FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The TIPP and the Downfall of European Agriculture

by

A new study has concluded that the Trans Atlantic Trade & Investment Agreement (TTIP) threatens to completely change the way small and medium sized farms operate, through the use of more genetic engineering and more hormone-treated meat.

Europe’s farmers are in the midst of a crisis, with milk prices at rock-bottom, continuing EU sanctions against Russia and smallholders going under.

But the knockout punch could still be yet to come, with the looming behemoth of TTIP, the planned free trade agreement between the EU and USA, on the horizon.

If, as intended by negotiators on both sides of the Atlantic, standards in the agri-food industry are harmonised between the two trading blocs, then entire sectors of European agriculture could be endangered.

“No one can produce products like cereal as cheaply as the USA”, said a study on TTIP carried out by UnternehmensGrün, an association formed around green economy interests, seen by EurActiv before its publication. The group will formally launch the report tomorrow.

The study referenced the use of genetic engineering on a local level, weaker thresholds and larger production areas. “European farmers are, economically speaking, outgunned … it would mean the almost automatic downfall of parts of the agricultural sector.”

Currently, the trade in agricultural product and foodstuff exports to the USA total around €15 billion, with imports around the €8 billion mark. But, according to the study, this could all change if and when TTIP is finally negotiated and duties and non-tariff barriers are removed, with US companies gaining near-unlimited access to the European market.

The study relied on its own analysis and surveys of small and medium agriculturists to produce its findings. Its conclusion: “TTIP, in its proposed form, strengthens the position of the large agri-food companies, which already overcome trade barriers through the location of their production centres.”

The very existence of 99% of small and middle-sized concerns has been ignored by the European Commission, argued the authors of the report.

Competitive advantage for USA

US farms find themselves in such a superior position not just due to their larger size, but also because of the lower consumer and production standards under which they are obligated to operate, according to the same study.

A prime example is genetic engineering. In Europe, all food that contains greater than 0.9% GMO content must be labelled, whereas in the USA and Canada, no such requirement exists.

The USA has a markedly different attitude towards GMOs, where they are considered to be safe and are therefore produced at a cheaper cost. Due to this price advantage, European farmers would be forced to at least feed their livestock with GMO products, the end products of which are not governed by the same labelling requirement.

Conventional, GMO-free farmers could be squeezed out of the market, warned the study. Furthermore, the German government has legislation in the pipeline that would indeed obligate producers to label products such as milk, meat and eggs if they were produced using GMO feed. TTIP would complicate the adoption of such a law.

Hormones, pesticides and chlorine

The study also referred to the seemingly insurmountable differences between the US and EU agricultural markets, which on the other side of the pond is primarily aimed towards high-performance, exports and mass production, rather than our own focus on smaller-scale production for the domestic market.

The EU ban on growth hormones precludes the majority of US meat from sale in the bloc. This is particularly intended to protect local, conventional farming. The US meat industry has long called upon Washington to eliminate this barrier within the TTIP negotiations.

The issue of pesticides is another area in which US farmers can gain an advantage. Legal pesticide-residue levels are around 5,000% higher in the USA than in the EU. A different philosophy on food security is partly responsible for these divergent attitudes towards pesticide use. The European Commission approached the idea of increasing pesticide residue levels in draft proposals drawn up in 2015.

Then there is the matter of chlorine chicken, which has become a politically-charged buzzword and which highlights the fundamental differences between the two parties’ standards and requirements.

While European producers must safeguard the security and hygiene of products through the entire food chain, US producers use chemicals such as chlorine dioxide at the end of the production chain to kill pathogens in poultry meat; a measure that the study says is both cost-effective and hazardous.

Regional agriculture under threat

The study picked out cereals, meat and milk as the main sectors in which European agriculture could be disadvantaged. A study about TTIP, produced by the Hungarian government and kept under wraps for around a year, concluded that regional farmers are set to be put under immense pressure by the FTA.

Hungarian slaughterhouses that deal in poultry, cattle and pork products are threatened, as well as corn farmers and wine producers. “The same goes for the major markets like Germany and Austria”, Katharina Reuter, head of UnternehmensGrün and co-author of the TTIP study, told EurActiv Germany. She called for the agricultural and food sectors to be taken off the TTIP negotiating table.

But Peter Pascher, of the German Farmers’ Association (DBV), in contrast, does not understand TTIP’s detractors. “TTIP gives European producers the opportunity to access the US market, we hope for strong growth and momentum in the industry”, he told EurActiv Germany in an interview.

Everything that is associated with so-called ‘Old Europe’, French cheese, German sausages, Italian pasta etc., has value on the Trans-Atlantic market. “That means: the more refined a product is, the better their sales prospects will be on the US market”, Pascher added.

The DBV represents around 280,000 members, more than 90% of German farmers. Peter Pascher is responsible for agricultural structure and regional policy. He wants to protect “sensitive” areas of European agriculture, in a similar vein to the provisions of the already-negotiated FTA between the EU and Canada, CETA.

“We are calling for a limit on the import quotas of beef, pork and poultry, mainly due to the lower production costs enjoyed by the USA”, Pascher said. He added that he does not believe that European regional and sustainable production will perish either.

“Regional production will not go out the window with TTIP, on the contrary: regional production is on the up in Germany. Also, US consumers appreciate products that have specific European characteristics”, he said.

Pascher concluded by adding his voice to the numerous calls that geographical indications and protection is included within the final agreement.

Farmers’ association ‘unrepresentative’

Katharina Reuter expressed her doubts that the DBV had consulted its members extensively on the issue of TTIP in forming its opinions:

“In many areas, such as the dairy sector, it appears that the association has long since stopped representing its members’ interests. Producing for the global market, trade as a miracle cure-all – these are not in the interest of small and medium-sized producers.”

The DBV has, however, an influential ally: the German government. The Federal Ministry for Food and Agriculture has been constant in its assurances that TTIP will not lower any standards in the agri-food industry.

At the same time it has emphasised that Europe should take the opportunity that TTIP offers. Where market access is currently halted or hamstrung by red tape, exemption from duties and harmonisation of requirements could be engines for growth.

The ministry reiterated on its website that “In parallel with the reduction in tariffs and other trade barriers, high German and European standards are to be maintained.”

EU to lose big time

So far, there are not a lot of studies that concern themselves with the potential effects of TTIP on agriculture. However, the large majority of the ones that have been produced predict nothing but a gloomy future for Europe’s farmers.

A study carried out by the United States Department of Agriculture, which considered three different scenarios, concluded that American farmers are set to win out in the end.

Another study carried out in 2014 on behalf of the European Parliament came to a similar conclusion: agricultural value in the EU would fall by 0.5% as a result of TTIP and would increase by 0.4% across the Atlantic.

However, Peter Pascher was quick to point out that all the studies have been produced before TTIP has been negotiated or finalised, meaning the results have been based on a number of assumptions and urged its critics to wait.

This article was originally published by Euractiv.com. It is translated from the original German by Samuel Morgan.

More articles by:

Dario Sarmadi is a journalist with EurActiv.com. See more articles by this author on Euractiv.

January 18, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
The Destabilizer: Trump’s Escalating Threats Against Iran
John W. Whitehead
Silence Is Betrayal: Get Up, Stand Up, Speak Up for Your Rights
Andrew Day
Of “Shitholes” and Liberals
Dave Lindorff
Rep. Gabbard Speaks Truth to Power About the Real Reason Korea Has Nukes
Barbara G. Ellis
The Workplace War: Hatpins Might Be in Style Again for Women
Binoy Kampmark
Corporate Sickness in May’s Britain
Ralph Nader
Twitter Rock Star Obama’s Silence Must Delight Trump
John G. Russell
#Loose Lips (Should) Sink … Presidencies … But Even If They Could, What Comes Next?
David Macaray
The “Mongrelization” of the White Race
Ramzy Baroud
In Words and Deeds: The Genesis of Israeli Violence
January 17, 2018
Seiji Yamada
Prevention is the Only Solution: a Hiroshima Native’s View of Nuclear Weapons
Chris Welzenbach
Force of Evil: Abraham Polonsky and Anti-Capitalist Noir
Thomas Klikauer
The Business of Bullshit
Howard Lisnoff
The Atomized and Siloed U.S. Left
Martha Rosenberg
How Big Pharma Infiltrated the Boston Museum of Science
George Wuerthner
The Collaboration Trap
David Swanson
Removing Trump Will Require New Activists
Michael McKinley
Australia and the Wars of the Alliance: United States Strategy
Binoy Kampmark
Macron in China
Cesar Chelala
The Distractor-in-Chief
Ted Rall
Why Trump is Right About Newspaper Libel Laws
Mary Serumaga
Corruption in Uganda: Minister Sam Kutesa and Company May Yet Survive Their Latest Scandal
January 16, 2018
Mark Schuller
What is a “Shithole Country” and Why is Trump So Obsessed With Haiti?
Paul Street
Notes From a “Shithole” Superpower
Louisa Willcox
Keeper of the Flame for Wilderness: Stewart “Brandy” Brandborg
Mike Whitney
Trump’s Sinister Plan to Kill the Iranian “Nukes” Deal
Franklin Lamb
Kafkaesque Impediments to Challenging Iran’s Theocracy
Norman Solomon
Why Senator Cardin is a Fitting Opponent for Chelsea Manning
Fred Gardner
GI Coffeehouses Recalled: a Compliment From General Westmoreland
Brian Terrell
Solidarity from Central Cellblock to Guantanamo
Don Fitz
Bondage Scandal: Looking Beneath the Surface
Rob Seimetz
#Resist Co-opting “Shithole”
Ted Rall
Trump Isn’t Unique
January 15, 2018
Rob Urie
Democrats and the End(s) of Politics
Paul Tritschler
Killing Floor: the Business of Animal Slaughter
Mike Garrity
In Targeting the Lynx, the Trump Administration Defies Facts, Law, and Science Once Again
Thomas Hon Wing Polin
Hong Kong Politics: a Never-Ending Farce
Uri Avnery
Bibi’s Son (Or Three Men in a Car)
Dave Lindorff
Yesterday’s ‘Shithole Countries’ Can Become Classy Places Donald, and Vice Versa
Jeff Mackler
Lesser Evil Politics in Alabama
Jonah Raskin
Typewriters Still Smoking? An Interview with Underground Press Maven John McMillan
Jose-Antonio Orosco
Trump’s Comments Recall a Racist Past in Immigration Policy
David Macaray
Everything Seems to Be Going South
Kathy Kelly
41 Hearts Beating in Guantanamo
Weekend Edition
January 12, 2018
Friday - Sunday
George Burchett
Wormwood and a Shocking Secret of War: How Errol Morris Vindicated My Father, Wilfred Burchett
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail