Australia-US Free Trade Agreement: Big Brother lines up the ducks

It would appear that the U.S. continues to feel hard done by because Australia is not yet the state in the Union.

Amongst other perceived barriers to trade apparently Australian state governments stubbornly continue to insist on buying local where possible and contracting for blood products procured within the country, the Federal Government still insists on subsidising medicines as part of the safety net welfare system, foreign investment rules on telecommunications are unsatisfactory and free-to-air television continues to have some home grown content.

Which perhaps gives a clue as to what may be concealed within this paragraph from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representatives’ latest spin on America’s attempt at a second bite of the free trade cherry through its Trans-Pacific Partnership initiative:

In addition, the TPP countries made solid progress in further framing the new horizontal, cross-cutting issues that will feature in the TPP Agreement. These include such issues as promoting connectivity to deepen the links of U.S. companies to the emerging production and distribution networks in the Asia-Pacific; making the regulatory systems of TPP countries more compatible so U.S. companies can operate more seamlessly in TPP markets; helping small- and medium-sized enterprises, which are a key source of innovation and job creation, participate more actively in international trade; and supporting development.

It is worth noting the difference in emphasis in what the Australian Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Trade has online for public consumption.

Which in turn is very different from how the AFTINET lobby group views these negotiations.

It is perhaps also worth noting that the U.S. biotech industry has a long wish list for changes to trade in genetically modified organisms as the TPP fifth round begins in February 2011 and, that this wish list with regard to labelling has a dot point (first below) which is remarkably similar in intent to Recommendation 29 (second below) recently included in the Blewett report on Australian food labelling .

One of course could take the position that Australians should be thankful for small mercies when faced with what looks suspiciously like a Gillard Government cave-in to the bullying free trade partner the former Howard Government invited in.

Because the Monsanto Corporation takes the line in relation to genetically modified food that information does not necessarily need to be physically present on a label. However, mandated information requirements must be easily accessible to consumers and cost-effective and insists It is clearly not a food safety issue, as these foods have undergone the most rigorous of food safety assessments, and are probably the safest foods on the market. In this context, we support the submission made by CropLife Australia, which clearly sets out the wealth of scientific evidence underpinning the safety of these foods. The Panel needs to bear this in mind when considering this issue. A precautionary approach is already clearly being applied in the case of food derived from GM production systems, by virtue of the extensive risk assessment criteria which have to be met by applicants.

Background can be found at:

ABC Radio LateNightLive audio 18 November 2010, which talks about free trade agreements being in reality investor rights agreements giving corporations superior rights to those of governments

Herald-Sun 28 January 2011, Blewett 'blew it' on GM review - Greens.

North Coast Voices, Monsanto-Mahyco GM eggplant toxicity study receives a fail from researcher - wonder what the opinion will be on Monsanto's latest SDA soybean effort?