Trading away our health: How trade and investment rules put corporate rights ahead of public health.
Both countries are frantically working on ways to resolve long-disputed trade issues, especially relating to medical devices, agriculture, and e-commerce.
The National Farmers Union says the new deal’s extended patent protection for new pharmaceuticals must be reduced so that less expensive generic versions of new drugs can be available to consumers sooner.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson told visiting US Vice President that Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) would not be included in negotiations with the United States for a trade deal.
Boris Johnson is promising new legislation to ’help the NHS’. But the danger is it will just gift wrap it for US corporations. Campaigners are uniting to say #HandsOffOurNHS and to call on MPs to really protect it.
US president Donald Trump stood next to outgoing-PM Theresa May and insisted the NHS would be “on the table” in any trade deal.
On Monday, the British parliament will debate whether the NHS should be included in US trade talks. Here’s how to decode the reassuring words we’ll no doubt hear from government.
Beyond ISDS, another potential trade policy issue lurks in the background and which has not yet captured the attention of the health policy community: rules of origin in trade agreements.
The tobacco industry has a long history of using international trade deals to force their products into new markets.
These practises open the door to Big Pharma companies and disastrous private health companies.
Rather than enhancing public health protection the USMCA places new, extended, and enforceable obligations on public regulators that increase the power of corporate interests during the development of new regulations.
The Jeju provincial government has revoked the business license of a Chinese-owned for-profit hospital. The Chinese group may file a suit against the Korean government, using the investor-state dispute settlement system.
African governments must act immediately to address the AfCFTA’s potential negative implications for Africans’ health.
It has taken a second FOI case and another two years to reveal that Australian taxpayers were only awarded half of the costs of defending Australia’s tobacco plain packaging laws against tobacco giant Philip Morris in March 2017.
Free trade agreements like the RCEP will infringe on India’s intellectual property laws. India must stand its ground in the interest of public health.
The UK should accept American meat as part of a post-Brexit trade deal, says US ambassador to the UK .
The Korea government may face another investor-state dispute case from the Chinese capital if the license is called off.
In a letter to Congress, the groups demand that the pact’s giveaways to Big Pharma that would keep medicines unaffordable be removed before the pact is sent to Congress.
NAFTA 2.0 would effectively tie the US Congress’ hands in the struggle against rising drug prices.
The Intellectual Property Chapter of the revised NAFTA, rebranded by the Trump Administration USMCA, includes provisions that threaten to undermine critical efforts towards affordable health care and medicine.