Exporting to the EU:
An Insider Look at Negotiations

An interview with Bob Anderson,
founder of Sustainable Strategies–Advisors in Food and Agriculture


For three years, representatives from the European Union (EU) and the United States have been negotiating a reciprocal export trade agreement to allow the free trade of organic products between them. The goal of the talks is to create an agreement that standardizes the quality requirements and processes for exporting organics to make it easier for producers to buy and sell their products freely across the oceans.

In the absence of an international standard, U.S. producers have taken on costs of private accreditation or shipment-by-shipment certification required to gain access to some markets in the EU. Even with these actions, U.S. organic products have had some difficulties gaining access to certain countries because of high information and search costs on the part of foreign buyers. Similarly, some foreign buyers of U.S. organic products incur costs to determine the compatibility of standards, which can discourage purchases of U.S. organic products.

Until several months ago, the EU-U.S. negotiations were going well and a resolution seemed in sight, according to Bob Anderson, the founder of Sustainable Strategies–Advisors in Food and Agriculture, and a strategic advisor to organic agricultural initiatives and organic industry projects wordwide. Last fall, however, the negotiations stalled over livestock issues and the use of antibiotics.

Anderson has worked behind the scenes, doing background comparative analysis on the commonalities and differences between the respective organic rules of the U.S. and EU. He works with a team of advisors to the U.S. delegates, which include representatives from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) and the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.

The EU’s approved third-party nation list, currently slated to expire in December 2005, allows non-EU countries to be registered or accredited to export products to the EU. This list essentially allows non-EU nations access to the EU market if their production rules and inspection systems comply with those operating within the EU. Under the current scenario, it is possible that approved U.S. organic products may be allowed to be brought into the EU and marketed if the products are in complete compliance with existing EU standards.

Anderson spent some time with Organic Processing, discussing the goals and implications of these negotiations, and his hopes for the future of organic exports.

OP: Why are these negotiations so important?

Anderson: The U.S. organic export arena is not an easy environment in which to work. The art of exporting organic products to the world is greatly enmeshed in the world political situation and the impact of our own trade policies.

Because of the NOP, foreign nations and international certifiers have the ability to certify non-U.S. products to U.S. standards. Fundamentally, this means that the world has total access to the U.S. market by using U.S. certification standards. But because there is no reciprocal access to the EU, we don’t have the same opportunities with those countries. It’s an unfair trade relationship, making it costly, difficult and time-consuming—if not impossible—to get an organic product approved for export.

If an agreement is put in place, it will free U.S. organic producers to export without complications. If it doesn’t go through, the export process will stay the same. Currently, every U.S. provider of every ingredient in an organic product has to negotiate separately with the EU to be approved for export. And with the EU’s new traceability rules, there will be even stronger enforcement. Exporters will be required to deliver more documentation and there will be tighter controls at the border.

OP: Why is this agreement so significant?

Anderson: The EU is important, not only because it is a major trading partner, but because the EU represents so many countries, especially with the recent ascension of the Balkans. It creates a larger market and it increases competition. All products legally imported and distributed in one member country of the EU can be distributed in all other member countries without export issues. That puts the U.S. at an unfair disadvantage.

OP: How far along are the negotiations between the U.S. and EU?

Anderson: Negotiations have been ongoing for almost three years with the EU for reciprocal organic trade agreements. In the course of the process, all but a handful of the technical differences on approved ingredients and processes have been resolved. However, talks have stalled now over livestock issues regarding the use of antibiotics.

The U.S. rule is very specific about use of antibiotics. U.S. producers are prohibited by the NOP to use antibiotics in organic livestock. The EU regulation (EEC No. 2092/91), however, allows the use of therapeutic antibiotics up to three times per year. Both negotiating parties are bound by their own agreements and they haven’t been able to get past the objections. There has been little negotiating space.

OP: What do U.S. organic processors need to know about these talks?

Anderson: Know that they are ongoing and realize that it’s going to be challenging but that the export opportunities probably outweigh the short-term difficulties. There are significant EU export opportunities out there today, but it requires ingenuity, initiative and entrepreneurship to get into these markets. Hopefully, in the long term, it will get easier. In the meantime, organic producers should also look to other countries, like Canada, our largest trading partner. Their culture is very similar to ours and currently there are no rules constraining organic exports to Canada.

OP: Who stands to gain the most from this agreement?

Anderson: Consumers. They win because access and availability of organic food in both directions would be significantly greater. And the more we can expand organic, the greater the benefits to the environment and the earth.

OP: What do you see as an ideal outcome of these talks?

Anderson: I think the best outcome in the interim would be to find some steps to implement an agreement that could be phased in, in parts. If we could find a way to separate out everything but livestock and start with an agreement on produce and processed foods, for example, it would be a significant step for both parties.

Ultimately, we would begin to work on the issues for meat and dairy, to find some common ground or to address things locally. Given that neither party has much negotiating room, we need to look for avenues that create equal access in a compliant way without having to negotiate country by country. It would be great to negotiate free trade on a grander scale so that there could be the free flow of organic products in both directions.

OP: What if we don’t find a resolution?

Anderson: The ramifications are that it will remain business as usual. U.S. exporters will continue to negotiate on a country-by-country basis, and U.S. certifiers will have to verify that, in addition to complying with U.S. standards, products shipped to the EU will be required to meet their standards, as well.

OP: Are you an optimist?

Anderson: I’m always an optimist. However, it may take awhile to come to a full agreement. Both sides could easily come together on plant based products but finding a way to separate the two issues has not been easy. Negotiations have stalled and reached an impasse. Still, as long as people remain at the table, there is always an opportunity to strike an agreement that doesn’t compromise anyone’s standards. I’m hopeful that the U.S. and EU will continue to work on ways to overcome the hurdles.