1. Food issues in TTIP – The EU consumer view Monique Goyens, Director General @moniquegoyens @beuc www.beuc.eu

2. BEUC ? Umbrella of 40 strong national consumer organisations Strong stakeholder to represent consumer interests in decision making by the EU institutions Member of TACD – transatlantic consumer dialogue (www.tacd.org)www.tacd.org Network of 80 consumer organisations US members : Consumer reports, PIRG, NACA, CFA, Public Citizens, CSPI, Center for Media and Democracy, … Aim to represent views of consumers from both sides of Atlantic : very aligned

3. TTIP ?. Transatlantic trade partnership Not to be confused with TPP (Pacific) US negotiating both TPP and TTIP TTIP Liberalize trade between US and EU Reduce or eliminate tariffs Facilitate market access for companies Reduce costs for transatlantic trade Get rid of redundant procedures Align standards and regulations Protect foreign direct investments

4. And so what ? Why is TTIP so important ? Far beyond a simple trade deal Huge strategic significance vs BRICS + Geopolitics Not at all on the radar of US public opinion Very controversial in public opinion in EU Unique mobilisation against, destabilising negotiating team. Why ? Secrecy (also in US a problem see TPA) Huge potential impact on domestic standards Regulatory cooperation mechanism proposed that would chill regulatory activity, also for California Investor-to-State Dispute settlement system very heavily criticized on both sides of the Atlantic, as too flaw to be fixed, still championed by negotiators Huge influence of big corporates is visible everywhere

5. Consumers and food trade Where well designed, food trade can be good for consumers because it boosts competitive markets: o Enhanced choice/product variety o Lower prices Facilitating trade can benefit consumers when it means getting rid of tariffs and providing access to markets. But TTIP focus is on “NON-TARIFF BARRIERS” and in many cases … = “Non-tariff barriers” = food safety standards!

6. Two food regulatory frameworks with major differences ‘Precautionary principle’ Fundamental part of risk management in the face of scientific uncertainty Concept not endorsed as a basis for policy making Societal, economic, ethical, environmental, etc. concerns ‘Other legitimate factors’ taken into account in risk management decisions, in line with the consumer right to information and choice (e.g. labelling of GMOs or nanomaterials) ‘other factors’ considered as barriers to trade Different levels of protection of consumers’ health and interests

7. The GRAS system - Exemplifying the EU-US gap in regulating food safety WTO/SPS Agreement & Codex EU requires independent safety assessment and pre-market approval for long list of regulated products (e.g. pesticides, GMOs, additives, novel foods, food contact materials). In the US, food ingredients ‘Generally Recognised As Safe’ escape pre-market review and approval by FDA. As it currently works, GRAS system allows companies to decide for themselves on safety of many substances used in food without FDA oversight. Campaign by US consumer group CSPI to call on the FDA to make GRAS decisions mandatory and public, not voluntary and secret.

8. Europeans’ key concerns linked to food …

9. Hormone beef Use of growth promoting hormones banned in the EU since 1981 due to concerns over effect on human health (precautionary principle) but permitted in the US. EU-US Beef Hormone dispute settled in 2009 with US ‘High Quality Beef’ (hormone-free) quota at zero duty. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association: “the E.U. continues to employ the precautionary principle […]. As a result, U.S. beef has been the victim of unwarranted trade restrictions throughout the years”

10. Ractopamine pig Ractopamine approved for use as a feed additive in US to promote growth and leanness in pigs prior to slaughter. Banned in EU since 1997 over animal and human health concerns (>160 countries do not recognise ractopamine as safe). National Pork Producers Council: “Many of the unjustified SPS measures […], such as ractopamine bans, emanated from the EU. Thus, the TTIP should be used to send a message [...] that science and legitimate food safety considerations should be the basis for […] SPS measures. ”

11. Meat ‘decontamination’ treatments EU has ‘farm to fork’ approach to food safety while USDA’s authority starts at slaughterhouse. US meat and poultry plants make wide use of antimicrobial meat rinses (chlorine, lactic acid, peroxyacids, etc.). EU approved lactic acid use on beef carcasses in February 2013 at the request of USDA. EU in the process of examining USDA application for peroxyacetic acid rinses on poultry meat. EU consumers strong preference for meat that has not undergone any chemical treatment. Farm to fork approach delivers greater public health benefits by addressing all potential pathways of bacterial contamination (unlike meat washes, which only target the meat pathway).

12. GMOs EU requires full safety and environmental risk assessment and pre-market approval (also considering ‘other legitimate factors’) for GMOs. EU consumers informed of the presence of GMOs in foodstuffs thanks to mandatory labelling. US wants faster GMO approvals in the EU based on ‘sound science’. US Agriculture Secretary promotes ‘barcode scanning’ as an alternative to labelling of GMOs in food.

13. Potential benefits from TTIP in food sector Better information between regulators Safety alerts better coordinated Exchange of best practices Exchange on scientific research and outcomes But does one really need a trade agreement for that ?

14. … and Americans’ ones

15. Concerns voiced by US consumer groups US has zero tolerance policy for Listeria in foodstuffs, not the EU. Makes it impossible for EU makers of raw milk cheeses to export to the US (‘US does not understand good cheese’). Concerns over impact on locally farmed food of EU demand for US to open up public procurement market. EU dairy producers’ attacks on US safety standards for ‘Grade A’ milk.

16. A look into another sector : chemicals Fundamentally different system of regulating chemicals REACH vs TSCA 1377 chemicals banned in cosmetics in EU 11 chemicals banned in cosmetics in US Last chemical banned in US : 1991 See graphs next page Long term strategy needed Long term effects of exposure Delayed effects of regulatory intervention

17. A look in another sector : chemicals Pesticides, food packaging (BPA), etc. EU’s approach to regulating EDCs based on hazard – and not risk – attacked by US. TTIP  delay in EU setting of criteria to define EDCs. 17 Picture taken from Birnbaum; U.S. data

18. Regulatory cooperation, a threat to both?

19. Regulatory cooperation in TTIP Very wide scope o all sectors o possibly covering Member States/State level (e.g. what about California’s warning label on cola drinks exposing consumers to carcinogenic caramel colour 4-MEI?) Red tape and new venues for lobbying o risk of regulatory chill o trading away regulatory sovereignty?

21. Mutual recognition = a no-go Upward harmonisation of food safety and consumer protection standards, using ‘best in class’ policies from both sides of the Atlantic. Areas where stepped up cooperation would be beneficial: o Antibiotic resistance o Nutrition/obesity o Rapid alert system for food Agree to disagree … Making food trade work for EU and US consumers EU and US consumer organisations’ recommendations under TACD (Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue).recommendations

22. e e www.beuc.eu www.twitter.com/beuc