[legulere]

Some further facts:

- the treaty tries to abolish market regulation differences between the two markets

- costumer protection regulations between the US and the EU are incompatible

- In the US often e.g. chemicals are allowed until proven hazardous, in the EU they are outlawed until proven harmless

- the tribunals will operate outside the normal juridical systems of the US and the EU

[consp]

Resulting in:

- No differences, but

- US consumer protection (which is hardly any)

- US (bio)chemical regulations

- A non-conformative tribunal which is not elected, not governed, has no oversight and has no basis in any civil law (as you cannot appeal/trail as a civilian if you are disadvantaged by its rulings)

[belorn]

This "allowed until proven hazardous" vs "outlawed until proven harmless" is such a misrepresenting of the disagreement.

Okey, lets put this concept into practice. I will sell fungus as antibiotics, and I will stop once its proven if it work. This would of course not work, and we follow a "outlawed until proven harmless" when it comes to medicine. In the context of medicine, that is a good rule to have and both US and EU agree on this.

So, its not about "proven to be safe" vs "proven to be unsafe", but rather specific regulations in specific contexts where EU and US disagree which one is best. In medicine, both agree. With additive in food and pesticide residue laying around in crops, they disagree.

There could have been a public debate, but this treaty is not that. It even go as far as forbid laws that grants the consumer a legal right to know what substances they ingest.