Cargando…
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, Me...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7201631/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32375823 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00565-4 |
_version_ | 1783529575185121280 |
---|---|
author | Labonté, Ronald Gleeson, Deborah McNamara, Courtney L. |
author_facet | Labonté, Ronald Gleeson, Deborah McNamara, Courtney L. |
author_sort | Labonté, Ronald |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7201631 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72016312020-05-08 USMCA 2.0: a few improvements but far from a ‘healthy’ trade treaty Labonté, Ronald Gleeson, Deborah McNamara, Courtney L. Global Health Commentary 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. BioMed Central 2020-05-06 /pmc/articles/PMC7201631/ /pubmed/32375823 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00565-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Commentary Labonté, Ronald Gleeson, Deborah McNamara, Courtney L. USMCA 2.0: a few improvements but far from a ‘healthy’ trade treaty |
title | USMCA 2.0: a few improvements but far from a ‘healthy’ trade treaty |
title_full | USMCA 2.0: a few improvements but far from a ‘healthy’ trade treaty |
title_fullStr | USMCA 2.0: a few improvements but far from a ‘healthy’ trade treaty |
title_full_unstemmed | USMCA 2.0: a few improvements but far from a ‘healthy’ trade treaty |
title_short | USMCA 2.0: a few improvements but far from a ‘healthy’ trade treaty |
title_sort | usmca 2.0: a few improvements but far from a ‘healthy’ trade treaty |
topic | Commentary |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7201631/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32375823 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00565-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT labonteronald usmca20afewimprovementsbutfarfromahealthytradetreaty AT gleesondeborah usmca20afewimprovementsbutfarfromahealthytradetreaty AT mcnamaracourtneyl usmca20afewimprovementsbutfarfromahealthytradetreaty |