Why do global trade agreements promote expensive drugs and cheap cigarettes, and threaten the right to regulate vital human services in the US and abroad? One answer lies in who sets trade policy. Human rights principles demand participation in policy decisions by the people who will be affected. But public health and human rights advocates have largely been excluded from trade deliberations, in contrast to health-related industries. Proposed changes to influential federal trade advisory committees would rebalance the equation.
At a recent hearing by the Trade Subcommittee of the US House Ways and Means Committee, the Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and Health (CPATH) testified that:
The forces that shape our modern world have transformed both the way we conduct trade, and our ability to protect and improve the public’s health: dramatic changes in financial markets, communications technology and transportation affect the prosperity and well-being of individuals and nations. The U.S. trade advisory committee system must keep pace with these developments, and provide for effective and timely communication between trade policy-makers, and public health advocates and professionals.
Pending legislation (HR 2293 / S 1644) would create a dedicated public health advisory committee, and institutionalize public health representation throughout the trade advisory committee system. In 2005, CPATH reported that health- related pharmaceutical, tobacco, alcohol, processed food, and health services and products industries totaled 42 representatives on 25 trade advisory committees. The extent of the representation from the public health community: Zero.
Trade advisory committees were established in 1974 to provide information and advice to US trade negotiators from interested parties outside the federal government regarding US negotiating positions, before and during trade negotiations. The committees are subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) which requires that each advisory committee covered by the Act be fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and committee functions performed. One of the primary purposes of FACA was to end industry domination of advisory bodies. Today, the US trade advisory committees are extremely imbalanced. They are dominated by industries that have an impact on public health, while there is a notable and problematic absence of representation from the public health community.
In May 2005, a coalition of public health and tobacco control advocates wrote to the Administration to request that concerns regarding the health of individuals, communities, and populations be taken into account in developing US trade policy, and strongly encouraged appointment of public health representation on trade advisory committees to provide information, reports, and advice to and consult with the President, Congress, and the US Trade Representative (USTR). Three public health representatives were appointed to three different committees.
In May, 2009, CPATH’s updated analysis of the advisory committees found that the number of representatives from health-related industries increased to 65, from 42 in 2005, and the breadth of representation from health-related industry representatives increased from a presence on 25 committees to presence on 31 committees. The pharmaceutical industry increased their representatives to 27.
CPATH’s testimony offers a discussion of the role of trade and trade agreements in setting the terms for human rights and wellbeing; the trade advisory committee system, and proposals for transparent, accountable trade policy that advances the right to health.
Economic globalization has increased since the 1980s, characterized by an accelerated pace and increased number of cross-border transactions, and the concentration of transnational corporations. Services from finance to health care are major economic drivers in developed countries. Millions have emerged from poverty, at the same time that economic inequality is increasing among and within nations.
Trade agreements establish countries’ mutual rights and obligations with regard to trade. They address critical areas that are a matter of public debate at the national and international levels: intellectual property rules on access to medicines and to information; services including water supply; government procurement for grants and contracts; and agriculture. They can provide a basis for altering domestic US laws and policies. They should balance between protecting corporations’ ability to operate within uniform and predictable rules, and the obligations of governments to protect the public’s safety and wellbeing.
Ellen Shaffer, MPH, PhD, is Co-Director of the Center for Policy Analysis, which produces thoughtful, reliable information on social and economic policies that affect the public’s health, and provides a network for policy makers and advocates in the US and around the globe. More writings by Ellen can be found at her blog.
Trade policy is too important to be left to just corporate lobbyists.
Governments, including ours, negotiate trade agreements in secret from the public but in close consultation with business interests who are the dominant non-governmental presence at the policy making table. Governments consistently take every advantage of opportunities to foster the interests of their major industries and follow the prevailing neo-liberal free trade ideology to prioritize trade with little or no consideration of the health implications. Trade officials often work “hand-in-glove” with corporations to “pry open key markets” and have resisted direct health and other non-governmental organizations presence lest they “dilute business influence.”
This bill will change that and may provide an opportunity for surveilance and monitoring of business interests and be a step to what we need health impact assessments of all public policy.
It is not global trade policy which is keeping public health and human rights advocates away from the bargaining table – it is domestic politics. Tobacco creates American jobs, pharma creates American jobs. Where is the domestic impetus to change?
Plain and simple – global policies will not change until US domestic policy changes. The US remains the big player with all the bargaining power.
Congress regularly includes anti-health policy negotiating mandates in its presidential TPA legislation. The Obama administration has shown no inclination to pull back from previous policies and its deal with the health care industry domestically is an even more worrying sign of things to come. The signs are not good.
Global trade and international trade agreements have transformed the capacity of governments to monitor and to protect public health, to regulate occupational and environmental health conditions and food products, and to ensure affordable access to medications. Proposals under negotiation for the World Trade Organization’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the regional Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreement cover a wide range of health services, health facilities, clinician licensing, water and sanitation services, and tobacco and alcohol distribution services.
Public health professionals and organizations rarely participate in trade negotiations or in resolution of trade disputes. The linkages among global trade, international trade agreements, and public health deserve more attention than they have received to date, which is well laid out in this piece. It’s imperative that such governmental committee such as ACTA, deliberate policies issues which indicate public health issues and its affectiveness on IP.