meaning that, if in doubt, potential risks should be evaluated quickly rather than thoroughly.
The EU Commission continues to deny that the prevention principle is in danger due to the pressure applied by the U.S., but perusal of the papers obtained highlights that the licensing of genetically modified food or hormone-treated meat has not been ruled out at any point. The U.S. Minister of Agriculture, Thomas Vilsack, continuously stresses how little he thinks of the European stance, saying that “it will hinder trade, if food stuffs are not licensed based on scientific evidence but based on the demands placed upon it by politicians.”
The constitutional judge Peter-Tobias Stoll, who is based in the central German city of Göttingen, is of the opinion that the topic of risk evaluation is a decisive one. He thinks the fear of weakened consumer protection voiced by so many who are opposed to the TTIP agreement is indeed justified. “It seems impossible to me that any standard will escape being lowered at some point in the future,” says Stoll. “I am, frankly, quite surprised to see how adamant the U.S. is in anchoring American regulatory procedures in the TTIP agreement.”
Critics also fear reductions in standards for food labelling. In the EU every ingredient that has been produced from genetically modified organisms has to be clearly labeled on the packaging. But the U.S. refuses to accept this practice as they consider it to be detrimental to trade, which will result in unnecessary costs and may be misconstrued as a warning label. American consumer protection organizations have been demanding explicit labeling of genetically modified foods in the United States for years and criticize this practice of non-declaration in the U.S. as non-existing transparency. They have, however, been unsuccessful in achieving this due to the fact that agricultural companies spend millions of dollars on campaigns to prevent such labeling.
“The experiences that our American colleagues have had show that consumer protection regulations are often trapped in limbo,” affirms Klaus Müller, chairman of the Federation of German Consumer Organizations.
Translated by Worldcrunch
—
2. TTIP documents revealed
By Alexander Hagelüken and Alexander Mühlauer
SZ, 1 May 2016
http://international.sueddeutsche.de/post/143690739565/ttippapiere
The United States government is putting more intense and significantly more far-reaching pressure on the European Union than previously thought during the ongoing negotiations to reach an accord on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). This has become evident from copies of confidential negotiation documents that have been made available to Süddeutsche Zeitung and the German radio and television stations WDR and NDR. The material, consisting of 240 pages, was provided by Greenpeace and will be published this coming Monday. Several people familiar with the negotiations confirm that the documents provided are current.
According to the documents, Washington is threatening to prevent the easing of exports for the European car industry in order to force Europe to buy more U.S. agricultural products. The U.S. government concurrently has criticized the fundamental prevention principal of the EU Consumer Centre which protects 500 million Europeans from consuming genetically modified food and hormone-treated meat. The documents further reveal the fact that the U.S. has blocked the urgent European call to replace the controversial private arbitration tribunals, responsible for corporative lawsuits, with a public State model; instead, Washington has made a suggestion on the matter that had hitherto not been disclosed to the public.
The publication of these TTIP documents provides citizens with an unfiltered insight into the negotiations between the U.S. and Europe. Ever since the start of negotiations three years ago, the public could only try to guess what both sides were discussing, which has prompted millions of people to take to the streets in protest of TTIP. While the EU is making its suggestions publicly available, the U.S. insists on keeping their stances on issues secret. Washington utilizes this tactic to ensure a larger scope for negotiations. The disclosure of these 16 TTIP negotiation papers finally offers a fuller transparency for the 800 million people spread over two continents whose lives will be affected by the biggest bilateral trade agreement in history.
The papers allow for a deep insight into U.S. tactics, such as Washington’s active push to prevent the easing of export regulations of the European car industry, as this sector plays a central role in Europe’s economy. One of the confidential documents demonstrates that the U.S. government “hastened to point out that it would need to consult with its industry regarding some of the products and that progress on motor vehicle-related parts would only be possible if the EU showed progress in the discussion on agricultural tariffs.”
But the export of agricultural products is not the main focus of the U.S.. Washington has also set its sights on controversial genetically modified foods that are mostly prohibited within the Europe Union. Both sides have often stressed up until now that the U.S. will respect European concerns in this matter, and that Europe’s citizens do not have to be worried about this issue. But the confidential material paints a very different picture of the situation. “It is really quite interesting to see the demands the U.S. has made,” says Klaus Müller, chairman of the Federation of German Consumer Organisations, while evaluating the documents. “Perusing the documents has shown that nearly all of our fears regarding the U.S.’ TTIP intentions for the food market have been proven to be justified.”
The U.S., for example, demands that statutory prohibitions on products to protect human health should only be allowed to be passed if it has been scientifically proven that these products really are harmful. The EU bans products such as hormone-treated meat or genetically modified food as a precautionary measure if only the slightest hint of risk emerges, whereas the U.S. only bans them if people have already been harmed as a result of consuming said products.
The negotiation papers also reveal, for the first time how often the differing points of opinions clash between the parties. The U.S. demands in a chapter on consumer protection, among other things, that prior to passing a ban the EU should evaluate “any alternatives to achieve the appropriate level of protection,” meaning that no law in this regard should be passed in the first place. In addition to this, the EU should also publicly explain “whether any of those alternatives are significantly less restrictive to trade.” The EU counters that it would decide itself whether or not to allow for controversial U.S. foods to pass across their borders, seeing as the “appropriate level of sanitary protection rests solely with the importing Party.”
Another serious point of contention is legislative cooperation. Both the U.S. and Europe gave the impression that they were mostly in agreement regarding legislative regulation. But the negotiation papers suggest something very different. While the EU stresses its right to legislative self-determination in the documents, the U.S. wants to severely curtail the scope of European legislators in regards to economic decisions where it has demonstrated in several suggestions it has made. One example is the demand formulated by the U.S. that “each Party shall maintain procedures that promote the consideration of the following factors when conducting a regulatory impact assessment (RIA) for a regulation.” Namely, this means that the EU is supposed to introduce a process that will evaluate “the need for a proposed regulation” in conjunction with an analysis of “the anticipated costs and benefits (quantitative, qualitative, or both) of such alternatives.”
“It will severely complicate legislation in environmental and consumer matters should the Americans assert themselves in this matter,” says Markus Krajewski, Professor of Public Law in Erlangen, in regard to the currently published suggestions made by the U.S.
U.S. legislation is fundamentally different than that of the EU. In the EU, for example, the use of 1,308 various chemicals in cosmetics is prohibited in light of suspicions that they may be carcinogenic. The responsible U.S. authority on the other hand, according to consumer protection organizations, prohibits no more than exactly 11 substances.
Translated by Worldcrunch
—
3. Leaked TTIP documents cast doubt on EU-US trade deal
Arthur Neslen
The Guardian, 1 May 2016
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/01/leaked-ttip-documents-cast-doubt-on-eu-us-trade-deal
* Greenpeace says internal documents show US attempts to lower or circumvent EU protection for environment and public health
Talks for a free trade deal between Europe and the US face a serious impasse with “irreconcilable” differences in some areas, according to leaked negotiating texts.
The two sides are also at odds over US demands that would require the EU to break promises it has made on environmental protection.
President Obama said last week he was confident a deal could be reached. But the leaked negotiating drafts and internal positions, which were obtained by Greenpeace and seen by the Guardian, paint a very different picture.
“Discussions on cosmetics remain very difficult and the scope of common objectives fairly limited,” says one internal note by EU trade negotiators. Because of a European ban on animal testing, “the EU and US approaches remain irreconcilable and EU market access problems will therefore remain,” the note says.
Talks on engineering were also “characterised by continuous reluctance on the part of the US to engage in this sector,” the confidential briefing says.
These problems are not mentioned in a separate report on the state of the talks, also leaked, which the European commission has prepared for scrutiny by the European parliament.
These outline the positions exchanged between EU and US negotiators between the 12th and the 13th round of TTIP talks, which took place in New York last week.
The public document offers a robust defence of the EU’s right to regulate and create a court-like system for disputes, unlike the internal note, which does not mention them.
Jorgo Riss, the director of Greenpeace EU, said: “These leaked documents give us an unparalleled look at the scope of US demands to lower or circumvent EU protections for environment and public health as part of TTIP. The EU position is very bad, and the US position is terrible. The prospect of a TTIP compromising within that range is an awful one. The way is being cleared for a race to the bottom in environmental, consumer protection and public health standards.”
US proposals include an obligation on the EU to inform its industries of any planned regulations in advance, and to allow them the same input into EU regulatory processes as European firms.
American firms could influence the content of EU laws at several points along the regulatory line, including through a plethora of proposed technical working groups and committees.
“Before the EU could even pass a regulation, it would have to go through a gruelling impact assessment process in which the bloc would have to show interested US parties that no voluntary measures, or less exacting regulatory ones, were possible,” Riss said.
The US is also proposing new articles on “science and risk” to give firms greater regulatory say. Disputes over pesticides residues and food safety would be dealt with by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s Codex Alimentarius system.
Environmentalists say the body has loose rules on corporate influence, allowing employees of companies such as BASF, Nestle and Coca Cola to sit on – and sometimes lead – national delegations. Some 44% of its decisions on pesticides residues have been less stringent than EU ones, with 40% of rough equivalence and 16% being more demanding, according to Greenpeace.
GM foods could also find a widening window into Europe, with the US pushing for a working group to adopt a “low level presence initiative”. This would allow the import of cargo containing traces of unauthorised GM strains. The EU currently blocks these because of food safety and cross-pollination concerns.
The EU has not yet accepted the US demands, but they are uncontested in the negotiators’ note, and no counter-proposals have been made in these areas.
In January, the EU trade commissioner Cecilia Malmström said [pdf] the precautionary principle, obliging regulatory caution where there is scientific doubt, was a core and non-negotiable EU principle. She said: “We will defend the precautionary approach to regulation in Europe, in TTIP and in all our other agreements.” But the principle is not mentioned in the 248 pages of TTIP negotiating texts.
The European commission has also promised to safeguard environmental laws, defend international standards and protect the EU’s right to set high green benchmarks in future.
But the new leak will not placate critics of the deal, who have pointed to attempts by fossil fuel firms and others to influence its outcome, as a sign of things to come.
The EU negotiators internal note says “the US expressed that it would have to consult with its chemical industry on how to position itself” on issues of market access for non-agricultural goods.
Where industry lobbying in regulatory processes is concerned, the US also “insisted” that the EU be “required” to involve US experts in its development of electrotechnical standards.
—
4. TTIP leaks: confidential TTIP papers unveil US position
Greenpeace, May 1, 2016
http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2016/TTIPleaks-confidential-TTIP-papers-unveil-US-position/
* Leaked text shows attempts to undermine EU environment and health protection laws
Greenpeace Netherlands has obtained 248 pages of leaked Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiating texts [1], which will be published on Monday 2 May at 11:00 CET. The documents unveil for the first time the US position and deliberate attempts to change the EU democratic legislative process.
The classified documents represent more than two-thirds of the overall TTIP text as of April, at the 13th round of TTIP negotiations in New York. They cover 13 chapters addressing issues ranging from telecommunications to regulatory cooperation, from pesticides, food and agriculture to trade barriers.
Jorgo Riss, director of Greenpeace EU, said: “These leaked documents confirm what we have been saying for a long time: TTIP would put corporations at the centre of policy-making, to the detriment of environment and public health. We have known that the EU position was bad, now we see the US position is even worse. A compromise between the two would be unacceptable.”
Greenpeace identified four main issues of concern:
* Long standing environmental protection is dropped
The “General Exceptions” rule, enshrined in the GATT agreement of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), is absent from the text. This nearly 70-year-old rule allows nations to restrict trade “to protect human, animal and plant life or health", or for "the conservation of exhaustible natural resources" [2].
* No place for climate protection in TTIP
If the goals of the Paris Summit to keep temperatures increase under 1.5 degrees are to be met, trade should not be excluded from CO2 emissions reduction specifications. But nothing about climate protection can be found in the obtained texts.
* Precautionary principle is forgotten
The US wants the EU to replace the EU’s hazard approach with ‘risk management’, disregarding the precautionary principle, [3] which is enshrined in the EU Constitution but is never mentioned in the consolidated text.
* Open door for corporate lobbying
The leaked documents suggest that both parties consider giving corporations much wider access and participation in decision making.
Jorgo Riss said: “The effects of TTIP would be initially subtle but ultimately devastating. It would lead to European laws being judged on their consequences for trade and investment – disregarding environmental protection and public health concerns.”
Notes:
[1] Greenpeace Netherlands received a confidential document that was possibly edited in order to identify the source of a leak. Greenpeace retyped the document removing modifications that could have allowed to trace the source.
[2] https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_02_e.htm#articleXX
[3] The precautionary principle also covers consumer policy, European legislation concerning food and human, animal and plant health: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3Al32042
—
5. TTIP document leak – selected text preview
War on Want, 1 May 2016
http://www.waronwant.org/media/ttip-document-leak-selected-text-preview
The massive leak of secret TTIP negotiating papers due out tomorrow (2 May) will reveal the true extent of the danger posed by the controversial EU-US deal, and early signs are that it will be even worse than already suspected. For the first time, we will be able to see in black and white exactly what the US negotiators are demanding of the EU, and what the European Commission is prepared to sacrifice in order to seal the deal. Here is a sneak preview of just three sections made available this evening - the texts in italics are from the leaked papers:
1. Farewell, European farmers
Any export gains for EU car manufacturers will come at a massive cost to European agriculture, with the European Commission sacrificing the small-scale farmers of Europe in order to force open US markets for major European corporations. Here is the deal:
The EU proposed a possible package on mechanical devices in Chapter 84 and electrical appliances in Chapter 85 for which both parties share offensive interests. While the US showed an interest, it hastened to point out that it would need to consult with its industry regarding some of the products and that progress on motor vehicle-related parts would only be possible if the EU showed progress in the discussion on agricultural tariffs.
2. Approval of GM food
TTIP uses the euphemism of 'modern agricultural technology' to refer to genetically modified (GM) food, and the US is demanding that all producers of GM food have automatic access to the regulatory procedures of the EU. Not only this, but the European Commission will be required to provide GM producers with full details of what they need to do to get their products approved:
"Where a Party requires a product of modern agricultural technology to be approved or authorized prior to its importation, use or sale in its territory, the Party shall allow any person to submit an application for approval at any time.
"Where a Party requires a product of modern agricultural technology to be approved or authorized prior to its importation or sale in its territory, each Party shall make publicly available:
"(a) a description of the processes it applies to accept, consider, and decide applications for approval or authorization;
"(b) the competent authorities responsible for receiving and deciding applications for approval or authorization."
3. Business chill on future regulation
One of the key aims of TTIP is to prevent the introduction of any new social, public health or environmental regulations that might represent a burden on business. The leaked documents confirm that TTIP threatens the 'precautionary principle' that stands at the centre of all EU regulation. More than this, the US is now demanding that corporations receive prior warning of any new rules or standards to be introduced, and the EU will have to justify its decision to introduce any new rules in future:
"When developing a regulation, a regulatory authority of a Party shall evaluate any information provided in comments by the other Party or a person of the other Party regarding the potential trade effects of the regulation that it receives during the comment period and... provide its views on substantive issues raised.
In addition to the above three issues, the leaked documents show that the USA has no interest in the EU's much vaunted 'investment court system' - a major blow to the European Commission, which will be unable to ratify TTIP without this element.
John Hilary, Executive Director of War on Want, commented: "The TTIP negotiations will never survive this leak. The only way that the European Commission has managed to keep the negotiations going so far is through complete secrecy as to the actual details of the deal under negotiation. Now we can see the details for ourselves, and they are truly shocking. This is surely the beginning of the end for this much hated deal."