Ag issues visible and hidden in U.S.-EU negotiations
February 15, 2013 | 05:10 PM
Animal and plant health issues are likely to be addressed openly in negotiations between the United States and the European Union for a comprehensive trade agreement, while the issues of biotechnology and rules over the geographic origin of certain products may be hidden in negotiations over intellectual property, U.S. and EU officials have told The Hagstrom Report.
The agreement is called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. American agricultural groups have been promoting the inclusion of negotiations over biotech seeds and the foods that are produced from them, while European farm groups have said the negotiations should force Americans to accept “geographical indicators,” a term that refers to the use of geographical terms for foods that originated in a certain location, usually in Europe.
Bob Stallman
American Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman said that the beginning of trade negotiations “holds the promise of expanded market access and an improved, science-based regulatory approach for agriculture and food.”
“Farm Bureau is encouraged that some long-standing issues hindering trade between the U.S. and the EU, such as sanitary standards for beef, have lately been addressed,” Stallman said. “A constant commitment to removing barriers to agricultural trade is necessary in order to achieve a worthwhile agreement for U.S. agriculture.”
Stallman added, “The misuse of sanitary and phytosanitary standards, including the EU’s restrictions on genetically engineered crops, has long been a tactic to impede trade. We will look closely to these negotiations to move past this trade distorting tactic and fully embrace a rules-based trading system with standards based upon scientific assessment.”
“Farmers and ranchers have been frustrated over the seemingly endless array of non-tariff barriers Europe applies to many of our agricultural commodities and products. We are cautiously hopeful that these negotiations will yield positive results for U.S. agriculture.”
A report on the recommendations of what’s been called a “high-level working group” of Americans and Europeans recommended negotiations over “an ambitious ‘SPS-plus’ chapter, including establishing an ongoing mechanism for improved dialogue and cooperation on addressing bilateral sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS or animal and plant health) issues.”
The White House said, “The chapter will seek to build upon the key principles of the World Trade Organization SPS Agreement, including the requirements that each side’s SPS measures be based on science and on international standards or scientific risk assessments, applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health, and developed in a transparent manner, without undue delay.”
The National Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation, USA Poultry & Egg Export Council and U.S. Poultry & Egg Association jointly expressed strong support for the new international trade initiative.
“The EU has many unwarranted non-tariff trade barriers that severely limit or prohibit the export of certain U.S. agricultural products to the EU,” the poultry groups said.
“Chief among the issues is the EU's prohibition against pathogen-reduction treatments for poultry. The result of this non-science based action is that the United States has not been able to export poultry to the EU since 1997. When TTIP negotiations are successfully concluded, U.S. poultry producers look forward to marketing over $500 million of products to the EU on an annual basis.”
“Both the European Union and the United States are committed to maintaining and promoting a high level of intellectual property protection, including enforcement, and to cooperating extensively,” the high-level working group said. “The two sides will sustain and enhance their work on IPR issues.”
“The HLWG recommends that both sides explore opportunities to address a limited number of significant IPR issues of interest to either side, without prejudice to the outcome.”
European Commission President José Manuel Barroso said the European Union would not agree to any negotiation over “consumer health,” which reporters interpreted as meaning no negotiations on GMOs. However, Deputy National Security Adviser Michael Froman said that European Union Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht has said that nothing was being excluded.
“And I think there are a number of ways of pursuing issues like biotech or like data services — data flows as part of the services discussion,” Froman said. “And that will be the subject of the negotiation.”
Jerry Kozak
Geographical indicators were not mentioned in the report, but National Milk Producers Federation President Jerry Kozak said in a news release “America’s dairy farmers want to make sure that we seize this opportunity to remove not only existing barriers but also those that seem to be brewing within the EU to ensure they do not grow into tomorrow’s blockades against U.S. dairy products.”
“If the EU wants access to our dairy market and wants us to consider regulatory changes to our system, which is based on sound science, the burden is certainly on them to demonstrate that this is a two-way street and that our concerns have been fully resolved given the EU’s track record in this area,” Kozak said.
National Milk and the U.S. Dairy Export Council said that “any discussions on the use of common food names and geographical indications (GIs) [should] be aimed at uprooting the rapidly expanding EU effort to erect de facto barriers to trade against U.S. products through granting GIs to many common food names.”
Tom Suber
“U.S. cheesemakers are already blocked from selling American-made Parmesan and Feta to the EU and are facing a proliferation of restrictions against our use of these terms and others in more and more markets around the world,” said Tom Suber, president of USDEC.
“Granting a monopoly to one group of producers for the sole use of a generic name is a barrier to competition and cannot be accepted any longer by the United States — either in third-party markets or in the EU itself.”
Suber noted that while the U.S. dairy industry is a major exporter globally, exports to the European Union have lagged and totaled only $88 million last year.
“This is not because we can’t compete there, but because of the many tariff and regulatory hurdles facing our exporters seeking to enter the EU,” Suber said.
“The EU currently enjoys a dairy trade surplus with the United States of $1.2 billion,” he said. “This is at a time when the United States is exporting $5.2 billion in dairy products around the world. We believe the Transatlantic agreement can do a lot to drive more reciprocal dairy trade between the United States and EU.”
In prior submissions to the administration about U.S.-EU trade, NMPF and USDEC have noted that U.S. exports to the EU are hindered by significant tariffs, as well as regulatory barriers such as requirements unrelated to food safety with respect to somatic cell count limits for imported dairy products, tariff-rate quota administration details, mandates related to certificate dating, bans on the use of generic food names and other requirements, the groups noted.
Ron Kirk
Asked about concern that agriculture might be sidelined, both U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and Froman said that would not be the case.
“One of the reasons that we have used a year in these intensive discussions through our high-level working group was to a have a very frank and candid assessment of each of our ambitions as well as addressing some of the legacy issues like agricultural access and having strong disciplines on sanitary and — vital sanitary standards, which are part of every agreement the United States negotiates,” Kirk said.
“And we have been very transparent in terms of our desire to have that be a part of the agreement and we have addressed a number of issues of importance to the ag community throughout that process. But that will be part of the negotiations going forward.”
He added, “I do want to clear up one thing and make it plain — no decision has been made to leave that apart and deal with that later. Nothing is further from the truth.”
Michael Froman
“We are not only not putting off ag issues past the agreement, but we are resolving them before the negotiations are completed,” added Froman, the deputy national security adviser.
“So during this one-year process, we worked to resolve some outstanding issues, and we expect to continue to do that in parallel with the negotiations And so nobody should be under any impression that we are not going to be resolving agricultural issues, including the SPS issues both in the negotiation and in parallel to the negotiation while the negotiations are going on.”
Karel De Gucht
De Gucht said that he wants “ideally” to complete the agreement in two years.
“Our main focus has to be to tackle those barriers which are behind the customs border — such as differences in technical regulations, standards and certifications. These often cost time and money. This is where we can make real savings for our businesses and bring better value for consumers,” De Gucht said.
The agreement is called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. American agricultural groups have been promoting the inclusion of negotiations over biotech seeds and the foods that are produced from them, while European farm groups have said the negotiations should force Americans to accept “geographical indicators,” a term that refers to the use of geographical terms for foods that originated in a certain location, usually in Europe.
American Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman said that the beginning of trade negotiations “holds the promise of expanded market access and an improved, science-based regulatory approach for agriculture and food.”
“Farm Bureau is encouraged that some long-standing issues hindering trade between the U.S. and the EU, such as sanitary standards for beef, have lately been addressed,” Stallman said. “A constant commitment to removing barriers to agricultural trade is necessary in order to achieve a worthwhile agreement for U.S. agriculture.”
Stallman added, “The misuse of sanitary and phytosanitary standards, including the EU’s restrictions on genetically engineered crops, has long been a tactic to impede trade. We will look closely to these negotiations to move past this trade distorting tactic and fully embrace a rules-based trading system with standards based upon scientific assessment.”
“Farmers and ranchers have been frustrated over the seemingly endless array of non-tariff barriers Europe applies to many of our agricultural commodities and products. We are cautiously hopeful that these negotiations will yield positive results for U.S. agriculture.”
Report calls for SPS consideration in trade talks
A report on the recommendations of what’s been called a “high-level working group” of Americans and Europeans recommended negotiations over “an ambitious ‘SPS-plus’ chapter, including establishing an ongoing mechanism for improved dialogue and cooperation on addressing bilateral sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS or animal and plant health) issues.”
The White House said, “The chapter will seek to build upon the key principles of the World Trade Organization SPS Agreement, including the requirements that each side’s SPS measures be based on science and on international standards or scientific risk assessments, applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health, and developed in a transparent manner, without undue delay.”
The National Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation, USA Poultry & Egg Export Council and U.S. Poultry & Egg Association jointly expressed strong support for the new international trade initiative.
“The EU has many unwarranted non-tariff trade barriers that severely limit or prohibit the export of certain U.S. agricultural products to the EU,” the poultry groups said.
“Chief among the issues is the EU's prohibition against pathogen-reduction treatments for poultry. The result of this non-science based action is that the United States has not been able to export poultry to the EU since 1997. When TTIP negotiations are successfully concluded, U.S. poultry producers look forward to marketing over $500 million of products to the EU on an annual basis.”
GMO, GI issues not mentioned but may come up
“Both the European Union and the United States are committed to maintaining and promoting a high level of intellectual property protection, including enforcement, and to cooperating extensively,” the high-level working group said. “The two sides will sustain and enhance their work on IPR issues.”
“The HLWG recommends that both sides explore opportunities to address a limited number of significant IPR issues of interest to either side, without prejudice to the outcome.”
European Commission President José Manuel Barroso said the European Union would not agree to any negotiation over “consumer health,” which reporters interpreted as meaning no negotiations on GMOs. However, Deputy National Security Adviser Michael Froman said that European Union Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht has said that nothing was being excluded.
“And I think there are a number of ways of pursuing issues like biotech or like data services — data flows as part of the services discussion,” Froman said. “And that will be the subject of the negotiation.”
Geographical indicators were not mentioned in the report, but National Milk Producers Federation President Jerry Kozak said in a news release “America’s dairy farmers want to make sure that we seize this opportunity to remove not only existing barriers but also those that seem to be brewing within the EU to ensure they do not grow into tomorrow’s blockades against U.S. dairy products.”
“If the EU wants access to our dairy market and wants us to consider regulatory changes to our system, which is based on sound science, the burden is certainly on them to demonstrate that this is a two-way street and that our concerns have been fully resolved given the EU’s track record in this area,” Kozak said.
National Milk and the U.S. Dairy Export Council said that “any discussions on the use of common food names and geographical indications (GIs) [should] be aimed at uprooting the rapidly expanding EU effort to erect de facto barriers to trade against U.S. products through granting GIs to many common food names.”
“U.S. cheesemakers are already blocked from selling American-made Parmesan and Feta to the EU and are facing a proliferation of restrictions against our use of these terms and others in more and more markets around the world,” said Tom Suber, president of USDEC.
“Granting a monopoly to one group of producers for the sole use of a generic name is a barrier to competition and cannot be accepted any longer by the United States — either in third-party markets or in the EU itself.”
Suber noted that while the U.S. dairy industry is a major exporter globally, exports to the European Union have lagged and totaled only $88 million last year.
“This is not because we can’t compete there, but because of the many tariff and regulatory hurdles facing our exporters seeking to enter the EU,” Suber said.
“The EU currently enjoys a dairy trade surplus with the United States of $1.2 billion,” he said. “This is at a time when the United States is exporting $5.2 billion in dairy products around the world. We believe the Transatlantic agreement can do a lot to drive more reciprocal dairy trade between the United States and EU.”
In prior submissions to the administration about U.S.-EU trade, NMPF and USDEC have noted that U.S. exports to the EU are hindered by significant tariffs, as well as regulatory barriers such as requirements unrelated to food safety with respect to somatic cell count limits for imported dairy products, tariff-rate quota administration details, mandates related to certificate dating, bans on the use of generic food names and other requirements, the groups noted.
Kirk, others address ag issues in talks
Asked about concern that agriculture might be sidelined, both U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and Froman said that would not be the case.
“One of the reasons that we have used a year in these intensive discussions through our high-level working group was to a have a very frank and candid assessment of each of our ambitions as well as addressing some of the legacy issues like agricultural access and having strong disciplines on sanitary and — vital sanitary standards, which are part of every agreement the United States negotiates,” Kirk said.
“And we have been very transparent in terms of our desire to have that be a part of the agreement and we have addressed a number of issues of importance to the ag community throughout that process. But that will be part of the negotiations going forward.”
He added, “I do want to clear up one thing and make it plain — no decision has been made to leave that apart and deal with that later. Nothing is further from the truth.”
“We are not only not putting off ag issues past the agreement, but we are resolving them before the negotiations are completed,” added Froman, the deputy national security adviser.
“So during this one-year process, we worked to resolve some outstanding issues, and we expect to continue to do that in parallel with the negotiations And so nobody should be under any impression that we are not going to be resolving agricultural issues, including the SPS issues both in the negotiation and in parallel to the negotiation while the negotiations are going on.”
De Gucht said that he wants “ideally” to complete the agreement in two years.
“Our main focus has to be to tackle those barriers which are behind the customs border — such as differences in technical regulations, standards and certifications. These often cost time and money. This is where we can make real savings for our businesses and bring better value for consumers,” De Gucht said.
