Currently, the EU has a trade surplus for agricultural goods. The US would like to improve on this by getting more US food into the EU, but trade barriers, both tariffs by the EU on imported goods and regulatory barriers hamper this.
In a report published in the EU, RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE EU AGRI-FOOD SECTOR IN A POSSIBLE EU-US TRADE AGREEMENT, many of these issues are laid out. A few items that pop out is the impact from US meat production, as a low cost provider, the use of surface wash treatments used in US to meet requirements of the Pathogen Reduction Act, and the use of GMO materials.
Some of the press articles opposed to the US importing food is that it will make food less safe in the EU. This is not supported by the science, but people have the right to purchase or not purchase the food based upon their own beliefs, whether we view it as rational or not. So stamp all the food with a big 'Made in the US' sticker and let people decide.
From that report -
"Poultry Poultry products face different tariffs when entering the EU, depending on whether the product is cut into pieces or not, whether offal is included or not, and whether it is fresh or frozen (for example, standard chicken faces an erga omnes tariff of EUR 299/MT). In spite of this significant protection, the EU imports significant quantities of poultry from Brazil and Thailand. The US benefits from a 16 600 MT quota with reduced tariffs. Currently, because of a ban on pathogen reduction treatments, US exports of poultry to the EU are limited, and a large part of US poultry imported into the EU seems to be re-exported. Should the EU decide to allow pathogen reduction treatments which are currently banned (i.e. chlorine rinsing at the end of the processing chain or equivalent treatments), the US estimates that it would export between USD 200 and 300 million of poultry to the EU."
"Pathogen reduction treatments. Lactic acid is a way to clean carcasses and get rid of pathogens such as Salmonella or E. Coli. US slaughterhouses rely on the wash in order to make sure their beef meets federal food safety regulations. By contrast, the EU has prohibited the use of anything other than water to remove surface contamination of meat since 1997."
"GMOs. EU farmers fear a situation where they would not have the right to use biotechnology but US products entering the EU market freely would (as is currently the case for goods such as soybeans). In most sectors, GMOs result in lower production costs, through easier control of weeds, labour savings, and in some cases higher yields. The rapid adoption of GMOs in the soybean and corn sectors, where producers have been allowed to use them, suggests that, in any case, there is a genuine cost advantage for producers.
In the TTIP negotiations, easing both approval and trade in GMOs is an important demand made by US farms and businesses. They are backed by US authorities, which complain about the slow and limited approval of genetically modified crops for sale and cultivation in the EU. The US government would also like to see a greater tolerance threshold for traces of genetically modified material in food and feed. It also considers that compulsory labelling of GMOs unfairly discriminates against these products."
.
"Disagreements between both sides of the Atlantic refer to genuine differences in citizens’ concerns. As Bureau and Marette (2000) have explained, differences in the perception of risks are rooted in fundamental differences in both cultural and institutional frameworks. As a result, consumers see biotechnology (but also nanotechnology) as a major potential hazard in Europe. In contrast, bacterial contamination is the number one focus of US consumer organisations; working on food safety and GMOs are hardly an issue. US authorities tend to see EU biotechnology regulations as a simple non-tariff barrier."
Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-eu/u-s-agriculture-secretary-to-eu-follow-sound-science-on-food-safety-idUSKBN1ZQ1LX
U.S. agriculture secretary to EU: follow 'sound science' on food safety
Philip Blenkinsop
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union needs to redress a $10-12 billion imbalance in farm produce trade with the United States and adapt its food safety rules to reflect “sound science”, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture said on Monday.
Sonny Perdue, on a five-day trip to Europe, said both Washington and Brussels were eager to reset the transatlantic relationship but that rules should be based on real risks not potential hazards.
The U.S. trade deficit in agriculture was not logical given the EU had almost double the number of consumers as the United States and only two-thirds of the arable land, Perdue said.
Agriculture has proved a block in U.S.-EU trade talks, with Brussels resisting Washington’s demand that it be included. Perdue said tariffs on farm produce could be tackled at a later stage, but regulatory barriers need to be addressed now.
The EU, for example, bans hormone-treated beef or poultry washed with peracetic acid to remove pathogens.
“You know what it is? It’s vinegar essentially.... We don’t use chlorine any more to treat chicken,” Perdue told reporters, pointing to EU acceptance of washing salad with chlorine.
Perdue said he was aware of EU difficulties given what he said was fear-mongering by some campaign groups, but EU leaders needed to get the message across.
“The European public needs to understand that their producers are going to be at a huge disadvantage... if they choose to be a technology-free zone,” he said.
The executive European Commission has mooted removing barriers to boost trade in EU apples and pears and U.S. shellfish, but Perdue said this would only scratch the surface.
“We’re not going to get there with apples and pears and shellfish. There are other things have to happen,” he said.
The United States and the EU are already locked in a tit-for-tat tariff dispute that could escalate if Trump follows through with a threat to hit EU cars.
The U.S. and EU spirits sectors, facing tariffs on both sides of the Atlantic, called on Monday for urgent action to return to the tariff-free trade they have enjoyed since 1997.
U.S. whisky exports to Europe have fallen by 29% since EU imposed tariffs in mid-2018.
“Eventually these broader issues will have to be resolved one way or another. Both trading partners are going to have to find a path to come together because our economies are so linked,” Chris Swonger, president of the U.S. Distilled Spirits Council, told Reuters.
Editing by Timothy Heritage
No comments:
Post a Comment