5 / 24
The main issues raised during the
conference were:
•
The substantial differences in rules
regulating food and farming in the
EU and US. This relates both to
specific differences in rules and
regulations, and key differences
in how the US and EU deal with
scientific uncertainty and risk
assessment;
• The precautionary principle is used
in both the US and EU in practice,
however Precautionary Principle
is an integrated component of EU
risk management, while in the USA
it is not a component endorsed in
policy making;
• The European model of a whole
food chain approach (from farm to
fork) should and will be maintained
as it pertains to the EU – US trade
negotiations;
• Regulatory convergence is the
overarching concept of working
out differences between regulatory
regimes in the US and EU. The
concept of regulatory convergence
will put pressure on the EU
regulatory framework and its
implementation.
• The EU regulatory regime relating
to animal welfare is significantly
advanced compared to the US.
No regulation or standards for
protecting animal welfare for farm
animals exists at federal level in the
US, although some standards and
protections exist at state and local
levels.
• In terms of managing chemicals,
and in this case in particular
pesticides there are significant
differences because the EU has
traditionally used hazard based cut
off points, instead of the US system
of risk based assessment.
• Agribusiness on both sides of
the Atlantic, as documented by
publically available documents,
see TTIP as a vehicle for changing
regulations and rules in favour of
“least trade restrictive” regulatory
frameworks and regulation. In
this sense TTIP should not be
seen as merely a battle between
the EU and the US, but between
industrial agribusiness versus
the development of sustainable
agriculture and food production.;
• The EU – US trade deal also
threatens fragile gains made in the
US at local and state level towards
more sustainable food systems i.e.
using public procurement as tool to
support local food economies and
small and medium size producers;
• The European Commission
maintains that certain “red lines”
will be maintained relating to food
safety standards, authorisation of
GMOs and current legal bans on
hormone beef, meat of cloned
animals and their offspring as well
as other novel foods; and
• Although several studies have
looked at the impact on jobs and
growth, using different economic
models with very large variations
in estimated impacts, few have
examined impacts specifically
relating to farming and food, and
have not adequately addressed
impacts on broader socioeconomic
aspects relating to environment
and public health.
5
TTIP talks: What’s cooking?
- Perspectives on Food & Farming
The conference demonstrated that there was broad agreement from both civil society, members of the European
Parliament, citizens, respondents from the European Commission and representatives from the US that this is an
important debate that should be continued. There is also a broad consensus from civil society organisations that
important standards and protections relating to consumer interests, environment and public health should not
be an issue for trade to decide or merely considered as technical barriers to trade. This debate should be seen as
a starting point for developing an alternative framework for trade, food and agriculture policy that respects the
rights of EU and US citizens and farmers in their efforts to build more sustainable food systems.
This debate should be seen as a
starting point
for developing an
alternative framework for trade, food
and agriculture policy