From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,alt.activism,alt.save.the.earth
Subject: NAFTA News: Promoting Profits, not Pesticide Protection
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:11:08 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Originator: daemon@pencil.cs.missouri.edu

[Via misc.activism.progressive from PeaceNet's trade.news]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Topic 175       TRADE.NEWS 10-13-92 
kmander Updates on GATT & NAFTA Negotiations     7:50 am  Oct 13, 1992 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TRADE NEWS BULLETIN 
Tuesday,  October 13, 1992 
_________________________________________________________ 
NAFTA News Summary 
_________________________________________________________ 
HOUSE AG CHAIRMAN CALLS FOR NAFTA PESTICIDE CHANGES 

U.S. Representative Kika de la Garza (D-Texas), chairman of the House  
Agriculture Committee, asked the Bush Administration last week to  
amend the North American Free Trade Agreement to give pesticide  
issues more attention.  In a joint statement, de la Garza and House  
Budget Committee Chairman Leon Panetta (D-California) proposed  
the creation of a high-level independent committee to address  
differences between the United States and Mexico.  The current  
NAFTA text calls for pesticide issues to be discussed as part of an  
overall sanitary and phytosanitary committee. 

The committee proposed by de la Garza and Panetta would look at  
differences in pesticide registration, utilization, enforcement and  
tolerance standards between the two countries. 

Bush Administration officials have denied that NAFTA will lead to  
lower protection against harmful chemicals, arguing that the pact  
specifically states that each country has the right to enact its own  
standards.  Opponents of NAFTA say because each country must  
justify its own regulations, lower protection will inevitably follow.   
^^^^[very carefully justify; see Public Citizen/Siera/etc article --HB]

The agriculture chapter of NAFTA dealing with sanitary and  
phytosanitary measures states: 

"1. Each Party may, in accordance with this Subchapter, adopt,  
maintain or apply any sanitary or phytosanitary measure  
necessary for the protection of human, animal or plant life or  
health in its territory, including a measure more stringent than an  
international standard, guideline or recommendation." 

NAFTA critics point to the lengthy set of guidelines that must be  
followed to enact and maintain protection levels.  Here is an excerpt: 
         
"Scientific Principles 
3. Each Party shall ensure that any sanitary or phytosanitary  
measure that it adopts, maintains or applies is: 
(a) based on scientific principles, taking into account relevant  
factors including, where appropriate, different geographic  
conditions; (b) not maintained where there is no longer a scientific  
basis for it; and (c) based on a risk assessment, as appropriate to the  
circumstances. 

"Non-Discriminatory Treatment 
4. Each Party shall ensure that a sanitary or phytosanitary  
measure that it adopts, maintains or applies does not arbitrarily or  
unjustifiably discriminate between its goods and like goods of  
another Party, or between goods of another Party and like goods of  
any other country, where identical or similar conditions prevail." 

Note: According to a computer search of the entire 2,000-page  
NAFTA text, the word "pesticide" is used one time. 

Source: "Key U.S. Lawmaker Seeks NAFTA Pesticide Changes,"  
REUTER, October 6, 1992; NAFTA TEXT, Chapter 7 - Agriculture. 
__________________________________________________________ 
Produced by: 
Kai Mander     
The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) 
1313 Fifth Street SE, Suite #303 
Minneapolis, MN 55414-1546 USA 

Telephone:(612)379-5980 Fax:(612)379-5982  
E-Mail:kmander@igc.org 
_________________________________________________________ 
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive