Health

The investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions proposed in trade agreements give pharmaceutical corporations the right to sue governments for compensation if domestic laws negatively affect future earnings on their intellectual property or investments, and even if these laws are in accordance with public interests. Better access to medicines or preventing unsafe or ineffective medicines from entering the market could prove problematic.

Major US, Canadian and French pharmaceutical companies have recently challenged pro-public health measures through ISDS disputes brought under ISDS provisions.

Chemical corporations have also used ISDS in numerous occasions to challenge national bans on hazardous substances.

Most well-known cases include:

• Ethyl (US) vs. Canada: following Canada’s ban on the toxic petrol additive MMT, the US producer sued for US$201 million in compensation. In 1998, Canada agreed in a settlement to pay US$13 million and withdrew the ban (NAFTA invoked).

• Eli Lilly (US) vs. Canada: the pharmaceutical corporation challenged Canada’s patent standards after Canadian courts invalidated the company’s supplementary patents for Strattera and Zyprexa, claiming the drugs were not sufficiently innovative. The investor is claiming C$500 million. Case pending (NAFTA invoked).

• Dow Chemical (US) vs. Canada: the chemical corporation initiated a dispute for losses it alleged were caused by a Quebec provincial ban on lawn pesticides containing the active ingredient 2,4-D, classified as a possible carcinogen and one of the ingredients in Agent Orange, the herbicide widely used during the Vietnam war. In a settlement in 2011, the ban was sustained but Quebec was required to state that “products containing 2,4-D do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment provided that the instructions on their label are followed.” (NAFTA invoked.)

(October 2015)

Tele Sur | 30-Apr-2016
The Ecuadorean government is being forced to use money that could go toward relief efforts to instead pay off a multinational oil company.
Nueva Tribuna | 14-Apr-2016
Private arbitral tribunals will be able to impose multi-million fines on States whose parliaments have dared to legislate without taking into account corporate expectations.
New Statesman | 5-Apr-2016
One element of TTIP has been largely ignored – the deal’s impact on developing countries.
Nueva Tribuna | 7-Mar-2016
Tribunales privados de arbitraje podrán imponer multas multimillonarias a los Estados cuyos parlamentos hayan osado legislar sin tener en cuenta las expectativas de las empresas.
The Clinic | 12-Feb-2016
El domingo pasado el canciller, Heraldo Muñoz, tras firmar el Acuerdo de Asociación Transpacífico, que debe ser ratificado por el Parlamento, argumentó que las críticas se debían a desinformación. La organización civil, Chile mejor sin TPP, responde al secretario de Estado y refuta sus afirmaciones sobre los beneficios que traerá para el país el cuestionado acuerdo comercial.
Politico | 4-Jan-2016
The inclusion of an ISDS in an EU agreement could raise the likelihood of such cases being brought against all kinds of public interest and health protecting policies in the future.
El País | 29-Dec-2015
La perdida de protagonismo de los países más pobres, el acceso a los medicamentos o las cláusulas no vinculantes para el desarrollo sostenible son ejemplos de los riesgos que entrañaría para los ODS la construcción de un gran bloque comercial entre Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea.
Rebelión | 23-Dec-2015
El Acuerdo Transpacífico, negociado de forma ultrasecreta, blindará a los grandes inversionistas extranjeros y a los monopolios de la salud en Perú.
RT | 23-Dec-2015
El TPP da a más de 9.000 empresas extranjeras el derecho de violar leyes que protegen el medioambiente y evitar los tribunales.
The Age | 21-Dec-2015
I only wish to caution that we should be wary of anyone who suggests that the decision demonstrates that ISDS isn’t problematic.

0 | ... | 30 | 40 | 50 | 60 | 70 | 80 | 90 | 100 | 110 | ... | 130