such regulations – using science as the foundation, not the philosophy/politics of animal rights – because several member nations either couldn’t afford to comply or simply ignored the welfare directives altogether. USTR has politely, but firmly, informed Europe that the US isn’t going there. Free trade will not be predicated in whole or in part on some certification that US meat products come from animals as “happy” as those living in the EU (i.e., raised and transported in systems the same as or equal to European systems). Animal drugs: Europe operates on the precautionary principle, which I define as trying to regulate “what if.” This principle reveals an inherent distrust by the Europeans of man’s ability to use science and technology in ways that benefit the planet in general. Over the years, this has impacted meat and poultry exports from the United States based on animal drug use, processing system chemical use, etc. The best example is US beef cattle implanted with growth hormones. It can be argued until the cows come home about the illogic of castrating animals only to turn Agricultural Services around and replace natural hormones with implants, but the bottom line is hormone use is not a legitimate food safety issue. The seemingly unending number of WTO decisions – based on science and OIE recommendations – in favor of the United States notwithstanding, the Europeans continue to import US beef from implanted animals based on an archaic quota system. Again, science must trump the perceived “ick” factor. This goes for the pseudoscience and urban myth used to inspire European consumer fears over such things as chlorine used in poultry baths – unless the poultry is coming from EU-member the United Kingdom – and judiciously used antibiotics to prevent/treat disease, bovine somatotropin hormone, and ractopamine, just to name a few prominent issues. Biotechnology: Perhaps no greater disparity exists between the two trading blocs than their respective acceptance or rejection of biotechnology. While over 90 percent of US corn and soybeans are Continued on page 12 Your Pa r tne r s in Ag r i cul tur e Specialized Services: • Air Quality/Odor Management, and Greenhouse Gas Reporting • Comprehensive Facility Planning, Design, and Engineering • Industrial Hygiene/Safety and Health • Monitoring Well Installation, Sampling, and Reporting • Nutrient Management Plans/Waste Management Plans • Siting/Construction/Oversight/Permitting • Wastewater Transfer, Storage, and Treatment Design CRA is a proud member of the National Renderers Association www.CRAworld.com phone: 888.572.5885 email: jsustaita@CRAworld.com 3,000 staff in 90+ offices to serve the rendering industry WOR LDWIDE E N G I N E E R I N G, E N V I RONME N TA L , CON S T R U C T ION, A ND I T S E R V I C E S is getting folks to agree that a system is broken in the first place, and then convincing everyone to mutually agree on the best way to fix it. That being said, consider the following statement on technical barriers to trade, included in an EU TTIP position paper from June 2013: “…although compatibility is important, it must be recognised that the systems of the two regions are different, both to meet the specific needs of their economies and for historical reasons, and it is not possible for one side to impose its system on the other; nor can either side be expected to treat its partner more favourably than its own side sic.” So where are the opportunities? Here’s a top-of-the-head list of positions that need reconciling. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) rules: In the 1990s, BSE was the scourge of global beef cattle markets, but science, risk-based regulations, testing, inspections, and changes in animal husbandry have all but eliminated the threat level the disease once had. While still a very real challenge, it’s time for the United States and EU to recognize that in this particular case, the World Organization for Animal Health, or OIE, is the arbiter, that BSE nation status is valid, that animal age is less the issue than feeding practices, and that free trade in legitimately processed animal by-products is a good thing. Animal welfare: For decades, the EU unsuccessfully tried to insert into various rounds of negotiations on the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) the so-called “fourth hurdle” or “fourth protocol”; simply put, the right of a GATT nation to slap non-tariff trade barriers on imports based on some calculus of “consumer concerns.” Already it’s known that EU negotiators have tried to insert animal welfare – the bloc enjoys 28 separate unionwide regulations/directives related to its definition of enhanced welfare of food animals – into the discussions. One can only imagine the language to be offered, as in “commodities derived from animals that have been housed, transported, handled…in accordance with the relevant provisions of…,” and so on. The EU acknowledged a couple of years ago it was time to rethink and rework its process for determining www.rendermagazine.com Render October 2013 7
Render_Oct13
To see the actual publication please follow the link above