As world leaders converge in Ireland at the summit the G-8 major industrial nations, U.S. consumers are voicing concern over new trade agreements that could compromise health standards for the nation’s food supply — and they aren’t alone in their concerns. European countries are worried that agreements could streamline regulations, ridding them of their genetically modified organism (GMO)-free mandates.
The concern lies in the closed-door negotiations regarding two trade agreement, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which could include provisions between the EU and U.S. to unite food and pharmaceutical standards with partnering companies.
Collectively, the trade among EU countries and the U.S. account for one-third of all world trade. In 2011, the value of goods and services traded amounted to $702.6 billion euros.
This isn’t the first time a trade agreement has brought called into question the safety of the U.S. food supply. Right now, the U.S. and Canada are in a row over meat labeling measures in the U.S.
According to the Huffington Post, Canadian leaders are claiming that U.S. measures to label meats’ country of origin violates a 2012 World Trade Organization ruling, which considered efforts to label the origin of meat by the U.S. as a form of protectionism.
At this point, the concern regarding the transatlantic trade agreement is that consumers feel shut out, as negotiations are kept secret from the public and even from Congress.
G-8 negotiators are able to do this through “Fast Track,” a trade agreement approval process instituted under the Nixon administration, according to Citizens Trade Campaign. The process allows Congress to present negotiating objectives relating to the trade agreement, but without any binding requirements. Ultimately, Congress has no authority to approve — or disapprove — of the trade negotiation partnership.
In order for a “Fast Track” negotiation to be enacted, however, Congress does have to give its approval. This happened most recently under George W. Bush in 2002, when Congress voted to “Fast Track” a delegation called the Trade Promotion Authority.
Corporations and industry trade groups also have access to negotiations, in addition to government officials.
What consumers do know about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is that the intent is to create a global trade arena that allows for easy transfer of goods, possibly including food. In order to do so, signatory countries must agree on a set of standards.
A draft of the EU Mandate, obtained by the Corporate Europe Observatory, gave some hint of what the agreement would accomplish.
“The Agreement will aim at removing unnecessary obstacles to trade and investment through effective and efficient mechanism, by promoting an ambitious level of regulatory compatibility for goods and services, including through mutual recognition, harmonisation or other means of enhancing cooperation between regulators,” the document states.
U.S. citizens aren’t the only ones worried about the repercussions of the trade agreement. On the other side of the pond, Europeans are standing up for transparency, venting the same concerns, while also opposing any provisions that would allow U.S. genetically modified (GM) crops to enter their market. Currently, eight European countries ban GM crops altogether.
“While appealing to big business, the trade treaty poses a serious threat for citizens on both sides of the Atlantic, as it could weaken labor, social environmental and consumer protection standards,” writes the Corporate Europe Observatory. “One of the greatest risks includes U.S. negotiators using the trade deal to push for the EU to open its plates and fields up to GM crops.”