USMCA (NAFTA 2.0): tightening the constraints on the right to regulate for public health

Power and Other Commercial Determinants of Health: An Empirical Study of the Australian Food, Alcohol, and Gambling Industries

BACKGROUND

Commercial determinants of health (CDoH) represent a critical frame for exploring undue corporate and commercial influence over health. Power lenses are integral to understanding CDoH. Impacts of food, alcohol, and gambling industries are observable CDoH outcomes. This study aims to inform understanding of the systems and institutions of commercial and/or corporate forces working within the Australian food, alcohol, and gambling industries that influence health and well-being, including broader discourses materialised via these systems and institutions.

METHODS

Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with key-informants on Australian public policy processes. Interviewees were current and former politicians, political staff members, regulators and other public servants, industry representatives, lobbyists, journalists, and researchers with expertise and experience of the Australian food, alcohol, and/ or gambling industries. Interviews sought participants' perceptions of Australian food, alcohol, and gambling industries' similarities and differences, power and influence, relationships, and intervention opportunities and needs.

RESULTS

Strategies and tactics used by Australian food, alcohol and gambling industries are similar, and similar to those of the tobacco industry. They wield considerable soft (eg, persuasive, preference-shaping) and hard (eg, coercive, political, and legal/economic) power. Perceptions of this power differed considerably according to participants' backgrounds. Participants framed their understanding of necessary interventions using orthodox neoliberal discourses, including limiting the role of government, emphasising education, consumer freedom, and personal choice.

CONCLUSION

Food, alcohol, and gambling industries exercise powerful influences in Australian public policy processes, affecting population health and well-being. Per Wood and colleagues' framework, these manifest corporate, social, and ecological outcomes, and represent considerable instrumental, structural, and discursive power. We identify power as arising from discourse and material resources alike, along with relationships and complex industry networks. Addressing power is essential for reducing CDoH harms. Disrupting orthodox discourses and ideologies underpinning this should be a core focus of public health (PH) advocates and researchers alike.

The future of human malnutrition: rebalancing agency for better nutritional health

The major threat to human societies posed by undernutrition has been recognised for millennia. Despite substantial economic development and scientific innovation, however, progress in addressing this global challenge has been inadequate. Paradoxically, the last half-century also saw the rapid emergence of obesity, first in high-income countries but now also in low- and middle-income countries. Traditionally, these problems were approached separately, but there is increasing recognition that they have common drivers and need integrated responses. The new nutrition reality comprises a global ‘double burden’ of malnutrition, where the challenges of food insecurity, nutritional deficiencies and undernutrition coexist and interact with obesity, sedentary behaviour, unhealthy diets and environments that foster unhealthy behaviour. Beyond immediate efforts to prevent and treat malnutrition, what must change in order to reduce the future burden? Here, we present a conceptual framework that focuses on the deeper structural drivers of malnutrition embedded in society, and their interaction with biological mechanisms of appetite regulation and physiological homeostasis. Building on a review of malnutrition in past societies, our framework brings to the fore the power dynamics that characterise contemporary human food systems at many levels. We focus on the concept of agency, the ability of individuals or organisations to pursue their goals. In globalized food systems, the agency of individuals is directly confronted by the agency of several other types of actor, including corporations, governments and supranational institutions. The intakes of energy and nutrients by individuals are powerfully shaped by this ‘competition of agency’, and we therefore argue that the greatest opportunities to reduce malnutrition lie in rebalancing agency across the competing actors. The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on food systems and individuals illustrates our conceptual framework. Efforts to improve agency must both drive and respond to complementary efforts to promote and maintain equitable societies and planetary health.

Who influences nutrition policy space using international trade and investment agreements? A global stakeholder analysis

Background

Regulation of food environments is needed to address the global challenge of poor nutrition, yet policy inertia has been a problem. A common argument against regulation is potential conflict with binding commitments under international trade and investment agreements (TIAs). This study aimed to identify which actors and institutions, in different contexts, influence how TIAs are used to constrain policy space for improving food environments, and to describe their core beliefs, interests, resources and strategies, with the objective of informing strategic global action to preserve nutrition policy space.

Methods

We conducted a global stakeholder analysis applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework, based on existing academic literature and key informant interviews with international experts in trade and investment law and public health nutrition policy.

Results

We identified 12 types of actors who influence policy space in the food environment policy subsystem, relevant to TIAs. These actors hold various beliefs regarding the economic policy paradigm, the nature of obesity and dietary diseases as health problems, the role of government, and the role of industry in solving the health problem. We identified two primary competing coalitions: 1) a ‘public health nutrition’ coalition, which is overall supportive of and actively working to enact comprehensive food environment regulation; and 2) an ‘industry and economic growth’ focussed coalition, which places a higher priority on deregulation and is overall not supportive of comprehensive food environment regulation. The industry and economic growth coalition appears to be dominant, based on its relative power, resources and coordination. However, the public health nutrition coalition maintains influence through individual activism, collective lobbying and government pressure (e.g. by civil society), and expert knowledge generation.

Conclusions

Our analysis suggests that industry and economic growth-focussed coalitions are highly capable of leveraging networks, institutional structures and ideologies to their advantage, and are a formidable source of opposition acting to constrain nutrition policy space globally, including through TIAs. Opportunities for global public health nutrition coalitions to strengthen their influence in the support of nutrition policy space include strategic evidence generation and coalition-building through broader engagement and capacity-building.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12992-021-00764-7.

Intellectual property and access to medicines: mapping public attitudes toward pharmaceuticals during the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) negotiation process

Background

Transparency and accountability are essential components at all stages of the trade negotiation process. This study evaluates the extent to which these principles were upheld in the United States’ public consultation process during the negotiation of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), with respect to public comments about the pharmaceutical sector and access to medicines.

Results

The public consultation process occurred before the start of official negotiations and was overseen by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). It included both written comments and oral testimony about US trade negotiation objectives. Of the written comments that specifically discussed issues relating to pharmaceuticals, the majority were submitted by private individuals, members of the pharmaceutical industry, and civil society organizations. Nearly all comments submitted by non-industry groups indicated that access to medicines was a priority issue in the renegotiated agreement, with specific reference to price affordability. By contrast, more than 50% of submissions received from members or affiliates of the pharmaceutical industry advocated for strengthened pharmaceutical intellectual property rights, greater regulatory data protections, or both.

This study reveals mixed outcomes with respect to the level of transparency achieved in the US trade negotiation process. Though input from the public at-large was actively solicited, the extent to which these comments were considered in the content of the final agreement is unclear. A preliminary comparison of the analyzed comments with the USTR’s final negotiating objectives and the final text of the USMCA shows that several provisions that were advanced exclusively by the pharmaceutical industry and ultimately adopted in the final agreement were opposed by the majority of non-industry stakeholders.

Conclusions

Negotiators could increase public transparency when choosing to advance one competing trade objective over another by actively providing the public with clear rationales for their negotiation positions, as well as details on how public comments are taken into account to form these rationales. Without greater clarity on these aspects, the public consultation process risks appearing to serve as a cursory government mechanism, lacking in accountability and undermining public trust in both the trade negotiation process and its outcomes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12992-021-00740-1.

How to combat efforts to overturn bans on electronic nicotine delivery systems: lessons from tobacco industry efforts during the 1980s to open closed cigarette markets in Thailand

Until 1990, it was illegal for transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) to sell cigarettes in Thailand. We reviewed and analysed internal tobacco industry documents relevant to the Thai market during the 1980s. TTCs’ attempts to access the Thai cigarette market during the 1980s concentrated on political lobbying, advertising and promotion of the foreign brands that were illegal to sell in Thailand at the time. They sought to take advantage of the Thai Tobacco Monopoly’s (TTM) inefficiency to propose licencing agreements and joint ventures with TTM and took advantages of unclear regulations about cigarette marketing to promote their products through advertising and sponsorship activities. After their initial efforts failed, they successfully lobbied the US to impose trade sanctions to liberalise Thailand’s market. Similar to the situation for cigarettes in the 1980s, since 2017, Philip Morris International has worked in parallel with a pro-e-cigarette group to pressure Thailand’s government to allow sales of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS; including e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products), knowing the products were illegal under Thai law. Health advocates and government authorities should be aware of past TTCs’ tactics for cigarettes and anticipate that TTCs will attempt to use international trade law to force markets open for ENDS if their domestic efforts fail.

Food environment solutions for childhood obesity in Latin America and among Latinos living in the United States

The food environment is a major contributor to unhealthy diets in children and, therefore, to the increasing rates of obesity. Acclaimed by scholars across the world, Latin American countries have been leaders in implementing policies that target different aspects of the food environment. Evidence on the nature and to what extent children are exposed and respond to unhealthy food environments in the region and among Latinos in the United States is, however, deficient. The objective of this review is to use the integrated International Network for Food and Obesity/noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) Research, Monitoring and Action Support (INFORMAS) framework to create healthy food environment to (i) compare the key elements of childhood obesity-related food environments in Latin America and for Latinos living in the United States; (ii) describe the evidence on solutions to improve childhood obesity-related food environments; and (iii) identify research priorities to inform solutions to fight childhood obesity in these populations. We found that an integrated body of evidence is needed to inform an optimal package of policies to improve food environments to which children in Latin America and Latino children in the United States are exposed and more efficiently translate policy solutions to help curb growing childhood obesity levels across borders.

Glossary on free trade agreements and health part 1: the shift from multilateralism and the rise of 'WTO-Plus' provisions

The global trading system has undergone a shift away from multilateral trade negotiations to a 'spaghetti-bowl' of regional and bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs). In this two-part glossary, we discuss why this shift has occurred, focusing on how it poses new challenges for public health. Specifically, we introduce key terms that shape this new trading environment and explain them through a public health lens. Part 1 of this glossary focuses on provisions in FTAs that build on previous agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO). These provisions are commonly designated as 'WTO-Plus'. This approach continues into part 2 of the glossary, which also considers components of FTAs that have no precedent within WTO treaties. Following a broader discussion of how the current political context and the COVID-19 pandemic shape the contemporary trade environment, part 2 considers the main areas of trade and health policy incoherence as well as recommendations to address them.

Industry submissions on alcohol in the context of Australia's trade and investment agreements: A content and thematic analysis of publicly available documents

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Alcohol use is a leading risk factor for death and disability, responsible for 3 million deaths in 2016. The alcohol industry is a powerful player in shaping trade and investment rules in ways that can constrain the ability of governments to regulate alcoholic beverages to reduce harm. This paper analyses publicly available submissions about alcohol in the context of Australia's free trade agreements to determine the key themes put forward by industry.

DESIGN AND METHODS

We searched for submissions made to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade by alcohol industry trade associations, alcohol manufacturers, distributors and retailers, general industry association, and government agencies with responsibilities for alcohol trade, about specific free trade agreements involving Australia. Thirty-one submissions in relation to eight trade agreements were included for analysis. The analysis involved both descriptive content analysis and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Findings suggest that industry is actively seeking to shape trade negotiations around alcohol. Priority issues for the industry include improving market access, harmonising regulation, improving clarity and transparency, reducing the burden of regulation and preventing monopolies on product names.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The alcohol industry and associated business and government organisations are actively working to influence trade agreement negotiations for industry economic gain, arguing for rules which may undermine public health goals. The analysis suggests that public health experts should pay attention to trade and investment agreements and develop counter frames to ensure agreements do not create barriers for coherent health policies.

Understanding the trends in international agreements on pricing and reimbursement for newly marketed medicines and their implications for access to medicines: a computational text analysis

BACKGROUND

Health systems are struggling with unprecedented drug spending and governments have devised various policy options to manage high-priced medicines. Meanwhile, some pricing and reimbursement processes are currently moving under the jurisdiction of international agreements. This study aims to understand trends in international agreements from the perspectives of pricing and reimbursement policies for newly marketed medicines.

METHODS

We proposed the framework to interpret the international agreements as code and applied computational text analysis to understand international agreements as data. In particular, we selected the AUSFTA, KORUS, and TPP to assess the progress and evolution in international agreements and investigate the existing relevant content on the pricing and reimbursement of newly marketed medicines.

RESULTS

Similar to the provisions for intellectual property, the scope of international agreements regarding pricing and reimbursement decisions are broadened and strengthened. Over time, the domain of transparency, re-naming procedural fairness, has changed significantly more than the remaining domains. Pharmaceutical companies will have more opportunities to advocate for their positions, to protect their interests in decision processes, to investigate the decisions on listings and setting the amounts of reimbursement, and to challenge these decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Recently signed international agreements favor companies over governments with underscoring procedural fairness and timely access. However, access to affordable medicines is the goal towards which international agreements should aim. In a similar vein, substantial fairness and the accountability of companies should be discussed when negotiating agreements or adopting international agreements through domestic legislation.

Understanding the trends in international agreements on pricing and reimbursement for newly marketed medicines and their implications for access to medicines: a computational text analysis

Background

Health systems are struggling with unprecedented drug spending and governments have devised various policy options to manage high-priced medicines. Meanwhile, some pricing and reimbursement processes are currently moving under the jurisdiction of international agreements. This study aims to understand trends in international agreements from the perspectives of pricing and reimbursement policies for newly marketed medicines.

Methods

We proposed the framework to interpret the international agreements as code and applied computational text analysis to understand international agreements as data. In particular, we selected the AUSFTA, KORUS, and TPP to assess the progress and evolution in international agreements and investigate the existing relevant content on the pricing and reimbursement of newly marketed medicines.

Results

Similar to the provisions for intellectual property, the scope of international agreements regarding pricing and reimbursement decisions are broadened and strengthened. Over time, the domain of transparency, re-naming procedural fairness, has changed significantly more than the remaining domains. Pharmaceutical companies will have more opportunities to advocate for their positions, to protect their interests in decision processes, to investigate the decisions on listings and setting the amounts of reimbursement, and to challenge these decisions.

Conclusions

Recently signed international agreements favor companies over governments with underscoring procedural fairness and timely access. However, access to affordable medicines is the goal towards which international agreements should aim. In a similar vein, substantial fairness and the accountability of companies should be discussed when negotiating agreements or adopting international agreements through domestic legislation.

'I had never seen so many lobbyists': food industry political practices during the development of a new nutrition front-of-pack labelling system in Colombia

OBJECTIVE

To identify and monitor food industry use of political practices during the adoption of nutrition warning labels (WL) in Colombia.

DESIGN

Document analysis of publicly available information triangulated with interviews.

SETTING

Colombia.

PARTICIPANTS

Eighteen key informants from the government (n 2), academia (n 1), civil society (n 12), the media (n 2) and a former food industry employee (n 1).

RESULTS

In Colombia, the food industry used experts and groups funded by large transnationals to promote its preferred front-of-pack nutrition labelling (FOPL) and discredit the proposed warning models. The industry criticised the proposed WL, discussing the negative impacts they would have on trade, the excessive costs required to implement them and the fact that consumers were responsible for making the right choices about what to eat. Food industry actors also interacted with the government and former members of large trade associations now in decision-making positions in the public sector. The Codex Alimentarius was also a platform through which the industry got access to decision-making and could influence the FOPL policy.

CONCLUSIONS

In Colombia, the food industry used a broad range of political strategies that could have negatively influenced the FOPL policy process. Despite this influence, the mandatory use of WL was announced in February 2020. There is an urgent need to condemn such political practices as they still could prevent the implementation of other internationally recommended measures to improve population health in the country and abroad, nutrition WL being only of them.

USMCA 2.0: a few improvements but far from a 'healthy' trade treaty

The USMCA (NAFTA 2.0), although signed over a year ago, went through several months of renegotiation of certain of its new rules that the Democrat-controlled US Congress wanted altered or strengthened. In December a 'Protocol of Amendment' was agreed upon and signed by the three Parties (the USA, Mexico, and Canada). A number of tough, new measures governing pharmaceuticals were revised or deleted, making it potentially easier for generic competition and lower drug costs in all three countries. Rules on protection of labour rights were also strengthened, lowering the threshold at which a complaint of unfair labour practices could be initiated. Procedures for investigating such a complaint or resolving a formal dispute were also improved. Similar procedural improvements were made on measures affecting environmental protection. These Protocol agreements are more health-positive than health-negative, and in the case of pharmaceuticals are of significant impact. Overall, however, these amendments are simply a political fine-tuning of the agreement. Concerns raised in our earlier health impact assessment of the USMCA, notably how the agreement's regulatory reforms reduce public health policy flexibilities, remain. The agreement continues to subordinate known or potential health costs of many of its measures to dubious claims of aggregate economic gains. Moreover, these gains, if materialized, are likely to accrue to those atop the income/wealth hierarchies in all three nations.

How will recent trade agreements that extend market protections for brand-name prescription pharmaceuticals impact expenditures and generic access in Canada?

Canada recently entered into two multinational trade agreements (i.e., the Canada, United States, and Mexico Trade Agreement; and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union). The resulting federal policy changes will prolong periods of market protection afforded to eligible brand-name prescription drugs by extending competition-blocking patent and data exclusivity terms. While previous studies have analysed these two policy changes in isolation, it remains unknown what the total combined impact will be in a typical year. Our objective was to design an analytic approach that can assess more than one change to a country's market protections and then to apply this methodology to the Canadian context. We find that the collective impact of these policy changes will be to extend the regulatory protection period for new drugs from an average of 10.0 years to 11.1 years. Depending upon the model's assumptions and all contingencies considered, an 11% increase equated to an average of $410 million annually (with a minimum estimate of $40 million and a maximum of $1.4 billion). Despite this uncertainty reflected in the range of possible financial impacts, we conclude that such methodological approaches could be useful for rapidly evaluating potential policy changes prior to adoption, which may further assist in budget planning to mitigate increased cost to the downstream health authorities most impacted by these trade concessions.

Correction to: USMCA (NAFTA 2.0): tightening the constraints on the right to regulate for public health

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors flagged an error concerning two missing article references, which were unfortunately not provided prior to publication of the article.