TTIP deal could be smaller and more modest than hoped, experts warn
Speaking at an EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) stakeholder briefing in Brussels, Michael Dolan from the labour union International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) referred to the "enormous gulf" between the EU and US positions.
One of these "gulfs" is Europe’s unwillingness to buy hormone-treated meat or genetically modified (GM) food from the US. Also, for some European consumer organisations, the negative impact of cloning on animal welfare is simply "indisputable". "Consumers in the EU have spoken out against cloning for food supply," said senior food policy officer at the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) Camille Perrin, "and if food from cloned animals or their offspring were to end up on their supermarkets’ shelves, they would want it to be labelled," she continued.
Although Perrin is relieved that unlike Americans, EU consumers can currently decide for themselves whether or not to buy GM food because of compulsory ‘contains GMO’ labelling, she wants both EU and US consumers to have more information about the origin of their food, particularly meat.
"American consumers can find information on the animal’s country of birth, rearing and slaughter when buying a pork cutlet, this will unfortunately not be the case in the EU," she told Global Meat News (GMN) later at the event.
For Perrin, consumers have the right to know how and where their food was produced and this matter should be fully recognised by TTIP. "If both parties cannot agree on a food legal framework that guarantees informed food choices to consumers, they should at least remain free to adopt legislation that ensures the level of consumer protection they deem appropriate", she said.
One major priority for BEUC is mutual recognition, a concept that should allow both the EU and the US the freedom to use the food regulatory framework they want. "The EU and the US should remain free to decide on the measures they implement, to offer to their consumers meat that is safe, wholesome and of the quality they want," Perrin said. "It was only very recently that EU legislation allowed the use of lactic acid on beef – despite concerns it could be used to ‘clean up’ dirty meat and despite consumers not wanting it on their steak." She claimed the launch of the TTIP talks "was not unrelated" to this move – with the EU wanting to remove this roadblock to a deal, at least.
However, for John Brook, Europe, Russia and the Middle East director of the United States Meat Export Federation, market management objectives should not be "disguised as food safety issues". "Has anyone ever met a European who has been to the United States and didn’t eat any meat?" he asked, adding: "Everyone raves about the experience of eating in a US steakhouse".
He believes that the notion that European consumers do not want to be offered meat produced with or without the use of growth promoters is based on the same logic that was used during the BSE crisis. "Beef from the United Kingdom was deemed not fit for consumption in continental Europe, but was perfectly safe for consumption in the UK," he told GMN.
For Brook, the TTIP negotiations present a unique opportunity for the EU and the US to try to "bridge their differences on science, food production and processing technologies". He believes US farmers have the same objectives as European farmers of producing "high quality, safe food, in a manner that is sustainable and efficient". "We share the responsibility to feed the world’s growing population using best farming practises," he concluded.
For environmental group, Friends of the Earth, the TTIP agreement poses a major threat to food sovereignty in general. Senior food and agriculture advisor at Friends of the Earth Europe Adrian Bebb questioned the value of the whole deal: "Why do we need to produce more factory farmed chickens here in Europe to sell to the US, who are also producing more factory farmed chickens to sell to Europe?" Bebb told GMN.
