Health concerns raised over EU–US trade deal
Article InfoFree trade versus regulation
A
major aim of the proposed agreement is to reduce regulatory barriers to
trade between the USA and the EU, but campaigners are concerned about
what this could mean for regulations such as those that govern food
safety, environmental protection, and animal welfare, many of which are
stronger in Europe than in the USA. The European Commission has said
that regulations will not be watered down to be made compatible with
those in the USA.
However, critics argue that such claims
are not credible, especially in view of the massive industry lobbying
effort around the negotiations. “The whole process is one of undermining
the precautionary principle, which industrial lobbies have been trying
to do for years”, says Martin Mckee, professor of European public health
at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
If
the lowering of standards were not on the table, argues Kenneth Haar
from research and campaign group Corporate Europe Observatory, Brussels,
Belgium, “the chemicals and the food industries would simply not see
the TTIP as an opportunity”. In some areas, he suggests, traditions and
standards are so far apart that the claim that negotiators can find a
way to increase market access for the other side substantially without
affecting the level of protection is difficult to take seriously.
Some
critics, including chef and television presenter Jamie Oliver, have
voiced concerns about the removal of existing European food regulations,
such as bans on the trade of meat from hormone-treated animals. Haar
believes that this outcome is a real danger, but the process will most
likely be gradual.
“Personally, I do not expect immediate
and comprehensive lowering of standards, for example in chemicals and
food.” Instead, he believes that TTIP will rely more on regulatory
cooperation, which “is about ironing out regulatory divergence in the
long term, through opaque dialogues and a host of mechanisms that will
allow the two sides to work slowly towards more market access for
industry from the other side”. The result would be lower standards and a
brake on new rules, Haar argues.
Health-service protection
Whether
European health services will be included in TTIP has become a
political issue in the UK, where the opposition Labour Party has
threatened to withdraw its support for the agreement unless the National
Health Service (NHS) is exempted.
In a poll by the trade
union Unite, two-thirds of voters in marginal Conservative
constituencies supported an exemption for the NHS, prompting the
government to deny that the health service will be affected by the deal.
EU Commission officials have also made public statements suggesting
that the NHS won't be affected by TTIP. However, critics remain
unconvinced.
“I can fully understand why people don't
believe this government, when we know they're doing their best to
privatise large parts of the health service and, as far as we can tell,
have done nothing to stand up for public services in this deal”, says
John Healey MP, who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on EU–US
investment.
“We
have absolutely no idea whether or not the NHS will be protected, and I
don't think anybody is in a position to say that it definitely will or
will not”, says Martin Mckee. “I find it very surprising that Commission
officials would feel confident to make such a prediction, given that
there are so many uncertainties involved.”
Kenneth Haar agrees, telling The Lancet
that such assurances “are not worth much”. He points out that the EU
had “tabled quite substantial offers” in a document leaked in May,
including on health services. Although the document contains “some
traditional language that might seem to limit the impact on public
services”, he argues that because of the growing commercialisation of
health services such words “have no value”.
The case for
explicitly exempting the NHS from TTIP has found support in the medical
community. Mark Porter, chair of the British Medical Association (BMA)
Council, told The Lancet that the BMA “remains concerned about
the potential for TTIP to threaten the NHS's ability to provide
high-quality health care for all by facilitating further
commercialisation”. He argues that the government needs to make clear
that safeguards will be in place to protect the NHS from further
commercialisation arising from the deal. The UK Faculty of Public Health
has gone further by opposing TTIP outright, pointing to potential
threats to health and social care, environmental protection, and health
and safety legislation.
Investor–state disputes
The
plan to include a so-called investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS)
mechanism has proven especially controversial in the TTIP negotiations.
ISDS is a common feature of investment treaties between countries,
allowing foreign companies to sue host governments for compensation when
policy changes threaten their ability to generate earnings from
investments.
ISDS has previously been used in response to
public health and environmental legislation. For example, Philip Morris
is using the mechanism, via a trade agreement with Hong Kong, to demand
compensation from the Australian Government for the introduction of
plain packaging for tobacco products. In Quebec, Canada, a mining
company is seeking damages via the North American Free Trade Agreement
in response to a ban on hydraulic fracturing in part of the province
because of environmental concerns.
Unlike regular
lawsuits, ISDS claims are adjudicated in private tribunals rather than
open courts. “A group of arbitrators is selected, who are basically
negotiators—the decisions are not based on any body of law or precedents
or anything like that”, explains Mckee. “It is essentially a
negotiation procedure, and whoever can marshal the greater resources is
likely to win.”
Mckee suggests that if ISDS is included
in TTIP we can expect to see many more specious claims from companies
“in opposition to potentially any policy that reduces the consumption of
something hazardous to health”. Others have suggested that the
existence of ISDS mechanisms can lead to a so-called regulatory chill,
with politicians unlikely to introduce new legislation that might lead
to costly tribunal outcomes. “The whole process is one that leads
towards the lowest common denominator in terms of the protection of
public health”, notes Mckee.
Strong public pressure led
to the European Commission opening a public consultation on ISDS in TTIP
earlier this year, which received an unprecedented 150 000 responses.
The official review of the consultation will not be completed until
November this year, although the controversial mechanism has remained in
a draft version of the EU–Canada trade agreement leaked in August.
Behind closed doors
Another
concern raised by campaigners is the secretive nature of the
negotiation process, which is taking place behind closed doors, with
documentation kept confidential. In response to accusations of poor
transparency, the EU Ombudsman, the Italian Government, and the EU Trade
Commissioner have called for the EU's negotiating mandate to be made
public, but this would require all member states to agree.
The
influence of industry lobbies in the negotiations has also raised
concerns. According to the Corporate Europe Observatory, 92% of the
European Commission's lobby encounters in preparation for the
negotiations were with business representatives. Earlier this year, a
leaked document from European and US pharmaceutical industry
associations included a wish list of potential outcomes from TTIP,
causing concern among public health groups, who noted industry
opposition to government price controls and plans for the disclosure of
clinical trial data. “The pharmaceutical lobby has been extremely active
in trying to ensure that the agreement meets all of its goals, and we
really do need much more transparency in this process”, notes Mckee.
Campaigners
are planning a Europe-wide day of action in opposition to TTIP on Oct
11, soon after the seventh round of the negotiations, which takes place
from Sept 29 to Oct 3 in Washington, DC, USA. Negotiations are expected
to continue into next year.
