International Trade Today is a service of Warren Communications News.

TTIP Rules Threaten to Restrict GMO Labeling, Says Activist Coalition

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is edging toward non-tariff barrier rules that could scale back labeling regimes for food containing genetically modified organisms, said dozens of domestic and international health and activist groups in a Sept. 30 letter to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman. The vast majority of Americans want to know if the food they eat has GMOs in it, and state laws on the issue are increasing, but the TTIP negotiations are threatening to limit the right to label GMO products, said the letter.

Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article

If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.

U.S. and European Union corporate interests are angling to exceed World Trade Organization limits on technical barriers to trade through the TTIP negotiations, the groups said, referring to TTIP as the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement. “Inclusion of such WTO-plus requirements could invite challenges of GMO labeling policies before TAFTA dispute resolution panels,” said the letter. “This corporate goal for TAFTA threatens not just the EU’s robust GMO labeling policies, but also those being advanced in the United States.”

The groups also rejected the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement provisions, a hotly contested proposal, in a final pact. Such rules have already cost U.S. taxpayers $38 billion in pending “corporate claims against medicine patent policies, pollution cleanup requirements, climate and energy laws, and other public interest policies,” said the letter. The investor-state mechanism would allow corporations to challenge laws in court, essentially infringing on the “public’s will,” the letter added. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has fought hard to marginalize that argument, saying the mechanism would only uphold the laws in place (see 14032721).