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)

SSRN | 1-Oct-2015
Despite the deep irony of free trade agreements being subverted to codify and extend anti-competitive monopoly rights the joining of enhanced intellectual property rights (IPRs) and strengthened investor rights is creating a wild-west opportunity for unbounded corporate power.
Biodiversidad en América latina | 14-Sep-2015
Los presidentes de Chile, México y Perú recibieron una carta pública por las negociaciones secretas en torno al Tratado de Asociación Transpacífica (TPP) y sus implicancias para el futuro de los consumidores.
AFTINET | 14-Sep-2015
While RCEP was initially framed as an agreement that would be more flexible for low and middle income countries, there is evidence that some governments from industrialised countries are seeking to pursue aspects which would be very damaging for developing countries.
FT Alphaville | 26-Aug-2015
Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, discusses TPP.
ISDS Corporate Attacks | 30-Jul-2015
ISDS Corporate Attacks | 30-Jul-2015
Foreign Policy | 8-Jul-2015
Oone issue that has received comparatively little attention is how the Trans-Pacific Partnership is likely to impact the developing countries slated to join.
The Dominion Post | 6-Jul-2015
New Zealand needs to be ready to walk away from the Trans Pacific Partnership, says The Domion Post, worried about the impact of its drug patenting rules and investor-state dispute settlement mechanism.
Scoop | 30-Jun-2015
The Australian government misrepresents the claims of critics and fails to address substantial criticisms of the Trans Pacific Partnership, says civil society network AFTINET.
Australia Broadcasting Corporation | 19-Mar-2015
Australia’s primary negotiator on medicines for the US-Australia FTA, Dr Ruth Lopert, warns that the TPP could force the Australian Government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidise medicines.

0 | ... | 40 | 50 | 60 | 70 | 80 | 90 | 100 | 110 | 120 | 130