The document provides an overview of the proposed regulations regarding food safety, animal and plant health under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP). There are several main points of disagreement between the US and EU approaches, including the treatment of growth hormones, decontamination processes, genetically modified organisms, and the role of investor-state dispute settlement tribunals. While the goal is to increase agricultural trade, reaching agreement on harmonizing diverse food safety standards has proved challenging. The latest negotiations focus on issues such as geographical indications, regulatory cooperation, and limiting food import inspections.

1. Transatlantic Trade and Investment
partnership Agreement
(TTIP)
Overview of proposed Food safety, Animal
and Plant Health regulations

2. Long way to TTIP
1990-s – Negotiations on Transatlantic Free Trade
Agreement (TAFTA)
2007 – Transatlantic Economic Council
2011- The United States- European Union High
level Working Group on Jobs and Growth (HLWG)
June 17, 2013 – Official launch of the first round
of TTIP negotiations

3. Primary goals
US
Increase sales of different
types of agricultural products:
soy and corn
EU
Increase exports of “higher
value food products”

4. Main points of disagreement
Growth
Hormones
Decontamination
treatment
Investor-State
Dispute
Settlement
(ISDS) tribunals
GIs
GMOs

5. No special regulations
for GM products/
absence of mandatory
labeling
Regulation of GM
products at every stage
(pre-market
authorization –
mandatory labeling –
post-monitoring)
US end of pipe regulations
EU preventive controls

6. Large-scale production

Decontamination
treatment +
Treatment of livestock
produce with antibiotics
promoting growth
Only water can be used
in processing (“farm-to-
fork” instead of
decontaminants)
Ban on hormones use
US end of pipe regulations
EU preventive controls

7. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP)
one concept, different application
EU
HACCP + Traceability
US
HACCP  HIMP + limitation of
governmental control

8. How to harmonize diverse food safety
standards?
To employ the same standards and methods in consumer
safety regulation
or
To recognize each other’s safety regulations as sufficient
when importing goods

9. What progress has been achieved so far?
2014
Statement of the U.S. Agricultural
Secretary: “the United States
may be unwilling to accept a
TTIP agreement that allows
Europe’s current restrictions on
GMOs to stand”
2015
EU adopted new GMO law
allowing Member States to
restrict or prohibit cultivation of
already authorized at the Union
level GMOs

10. Evolution of the SPS Chapter proposals
Lack of transparency
July 2014
• Leaked Commission-proposed TTIP SPS Chapter
January 2015
• First official release of the TTIP SPS Chapter

11. Protection of Geographical Indications
US  no special protection for GIs (Aside from general protection under the
Trademark Law or Certification marks regulation) // Many EU’s GIs not protected
because treated as generic terms
EU  strict model of protection // developed quality schemes and special
registration systems
TTIP:
Latest version of EU Proposal suggests the list of 200 GIs that need to be
protected at the moment of TTIP entry into force; Including 17 wine names for
which TTIP must confirm exclusive protection on the US territory

12. “Leveling-up” WTO SPS provisions ?
WTO SPS Agreement:
• Non-discrimination: MFN/NT
• Harmonization
• Science-based risk assessment
• Equivalence
TTIP
• Adopt “tolerances and maximum residue levels “ of pesticides, veterinary
drugs and food additives of the Codex Alimentarius
*problem with ractopamine and
nanomaterials in food products
• Animal welfare provisions – not binding
(based on “best endeavor”)

13. Introduction of indirect legal tools
• Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) tribunals –enabling private foreign
investors to sue governments for violation of TTIP SPS provisions
• Limitation on food import inspections - “elimination of redundant control
measures”
• Regulatory cooperation  share of information on “planned acts”; “ trade
and investment impact assessments” purport to prevent possible future
disputes

14. The Economist article
Investor-State Dispute Settlement: The Arbitration Game
“IF YOU wanted to convince the public that international trade agreements are
a way to let multinational companies get rich at the expense of ordinary people,
this is what you would do: give foreign firms a special right to apply to a
secretive tribunal of highly paid corporate lawyers for compensation whenever
a government passes a law to, say, discourage smoking, protect the
environment or prevent a nuclear catastrophe. Yet that is precisely what
thousands of trade and investment treaties over the past half-century have
done, through a process known as “investor-state dispute settlement”, or
ISDS.”

15. TTIP Webinar Series prepared by
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)
• Trade rules for poultry and pork: safe for whom?
• TTIP and GMOs
• TTIP and Antimicrobial Resistance
• Trading Away Our Bees
• TTIP and AnimalWelfare