EU won't sacrifice food safety for US trade deal

[Deleted]

Then do what you did, refuse the treaty.

Seems like the vast majority of citizens does. Some politicans, however, still try to push it.

[Ripster42]

Nobody I knows supports that nor do I. So, yeah. Protectionism isn't bad.

Ya, that's okay. If the population doesn't support it I don't want to invade or something and force it upon you. I just want my country to reciprocate that behavior towards trading blocs that exhibit it.

[Noradin]

Yes, and clearly the US isn't willing to open its markets for your products to compete fairly when you don't reciprocate.

If public demand is high enough that they want the trade treaty less than they want labels for GMO foods, then that's fine. That's not going to stop me from saying that people who want to label all gmo food are luddites who should be asking for product testing. Of course, that product testing would be the same as the product testing other foods would go through. And again, I'm not against making those standards as stringent as drug testing if you find some data to support that being necessary.

We can just make a few exceptions to the deal if we feel some things should stay protected. I see no problem with that.

I also see no problem with demanding any truthful labeling people wish for as long as it does not involve discrimination of protected groups.
What I have a problem with is not wanting to label something a certain way because people might use that information to make a decision. Because that speaks of an intend to decieve them. And I do not care at all if the label they want is silly. It is not as if you do not have said information. You are just purposefully trying to keep it hidden so people cannot use it to make their decision.

[Ripster42]

We can just make a few exceptions to the deal if we feel some things should stay protected. I see no problem with that.

I also see no problem with demanding any truthful labeling people wish for as long as it does not involve discrimination of protected groups.
What I have a problem with is not wanting to label something a certain way because people might use that information to make a decision. Because that speaks of an intend to decieve them. And I do not care at all if the label they want is silly. It is not as if you do not have said information. You are just purposefully trying to keep it hidden so people cannot use it to make their decision.

You don't because the exceptions benefit you. The US apparently doesn't see the treaty as in its interests if that issue isn't resolved. How many exceptions would the US have to include in its favor to rectify that imbalance?

[Deleted]

I don't think GMO are dangerous in itself, but as soon as corporations get their hands on it, they will prioritize productivity at the expense of everything else, and then non GMO crops wont be able to compete.

Otherwise, I think GMO are a great thing

[Daerio]

You don't because the exceptions benefit you. The US apparently doesn't see the treaty as in its interests if that issue isn't resolved. How many exceptions would the US have to include in its favor to rectify that imbalance?

Corporate interest doesn't like the exception, but that doesn't mean a treaty without such an exemption wouldn't be in the US's favor.

Corporate interest gets confused with American interests a lot.

[Tasty]

Well when you or a loved one are dying and need an organ transplant, then I hope you don't turn to good old Prometheus for a cloned organ made in a 3d printer because that would just be playing god and messing around with genetics.

Sure he would turn to good old Prometheus for a cloned organ, if that was to save X persons life :-) But X person proberbly wouldnt need it because the person was not eating your GMO .. While Monsanto is leading the way for GMOs i will keep purchasing organic products from mother earth.

For lulz watch >> Lobbyist Claims Monsanto's Roundup Is Safe To Drink, Freaks Out When Offered A Glass <<
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM
This is MONSANTO ppl :-)

[Daerio]

"I'm not an idiot, I know it's not safe, but I want all you guys to think it is."

[Ripster42]

Corporate interest doesn't like the exception, but that doesn't mean a treaty without such an exemption wouldn't be in the US's favor.

Corporate interest gets confused with American interests a lot.

We're talking about farming here in the US vs farming in the EU when we're talking about GMOs. So we wouldn't get the boost from our competitive advantage in farming, yet you would get a boost in other areas where you hold a competitive advantage hurting our domestic sectors in those industries. The US apparently sees the treaty minus our farming/food would harm our economy more than it would help it. Why allow other countries to only choose free trade in industries where they have a competitive advantage? That's not a corporate interest there. That's a general US economy issue.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure he would turn to good old Prometheus for a cloned organ, if that was to save X persons life :-) But X person proberbly wouldnt need it because the person was not eating your GMO .. While Monsanto is leading the way for GMOs i will keep purchasing organic products from mother earth.

For lulz watch >> Lobbyist Claims Monsanto's Roundup Is Safe To Drink, Freaks Out When Offered A Glass <<
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM
This is MONSANTO ppl :-)

Lobbyists are stupid. That doesn't mean it's not safe to use in dosages strong enough to be effective as a pesticide.

BTW, your "organic products" do more damage to the environment. The runoff from fields that don't use GMOs in the US is way higher.

[Noradin]

You don't because the exceptions benefit you. The US apparently doesn't see the treaty as in its interests if that issue isn't resolved. How many exceptions would the US have to include in its favor to rectify that imbalance?

I do not know, I'm not from the US so I wouldn't take the liberty to make a proposition.

And please note that I didn't say that I was opposed to make exceptions if they benefit the USA. In fact I have explicitly stated that if they have some area where they feel they need to keep some protectionism in place then they should ask for an exception for that field.

[Ripster42]

I do not know, I'm not from the US so I wouldn't take the liberty to make a proposition.

Ag by itself is about a trillion dollar industry in the US. So find industries where you (the EU) hold competitive advantages worth 27% (about what the US competitive advantage is for GMO vs non-GMO) of that.

Then add food. And do the same thing with that. It basically negates the treaty.

[Noradin]

We're talking about farming here in the US vs farming in the EU when we're talking about GMOs. So we wouldn't get the boost from our competitive advantage in farming, yet you would get a boost in other areas where you hold a competitive advantage hurting our domestic sectors in those industries. The US apparently sees the treaty minus our farming/food would harm our economy more than it would help it. Why allow other countries to only choose free trade in industries where they have a competitive advantage? That's not a corporate interest there. That's a general US economy issue.

If you have some area where you see a need for protectionism due to non-economical reasons then by all means protect them.
We feel we need a way to transfer money for the upkeep of our landscape and ecology and wouldn't want that mechanism to suddenly leak money to US corperations who do not do any of ther work it is meant to pay for. If you have similar mechanics in use then you should protect those, too.

- - - Updated - - -

Ag by itself is about a trillion dollar industry in the US. So find industries where you (the EU) hold competitive advantages worth 27% (about what the US competitive advantage is for GMO vs non-GMO) of that.

Then add food. And do the same thing with that. It basically negates the treaty.

If you think so then you should not accept it, be advised however that if you were to get the treaty to include agriculture we would need to change this mechanism that keeps prices up with tax money and use the tax money to directly pay our farmers for their upkeep of the landscape (which would of course act as an subsidy).
It is simply not an option for us to let that land run to seed, we do not have the space the USA do and our countryside has ben transformed into an agricultural ecosystem centuries ago. We cannot just abandon it and expect no diamentral effects.

You see, even with the free trade treaty including agriculture we would still need to transfer money to our farmers, we would just have to change the mechanism we use. You would not get access to our market at the current price range anyway. Those prices would drop tremedously and we would transfer the money as subsidies instead. Because we must pay for the upkeep done here somehow.

[Ripster42]

If you have some area where you see a need for protectionism due to non-economical reasons then by all means protect them.
We feel we need a way to transfer money for the upkeep of our landscape and ecology and wouldn't want that mechanism to suddenly leak money to US corperations who do not do any of ther work it is meant to pay for. If you have similar mechanics in use then you should protect those, too.

They'd be for purely economical reasons. Again, there's no point in taking a deal that hurts you more than it helps you. Remember, the US and the EU already have trade deals in place. This would just open up more industries to free trade.

[Noradin]

They'd be for purely economical reasons. Again, there's no point in taking a deal that hurts you more than it helps you. Remember, the US and the EU already have trade deals in place. This would just open up more industries to free trade.

I repeat: If you do not think it is beneficial to you do not take it.
We will do the same. I for one rate an ecological reason higher than a projected economical one.

[Ripster42]

I repeat: If you do not think it is beneficial to you do not take it.
We will do the same. I for one rate an ecological reason higher than a projected economical one.

I feel like we're saying the same thing. You (the EU) didn't like the deal. The US isn't then going to just x out a huge benefit for the US and not ask for equal concessions. It looks like you don't have enough concessions to give to equal it out, or just aren't willing to, but we'll see.

[Slant]

This is how it is, last year EU exported twice as much stuff to the US as the US did to the EU. This is because of EU protectionism, if it doesn't get fair quick, the legislatures will legislate, tariffs will be imposed, people will lose work.

Trump as said he's going to correct all these trade imbalances if he's elected.

You guys don't get it. We don't export more because we prevent your exports by customs. Anything you do, literally anything you sell, is cheaper than what we produce, even with customs. That's not the point. We don't want your stuff as much as you do ours. There's a reason you hardly sell many cars in Europe, they're shite. On the other hand, you can see a shitton of upper segment luxury cars from Europe in the US, because you just love throwing money at status symbols.

- - - Updated - - -

The word protectionism does not mean what you think it means. Protectionism means using market regulations to overly favor domestic industries over foreign industries. So forcing American companies to comply with the EU's higher regulations is a form of protectionism because it all but forces those American companies to buy from local producers rather than being able to import their cheaper American ingredients (which could actually be profitable, believe it or not). Now, I think it's perfectly fine and reasonable, but the definition of protectionism is clearly about governments showing favoritism to domestic industries over foreign ones which can only be bad if it leads to market collapses like it did in the great depression. So again, I'm not against protectionism and enforcing your standards on companies doing business in your land, but don't call the US trying to loosen standards in the EU protectionism because it isn't.

Do not try to educate me on what I think or mean or think to mean. Let's stick to your definition. The EU asks nothing more of the US than to adhere to EU labelling regulations. You do not want to do that. EVERYONE else in the EU already complies with those rules. Yet, you think you're the special snowflake that can just sneak undeclared stuff in and then has the fucking nerve to complain when we perk up and say "Huh? What's this? You don't want to declare the content like everyone else? Can't have that, same rules for everyone."

What you call protectionism... and this doesn't get much better... what you call protectionism is actually about equality as far as we're concerned. And you'll find that this type of equality is a bit stricter than it is in the US. In some cases, Germany, your offer would bounce back with a little note saying "Ha. Ha. Ha." and not much else than that. You'd directly violate the constution and they couldn't let you do that even if they wanted to. Same goes with the ludicrous idea of suing gouvernments. You can appeal to regulation courts like everyone else, but no, you do not get to sue England based on your punk ass wild west legislation that you call the US Code...

And again, YOU want something from US. Keep that in mind.

[Deleted]

When? Would you care to link them?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/GMO

Rationalwiki is the most liberal website on the internet and even they think GMO attacks are pseudo-scientific.

It is Wikipedia which is already a left-wing website.

What you linked instead is a comical* website, and yet uncyclopedia is more funny.

*Poe's law

- - - Updated - - -

To try being a little propositive, I think the US should try find easier ways to impose their own conditions here.

Like a war.

[Ripster42]

And again, YOU want something from US. Keep that in mind.

Yes, and YOU want something from US. That's the whole point of making a deal. If it was just us getting everything there would never be a point in ever making a deal. We're not interested in further relaxing tariffs if we feel like our economy is getting boned in the deal compared to yours. We'll see what industries the deal ends up covering if it ever happens.

[Deleted]

Are people from the US against it too? Or in favour?

We in the EUK don't really look forward to eating bread with youga-mat materials in it but I wonder what the arguements are on the other side.

[Canpinter]

For those saying gmos still need more testing i have to ask how much testing would be necessary to convince you.