BMJ 2015;350:h1438 doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1438 (Published 13 March 2015)
Page 1 of 1
News
NEWS EU-US trade treaty threatens vital health gains, warn public health experts Matthew Limb London
Public health experts across Europe have sounded a new warning over the threat to people’s health that a new trade deal between the European Union and the United States would pose.
In a joint statement 71 public health organisations from 41 European countries have condemned the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). They said it would undermine public services, entrench inequality, and introduce measures that could lower vital standards on health and consumer safety to “dangerous levels.” The UK Faculty of Public Health and the European Public Health Association urged the EU to scrap the deal. Martin McKee, the association’s president, said, “We are calling on the European Union to put health before profit and reject TTIP. We need healthy communities for economic growth.”
Negotiations are under way between the US and the EU over what would, if successfully concluded, become the world’s biggest trade deal. Advocates of the deal, including the UK government, claim that it would improve regulatory cooperation and reduce barriers to trade, thereby boosting investment and economic growth. But critics have said that it threatens vital public services, including the NHS, by giving foreign investors and corporations privileged access to markets and recourse to a secretive, extrajudicial arbitration system.1
The UK Faculty of Public Health spelled out its concerns in a policy report entitled Trading Health? published on 13 March.2 The faculty said that attempts to “harmonise” differences in important standards between the EU and the US risked “lowering” hard won improvements in standards covering health, environmental protection, and labour. It said that moves to “maximise liberalisation” of access to EU procurement and services markets presented grave risks to the NHS and other public services.
The faculty said it was “deeply concerning” that the focus of trade liberalisation under the proposed deal was on financial deregulation, investment protection, and removal of non-tariff (mainly regulatory) barriers to trade. It said that future economic opportunities should not come at the expense of health. Indeed economic growth depended on health, it said, and upholding the right of citizens to physical and mental health and wellbeing should be governments’ first priority.
the right to health, TTIP threatens to entrench and exacerbate inequalities in health for generations to come, to compromise efforts to address preventable non-communicable disease and climate change, and to safeguard the future of the NHS.” The faculty said that little evidence had been presented to suggest that the deal offered any benefits in tackling these “most serious challenges.” The faculty said that without urgent revision the proposed deal could increase harms related to tobacco use, particularly among young people, and alcohol related disorders, worsen mental ill health, and restrict governments’ ability to reduce consumption of unhealthy foods. The costs of vital drugs, including anticancer treatments, could also rise across Europe.
The faculty said it regarded as “wholly inadequate” reassurances presented by the UK government that TTIP would not open commissioning of NHS and clinical services to further competition and private sector provision. John Ashton, president of the faculty said, “The EU tells us that corporations won’t be able to force the UK government to change its laws. Yet, they could force the government to pay vast sums of taxpayers’ money in compensation if laws do not suit the interests of shareholders. That could mean that critical standards that protect the public’s health against unsafe consumer goods, dangerous workplaces, and environmental hazards may be lowered to dangerous levels.” He said, “TTIP could also mean that governments would be taken to an international tribunal by foreign private investors for introducing laws that could save lives, such as standard packs for tobacco, minimum unit pricing for alcohol,1 or consistent food labelling.
“Good and necessary laws like these would protect and improve people’s health and reduce pressure on our already overburdened NHS.” 1 2
Limb M. Experts warn that EU trade treaty with US puts NHS at risk. BMJ 2014;349:g5880. UK Faculty of Public Health. Trading health? UK Faculty of Public Health policy report on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Mar 2015. www.fph.org.uk/ttip_% 27threat_to_people%27s_health_in_uk_and_across_europe%27.
Cite this as: BMJ 2015;350:h1438 © BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2015
The report said, “By prioritising gross domestic profit and the profit of foreign private companies and their shareholders above
For personal use only: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions
Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe
Page 1 of 1
News
NEWS EU-US trade treaty threatens vital health gains, warn public health experts Matthew Limb London
Public health experts across Europe have sounded a new warning over the threat to people’s health that a new trade deal between the European Union and the United States would pose.
In a joint statement 71 public health organisations from 41 European countries have condemned the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). They said it would undermine public services, entrench inequality, and introduce measures that could lower vital standards on health and consumer safety to “dangerous levels.” The UK Faculty of Public Health and the European Public Health Association urged the EU to scrap the deal. Martin McKee, the association’s president, said, “We are calling on the European Union to put health before profit and reject TTIP. We need healthy communities for economic growth.”
Negotiations are under way between the US and the EU over what would, if successfully concluded, become the world’s biggest trade deal. Advocates of the deal, including the UK government, claim that it would improve regulatory cooperation and reduce barriers to trade, thereby boosting investment and economic growth. But critics have said that it threatens vital public services, including the NHS, by giving foreign investors and corporations privileged access to markets and recourse to a secretive, extrajudicial arbitration system.1
The UK Faculty of Public Health spelled out its concerns in a policy report entitled Trading Health? published on 13 March.2 The faculty said that attempts to “harmonise” differences in important standards between the EU and the US risked “lowering” hard won improvements in standards covering health, environmental protection, and labour. It said that moves to “maximise liberalisation” of access to EU procurement and services markets presented grave risks to the NHS and other public services.
The faculty said it was “deeply concerning” that the focus of trade liberalisation under the proposed deal was on financial deregulation, investment protection, and removal of non-tariff (mainly regulatory) barriers to trade. It said that future economic opportunities should not come at the expense of health. Indeed economic growth depended on health, it said, and upholding the right of citizens to physical and mental health and wellbeing should be governments’ first priority.
the right to health, TTIP threatens to entrench and exacerbate inequalities in health for generations to come, to compromise efforts to address preventable non-communicable disease and climate change, and to safeguard the future of the NHS.” The faculty said that little evidence had been presented to suggest that the deal offered any benefits in tackling these “most serious challenges.” The faculty said that without urgent revision the proposed deal could increase harms related to tobacco use, particularly among young people, and alcohol related disorders, worsen mental ill health, and restrict governments’ ability to reduce consumption of unhealthy foods. The costs of vital drugs, including anticancer treatments, could also rise across Europe.
The faculty said it regarded as “wholly inadequate” reassurances presented by the UK government that TTIP would not open commissioning of NHS and clinical services to further competition and private sector provision. John Ashton, president of the faculty said, “The EU tells us that corporations won’t be able to force the UK government to change its laws. Yet, they could force the government to pay vast sums of taxpayers’ money in compensation if laws do not suit the interests of shareholders. That could mean that critical standards that protect the public’s health against unsafe consumer goods, dangerous workplaces, and environmental hazards may be lowered to dangerous levels.” He said, “TTIP could also mean that governments would be taken to an international tribunal by foreign private investors for introducing laws that could save lives, such as standard packs for tobacco, minimum unit pricing for alcohol,1 or consistent food labelling.
“Good and necessary laws like these would protect and improve people’s health and reduce pressure on our already overburdened NHS.” 1 2
Limb M. Experts warn that EU trade treaty with US puts NHS at risk. BMJ 2014;349:g5880. UK Faculty of Public Health. Trading health? UK Faculty of Public Health policy report on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Mar 2015. www.fph.org.uk/ttip_% 27threat_to_people%27s_health_in_uk_and_across_europe%27.
Cite this as: BMJ 2015;350:h1438 © BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2015
The report said, “By prioritising gross domestic profit and the profit of foreign private companies and their shareholders above
For personal use only: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions
Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe
