ttip_chem_10jul2014-c7a1884041915e92.pdf

A statement from a coalition of EU, U.S., and international organizations expressing strong opposition to the inclusion of chemical regulations within the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The authors argue that TTIP proposals would prioritize chemical industry interests over public health and the environment by freezing protective regulations, limiting public access to hazard information, and empowering corporations to challenge domestic laws through investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms.

• The coalition opposes any TTIP terms that affect the regulation of chemicals, including pesticides and industrial chemicals, across chapters on regulatory cooperation, investment, technical barriers to trade (TBT), and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures.
• Proposed regulatory cooperation frameworks, such as the Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC), could delay or 'chill' the implementation of stronger health-protective laws by introducing procedural hurdles, such as requiring analyses of costs to transatlantic trade and duplicative notice and comment procedures.
• The inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in TTIP is viewed as a threat that would allow corporations to bypass domestic courts and challenge public health and environmental laws before extrajudicial tribunals, potentially forcing governments to pay compensation or roll back protections.
• The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is accused of targeting EU efforts to regulate nanomaterials and endocrine disruptors as 'trade barriers,' which the authors claim interferes with the EU's role as a global leader in managing these emerging chemical risks.
• TTIP proposals may curtail the ability of U.S. states and EU Member States to implement more stringent regulations than their respective federal or regional governments, potentially preempting the regulatory innovation that has occurred in up to 30 U.S. states.
• Industry-led proposals to strengthen standards for confidential business information and data protection within TTIP could restrict public and regulator access to information on chemical hazards, thereby hindering the development of safer alternatives.
• The authors warn that harmonization or mutual recognition of chemical standards could lead to a 'lowest-common denominator' approach, erasing higher protections for workers and consumers, particularly in sectors like textiles and cosmetics.

APA

Center for International Environmental Law (2014). ttip_chem_10jul2014-c7a1884041915e92.pdf. https://ciel.org/Publications/TTIP_Chem_10Jul2014.pdf

Chicago

Center for International Environmental Law. ttip_chem_10jul2014-c7a1884041915e92.pdf. 2014. https://ciel.org/Publications/TTIP_Chem_10Jul2014.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Center for International Environmental Law |title=ttip_chem_10jul2014-c7a1884041915e92.pdf |date=10 July 2014 |url=https://ciel.org/Publications/TTIP_Chem_10Jul2014.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{centerforinternationalenvironmentallaw2014ttipchem10jul2014c7a1884041915e92pdf, author = {{Center for International Environmental Law}}, title = {{ttip\_chem\_10jul2014-c7a1884041915e92.pdf}}, publisher = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2014}, month = jul, url = {https://ciel.org/Publications/TTIP_Chem_10Jul2014.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }