Brussels, 30/11/2015 (Agence Europe) - To reassure MEPs on the agriculture chapter of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP), United States Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in Brussels on Monday 30 November that what had to be found in negotiations were equivalent - but not necessarily identical - systems.
Addressing the European Parliament agriculture committee, Vilsack emphasised the points in common between European and American farmers: pride in their roots, a belief in hard work and sustainability, the twin goal of producing food and contributing to food security, the need to extend market opportunities and to respond to the challenge of climate change. On this last point, the Americans think they can double their reduction rate of emissions from agriculture (through a voluntary scheme).
He stressed, too, that US agriculture is not “monolithic” but highly diverse, with family farms, many farms producing GMOs, though more and more are turning to organic methods, he pointed out. He also highlighted the need to reduce food waste: a third of the world's food products are thrown away.
He sang the praises of trade agreements for US farmers, highlighting the recent trans-Pacific partnership agreement, which seeks to integrate the economies of the Asia-Pacific and American regions. He suggested that farmers in Europe could also derive benefit from the Asian market.
Vilsack acknowledged that there were some “very serious challenges” and difficult decisions to be taken in negotiations on the agriculture chapter of TTIP. “We see food security differently”, he admitted. The EU has its geographical indications while the US has its trademarks, including parmesan and mozzarella. He also spoke of the differences that exist on sanitary and phytosanitary issues. “The objective is not to have identical systems but equivalent systems”, said Vilsack, stressing that the goals are similar on both sides of the Atlantic.
Albert Dess (EPP, Germany) said that he was in favour of an agreement on TTIP but only if the conditions were right. He criticised the reference to import licence schemes. Paolo De Castro (S&D, Italy) argued for a clearer labelling system. James Nicholson (ECR, UK) stated that the agriculture sector must not be an exchange currency in TTIP negotiations. He expressed his concern at the possible disappearance of whole swathes of agricultural sectors in Europe, such as beef and sugar beet. Martin Häusling (Greens/EFA, Germany) listed the bones of contention: genetic engineering, hormone use, the labelling of cloned animals, geographical indications, and more. John Stuart Agnew (ALDE, UK) highlighted the poultry sector and spoke of differing practices in antibiotics, decontamination of carcasses and the colour of eggs (white in the US) that would be difficult for EU consumers to accept.
Taking questions, Vilsack highlighted: - the positive reaction from US farmers to the new Farm Bill (compensations schemes for disasters, aid for dairy producers in the event of price collapse, etc.); - the fact that agriculture is most often the last chapter to be resolved in trade agreements (it is something “very personal, very close to the heart” of all producer countries, he said); - that there will be no TTIP which does not contain agriculture (it would not be passed by the US Congress); - if an American farmer fails to sell something in Europe, he/she will try something else (it is for the consumer, not the government to decide). Lastly, he defended the US taxes on butter (the result of a significant increase in imports) which are due to lapse at the end of this year, he stated. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)