TTIP TALKS: what's cooking?

17 / 24

17 TTIP talks: What’s cooking? - Perspectives on Food & Farming
Proceedings of the Conference
Erica Smith (Law and Policy consultant Center for Interna-
tional Environmental Law - CIEL) presented a study16 analysing
a joint recommendation recommendations by the European Crop
Protection Association (ECPA) and CropLife America17 . The docu-
ment shows how the US and EU pesticide industries use regula-
tory convergence and cooperation under TTIP to lower environ-
mental, consumer and health standards.
There are differences in US and EU pesticide regulatory regimes, mainly
relating to considerations on scientific uncertainty and risk management.
This has led to large differences in regulating pesticides in the US and
EU. Unlike the US, the EU uses hazard based cut off points for chemicals.
The pesticide industry advocates for the EU to abandon its hazard based
approach and adopt the US risk based management approach, argu-
ing that “without science-based risk assessment as the unified basis for
pesticide regulation any additional requests for regulatory convergence
are unattainable”.
CIEL’s study identifies 82 active ingredients that are banned in the EU
due to serious concerns of their adverse effects on health and envi-
ronment but still used in the US. The general pattern is that Maximum
Residue Levels (MRL) allowed in food in the US are substantially higher
compared to the EU.
If Crop Life America’s and ECPA’s recommendations for regulatory
convergence are adopted, it will delay, weaken and ultimately frustrate
pesticide regulation and most likely opening the EU market to products
containing carcinogens, mutagens, hormone disrupting chemicals and
reproductive toxicants at the expense of European Citizens.
In his response Ladislav Miko , (Interim Direc-
tor General DG SANTE European Commission)
stressed that this discussion is extremely important
and useful, but has the tendency to focus on the
potential negative effects of TTIP. However at a global
level, the EU and US share the highest standards,
and have more in common than difference. Sec-
ondly, he noted that it is ridiculous to believe that US
consumers are more interested in getting cancer or
low fertility than Europeans. There is interest on both sides to maintain
standards within “the safety zone”.
Ladislav Miko explained that there are certain “redlines” or non-negotiable
standards that will not be compromised such as beef produced using
hormones and growth promoters and the EU regulatory regime on GMOs.
TTIP is a great opportunity to export the EU approach to Animal Welfare to
the other side of the Atlantic. So it is not only about a race to the bottom,
but also an opportunity to raise standards in areas like animal welfare. He
also indicated that there are areas where the EU can learn from the US.
In conclusion, Ladislav Miko said that we have to remain vigilant and keep our lines,
so it is important to keep this discussion going, so that standards can be improved. The
Commission is making efforts to make the negotiations more transparent and demystify
what is behind TTIP talks.
Harmonizing rules and standards – a race to the bottom?
If Crop Life America and ECPAs
recommendations are adopted
in the final text, this will delay,
weaken and ultimately frustrate
pesticide regulation that will
likely open up the EU market
to products containing carcino-
gens, mutagens, hormone dis-
rupting chemicals and reproduc-
tive toxicants at the expense of
health of European Citizens.”
Erica Smith, Center for
International Environmental
Law (CIEL)
We also have to realize
that if we look on the glob-
al scene and we look at the
quality of the standards
for food and agriculture,
the USA and the EU are
certainly areas with the
highest standards.
We have potentially much
more in common than dif-
ferences in this area.”
Ladislav Miko, DG SANTE.