TPP attacks democracy and supply management

TPP attacks democracy and supply management

Postby Oscar » Fri Feb 19, 2016 4:38 pm

TPP attacks democracy and supply management

[ http://us10.campaign-archive1.com/?u=09 ... 5d89e24d0f ]

by Jan Slomp February 19, 2016

The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is designed to entrench the interests of foreign corporations at the expense of our sovereignty and democratic processes. Its Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism gives foreign corporations the right to sue our government if they believe future profits will be reduced as a result of democratically enacted measures. ISDS puts a chill on public interest regulation, easing foreign corporations’ access to resources and commodities. The TPP also has more insidious ways of overturning democratic decision-making and imposing a corporate-friendly agenda. One is its attack on our supply management system.

Supply management is a Canadian innovation that ensures subsidies are not needed to keep farmers in business and ensure the population has enough dairy, eggs and poultry. It is built upon three pillars: import controls, cost-of-production pricing to farmers and producer discipline to ensure enough, but not too much, is always produced.

If the TPP is ratified, the border will be opened wider, increasing imports, primarily from the USA. The implications for the dairy sector are severe.

The TPP would immediately allow imports equal to 3.25% of Canada’s current fresh milk supply, with increases of 1% (compounding) per year for the next 18 years. 80% of these milk imports must be processed in Canada, and would likely be mixed with Canadian supplies.

Imported US milk may contain synthetic Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). This drug was banned for Canadian dairy herds in the late 1990s, the outcome of a democratic process involving citizens, scientists, dairy farmers, and the Senate. The ban is based on clear evidence that the drug increases disease and suffering of cows. It is more difficult to assess human health effects of consuming milk from rBGH-induced cows, however many consumers remain wary and avoid it. The TPP includes a commitment for Canada and the US to discuss their food safety rules for dairy with a view to harmonization. If the TPP is adopted, the difference between Canadian and US milk will be diluted, and potentially disappear.

NAFTA opened Canada’s doors to high protein milk components produced in the USA. The TPP would remove all tariffs on US whey after 10 years. It would also allow New Zealand to increase dairy exports to the USA. In turn, even more of the US’s excess milk protein would be dumped into Canada. This causes a number of problems.

Butter is popular again after decades of being blamed for high cholesterol. In the 1970s the dairy sector had to adjust production to avoid creating butterfat surpluses. Margarine with trans fats is now seen as the unhealthy choice, and consumers are switching back to butter and whole milk. Today, dairy faces a structural milk protein surplus. The cost of removing surplus protein components eats into farmers’ returns for milk.

Processors have new ways to separate proteins from fluid milk which they market as Milk Protein Isolates (MPIs). MPIs are added to certain dairy products to increase yields. Separating milk components, then processing, storing and transporting them to reintroduce them in other foods is a drastic departure from fairly simple fermenting or cultivating whole milk into butter, cheese, yogurts and quark – and a practice that may ultimately undermine consumers’ confidence. Processors can import MPIs tariff-free, and due to the world-wide structural surplus, they are very cheap. This leaves dairy farmers in Canada with even more surplus skim milk powder and higher costs to get rid of it, putting pressure on the farm gate price. Thus the TPP reduces dairy farmer incomes by exacerbating the butter-protein imbalance in addition to taking away a portion of our domestic fluid milk market.

Our system ensures milk is produced and processed in every province, within a reasonable distance from both farmers and consumers. More intense, capital intensive processing to make protein components with longer shelf life would promote larger, centralized plants and eliminate dairy farming in less populated regions, namely the Maritimes, northern Ontario, interior BC and Vancouver Island. A vicious circle would ensue, eroding supply management and concentrating production and processing. Centralization would also impair climate change mitigation. Supply management minimizes GHG emissions by keeping production and processing close to where products are consumed.

Supply management is a treasure of Canada’s agriculture policy and the envy of dairy farmers around the world who suffer with price volatility, debt, uncertain markets and unfair contracts. The TPP is a direct assault that cannot be cheered because it might have been even worse. - 30 -

- - - -

Jan Slomp is the President of the National Farmers Union. Formerly an Alberta dairy farmer, he now farms near Courtenay, BC.

= = = = =

RELATED:

Whistleblower criticizes deal allowing milk from hormone treated cows into Canada [Updated]
[ http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as- ... -1.3286156 ]
Friday October 23, 2015 Originally published: Oct. 23, 2015 Updated with correction: Oct. 29, 2015

There are worries that the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal means milk from hormone-treated U.S. cows could end up in Canadian supermarkets.
Dr. Shiv Chopra is a former Health Canada scientist who lost his job after raising the alarm about dangers posed by bovine growth hormone (BGH). Partially because of his work, it is currently illegal to use the drug to boost milk production in Canada.
Chopra tells As It Happens host Carol Off, "We worked upon it so much and got [bovine growth hormone] rejected in Canada...Now, under the trade agreement, it's going to let the floodgates open."[ . . . . . ]


= = = = = =


The zombie ISDS: Rebranded as ICS, rights for corporations to sue states refuse to die
[ http://corporateeurope.org/sites/defaul ... sum-en.pdf ]
February 17th, 2016 International trade

Full report in English
[ http://corporateeurope.org/sites/defaul ... e_isds.pdf ]

English: Executive summary
[ http://corporateeurope.org/sites/defaul ... sum-en.pdf ]

EXCERPT:

The Report concludes with 7 reasons to oppose the proposed Investment Court System (ICS) in TTIP, CETA, but also all other EU trade deals:


Reason #1: the ICS would empower tens of thousands of corporations to sue governments over measures to protect the environment, health, workers and other public interests

Reason #2: under the ICS, billions in taxpayer money could be paid to compensate corporations, including for missed future profits that they hypothetically could have earned

Reason #3: the ICS is a sure-fire way to bully decision-makers, potentially curtailing desirable policymaking, for example, to tackle climate change, social injustice or economic crises

Reason #4: the ICS would give exceptionally powerful rights and privileges to foreign investors, without any obligations and without any evidence of wider benefits to society

Reason #5: since only investors can sue under the ICS system, there is an incentive for the arbitrators to side with them as this will bring more lawsuits, fees and prestige in the future

Reason #6: there are severe doubts that the ICS is compatible with EU law as it sidelines European courts and is fundamentally discriminatory, granting special rights to foreign investors only

Reason #7: the ICS risks forever locking us into a legal straightjacket, as it will be practically impossible to exit from the investor privileges as a part of larger trade deals, let alone a multilateral investment court


= = = = = = =

“Fighting TTIP, CETA, and ISDS: Lessons from Canada” by Maude Barlow – October, 2015
[ http://canadians.org/sites/default/file ... s-1015.pdf ]
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9078
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Return to CLEAN FOOD . . .

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron