[Ip-health] NYT letters - CPATH, EPI

[Ellen Shaffer]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
On 12/23/07, a New York Times editorial misleadingly linked current trade
agreements, trade itself, and prosperity, warned against protectionist
opposition, and recommended safety net measures such as expanded health
care.   Responses from CPATH and from Tony Avirgan of EPI, on 12/27,  appear
below.  To see other excellent letters, and the original editorial, go to:
http://www.cpath.org/id4.htm, or:


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/opinion/l27trade.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

December 27, 2007
The Drawbacks of Free Trade Pacts

To the Editor:

Current trade agreements preclude and sometimes reverse the very safety
net you propose to ameliorate their damage, as new Congressional leaders
recognize. Trade pacts undermine access to affordable medicines and
offer new levers of power to the drug, tobacco, alcohol, health care and
processed food industries. These industries dominate United States
federal trade advisory committees and influence trade policy to promote
the bottom line over health.

The public, the candidates and The Times are right to call for
affordable health care. We also need a new, sustainable trade model that
does not destabilize public health benefits where they exist or are
emerging among our trading partners. These are the genuine keys to
prosperity.

Ellen R. Shaffer
San Francisco, Dec. 23, 2007
The writer is co-director of the Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and
Health.

*

To the Editor:

In "Trade and Prosperity" (editorial, Dec. 23), you equate opposition to
trade agreements like Nafta with protectionism. While there are
protectionists among the opponents of so-called free trade agreements,
most opposition is based on the fact that these agreements have little
to do with the exchange of goods and much more to do with empowering
corporations to override national laws protecting workers and the
environment in other countries.

Agreements like Nafta and Cafta extend patents well beyond the
provisions set out in United States law, inhibiting the ability of other
countries to combat public health crises such as AIDS. These are the
reasons that there is such widespread opposition to free trade
agreements not just in the United States, but also in countries with
which such agreements are promulgated.

Tony Avirgan
Silver Spring, Md., Dec. 23, 2007
The writer is global policy organizer at the Economic Policy Institute.

---
Originally circulated on the G&H List--- The Globalization and Health list
is a discussion group, an information source, and an organizing tool for
people concerned about the impact of economic globalization on health. The
list is managed by CPATH, the Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and
Health, an independent research and advocacy group. www.cpath.org You are
currently subscribed to g-h as: ershaffer@gmail.com To post a message, send
an email to G-H@list.cpath.org To unsubscribe via email, send a blank email
to leave-g-h-1060805N@list.cpath.org To subscribe via email send a blank
email to join-G-H@list.cpath.org To subscribe, unsubscribe or view archived
messages, visit the list web site at
http://list.cpath.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=g-h

--
Ellen R. Shaffer, PhD MPH
Co-Director, CPATH
Phone 415-933-6204
www.cpath.org
cell: 415-680-4603