On both the European and American sides of the agreement, there are issues that are considered essential if an agreement is to be reached. Leif Johan Eliasson, Saarland University: “For the EU, this means better access to US public procurement markets, the maintenance of import bans on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and hormone-treated beef, as well as the recognition of geographical marks on food. For the United States, they provide for better access to U.S. dairy and other agricultural products (including scientific studies as the only accepted criterion for SPS policy). Measures such as the EU ban on hormone-treated beef (based on the precautionary principle) are not considered by the WTO to be based on scientific studies. A 2018 paper by economists at KU Leuven estimated that a “deep” free trade agreement such as TTIP between the US and the European Union would increase EU GDP by 1.3% and US GDP by 0.7%.  These benefits would result mainly from the removal of non-tariff barriers.  At France`s request, trade in audiovisual services was excluded from the EU`s negotiating mandate.  The European side insisted that the agreement include a chapter on the regulation of financial services. But the U.S. side, which recently passed the Dodd-Frank Act in this area, opposes it.  U.S.
Ambassador to the European Union Anthony L. . . .