45 Amendments of Molly SCOTT CATO related to 2014/2228(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the European Commission has given assurances that respect for food safety and human and animal health standards shall be an uncompromisable tenet of the negotiations as regards European agriculture;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas there are major differences in the regulatory systems of the US and the EU with regard to plant protection products: -whereas 82 active substances are banned in the EU, but allowed in the US, -whereas moreover, the EU deliberately adopted hazard-based cut-off criteria to phase out the use of active substances that are carcinogenic, or mutagenic, or toxic to reproduction, or persistent and toxic and bioaccumulative, or endocrine disrupters in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 ; whereas the US insists on a risk-based approach, based on numerous assumptions and extrapolations, thus tolerating the use of such substances of very high concern, -whereas there is a general pattern of lower amounts of pesticide residues allowed on food in the EU as compared to the US;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Recital A c (new)
Recital A c (new)
Ac. whereas the draft EU negotiation text of the EU on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures tabled for the round of 29 September - 3 October suggests obliging Parties to apply tolerances and maximum residue levels by the Codex Alimentarius Commission within 12 months after their adoption, unless the importing Party had signalled a reservation in the Codex Alimentarius Commission; whereas there is a significant degree of disagreement by EFSA with the Codex standards, signalled by EFSA’s filing of reservations in 31- 57% of all cases, alongside a general pattern of lower amounts of pesticide residues allowed on food in the EU as compared to the Codex Alimentarius Commission; whereas it is very questionable whether EFSA will be allowed politically to continue to express reservations once the TTIP has been adopted, given that the draft text intends to commit the EU and the US to collaborate in the international standard setting bodies ‘with a view to reaching mutually satisfactory outcomes’, which could discourage EFSA from filing reservations to the Codex Alimentarius Commission in the future and thus lead to weaker standards in the EU;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Recital A d (new)
Recital A d (new)
Ad. whereas the US TBT report of 2014 refers to the concerns of the US chemical and crop protection industry with regard to the hazard-based cut-off criteria to be developed for endocrine disrupters, and stated that the US raised concerns with DG Environment’s proposal bilaterally as well as in WTO TBT and SPS Committees; whereas the Commission decided to launch an impact assessment on the development of criteria for endocrine disrupters in July 2013; whereas this decision is the main reason for the Commission’s failure to adopt criteria by the 4-year deadline of December 2013; while the US welcomed the Commission’s decision, both Council and the European Parliament decided to support Sweden in its court action to challenge the Commission’s failure, illustrating fundamentally different views as to the nature of regulatory provisions in EU law;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Recital A e (new)
Recital A e (new)
Ae. whereas the EU approach with regard to food safety is based on the precautionary principle, allowing for protective action in case of scientific uncertainty, and requires risk managers to take into account other legitimate factors when weighing policy alternatives; whereas the US approach requires the regulator to produce scientific evidence of harmful effects before regulatory action is taken and does not acknowledge other legitimate factors;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Recital A f (new)
Recital A f (new)
Af. whereas the EU and US legislators have taken a very different approach as regards the regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs): while in the EU, GMOs need to pass a risk analysis process prior to authorisation, regulators in the US allow them on the market without a distinct regulatory regime;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Recital A g (new)
Recital A g (new)
Ag. whereas the EU and US legislators have taken a very different approach as regards pathogen reduction treatments for meat and poultry: while a number of different pathogen reduction treatments are allowed in the US, EU regulation requires all operators along the food chain to follow good farm to fork hygiene practices in order to ensure pathogenic microbes are not present in foods of animal origin, and does not allow decontamination treatments to substitute good hygiene practices;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Recital A h (new)
Recital A h (new)
Ah. whereas the US federal law on animal welfare is well below the level of EU regulation, including the lack of legislation on welfare standards for farmed animals before the point of slaughter; whereas animal welfare is not considered by the Commission to be a trade concern in the same way as food safety or animal health for the purposes of import requirements;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Recital A i (new)
Recital A i (new)
Ai. whereas the EU is in the process of defining specific rules on food from clones animals and their offspring, while the US have decided not to require pre-market approval or labelling for such products;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Recital A j (new)
Recital A j (new)
Aj. whereas the regulatory freeze is an indirect effect of TTIP which limits the ambitions of legislation and regulation of both parties in fields of food safety, public health, environmental standards, as has been observed with regards to EU legislation on endocrine disrupting chemicals;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas respect forthe European Commission has committed itself to holding food safety and human and animal health standards will be as fundamental tenets of the negotiations foras regards European agriculture;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas civil society and public opinion in both the EU and the US have been critical of and are concerned by the prospect of eroding regulatory standards in guise of harmonisation;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas the claims regarding the jobs and growth that TTIP could bring do not take into account the expected environmental and social impact and associated costs; whereas similar previous claims regarding trade agreements have been subsequently revealed as overestimations;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Recital C c (new)
Recital C c (new)
Cc. whereas the drive for competitiveness has been shown to have negative impacts upon the health, safety and labour rights of food sector workers, particularly in the processing industry;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point iv a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point iv a (new)
(iv a) to ensure an explicit exclusion of public services as referred to in Article 14 TFEU from the scope of application of TTIP, in order to ensure that national and local authorities have the freedom to introduce, adopt, maintain or repeal any measure with regard to the commissioning, organisation, funding and provision of public services, as provided in Article 168 TFEU (public health) and in Protocol 26 (Services of General Interest) of the EU Treaties;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point v
Paragraph 1 – point v
(v) to take immediate steps to safeguard the right of EU governments to legislate, organise, set quality and safety standards for, manage and regulate public services by not committing public service sectors to further market access liberalization and by filing general Annex-II reservations in the National Treatment schedules regarding all health services in the widest sense communication services, educational services, environmental services, financial services, social services, transport services, and energy services;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point -a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point -a (new)
-a. end negotiations on the establishment of a free-trade area between the EU and the United States;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a
Paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a
Paragraph 1 – point a
a. prioritise an ambitious and balancedensure that the EU market access offers in the different areas of industrial goods, agricultural products, services and public procurement are treated each in its own merits and not as a cross-bargained package; prioritise a result of the negotiations for agriculture, the three main componentsat takes into full account the sensitivity of wthich (market access, geographical indications and sanitary and phytosanitary measures) should be tackled early and in parallels sector, as well as respecting the sanitary and phytosanitary EU standards and the full protection of EU geographical indications; ensure that chapters affecting agriculture are tackled early in the negotiation process, in order to give Parliament enough time to discuss and evaluate thisese chapters with stakeholders and European citizens; ,
Amendment 91 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
aa. stop negotiations on the TTIP agreement, as it constitutes trade for trade’s sake, in particular in the agricultural sector, where it diverts efforts from local food production and shorter supply chains towards unnecessary and duplicatory trading;
Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a b (new)
Paragraph 1 – point a b (new)
ab. stop negotiations on the TTIP agreement, as it constitutes an attack on the right to regulate in the public interest and lays the ground for regulatory chill;
Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a c (new)
Paragraph 1 – point a c (new)
ac. ensure that TTIP’s provisions do not apply to or affect the agricultural sector and its regulation;
Amendment 95 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a d (new)
Paragraph 1 – point a d (new)
ad. recognise that regulatory harmonisation is only appropriate where regulations are of equivalent strength; undertake negotiations only in clearly specified sectoral areas where the US and the EU have similar levels of protection;
Amendment 96 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a e (new)
Paragraph 1 – point a e (new)
ae. Ensure that international regulatory cooperation and international instruments shall not restrain the setting of higher standards by either party; undertake the harmonisation of minimum acceptable standards only, and this to the higher of the two parties’ respective standards
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a f (new)
Paragraph 1 – point a f (new)
af. specify the sectors and subsectors to be excluded from the scope of regulatory cooperation within TTIP, including sensitive areas in which EU and US legislation differs significantly, including but not restricted to legislation on genetically modified organisms, clones and descendants of clones, chlorine bleach on chicken carcasses, growth hormones in meat and milk production, antibiotics in livestock rearing, agro- chemicals and plant protection products;
Amendment 98 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a g (new)
Paragraph 1 – point a g (new)
ag. ensure an agreement that does not undermine EU regulation or subject future regulation to assessment vis-a-vis its potential impact on trade;
Amendment 99 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a h (new)
Paragraph 1 – point a h (new)
ah. ensure that in the regulatory cooperation chapter, any negotiations on standards relating to sensitive issues such as food safety, environmental protection, consumer protection, climate, animal health and welfare, are based on a positive list, explicitly specifying which standards are of equivalent strength and thus appropriate for harmonisation;
Amendment 107 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b
Paragraph 1 – point b
b. firmly commit to the strict preservation of standards on food safety and human and animal health, as defined under EU legislation, and ensure that fundamental values of the EU such as the precautionary principle are not undermined; ensure that EU standards are not subject to regulatory cooperation and mutual recognition of standards which creates a biased playing field for European agricultural producers due to higher and more costly standards in the EU;
Amendment 120 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
ba. ensure that market access is not granted for imports that do not conform to the EU’s standards, in particular as regards food quality and production practices, including standards of animal welfare;
Amendment 126 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b b (new)
Paragraph 1 – point b b (new)
bb. ensure that the legislative powers of EU institutions and Member States’ local, regional and national authorities are not undermined, either by delegation of regulatory powers to new regulatory bodies within TTIP, such as the proposed Regulatory Cooperation Body, or by a primary focus of regulatory Impact Assessments on trade and investment impacts; ensure that such institutions retain their powers to adopt higher standards at local, regional, national and European level;
Amendment 128 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b c (new)
Paragraph 1 – point b c (new)
bc. clarify explicitly that any provisions on regulatory cooperation in the TTIP do not set a procedural requirement for the adoption of the Union acts concerned by it nor do they give rise to enforceable rights in that regard; in particular reject the following provisions, which could de facto make it more difficult for the EU to go beyond the lowest common denominator of international instruments; -grant the US the right to enter into regulatory exchanges concerning the adoption of national legislation by Member States, including joint examination of possible means to promote regulatory compatibility; -grant the US formal rights with regards to implementing acts to be adopted pursuant to Article 291 TFEU, while the European Parliament has no right to scrutiny whatsoever with regard to implementing acts;
Amendment 129 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b d (new)
Paragraph 1 – point b d (new)
bd. reserve the right of public bodies to specify their public procurement rules using criteria such as locality, environmental impact, social welfare effects, tax justice; recognize in this regard the importance of buy-local food programs in both the EU and the US;
Amendment 130 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b e (new)
Paragraph 1 – point b e (new)
be. make explicit in the published draft EU textual proposal on SPS measures that the long term goal of aligning regulatory standards with regard to animal welfare should be to raise standards to the highest level rather than lowering them; strengthen the currently lacking enforcement mechanisms of animal welfare provisions; include animal welfare matters in the negotiations, provided that the Commission insists on explicit recognition of the need to harmonise standards to the highest level, and to include animal welfare production standards as a requirement for importing goods into the EU;
Amendment 132 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point c
Paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 147 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
ca. consider European regulation as standards necessary to ensure public and animal health, food safety and environmental sustainability, amongst other legitimate factors; reject their categorization as ‘technical barriers to trade’;
Amendment 157 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point d
Paragraph 1 – point d
d. secure a level playing field, treating as sensitive those products for which direct competition would expose EU agricultural producers to excessive pressure, for example in cases where regulatory conditions and related costs of production in the EU diverge from those in the US;
Amendment 172 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
da. ensure that no TTIP agreement contains any investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, as the given level of investment protection in the EU and in the US is fully sufficient to guarantee legal security;
Amendment 179 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point d b (new)
Paragraph 1 – point d b (new)
db. pay due account to 97% of citizens’ submissions during the Commission’s public consultation, which asked to exclude ISDS from TTIP; follow the example of countries such as Australia that have decided to no longer include ISDS provisions in its trade agreements;
Amendment 202 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
ea. ensure that all European food products which are protected by Protected Geographical Indications and Protected Designations of Origin are protected and promoted, and halt the use in the United States and the rest of the world of Designations and Indications linked to a particular area, such as Parmesan;
Amendment 204 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
ea. strengthen the guarantees and protection for the EU’s right to legislate on labelling and marking, considering it through the frame of traceability and consumer information, and not as a Technical Barrier to Trade1a ; ensure that TTIP shall in no way undermine the EU’s ability to provide traceability for food products and to inform consumers through regulation on country of origin labelling, labelling of production methods, or other forms of food labelling. __________________ 1a Article 8 of the EU&aposs Textual Proposal on ‘Technical Barriers to Trade,’ http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015 /january/tradoc_153025.pdf
Amendment 212 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point f
Paragraph 1 – point f
f. engage in a fully transparent, timely and comprehensive manner with all agricultural stakeholders on all aspects of the negotiations.stakeholders in the sector including civil society groups and the public on all aspects of the negotiations; ensure the continued participation of relevant civil society groups and the public within any bodies created by TTIP;
Amendment 220 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
fa. ensure transparency in the negotiations throughout the entire process; fulfil its obligation, according to TFEU Art 218.10, which the ECJ in a recent ruling has confirmed as of statutory character, to keep Parliament fully informed on an immediate basis at all stages of the negotiations; work towards an agreement with the US Administration regarding the access of all Parliamentarians to the consolidated negotiation texts; ensure access for the public to relevant negotiation documents from all parties, with the exception of those which are to be classified with clear justification on a case-by-case basis, in line with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;
Amendment 227 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point f b (new)
Paragraph 1 – point f b (new)
fb. publish impact assessments on the relevant farming sectors, such as livestock, arable crops and vegetable production, within the next 6 months;
Amendment 240 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Calls on the Commission to safeguard the future of European public healthcare services by their explicit exclusion from the scope of application of TTIP, in the same way that there is already a carve-out in TTIP for the audio-visual sector and reflecting the existing carve-out of healthcare services from the Services Directive *; * see recital 22 and Article 2(f) of Directive 2006/123/EC