[Ip-health] CPATH op ed on CAFTA and meds

[Ellen Shaffer]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/11617532.htm?template=3DcontentM=
odules/printstory.jsp

[]
  San Jose Mercury News, Wed, May. 11, 2005
[]


The health costs of CAFTA
`FREE' TRADE IS GREAT -- FOR WEALTHY MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS
By Ellen R. Shaffer

Confused about where you stand on global trade agreements? Here's a quick t=
est:

1. I think Silicon Valley's economy will benefit most from:

A. Assuring that prescription drugs are affordable in the United States and
Central America.
B. Outsourcing more textile jobs to Central America.

2. The best way to build freedom and democracy is:

A. Make sure elected officials can protect the environment and safe working
conditions.
B. Hold our public-health protections hostage to the interests of corporati=
ons.

3. I would most trust trade agreements if they are informed by policy
advice from:

A. Organizations concerned with the health of individuals, communities and
vulnerable populations.
B. The pharmaceutical, tobacco, health insurance, alcohol and processed
food industries.

Scoring: If you lean toward choice ``A,'' you'll have a lot of second
thoughts about the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA. If you
like ``B,'' you may qualify for the advisory committees that consult
regularly with the U.S. trade representative, the president's top
policy-maker on trade.

Let's face it. A quick look at the plummeting U.S. trade balance (that is,
we import more than we export) confirms studies by groups like the Carnegie
Endowment. We now know that NAFTA-like ``free'' trade agreements make a few
multinational corporations wealthier, but fail to come through with job
growth in the United States. And they further impoverish the already-poor
in developing nations.

But they are a very effective policy delivery device for the pharmaceutical
industry. Far from promoting competition with brand name drug companies,
CAFTA presents numerous barriers to competition from generic producers. It
extends by years the monopoly pricing rights of the world's most profitable
industry, thus protecting high drug prices.

Congress has consistently objected to this lopsided approach, insisting
that U.S. trade agreements respect the consensus the rest of the world
reached long ago: Protections for drug companies' ``intellectual property''
rights must be balanced by the essential right of countries to protect
health. That means assuring affordable drugs for people with AIDS in El
Salvador and Guatemala, as well as for seniors in the United States.

Last year, Congress drew a line in the sand on ``Health-Minus'' provisions
when voting on the agreement with Australia. Lawmakers said then: It's time
for U.S. trade policy to stand up for the interests of the American people.

But here we are again. Congress must stand behind its pledge.

The sad truth is that some information-technology firms, seeking to rein in
piracy, have teamed up with the drug lobby to extend intellectual-property
rules. They must make the ethical decision to oppose aspects of these rules
that deny access to life-saving medicines.

Concerned about democracy? CAFTA, like NAFTA, authorizes foreign
corporations to challenge U.S. laws and regulations that might stand in the
way of profits. Using a similar ``investors' rights'' rule under NAFTA, for
example, the Canadian company Methanex is protesting California's order to
remove the carcinogen MTBE from our gasoline. No one questions that MTBE is
a health hazard. The problem is that it's also a moneymaker for Methanex.
If the United States loses the case, taxpayers will be liable for millions
in damages, payable directly to Methanex.

Why do we keep seeing trade agreements that cause dissension at home and
with our trading partners, instead of pro-development pacts? First, because
Congress lets them pass. Second, the U.S. trade representative's advisory
committees are stacked with corporate representatives, who meet in
confidential sessions. The Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and Health
and other national health groups have petitioned the USTR to open up its
advisory process, so that the public can debate issues critical to our
health. When it comes to our economic future, we should have multiple choic=
es.

ELLEN R. SHAFFER is the director of the Center for Policy Analysis on Trade
and Health in San Francisco. She wrote this article for the Mercury News.




=A9 2005 MercuryNews.com and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.mercurynews.com
--