미 유기농소비자조합(Organic Consumers Association)이 6월 13일…
미 정부가 비밀리에 추진중인 the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
(TTIP)와 the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)가 미국민의 식품안전에 위협이 되고,
민주주의를 전복시킬 것이라고 경고하는 내용을 발표했습니다.
한국이나 일본의 사회운동단체, 시민사회단체가 제기하는 내용과 거의 유사한 문제제기라고 할 수 있습니다. 결론도 다국적 거대기업의 이윤보다는 소비자들의 건강과 안전이라는 점을 강조하고 있습니다. 구체적 내용들은 아래를 참고하시기 바랍니다.
미 유기농소비자 조합은 식품안전 기준이 하향평준화될 우려의 예로 베트남을 들면서… 베트남은 미국보다 해산물의 항생제 잔류기준이 낮은데(다시 말해 베트남은 미국 기준보다 해산물에 더 많은 항생제가 남아 있도록 허용하는 잔류기준을 채택하고 있다는 의미) 베트남산 해산물을 미국에 수입할 경우 미국 국민이 항생제가 들어있는 수산식품을 섭취하여 항생제 내성균 문제가 발생하여 안전에 문제가 발생할 수 있다는 점을 지적하고 있습니다.
미국은 이미 NAFTA를 통해 이러한 형식의 자유무역협정을 체결했는데… 지난 2005년 캐나다의 광우병 발생을 이유로 캐나다산 쇠고기 수입을 금지한 미국 정부의 정책에 대해 공정무역을 위한 캐나다축산협회(Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade)에서 미국 정부를 상대로 ISD를 제기한 바 있습니다.(ISD 결과는 미국 정부의 승소로 끝났으나… 자국민의 건강과 안전을 위한 위생검역조치에 대해서도 ISD를 제기할 수 있다는 우려가 현실로 나타난 사례라고 볼 수 있으며… 미국 정부가 막대한 소송비용을 지불하기도 했습니다)
멕시코의 경우는 미국보다 NAFTA의 ISD 피해가 더 막심했는데요… 멕시코 정부가 과당 함유량이 높은 옥수수 시럽에 대해 수입제한 조치를 취하자 Corn Products International, ADM/Tate & Lyle, 그리고 Cargill 3개의 다국적 농식품거대기업이 ISD를 제기하여 멕시코 정부가 3개 기업에 대해 총 1억6천9백만 달러를 배상해야만 했습니다.(아시다시피 유전자조작 옥수수에서 추출한 값싼 고과당 옥수수 시럽은 당뇨, 비만, 심장병 등을 일으켜 멕시코 국민들의 건강과 안전을 위협할 수 있습니다)
미국 유기농소비자조합은 자유무역협정으로 인해 다국적 농식품거대기업들이 GMO 를 통해 많은 이윤을 창출할 수 있게 될 것이며, 그 협정에 참여한 EU 등의 국가들은 점점 더 GMO 규제를 하기 어려워질 것이라고 경고하고 있습니다.
또한 미국 유기농소비자조합은 TTIP와 TPP는 역사상 가장 규모가 큰 무역협정이 될 것이며, 미국뿐만 아니라 전세계 시민들의 식품안전을 위험에 빠뜨릴 뿐만 아니라 환경, 지속가능성, 건강보험,인터넷의 자유, 금융시장 등 모든 분야의 정책에 압도적인 영향을 끼칠 수 있는 내용을 포함하고 있다는 점도 경고하고 있습니다.
그런데도 오바마 행정부는 TTIP와 TPP를 밀실에서 처리하려 하고 있는데, 대중들 사이에 논쟁이 일어나지 않도록 의회로부터 신속처리권한(Fast Track)을 부여받은 점을 지적하고 있습니다.
그래서 미국의 1천5백만명의 시민들을 대표하여 400개 단체가 보다 민주적 통상협정을 체결할 수 있도록 행정부의 신속처리권한(Fast Track)을 폐기하라는 청원서를 제출하였다고 합니다. 물론 현재까지 이러한 청원서는 ‘소 귀에 경 읽기’ 취급을 당하고 있다고 합니다.
대중들에게는 비밀리에 진행되는 자유무역협정이 다우케미컬, 카길, 듀퐁, 양돈협회, 담배협회 등의 600개가 넘는 기업들에겐 TPP 협정문의 협상 내용에 대한 충분한 접근권이 보장되고 있는 문제점이 있다는 점도 지적하고 있습니다. 아울러 의회와 시민사회단체 등에도 이들 기업과 같은 수준의 접근권이 보장하라고 요구하고 있습니다.
TPP가 식품안전 기준을 낮추게 되는 또 다른 사례로 일본은 채소, 과일, 육류를 소독하기 위해 과초산(peracetic acid)을 사용하는 것을 금지하고 있으나, 미국-캐나다-호주는 이를 허용하고 있는 점을 들고 있습니다. 일본은 식품첨가제로 800가지만을 허가하고 있으나, 미국은 무려 3천개를 식품첨가제로 허용하고 있습니다. 이러한 차이는 결국 TPP를 통해 식품안전 기준을 낮춰 일본 국민의 건강을 위협하게 될 것이라는 점도 지적하고 있습니다.
TTIP는 유럽의 소비자들의 식품안전과 건강도 위협하게 만들 것인데요, 대표적인 예로 유럽은 사전예방의 원칙을 적용하여 가축의 성장촉진 목적으로 락토파민(기관지 확장제인데, 동물의 체중을 빨리 늘게 하는 부작용이 있습니다)을 사용하는 것을 금지하고 있으며, 가금류를 염소로 씻어서 소독하는 것을 금지하고 있으며, 우유 생산량을 늘리기 위해 유전자조작 소 성장호르몬(rBGH)을 사용하는 것을 금지하고 있습니다. TTIP는 유럽의 정부들이 이러한 정책을 유지하는 것을 어렵게 만들 것입니다.
바로 이러한 이유 때문에 미국 유기농조합은 오마바 대통령과 USTR 대표에게 TTIP와 TPP 협정문을 공개하고 Fast Track을 철폐하라는 청원서를 제출하였다고 합니다.
미 유기농소비자조합의 [소비자 경고 : 밀실 무역 협정은 식품안전을 위협하고 민주주의를 전복할 것]이라는 글의 전문은 아래 내용을 참고하시기 바랍니다.
==============================
Consumer Alert: Secret Trade Agreements Threaten Food Safety, Subvert Democracy
By Katherine Paul and Ronnie Cummins
출처 : Organic Consumers Association, June 13, 2013
http://www.organicconsumers.
For related articles and more information, please visit OCA’s Food
Safety page and Politics and Democracy page.
If you think the U.S. government is doing a sub-par job of keeping
your food safe, brace yourself. You could soon be eating imported
seafood, beef or chicken products that don’t meet even basic U.S. food
safety standards. Under two new trade agreements, currently in
negotiation, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could be
powerless to shut down imports of unsafe food or food ingredients. And
if it tries, multinational corporations will be able to sue the U.S.
government for the loss of anticipated future profits.
More frightening? Negotiations for both agreements are taking place
behind closed doors, with input allowed almost exclusively from the
corporations and industry trade groups that stand to benefit the most.
And the Obama Administration intends to push the agreements through
Congress without so much as giving lawmakers access to draft texts,
much less the opportunity for debate.
Designed to grease the wheels of world commerce, the Trans-Atlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) would force the U.S. and other participating
countries to “harmonize” food safety standards. That means all
countries that sign on to the agreement would be required to abide by
the lowest common denominator standards of all participating
governments. So for instance, say Vietnam allows higher residues of
veterinary antibiotics in seafood than the U.S. allows, and Vietnam
and the U.S. both sign on to the TPP. As a trade partner, the U.S.
could be forced to lower its standards to allow for imports of seafood
from Vietnam – or face a lawsuit by the seafood exporter for depriving
the company of future sales of its products in the U.S.
The U.S. has already had a taste of this type of policy under the
North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA). In 2005, the Canadian Cattlemen
for Fair Trade sued the U.S. the U.S. government for banning imports
of beef and live Canadian cattle after a case of mad cow disease was
discovered in Canada. In the end, the U.S. prevailed, but not until it
had spent millions to defend itself in court. Mexico wasn’t so
fortunate when three companies (Corn Products International, ADM/Tate
& Lyle and Cargill) sued the Mexican government for preventing imports
of high fructose corn syrup. Mexico lost all three cases, and was
forced to pay out a total of $169.18 million to the three firms.
Among the many gifts to Big Ag contained in the TTIP and TPP?
Back-door entry for their genetically modified seeds and crops.
Countries, including those in the European Union, could find it
increasingly difficult to ban, or even require the labeling of,
genetically modified organisms (GMOs), if biotech companies determine
that those countries’ strict policies restrict fair trade and infringe
on the companies’ “rights” to profit.
The TTIP and the TPP are, individually and combined, two of the
largest free trade agreements in world history. According to the
Citizens Trade Campaign (CTC) the TPP alone covers 40 percent of the
global economy. That percentage will likely grow, because the
agreement allows for other countries, besides the 12 currently
involved, to “dock on” after the agreement is in place.
Both the TTIP and TPP could have dangerous consequences for food
safety in the U.S., and around the world. But they’re not limited to
food or agriculture policy. Both also contain sweeping policies that
could affect everything from the environment and sustainability, to
healthcare, Internet freedom and the financial markets. Given the
potential of these agreements to shape global policy on so many
fronts, it’s reasonable to assume that negotiators would actively
solicit, and take into careful consideration, input from the affected
parties, including consumers, farmers and governments. Instead they’ve
taken the opposite approach. From day one, negotiations for the TTIP
and TPP have been shrouded in secrecy. The public and participating
governments, including the U.S. Congress, have been shut out of the
negotiating process, denied access to everything from early proposals
to final draft texts.
Why the secrecy? The Obama Administration wants as little public
debate as possible, so it can ram the agreements through Congress
using something called “Fast Track.” Fast Track, a product of the
Nixon presidency, strips Congress of its authority to control the
content of a trade deal and hands that authority over to the executive
branch. Congress gets a vote, but only after the negotiations have
been completed, and the agreements have been signed. No debate. No
amendments. Just a fast, forced vote, too late for Congress to have
any influence. According to the CTC, two-thirds of Democratic freshmen
in the U.S. House of Representatives have expressed serious
reservations about the TPP negotiations and the prospect of giving
Fast Track authority to the President. And more than 400 organizations
representing 15 million Americans have already petitioned Congress to
do away with Fast Track in favor of a more democratic approach to
trade agreement negotiations. So far those pleas have fallen on deaf
ears.
If the public is shut out, and Congress gets no say, who gets a seat
at the table? Corporations. That’s right. The Obama Administration is
trusting corporations like Dow AgroSciences, Cargill and DuPont, and
trade groups like the Pork Producers Council and Tobacco Associates,
Inc., to write food safety policies. In all, more than 600
corporations have been given access to drafts of various chapters of
the TPP. Requests for the same level of access, from members of
Congress and from the public, have been denied.
No wonder then that, according to leaked drafts obtained by groups
like the CTC, Public Citizen and the Institute for Agriculture and
Trade Policy (IATP), the TPP contains proposals designed to give
transnational corporations “special rights” that go far beyond those
possessed by domestic businesses and American citizens, says Arthur
Stamoulis, executive director of the CTC. Experts who have reviewed
the leaked texts say that TPP negotiators propose allowing
transnational corporations to challenge countries’ laws, regulations
and court decisions, including environmental and food safety laws.
Corporations will be allowed to resolve trade disputes in special
international tribunals. In other words, they get to do an end run
around the countries’ domestic judicial systems, effectively wiping
out hundreds, if not more, domestic and international food sovereignty
laws.
U.S. consumers aren’t the only ones who should be up in arms about
these trade agreements, the secrecy around their negotiations, and the
Obama Administration’s intent to fast-track them. Under the TTIP and
TPP, consumers in countries that have stricter food safety regulations
than those in the U.S. will see their standards lowered, too. For
instance, Japan prohibits the use of peracetic acid to sterilize
vegetables, fruits and meat, while the U.S., Canada and Australia
allow it. Japan’s health ministry, in anticipation of the TPP, has
said the country will add the acid to its approved list. In all, Japan
has approved only about 800 food additives, to the more than 3,000
approved in the U.S. Japan’s consumers could soon see a sudden
reversal of laws enacted to protect their health.
European consumers will also suffer. Europe has long used the
precautionary principle to ban ractopamine in meat, chlorine rinses of
poultry and the use of rBGH growth hormone in milk production. Under
the TTIP, Europe could be forced to allow all three in order to meet
the lowest common denominator rule. The precautionary principle
removes the burden of proof from policymakers, allowing them to make
discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility
of harm, given the lack of scientific proof to the contrary. But that
principle flies out the window under TTIP rules.
The Organic Consumers Association is urging consumers to petition
President Obama and Interim U.S. Trade Representative Miriam Sapiro to
release the draft texts of the TTIP and TPP, and encourage full and
open debate on the policies contained in both agreements. The petition
also asks President Obama to end the Fast Track option, and grant
Congress the ability to debate and amend the agreements, before voting
on them.
With the world’s food supply, and consumers’ health, already
endangered by chemical-intensive industrial agriculture and climate
change, the U.S. and other governments should be looking for ways to
promote sustainable food and agriculture policies, not restrict
governments’ abilities to do so. Instead, the Obama Administration is
subverting the principles of democracy in favor of handing a few
transnational corporations unprecedented power to put profits above
the health and well being of consumers.
Katherine Paul is Director of Communications and Development for the
Organic Consumers Association.
Ronnie Cummins is National Director of the Organic Consumers Association
참고자료
