

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Many warn that because existing tariffs between the partners already run low, at roughly three percent, the talks will largely focus on eliminating regulatory barriers.
"The [US Trade Representative's] office, representing corporate interests, will almost surely push for the lowest common standard," writes Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.
Ahead of the talks, over 60 pro-regulation groups from both sides of the Atlantic issued a letter to President Obama, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and European Council President Herman Van Rompuy, stating their opposition to the "use of behind-closed-door" tactics to "change and lower public interest measures for the sake of commercial interests." They continue:
A transatlantic agreement that is little more than a vehicle to facilitate deregulation would not only threaten to weaken critical consumer and environmental safeguards, but also conflict with the democratic principle that those living with the results of regulatory standards - residents of our countries - must be able to set those standards through the democratic process, even when doing so results in divergent standards that businesses may find inconvenient.
The groups said they fear the talks would yield "harmonized" regulations that defer to whichever of the trading partners has the lowest standards in a number of areas including drug safety, food safety, privacy, workers' rights and the environment.
"The likelihood that what emerges from the coming talks will serve ordinary Americans' interests is low. The outlook for ordinary citizens in other countries is even bleaker." -economist Joseph Stiglitz
With the US generally undercutting the EU's restrictions on food and chemicals, environmentalists warn that this may potentially open the door to the expansion of harmful practices such as the planting of genetically modified (GM) seeds.
International opposition to foods containing GMOs has long been a thorn in the side of American food giants and biotech companies such as Monsanto and Cargill.
"The stakes couldn't be higher," said Bill Waren, trade policy analyst at Friends of the Earth.
"The trans-Atlantic free trade agreement would give chemical companies and other multinational companies an effective weapon to roll back progress made over the last decade," he adds. "It could result in dangerous deregulation."
In a conference call Monday, groups also expressed concern that the terms "could give Europe unlimited access to US natural gas supplies and thus increase the use of 'fracking' to meet the demand for exports," the Washington Post reports.
Further, the Guardian reports that US firms including Facebook, Google and Microsoft are seeking the relaxation of European data privacy rules despite recent controversy-- following revelations disclosed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden--that the US is spying on its European counterparts.
Describing US tactics as "take no prisoners," Stiglitz notes that during negotiations "arms will be twisted, and there is a real risk that an agreement will sacrifice basic values to commercial interests."
Because of the size of the deal--covering 50% of global economic output and 30% of global trade--Jacob Kirkegaard, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said that the proposed pact "would create de facto global standards," which is worrisome for many.
Stiglitz concludes, "The likelihood that what emerges from the coming talks will serve ordinary Americans' interests is low. The outlook for ordinary citizens in other countries is even bleaker."
_____________________
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |

Many warn that because existing tariffs between the partners already run low, at roughly three percent, the talks will largely focus on eliminating regulatory barriers.
"The [US Trade Representative's] office, representing corporate interests, will almost surely push for the lowest common standard," writes Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.
Ahead of the talks, over 60 pro-regulation groups from both sides of the Atlantic issued a letter to President Obama, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and European Council President Herman Van Rompuy, stating their opposition to the "use of behind-closed-door" tactics to "change and lower public interest measures for the sake of commercial interests." They continue:
A transatlantic agreement that is little more than a vehicle to facilitate deregulation would not only threaten to weaken critical consumer and environmental safeguards, but also conflict with the democratic principle that those living with the results of regulatory standards - residents of our countries - must be able to set those standards through the democratic process, even when doing so results in divergent standards that businesses may find inconvenient.
The groups said they fear the talks would yield "harmonized" regulations that defer to whichever of the trading partners has the lowest standards in a number of areas including drug safety, food safety, privacy, workers' rights and the environment.
"The likelihood that what emerges from the coming talks will serve ordinary Americans' interests is low. The outlook for ordinary citizens in other countries is even bleaker." -economist Joseph Stiglitz
With the US generally undercutting the EU's restrictions on food and chemicals, environmentalists warn that this may potentially open the door to the expansion of harmful practices such as the planting of genetically modified (GM) seeds.
International opposition to foods containing GMOs has long been a thorn in the side of American food giants and biotech companies such as Monsanto and Cargill.
"The stakes couldn't be higher," said Bill Waren, trade policy analyst at Friends of the Earth.
"The trans-Atlantic free trade agreement would give chemical companies and other multinational companies an effective weapon to roll back progress made over the last decade," he adds. "It could result in dangerous deregulation."
In a conference call Monday, groups also expressed concern that the terms "could give Europe unlimited access to US natural gas supplies and thus increase the use of 'fracking' to meet the demand for exports," the Washington Post reports.
Further, the Guardian reports that US firms including Facebook, Google and Microsoft are seeking the relaxation of European data privacy rules despite recent controversy-- following revelations disclosed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden--that the US is spying on its European counterparts.
Describing US tactics as "take no prisoners," Stiglitz notes that during negotiations "arms will be twisted, and there is a real risk that an agreement will sacrifice basic values to commercial interests."
Because of the size of the deal--covering 50% of global economic output and 30% of global trade--Jacob Kirkegaard, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said that the proposed pact "would create de facto global standards," which is worrisome for many.
Stiglitz concludes, "The likelihood that what emerges from the coming talks will serve ordinary Americans' interests is low. The outlook for ordinary citizens in other countries is even bleaker."
_____________________

Many warn that because existing tariffs between the partners already run low, at roughly three percent, the talks will largely focus on eliminating regulatory barriers.
"The [US Trade Representative's] office, representing corporate interests, will almost surely push for the lowest common standard," writes Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.
Ahead of the talks, over 60 pro-regulation groups from both sides of the Atlantic issued a letter to President Obama, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and European Council President Herman Van Rompuy, stating their opposition to the "use of behind-closed-door" tactics to "change and lower public interest measures for the sake of commercial interests." They continue:
A transatlantic agreement that is little more than a vehicle to facilitate deregulation would not only threaten to weaken critical consumer and environmental safeguards, but also conflict with the democratic principle that those living with the results of regulatory standards - residents of our countries - must be able to set those standards through the democratic process, even when doing so results in divergent standards that businesses may find inconvenient.
The groups said they fear the talks would yield "harmonized" regulations that defer to whichever of the trading partners has the lowest standards in a number of areas including drug safety, food safety, privacy, workers' rights and the environment.
"The likelihood that what emerges from the coming talks will serve ordinary Americans' interests is low. The outlook for ordinary citizens in other countries is even bleaker." -economist Joseph Stiglitz
With the US generally undercutting the EU's restrictions on food and chemicals, environmentalists warn that this may potentially open the door to the expansion of harmful practices such as the planting of genetically modified (GM) seeds.
International opposition to foods containing GMOs has long been a thorn in the side of American food giants and biotech companies such as Monsanto and Cargill.
"The stakes couldn't be higher," said Bill Waren, trade policy analyst at Friends of the Earth.
"The trans-Atlantic free trade agreement would give chemical companies and other multinational companies an effective weapon to roll back progress made over the last decade," he adds. "It could result in dangerous deregulation."
In a conference call Monday, groups also expressed concern that the terms "could give Europe unlimited access to US natural gas supplies and thus increase the use of 'fracking' to meet the demand for exports," the Washington Post reports.
Further, the Guardian reports that US firms including Facebook, Google and Microsoft are seeking the relaxation of European data privacy rules despite recent controversy-- following revelations disclosed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden--that the US is spying on its European counterparts.
Describing US tactics as "take no prisoners," Stiglitz notes that during negotiations "arms will be twisted, and there is a real risk that an agreement will sacrifice basic values to commercial interests."
Because of the size of the deal--covering 50% of global economic output and 30% of global trade--Jacob Kirkegaard, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said that the proposed pact "would create de facto global standards," which is worrisome for many.
Stiglitz concludes, "The likelihood that what emerges from the coming talks will serve ordinary Americans' interests is low. The outlook for ordinary citizens in other countries is even bleaker."
_____________________