TTIP: disaster through the back door

In the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, the interests of industry and corporations are in diametric opposition to a developed culture, values and the wishes of many Europeans. This is why the spokesperson of the Greens/EFA on agriculture in the European Parliament, Martin Häusling, rightly stated: “No, we can’t: no transatlantic free trade agreement at the expense of consumers’ rights and sustainable agriculture in Europe.”
In January, Häusling had invited people to Berlin to discuss the issue: “On this and the other side of the Atlantic, they are highlighting the putative positive consequences for urgently needed economic growth in times of crisis. However, what they unanimously claim to be a win-win situation takes no account of the  profound conflicts of interest behind the negotiations regarding legislation in the agriculture, environment and consumer protection sectors,” he wrote in his invitation. (Picture: Stop the TTIP - the TTIP was a much discussed issue at the demo "We’ve had enough", held in January in Berlin)
 

More than 448,000 people have signed (as of 1.4. 2014) the Campact online petition to halt the TTIP negotiations. Campact has compiled the most important reasons why the TTIP should be rejected. The following points are among the significant fears of the agricultural and food sectors:
• If the TTIP comes into force, US products exported to the EU would no longer have to abide by European standards of consumer and animal protection. In order not to disadvantage EU companies, the standards in the EU would have to be lowered to conform to those in the USA.
• In the case of food, the agreement could give rise to a huge price war that would force farms on both sides of the Atlantic that have adopted environmentally friendly practices to give up.
• TTIP would make it possible to circumvent the hazard testing of substances before entering the market that is prescribed by the EU Chemicals Regulation REACH: any product that is on the market in the USA could also be marketed in Europe (food supplements, natural cosmetics).
• TTIP will water down the obligation to label goods and make it easier to import genetically modified foods, hormone-treated meat and chlorine-washed chicken. (Picture: Across all NGOs - rejection of the free trade agreement; citizens deeply concerned)

In addition, harmonizing the regulations on seed would have devastating consequences for Europe’s farmers. The so-called farmers’ privilege, that allows European farmers to use farm-saved seed, is largely unknown in the USA. If this privilege is no longer in place, Europe’s farmers will be forced into even greater dependency – like the dependency US agricultural corporations have already forced on numerous third countries at the expense of freedom and the loss of worldwide biodiversity.

TTIP is all about the interests of companies in the pharmaceutical, chemicals, seed and food industries. Resistance by a number of organizations and the participation of many EU citizens in online protest campaigns have at least stimulated public discussion, brought about a break in the negotiations and obviously caused the negotiators to think again. After all, at stake are culture, the environment and consumers’ rights. In the middle of March, agriculture and food were on the agenda for the first time. The USA has stated the importance of a particular issue: they want the Europeans to give up their opposition to genetic engineering in agriculture, chlorine-washed chickens, hormone-treated animals, etc.“For the organic food industry, that’s a no-go area,” said Felix Prinz zu Löwenstein, the Chair of BÖLW. The TTIP regulations must not be allowed to lower the European quality standards or to run counter to them. (Picture: It´s unfair and a no-go, says the poster)

Since June 2012, the EU and the USA have acknowledged in the so-called Organic Equivalency Arrangement that their organic standards are equal. This mutual recognition makes it much easier to export European organic products and to receive imports from the USA.  As long as the conditions in the agreement are fulfilled, this means that, in compliance with the EU Organic Regulation or the National Organic Program (NOP), certified organic products can be labelled and sold in both countries as organic with practically no restrictions. The fear is that, with the TTIP, organic products will in the future come onto the European market whose mode of production is not permitted in the EU but which, thanks to the TTIP, can nevertheless carry the EU organic label. Whereas in the EU the the precautionary principle applies, meaning that every product has to be tested before being put on the market, in the USA the risk principle applies, meaning the precise opposite, namely that the risks of a substance have to be proved before it can be banned. (Picture: The protest goes through all generations)

Background (compiled by Campact):
Intransparency: the EU Trade Commissioner is negotiatiing with the US Ministry of Trade. In the EU, neither the member states nor the other EU commissioners, nor even the members of the European Parliament and national parliaments, have had sight of negotiation documentation. In contrast, several hundred industry lobbyists have exclusive access and the opportunity to ensure that their interests are incorporated into the treaty. The aim of the negotiating elite is to conclude negotiations in secrecy and then to leave the democratically elected representatives of the people the choice between only agreement and rejection.
Schedule: The negotiations commenced officially in June 2013. The negotiating partners’ aim is a quick conclusion, by 2015. In the USA, there is increasing opposition to this planned fast track process, that would permit the Obama administration to negotiate without the participation of Congress. How this conflict is resolved is still open. The European Parliament and the European governments will in any case have to approve the treaty. The contentious issue is whether the treaty has to be ratified in each member state.
Procedure: The EU Commission would like to implement this agreement at the European level and leave the national parliaments out of account! Opposition to this procedure is mounting in the member states. If the EU Commission does not back down on this point, the issue will probably be taken to the European Court of Justice. If the treaty was ratified by member states, this usually means a vote has been taken in the individual parliaments. If a single EU state does not ratify it, the treaty fails. It is also possible for member states to hold a referendum. In the case of Germany, it depends on the content of the final treaty as to whether only the Bundestag decides or whether the Bundesrat has also to give its approval.