The talks between the EU and the US on standards are happening behind closed doors, with no representatives of parliaments to witness them, and with little public scrutiny.

Often, they are framed as technical voluntary discussions between experts. But the political reality is that they are in fact discussions whose aim is to align and harmonise standards and approval processes between the EU and the US. As the overall aim is clearly to stimulate more trade and reduce costs for business, this creates strong pressure to lower existing standards and/or weaken new ones. So-called ‘regulatory cooperation’ also gives strong influence to big business, by giving them a seat at the table in the early stages of developing regulatory standards. This can in turn and how this can lead to the side-lining of other concerns than trade, such as food safety, and of democratic actors, such as parliamentarians. All of this can be very problematic for democratic decision-making as it risks business interests being put ahead of public interest.

One striking example is the pharmaceutical lobby. In its submission on these trade talks, it is asking for early collaboration between ‘stakeholders’ in legislative processes. These would include EU and US industry associations, academia, and public private partnerships. If granted, this would allow industry a disproportionately strong say in the early stages of legislative processes. Furthermore, the pharmaceutical industry lobby has asked for support from the EU and the US for this dialogue with experts and for resources, most probably financial.1

This illustrates the serious risk of corporate capture of policy-making through the ongoing EU-US trade talks.

Another illustration of the danger of ‘regulatory cooperation’ can be seen in how the trade negotiations consider regulatory differences between the EU and the US on issues such as the environment, health and safety. Such regulations are referred to as “non-trade barriers”, which has a strong negative connotation. In reality, such standards are actually designed to protect citizens, the environment and the public interest in areas such as health, safety, labour and climate change.

What the US business lobby says:

“Promote effective regulatory cooperation to (…) prevent unnecessary regulatory divergence.”

– US Chamber of Commerce2

By regulatory divergence, this US lobby group means differences in standards.

As regards the areas of diverging EU-US standards to be discussed, the sky is the limit. The European Commission, based on topics put forward by industry groups, has stated that “it aims to propose enhanced and new tracks of regulatory cooperation that could be pursued”3, without any red lines…

What the European Commission says:

“The European Commission stands ready to review with the US side ideas for potential additional regulatory cooperation activities resulting from the consultation with stakeholders it has just undertaken. (…) It has the potential to deliver results more ambitious and far-reaching than any previous such initiative with the US.”4

Activists representing lobbyists at a protest against previous EU-US trade deal TTIP

Activists representing lobbyists at a protest against previous EU-US trade deal TTIP

What the EU Commission has specifically said to EU lobby groups:

“We are honest brokers to argue on your behalf, we are in your hands to take your subject forward.”

DG Trade5


Discussions between the EU and the US should aim to protect people and the planet, and to improve the quality of life.

Social and environmental standards must not be viewed as barriers to trade, but as critical and necessary conditions to create a clean and sustainable future.

Find out more on how to maintain democracy in trade deals