46 Amendments of Marco AFFRONTE related to 2014/2228(INI)
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas TTIP is above all about regulation10, about reducing or eliminating non–tariff barriers11, and as such aboutis intrinsically linked to the level of protection of human health and the environment; __________________ 10 See speech by EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström of 11 December 2014 .http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/ 2014/ december/tradoc_152942.pdf 11 See 2014 Report on Technical Barriers to Trade by the US Trade Representative, p. 45.
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the objective of the TTIP is to increase trade and investment between the European Union and the United States of America without impinging on the principles established in the acquis communautaire;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the objective of the TTIP is to increase trade and investment between the European Union and the United States;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the negotiations have attracted unprecedented public interest, given the potential economic, social and political impactlications of the TTIP;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas former Commission president José Manuel Barroso called on civil society to play a constructive and engaged part in the TTIP negotiations;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas civil society has expressed concerns about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the Committee on Petitions has received a number of petitions raising civil society’s concerns about the EU-US trade agreement (TTIP); whereas the petitioners’ main concerns are related to risks regarding the quality of food imports,pertain the environment, safety and consumer protection standards such as the quality of food imports, global surveillance disclosures on the information allegedly collected by the US regarding natural and legal persons (the right of EU citizens to ‘digital self-determination’), transparency, economic impact, and protection of investors via and the Investor- State Dispute Settlement mechanism (ISDS);
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
B a. whereas EU environmental policy seeks to ensure a high level of protection and also covers EU legislation on food and human, animal and plant health.
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines the importance of developing the trade relationship and bilateral investment between the European Union and the United States of America in order to help growth and employment and generate new economic opportunitiesgiven that they are the world’s largest economic entities representing over 45% of total world GDP;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the objective of reducing unnecessary regulatory incompatibilities between the EUnion and the USAnited States of America in relation to goods and services, such as duplication of procedures, and inconsistent product requirements; and double testing;sks the Commission to consider the cost-benefits scenario that could derive from mutually recognised non-tariff measures in a broad sense, including the benefits of regulation to society as a whole and not just for firms.
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the US Trade Representative consistently denounces EU standards in these areas as trade barriers even though such standards constitute the basis of EU food safety principles;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that regulatory compatibility is to be without prejudice to the right to regulate in accordance with the level of health, safety, consumer, labour and environmental protection and cultural diversity that each side considerdeems appropriate;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
C a. whereas all regulations of business operations, trade conditions and setting of product- and production-standards showed must remain in the hands of democratically controlled bodies and processes
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Highlights that the cultural services and products should be considered, and therefore treated, differently from other commercial services and products, as provided for by the so-called cultural exception;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
C b. Whereas the 'precautionary principle' is a fundamental part of risk management in the EU, while US authorities do not officially endorse this concept as a basis for policy making.
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Recital C c (new)
Recital C c (new)
C c. Whereas substantial differences exist also in the approach to food safety along the food chain. In the EU, food safety is guaranteed through the integrated "farm- to-fork" approach while the US system, on the other hand, mostly verifies the safety of the end product and therefore is more prone to resorting to pathogen reduction treatments.
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Recital C d (new)
Recital C d (new)
C d. Whereas the aim of Sustainable development provisions in TTIP should be to ensure that trade and environmental policies are mutually supportive, to promote the optimal use of resources in accordance with the objective of sustainable development as well as to strengthen environmental cooperation and collaboration.
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Highlights that the United States of America has not ratified International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) conventions on core labour standards such as collective bargaining, freedom of association and the right to organise.
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Recital C f (new)
Recital C f (new)
C f. Whereas European consumers are informed of the presence of GMOs in foodstuff thanks to mandatory labelling while in the US, the FDA recognises GMOs as "substantially equivalent" to their non-GMO counterparts.
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Stresses that democratic decision making in the workplace risks being undermined if the protection of workers is regarded as a trade barrier.
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Recital C g (new)
Recital C g (new)
C g. Whereas several industry sectors representatives have called for the removal trough the regulatory convergence mechanisms of the EU zero tolerance policy for unauthorised GMOs in food and feed.
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Recital C h (new)
Recital C h (new)
C h. Whereas early consultations mechanisms between the EU and the US, including potentially further impact assessment with extended stakeholder consultations earlier in the legislative process, may lead to delays in or even abandonment of regulations, especially in the fields of environment and consumers protection.
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the fact that the Commission has made real efforts to make the TTIP negotiating process more transparent, especially in the light of the publication of the European directives for the negotiation on the TTIP (1103/13 CL 1); highlights the need to ensure transparency through a direct and open dialogue in the form of public consultations with all stakeholders;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Suggests that a more proactive approach to transparencyWelcomes the remarks of the European Ombudsman regarding the necessity of a more proactive disclosure onf the part of the Commission could make the negotiatdocuments; urges the Commission to take into duly account the Ombudsman’s suggestions, and ing process more legitimate in the eyes of citizens, and encourages the Commission to publish documents and make meeting information availablearticular to carry out an assessment as regards whether a TTIP document can be made public as soon as the document in question has been finalised internally and at regular and pre-determined intervals thereafter (including, but not limited to, when the document is tabled in the negotiations).;
Amendment 91 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Asks the Commission to ensure that the list of TTIP documents available on its dedicated trade policy website is accessible, comprehensive, exhaustive and thorough;
Amendment 95 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that the TTIP must not undermine the right of EU citizens to digital self-determination or compliance with Europeanthe Union’s legislation on data protection and, in particular, shall consider the European Court of Justice ruling (C-132/12) on the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ and the proposed General Data Protection Regulation;
Amendment 102 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Highlights the sensitivity of certain areas of negotiationthe negotiation areas where the Union and the United States of America systems fundamentally differ, such as the agricultural sector, where percepregulations of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), cloning and consumer health are divergent; maintains that the TTIP may impact upon provisions on the environment and consumer safety since GMOs have already been the subject of one World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute between the European Union and the United States;
Amendment 103 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers it misleading on the part of the Commission to try to appease public concerns about the TTIP by stating that existing standards will not be lowered, as this disregards the fact that many standards have yet to be set in the implementation of existing (framework) legislation (e.g. REACH) or by the adoption of new laws (e.g. cloning); therefore calls the Commission to secure that the level of EU social and labour standards, consumer and public health protection, care for the environment including regeneration of our natural resources, animal welfare, food safety standards and environmentally sustainable agricultural practices, access to information and labelling, culture and medicine, financial market regulation as well as data protection, net neutrality and other digital rights continue to be respected, not "harmonised" down to the lowest common denominator.
Amendment 104 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Suggests considering WTO dispute- settlement jurisprudence as recent disputes between the Union and the United States of America provide an insight into the contentious issues in the trade relationship;
Amendment 112 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Emphasises that consumer protection and compliance with higher European quality standards for foods and products should be at the centre of the negotiations regarding the environment, food safety and investments should be focus of TTIP negotiations; stresses therefore the need to maintain high standards and best practices such as thorough risk assessment processes to determine which GMOs are allowed onto the TTIP.Union’s market;
Amendment 115 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Points out that the key aim of the Investor-to-state- dispute settlement (ISDS) is to protect investors from arbitrary administrative decisions in counties with little legal certainty; highlights that experience so far shows that the ability of governments to enact legislation in the public interest may be severely curtailed by the threat of being confronted with compensation claims by big multinational firms;
Amendment 118 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10 b. considers that since ISDS tribunals would interpret both national and EU law, both interpreting and applying EU fundamental rights and general principles of EU law, the inclusion of ISDS would be incompatible with the CJEU’s exclusive jurisdiction over the definitive interpretation of European Union law;
Amendment 124 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Is concerned that the TTIP negotiations have already affected Commission proposals and actions relating, for example, to food safety and climate protection (e.g. pathogen meat treatments; implementation of the fuel quality directive); and that TTIP may results in a deregulation of standards safeguarding and serving the public interest.
Amendment 144 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is very concerned that tThe objective of regulatory convergence, including in particular the creation of a Regulatory Cooperation Council, willshould be prevented from leading to the lowering of future EU standards in key areas for the protection of human health, food safety and the environment in light of the significant differences as compared with the US;
Amendment 171 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Agrees with Commissioner Malmström that all areas where the EU and the US have very different rules or approaches should be excluded from the negotiations12 ; __________________ 12See speech by EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström of 11 December 2014.
Amendment 173 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Calls on the Commission to protect the right of each party to establish its own levels of domestic environmental protection and environmental development priorities, and to adopt or modify them accordingly with its environmental laws and policies,
Amendment 222 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 a (new)
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 a (new)
- the placing on EU markets of foodstuffs containing cloned animal meat or products derived from the progeny of cloned animals;
Amendment 224 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 a (new)
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 a (new)
- maintains the organisational autonomy in the area of water supply and sanitation: public services such as water services should remain firmly outside of the scope of the TTIP agreement.
Amendment 227 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 b (new)
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 b (new)
- limit the consumer’s right to correct information, e.g. revoking rules relating to the traceability of ingredients or labelling;
Amendment 230 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 c (new)
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 c (new)
- limit the circulation of and access to generic medicines under national health programmes, to the advantage of large pharmaceutical companies;
Amendment 234 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 d (new)
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 d (new)
- enable ingredients which are banned in the EU from being used in cosmetics, in light of broader US regulations;
Amendment 235 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 e (new)
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 e (new)
- authorise animal testing of cosmetics, as currently provided for under US rules;
Amendment 237 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 f (new)
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 f (new)
- weaken the principle of the protection of the diversity and territoriality of products, to the detriment of the PDO and PGI labels which guarantee the quality and recognisability of EU products;
Amendment 247 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5 c. Calls the Commission to avoid that the TBT Chapter in TTIP restricts EU and its Member States options to adopt measures with the aim of reducing consumption of certain products such as tobacco, foods high in fat, salt and sugar and harmful use of alcohol:
Amendment 249 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 d (new)
Paragraph 5 d (new)
5 d. Calls the commission to make sure that TTIP do not lower the GMOs standards at EU and member states level: in this regards the GMO labelling system should be considered a non-negotiable instrument to ensure consumer's right to choose. Furthermore it urges EU negotiators to preserve the right of the European legislators to introduce further regulations on OGMs products including those derived from animals (meat and dairy) fed with GMOs..
Amendment 251 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 f (new)
Paragraph 5 f (new)
5 f. Calls the Commission to ensure that TTIP provisions will continue to allow the EU to ban the use of veterinary drugs for growth promotion and of the import and sale of foods from animals that have been undergoing such treatments.