TTIP - Why German scorn could kill Europe's trade deal - by Therese Raphae

In Hannover on Sunday, Barack Obama sought to convince a hostile German public of the merits of a transatlantic free-trade deal. Pitching European Union membership in Britain was a walk in the park by comparison.

It's hard to overstate the level of opposition to the new deal in Germany. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, is more unpopular in Germany these days than President Obama in a room full of Tory euroskeptics. Ask an American what they think about investor-state dispute settlement provisions and you are likely to get a blank face. Ask a German, and there's a good chance you'll get an earful.

That wasn't always the case. Two years ago, when negotiations for a new transatlantic trade deal were announced (it was Germany that pushed for an agreement then, by the way), more than half of Germans favored the deal. A survey released last week showed only one in five Germans want it now. To Germans, TTIP reflects a capitalism that is too finance-driven, dominated by large multinationals, cavalier about privacy and not as serious about product standards.

A new round of negotiations -- the 13th, for anyone keeping track -- started in New York Monday for a pact that would liberalize trade affecting 40 percent of the global economy. The key to a deal, as Obama's Hannover visit suggested, rests with Germany. That a global exporting powerhouse and Europe's biggest economy has become such reluctant partner ought to be at least as worrying as the prospect of losing Britain's voice in the EU.

It's unusual even in these highly charged times for a trade agreement to receive the kind of attention that TTIP has in parts of Europe. But TTIP isn't a typical free-trade agreement. For one thing, it's much bigger than anything attempted before. It would create the world's largest free market of some 800 million people. According to U.S. chamber of commerce estimates, it would add 119 billion euros (nearly $134 billion) to Europe's economy and 95 billion euros to the U.S. economy, creating thousands of jobs in the process.

But the real difference is qualitative. While tariffs are already low between the two economies (they would be reduced further under TTIP), the main thrust of the agreement is the removal of non-tariff barriers in agriculture, services, procurement and other areas. It is this large-scale regulatory liberalization that many Europeans, and principally Germans, find dangerous.

Americans, too, are losing their appetite for free trade agreements, but their reasons are rather more prosaic. Among Americans opposed to the deal, half say they are worried about job losses and lower wages. Only 17 percent of Germans had those concerns. Germans, instead, are focused on what they see as inferior American standards (something that will strike many Americans as ironic after the Volkswagen emission scandal), concerns about privacy and also lack of transparency in the negotiations.

These sentiments took American negotiators by surprise. America is the destination of over 8 percent of German exports; some 600,000 German jobs directly or indirectly depend on that trade, according to a 2013 study by the Cologne Institute for Economic Research. German trust for America's business standards has been low for a while -- there was near hysteria over chlorine-washed U.S. chickens, even though a German body declared them perfectly safe -- but many figured France would present bigger obstacles to clinching an agreement.

They hadn't reckoned on the Snowden effect. TTIP was announced only weeks after revelations in 2013 by U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden of government surveillance programs that enraged privacy-oriented Germans. With German opinion becoming more skeptical, politicians who supported a transatlantic deal grew quiet. Meanwhile anti-TTIP organizations and unions (with support in the European Parliament) whipped up resistance, which has included mass petitions and protests.

All of that fed a growing sense after the financial crisis that something was awry in American capitalism. "Germany is a country that is very proud it's not as finance-driven as the Anglo-Saxon economic model," says Peter Sparding, a fellow at the German Marshall Fund, noting that German politicians have referred to hedge funds as 'locusts.' "It's not just about TTIP; it's about the image of America as standing for a kind of capitalism that is finance-driven and has lower standards in general."

In the post-Snowden, post financial-crisis world, there is little tolerance for the kind of secrecy that is typical of trade negotiations. Responding to criticism from Germany and other countries about lack of transparency in January 2015, the EU's ombudsman rejected a complaint that the European Commission had overstepped itself. But she made 10 suggestions for greater openness and noted there were "significant delays" by the Commission in granting public access to some TTIP documents.

Disclosing negotiating documents would undermine the Commission's position and its relations with the U.S., said the ombudsman. She also referred to a European Court of Justice ruling that while transparency isn't irrelevant in international negotiations, institutions decide whether disclosure of documents would work against the public interest.

The Commission argues it has gone beyond the usual practice and published negotiation position papers, conducted stakeholder meetings and launched a public consultation process over investor-state dispute settlement. That's a losing argument; the transparency debate is a proxy for the underlying mistrust in both EU processes and American standards on everything from hormone-treated beef to labor-market regulations. The EU will have to do more to overcome those objections or risk further losing public trust. The German Marshall Fund's Sparding suggests the unconventional approach of releasing intermediate negotiating results.
As he said in Hannover, Obama would dearly like to see agreement on the trade deal before he checks out of the White House. Obama and other proponents see TTIP as more than a stand-alone trade deal; it's a way to reinvigorate the transatlantic partnership and set new global standards for trade.

But time is running out, as is German Chancellor Angela Merkel's political capital with an electorate already deeply tested over immigration and other issues. America's presidential contenders don't see much percentage in touting free trade either; quite the opposite. The new U.S. president, even if he or she has a change of heart, will be busy filling positions in their administration. With major elections in France and Germany in 2017, the political timetable is working against an agreement.

Perhaps if the idea for TTIP had never been broached, nobody would miss it. But having gone this far, failure would be costly, and not just in terms of lost economic opportunities. It would stand as a sorry symbol of allies and close trading partners who couldn't overcome their difference over chlorine-washed chicken.
- - -
Therese Raphael is a Bloomberg View editor in London, writing about European politics and economics. She was previously editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal Europe.

Read more: Why German scorn could kill Europe's trade deal - Chicago Tribune

EU-TTIP: Meet the Corporations Lobbying Hardest for TTIP and the End of Democracy - by Graham Vanbergen

It is quite incredible that the unelected bureaucrats of the EU Commission are even entertaining such an idea as the deeply unpopular TTIP trade deal amid huge citizen protest whilst already facing multiple episodes of social, political and economic unrest and crisis as the demise of the European project gathers pace.

TTIP: A secret and bad deal

The EU is experiencing extensive political threats and upheaval from left and right of centre political groups angry at EU imposed austerity. Greece is being raped by its so-called partners and it is just one of several other EU states en-route to ruin.

The declining global economic picture provides all the more reason for the corporations to look for new avenues of revenue. But which businesses are pushing most for the proposed EU-US trade deal TTIP? And who is really influencing EU negotiators? And just how are the rights of European citizens represented in the biggest trade deal in history?

Just in Brussels alone, there are now over 30,000 corporate lobbyists, shadowy agitators as The Guardian puts it, who are responsible for influencing three quarters of legislation in the EU. But even they are left in the shade when it comes to the power being afforded to corporations in the TTIP negotiations.

The US Chamber of Commerce, the wealthiest of all US corporate lobbies, and DigitalEurope (whose members include all the big IT names, like Apple, Blackberry, IBM, and Microsoft) are there.
BusinessEurope, the European employers’ federation and one of the most powerful lobby groups in the EU are there.

Transatlantic Business Council, a corporate lobby group representing over 70 EU and US-based multinationals. ACEA, the car lobby (working for BMW, Ford, Renault, and others) and CEFIC, the Chemical Industry Council (lobbying for BASF, Bayer, Dow, and the like) are all there.

European Services Forum, a lobby outfit banding together large services companies and federations such as Deutsche Bank, Telefónica, and TheCityUK, representing the UK’s banking industry are there as are Europe’s largest pharmaceutical industry association (representing some of the biggest and most powerful pharma companies in the world such as GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, and Roche).

FoodDrinkEurope, the biggest food industry lobby group (representing multinationals like Nestlé, Coca Cola, and Unilever) are sitting at the negotiating table as well.

However, 20% of all corporates lobbying the EU trade department are not listed on the EU’s transparency register. This amounts to 80 organisations. Industry associations such as the world’s largest biotechnology lobby BIO, US pharmaceutical lobby group PhrMA, and the American Chemical Council are lobbying in the shadows.

More than one third of all US companies and industry associations which have lobbied on TTIP (37 out of 91) are not in the EU register. Even Levi Jeans lurks in this murky group unwilling to publicly identify themselves.

The EU Commission even decided in its wisdom that its ‘transparency’ register was not mandatory or the issues being lobbied on do not require admission in any way. Hardly transparent.

The United States has achieved most of the privately held meetings behind closed doors. They represent the top ten of biggest spenders of all lobbyists. ExxonMobil, Microsoft, Dow, Google, and General Electric all spend more than €3 million per year on lobbying the EU institutions.

Big pharmaceutical organisations have stepped up their lobbying for TTIP and this is particularly worrying.

The pharmaceutical sector is pushing for a TTIP agenda with potentially severe implications for access to medicines and public health. Longer monopolies through strengthened intellectual property rules and limits on price-controlling policies in TTIP could drive up prices for medicines and costs for national health systems. Misery and death in exchange for profit.

The banking sector have lobbied hard for financial regulations that they would like to see scrapped via TTIP.

From US rules on capital reserves (which require companies to keep aside a proportion of capital available to avoid risk of collapse or bailout), to regulations on too-big-to-fail foreign banks. Big finance on both sides of the Atlantic is also lobbying for a dedicated TTIP chapter on financial regulation, which could lead to the delay, watering down, or outright block of much needed reform and control of the financial sector necessary to avoid another financial meltdown. Where is the sense in that?
 
When European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström took office in November 2014 she promised a “fresh start” for the TTIP negotiations, including more civil society involvement and listening to public concerns as her “top priority”. Lets not forget that the EU Commission undertook the largest ever survey of the EU bloc on the subject in 2014 and garnered 150,000 responses, more than 100 times more than any previous consultation on trade — and admitted that the majority of respondents expressed fears that the deal’s investment clauses would undermine national sovereignty. What the Commission did not say was of that 150,000, 97% were opposed to TTIP.

In the first six months since Malmström took office, she, her Cabinet and the director general of the EU trade department had 121 one-on-one lobby meetings behind closed doors in which TTIP was discussed. No less than 83% of these declared meetings were with business lobbyists – but only 16.7% were held with public interest groups.

The fact that Malmström and her team seem to primarily deal with the arguments of business representatives raises serious concerns that industry lobbyists continue to dominate the agenda of the TTIP talks and crowd out citizens’ interests. It is noteworthy that in ameeting with French employer’s federation (MEDEF) on 26 March 2015, for example, the EU trade department was warned that “the 19 million European SMEs which do not export will face increased competition” from TTIP.

To fully gauge who is being listened to one only has to read that of 597 closed-door TTIP meetings in the period 2102-14, only 53 or 9% were represented by public interest groups. And nothing has improved.

A small example of corporations over people, came about in 2012 when the trade department within the EU specifically contacted the crop pesticides industry who were actively encouraged to “identify opportunities of closer cooperation.” The response was that CropLife America demanded “significant harmonisation” for pesticide residues in food. Trade unions, environmentalists, and consumer groups did not receive such special invites.

Likewise, The Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA), got an email from the EU Trade department thanking “you for your readiness to work with us”, and offering a meeting, “to discuss about your proposal, ask for clarification and consider next steps”. Again, public interest groups did not receive this special treatment.

Another example of the formidable alliance between EU negotiators and the corporate sector are the two most powerful lobby groups invited to ‘co-write’ TTIP regulations by the EU trade department. Another is the enthusiasm in the financial lobby community for the EU’s approach on financial regulation in TTIP. When the EU’s position on the issue was leaked in early 2014, Richard Normington, Senior Manager of the Policy and Public Affairs team at TheCityUK – a key British financial lobby group – applauded the Commission’s proposals, because it “reflected so closely the approach of TheCityUK that a bystander would have thought it came straight out of our brochure on TTIP”.

The largest single petition in history was against Monsanto with a staggering 2.1 million signatures that has since been eclipsed by the petition StopTTIP that has garnered 3.3 million signatures. But this single petition is massively overshadowed by the millions involved in protests groups all over Europe. The goal is to arrest the corporate coups d’état of Europe currently being facilitated by people like David Cameron, Cecilia Malmström and Barack Obama.

For Britain, in the firing line of that take-over by corporations is the NHS, food and environmental safety, regulations to stop an out-of-control banking industry, privacy, security and jobs to name just a few. Most importantly, our hard fought for democracy is not just undermined – it’s for sale to the highest bidder.

It is quite incredible that the unelected bureaucrats of the EU Commission are even entertaining such an idea as the deeply unpopular TTIP trade deal amid huge citizen protest whilst already facing multiple episodes of social, political and economic unrest and crisis as the demise of the European project gathers pace.

The EU is experiencing extensive political threats and upheaval from left and right of centre political groups angry at EU imposed austerity. Greece is being raped by its so-called partners and it is just one of several other EU states en-route to ruin.

The declining global economic picture provides all the more reason for the corporations to look for new avenues of revenue. But which businesses are pushing most for the proposed EU-US trade deal TTIP? And who is really influencing EU negotiators? And just how are the rights of European citizens represented in the biggest trade deal in history?

Just in Brussels alone, there are now over 30,000 corporate lobbyists, shadowy agitators as The Guardian puts it, who are responsible for influencing three quarters of legislation in the EU. But even they are left in the shade when it comes to the power being afforded to corporations in the TTIP negotiations.

The US Chamber of Commerce, the wealthiest of all US corporate lobbies, and DigitalEurope (whose members include all the big IT names, like Apple, Blackberry, IBM, and Microsoft) are there.
BusinessEurope, the European employers’ federation and one of the most powerful lobby groups in the EU are there.

Transatlantic Business Council, a corporate lobby group representing over 70 EU and US-based multinationals. ACEA, the car lobby (working for BMW, Ford, Renault, and others) and CEFIC, the Chemical Industry Council (lobbying for BASF, Bayer, Dow, and the like) are all there.

European Services Forum, a lobby outfit banding together large services companies and federations such as Deutsche Bank, Telefónica, and TheCityUK, representing the UK’s banking industry are there as are Europe’s largest pharmaceutical industry association (representing some of the biggest and most powerful pharma companies in the world such as GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, and Roche).

FoodDrinkEurope, the biggest food industry lobby group (representing multinationals like Nestlé, Coca Cola, and Unilever) are sitting at the negotiating table as well.

However, 20% of all corporates lobbying the EU trade department are not listed on the EU’s transparency register. This amounts to 80 organisations. Industry associations such as the world’s largest biotechnology lobby BIO, US pharmaceutical lobby group PhrMA, and the American Chemical Council are lobbying in the shadows. More than one third of all US companies and industry associations which have lobbied on TTIP (37 out of 91) are not in the EU register. Even Levi Jeans lurks in this murky group unwilling to publicly identify themselves.

The EU Commission even decided in its wisdom that its ‘transparency’ register was not mandatory or the issues being lobbied on do not require admission in any way. Hardly transparent.

The United States has achieved most of the privately held meetings behind closed doors. They represent the top ten of biggest spenders of all lobbyists. ExxonMobil, Microsoft, Dow, Google, and General Electric all spend more than €3 million per year on lobbying the EU institutions.

Big pharmaceutical organisations have stepped up their lobbying for TTIP and this is particularly worrying. The pharmaceutical sector is pushing for a TTIP agenda with potentially severe implications for access to medicines and public health. Longer monopolies through strengthened intellectual property rules and limits on price-controlling policies in TTIP could drive up prices for medicines and costs for national health systems. Misery and death in exchange for profit.

The banking sector have lobbied hard for financial regulations that they would like to see scrapped via TTIP. From US rules on capital reserves (which require companies to keep aside a proportion of capital available to avoid risk of collapse or bailout), to regulations on too-big-to-fail foreign banks. Big finance on both sides of the Atlantic is also lobbying for a dedicated TTIP chapter on financial regulation, which could lead to the delay, watering down, or outright block of much needed reform and control of the financial sector necessary to avoid another financial meltdown. Where is the sense in that?

When European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström took office in November 2014 she promised a “fresh start” for the TTIP negotiations, including more civil society involvement and listening to public concerns as her “top priority”. Lets not forget that the EU Commission undertook the largest ever survey of the EU bloc on the subject in 2014 and garnered 150,000 responses, more than 100 times more than any previous consultation on trade — and admitted that the majority of respondents expressed fears that the deal’s investment clauses would undermine national sovereignty. What the Commission did not say was of that 150,000, 97% were opposed to TTIP.

In the first six months since Malmström took office, she, her Cabinet and the director general of the EU trade department had 121 one-on-one lobby meetings behind closed doors in which TTIP was discussed. No less than 83% of these declared meetings were with business lobbyists – but only 16.7% were held with public interest groups.

The fact that Malmström and her team seem to primarily deal with the arguments of business representatives raises serious concerns that industry lobbyists continue to dominate the agenda of the TTIP talks and crowd out citizens’ interests. It is noteworthy that in ameeting with French employer’s federation (MEDEF) on 26 March 2015, for example, the EU trade department was warned that “the 19 million European SMEs which do not export will face increased competition” from TTIP.

To fully gauge who is being listened to one only has to read that of 597 closed-door TTIP meetings in the period 2102-14, only 53 or 9% were represented by public interest groups. And nothing has improved.
A small example of corporations over people, came about in 2012 when the trade department within the EU specifically contacted the crop pesticides industry who were actively encouraged to “identify opportunities of closer cooperation.” The response was that CropLife America demanded “significant harmonisation” for pesticide residues in food. Trade unions, environmentalists, and consumer groups did not receive such special invites.

Likewise, The Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA), got an email from the EU Trade department thanking “you for your readiness to work with us”, and offering a meeting, “to discuss about your proposal, ask for clarification and consider next steps”. Again, public interest groups did not receive this special treatment.

Another example of the formidable alliance between EU negotiators and the corporate sector are the two most powerful lobby groups invited to ‘co-write’ TTIP regulations by the EU trade department. Another is the enthusiasm in the financial lobby community for the EU’s approach on financial regulation in TTIP. When the EU’s position on the issue was leaked in early 2014, Richard Normington, Senior Manager of the Policy and Public Affairs team at TheCityUK – a key British financial lobby group – applauded the Commission’s proposals, because it “reflected so closely the approach of TheCityUK that a bystander would have thought it came straight out of our brochure on TTIP”.

The largest single petition in history was against Monsanto with a staggering 2.1 million signatures that has since been eclipsed by the petition StopTTIP that has garnered 3.3 million signatures. But this single petition is massively overshadowed by the millions involved in protests groups all over Europe. The goal is to arrest the corporate coups d’état of Europe currently being facilitated by people like David Cameron, Cecilia Malmström and Barack Obama.

For Britain, in the firing line of that take-over by corporations is the NHS, food and environmental safety, regulations to stop an out-of-control banking industry, privacy, security and jobs to name just a few. Most importantly, our hard fought for democracy is not just undermined – it’s for sale to the highest bidder.

Read more: Meet the Corporations Lobbying Hardest for TTIP and the End of Democracy : Waking Times

EU - Not all is bad: 5 great laws the EU nailed down in 2015 for its citizens

Divided we fail, United we gain

The EU is probably the most popular scapegoat for politicians. For some, it is a symbol of neo-liberal economic politics, for others, a bureaucratic nightmare that issues self-preserving legislation at a record pace.

David Cameron and the Christian Social Union even want to introduce a national veto, illustrating the trust that Brussels has haemorrhaged in "certain circles".

But not all is bad, As a matter of fact - if we did not have the EU, things could be quite awful for all of us, as we would not have any more controls over corporate manipulations, affecting our daily life, and even the food we eat. Also, local government's hanky panky in making "under-the-table" tax deals with multi-national corporations, already quite a problem, would probably go completely out of control.

1)  Every year, around 30,000 people are killed in traffic accidents on European roads. New EU legislation will require car manufacturers to build their vehicles with devices that automatically notify the emergency services in the event of an accident.

2) Use of Internet Data and privacy laws: EU data-protection reform comes into force in the spring and is implemented by member states over the next two years. Companies like Google and Facebook will now have to provide clear terms and conditions, with understandable symbols. In this way, citizens will have more useful information that will let them decide what information they want to make available. "Simple symbols will make it clear for everyone what companies can and cannot do with your data," said MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht (Greens), rapporteur for the data protection directive.

3)  Booking holidays and weekend breaks on the web continues to increase in popularity. Travel agents and providers have recognised this trend and have started to link their flight deals to car rentals, hotels and other deals. The total cost of the package being bought is not always clear to the consumer and there is sometimes a lack of protection.

Come the spring, new rules will mean that such offers are classed as package holidays. That means that consumers will be better protected. A standard 14-day return policy will be guaranteed and there will be more transparency and comparative deals on offer. If travel providers go bankrupt, then customers will always be paid back their money.

4) Banks often like to keep their customers in the dark about fees and Brussels has moved to make that a thing of the past. New legislation will now mean that customers will be given more clear information about the fees charged when making purchases with credit cards. The maximum charge for credit cards will be 0.3% of the value of the transaction and the maximum for debit cards will be 0.2%.. You are encouraged to question your banks about their charges and if you don't like what they tell you contact the European Ombudsman.

5) In the EU, around 100 billion plastic bags are used annually, about 8 billion of which end up being carelessly dumped in the oceans, where they have a huge impact on the environment and eco-systems. "In the North Sea, 94% of birds' stomachs contain plastic," reported the European Commission.

Brussels decided in 2015 to make the member states massively reduce their production and use of plastic bags, giving the 28 countries the choice of binding targets or pricing. EU states were given the choice of either ensuring that no plastic bags are given away free by 31 December 2018 or reaching the goals of 90 bags maximum per person per year by 2019 and 40 bags maximum by 2025.

Divided we fail, United we gain .

EU-Digest

TTIP: The obscure legal system that lets corporations sue countries - by Claire Provost and Matt Kennard

uis Parada’s office is just four blocks from the White House, in the heart of K Street, Washington’s lobbying row – a stretch of steel and glass buildings once dubbed the “road to riches”, when influence-peddling became an American growth industry.

Parada, a soft-spoken 55-year-old from El Salvador, is one of a handful of lawyers in the world who specialise in defending sovereign states against lawsuits lodged by multinational corporations. He is the lawyer for the defence in an obscure but increasingly powerful field of international law – where foreign investors can sue governments in a network of tribunals for billions of dollars.

Fifteen years ago, Parada’s work was a minor niche even within the legal business. But since 2000, hundreds of foreign investors have sued more than half of the world’s countries, claiming damages for a wide range of government actions that they say have threatened their profits. In 2006,

Ecuador cancelled an oil-exploration contract with Houston-based Occidental Petroleum; in 2012, after Occidental filed a suit before an international investment tribunal, Ecuador was ordered to pay a record $1.8bn – roughly equal to the country’s health budget for a year. (Ecuador has logged a request for the decision to be annulled.)

Read more: The obscure legal system that lets corporations sue countries | Claire Provost and Matt Kennard | Business | The Guardian

US Congress - GMO Labeling: The Monsanto Protection Act is back -- worse than before - impact on EU TTIP negotiations

The biggest threat to GMO labeling that we ever saw could soon become law if people don’t react now.

US Republican Congressman Mike Pompeo, Monsanto’s hand-picked representative in Washington, has combined his anti-GMO labeling bill, the “DARK Act,” with the Monsanto Protection Act – and it’s even worse than before.

This newly revised Monsanto Protection Act would not only prevent states from enacting their own GMO labeling laws, but it would go even further by nullifying all existing restrictions on GMO crops already on the books.

This unbelievable power grab by Monsanto and its Republican supporters is quickly making its way through Congressional committees and could be up for a final vote by the end of the month.

According to the Environmental Working Group, a leading advocate for GMO labeling and major opponent of Rep. Pompeo’s legislation, the new Monsanto Protection Act would:

• Block all state laws requiring mandatory GMO labeling, including Vermont’s landmark labeling law;
• Prevent the FDA from establishing a national mandatory GMO labeling program;
• Possibly block non-GMO claims until the USDA creates a non-GMO certification program, which could take up to 10 years;
• Block all state and local efforts to protect rural communities and farmers from the impacts of GMO crops;
• Prevent claims by food companies that non-GMO foods are better than GMO ones.

The consequences of this legislation for the US food system would be drastic and widespread.

US State-level efforts to label GMO foods that have already passed in states like Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut would be nullified. All local oversight and restrictions on genetically modified crops would be prohibited. Laws and regulations in states and communities with GMO-free agricultural zones, including in California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii, could be completely overturned.

Monsanto has significantly beefed up its lobbying efforts to pass this bill, spending nearly a half million dollars per month in total lobbying and boasting that it has contacted every single member of Congress.

Recent polling shows that even though more than 90% of Americans are in favor of GMO labeling, corporate money  is being used to influence Congressional legislators to vote against preventive health measures and consumer choices provided by food labeling.

The EU negotiating team at the EU-US Trade Negotiations (TTIP) are hopefully also aware of the going's on in the US Congress in relation to GMO's and food labeling. 

New EU food labeling rules came into force in the EU on December 13, 2014 to ensure that consumers receive clearer and more accurate information about what they buy and eat.

The new EU  rules will now even  force restaurants and cafés to list 14 different allergens in the menus - including nuts, gluten, lactose, soy or milk.Displaying allergens was until then only mandatory for pre-packed foods.

Nano components will also have to be included in the ingredients list. Oils will need to refer to the plants used in their production, such as sunflower, palm or olive.

Fresh meat from pigs, sheep, goats and poultry will need to carry a mandatory origin label, with a font size of at least 1.2 milimetres.   

As one EU parliamentarian noted: "we must keep that unlabeled American Junk-Food out off the European food supplies". 

EU-Digest