Critics of trade talks warn of reckless deregulation

{mosads}Lowering those barriers too far could give foreign interests new powers to sue the U.S. government and enable an explosion
of unchecked “fracking,” while at the same time, locking in lax food and
chemical regulations, the critics say.

More than 60
pro-regulation groups from the United States and Europe urged strong
public protections in a letter to President Obama, European Commission
President José Manuel Barroso and European Council President Herman Van
Rompuy.

In it, they say business interests have dominated the
process leading up to the talks and claim they are intent on undermining
regulations designed to protect consumers.

“Their agenda is to
use these negotiations as a means to pursue deregulation efforts that
have been unsuccessful to date,” the groups wrote.

Of particular
concern, they said, is the likelihood that negotiators will include in the
agreement an investor-state dispute settlement provision, which would
allow foreign investors to challenge U.S. government decisions under
international law.

“Investor-state rules could erase vital
public health and safety standards simply because foreign corporations
argue that they would lower their profits,” said Ilana Solomon, Sierra
Club’s trade representative.

Solomon also said the negotiations
could lead to significantly increased U.S. hydraulic fracturing or
fracking activity, a drilling method that has resulted in a U.S. oil and
gas production boom but has also raised fears of water and air
pollution.

The EU is eager to step up imports of U.S. natural gas,
in part because its own member states do not allow fracking, she said.
Solomon said the agreement must contain language giving the U.S.
government the ability to maintain control over gas exports.

“We cannot afford unchecked exports of fracked gas,” she said.

The
groups said they fear the talks would yield “harmonized” regulations
that defer to whichever of the trading partners has the lowest
standards. In some areas, U.S. standards are weaker than European ones,
and the groups said deferring to them would be tantamount to blocking
ongoing efforts to improve certain rules.

For example,
regulations involving the slaughter of livestock, as well as the use of
hormones and genetically engineering in food, are far more stringent in
Europe, said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade
Watch.

Harmonizing regulations to American standards would not
do enough to protect consumers across North America and Europe, she
said.

Similarly, the EU boasts stronger rules to protect public
health and the environment from hazardous chemicals, said William Waren,
trade policy analyst for the group Friends of the Earth.

Thus,
the agreement could give multinational chemical companies “an effective
weapon, to roll back progress in the EU over recent years.

“It could result in dangerous deregulation,” he said.

It
remains to be seen whether the groups’ concerns will be addressed
in the months ahead. But at the outset of the talks, U.S. Trade
Representative Michael Froman signaled a willingness to smooth over
regulatory differences in an effort to ease the flow of commerce between
across the Atlantic. 

“We have the opportunity to work together
to establish and enforce international norms and standards that will
help inform and strengthen the multilateral, rules-based trading
system,” Froman said Monday, according to prepared remarks.