Chris' Lounge

Is there any reason to fear TTIP? A recent news journal about “TTIP” (which stands for “Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership”) asserted that the negotiations taking place right now between the USA and the EU, may in fact leave most of us as the big losers – lost somewhere in the details of corporate laws that are unfairly designed; and global/multi-national corporations alternatively are the big financial winners. Are they eating this food too? Some say now, genetically modified food (as one product example), poses no risk by health quality. But is that true? How about non genetically modified foods? Can they compete anymore? Can these food products never be scrutinized for qualitative review in the future; will we ever get answers about safety? Is TTIP being crafted to favor companies using unfair laws? Are negotiators favoring big corporations, or, are they protecting consumers and good commerce? How are the governments negotiating? Are the governments concerned about consumer protection? Are they more concerned about consequence of snubbing huge corporate earning entities? These are all questions posed by the journal. In the journal, speculative in nature, companies may be protecting their earnings pre-emptive to court proceedings, and are negotiating to design law in their favor, within the TTIP written laws.
Who stands to lose, once a bad product would be banned? Certainly not the consumer. Many people may be saying and hoping that the trade talks are motivated by a mutual desire in increasing the standards among the USA and the EU. Effectively, over time, permitting the best products to win, and putting the worst producers out of business. Then these winning products can support global commerce. Is TTIP going to protect bad product? This was not my understanding. I have been (maybe) blindly optimistic.
The trade deal should be based on allowing, over time, both the survival and death to companies. Verifiable quality, per product, must increase. Industry by industry, case by case, product by product, both the EU and USA must abide to protect consumers and business, and with the biggest companies that are known to be harmful, must permit them to fail in court. And the hope would be, for a higher level of quality across all products being traded – with fair tax systems that stimulate the growth of small or large business; and the hope to deliver healthy competition that seems a past time in some cases. The hope is, for the highest quality and binding consumer protection laws. Would this not stabilize prices?
To my readers who read my earlier support for the trade of US oil export, I do have to say that my understanding of TTIP as it is currently being negotiated, was and still is not sufficient. Many questions you may have, I do as well. This is something that we are waiting to find out more about. According to the recent speculative journal, I see that there is concern among the public, that documents are not being released about recent extensive TTIP talks. It does take time to craft something as complex I think. The journal does cite concern however of a seeming lack of transparency. Two advocates (one a politician) are frustrated over lack of parliamentary debate now. Maybe that is yet to come. Some few blacked-out documents have alarmed these two observing politicians and/or rights advocates.
The bolstered trade, through TTIP, as I believed, would have been motivated by a desire to aid a faltering US economy (I hadn’t connected that to genetically modified food corporations’ hunger for profit, as was stated). Boosted trade agreements, in theory and practice, ought to consider price stabilization benefits. These would be critical for a very stagnant and struggling American commerce, that has for many years suffered from exportation of labor – known as “out-sourcing” and costs of war and global interventions. Effectively, “out-sourcing” has sent money away from the US for decades. EU debts have evidently also stimulated EU desire (as one reason) to boost trade with the US as partner. Together, huge producers. The benefits of good quality and affordable “made in America” products, would be a reliable source for the EU consumers as well. That’s how I generally perceived TTIP.
That’s also why it sounds “sound” to me.
Food products that are harmful, being protected under a potentially unbalanced agreement, is clearly dangerous to consumers. Just as chemicals in other types of products can be. I think many of us Americans assumed that an EU at the negotiating table would only increase consumer protection standards, as they advocate on our behalf as well as their own. As TTIP is being drafted, is there any reason to fear it?