Public health needs to have a voice at the table

The day cigarette plain packaging legislation was passed, tobacco giant Phillip Morris launched legal action against the Australian Government.

The case is being watched by governments  across the world; for many, the threat of legal action may make them think twice about implementing similar measures.

The use of investor rights to challenge public health initiatives like the cigarette plain packaging legislation is something  that we are likely to see more of in new trade agreements.

One such agreement  is the Trans- Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, which is currently  under negotiation between 12 countries, including Australia.

Watching closely, Professor Sharon Friel of the ANU National Centre for Epidemiology and Public Health is concerned that public health will fall by the wayside.

“There are great possibilities from the TPP if it is done fairly and for the wider public good,” says Friel. “But trade goals are not necessarily the same as health goals and if negotiations get hijacked by commercial interests, it could be terrible for social and health outcomes.”

“The TPP is likely  to extend what we’ve got in existing trade agreements, ramping up the rights of investors. And that’s where we start to get concerned from a public health point of view, especially when the investors are Big Food, Big Tobacco and Big Pharma.”Friel says the TPP is unlike any other existing regional trade agreement, not just because of its sheer size but because it may provide avenues for international corporations to challenge democratically enacted public health policies.

In the worst-case scenarios, governments could be forced to defend their public health decisions in court.

“In the case of the plain packaging legislation, the Australian Government is relatively well resourced; our health minister at the time was a lawyer and she knew what to do,” says Friel.

“But for countries that don’t have these resources to go up against the might of Phillip Morris, or whoever the big company is, they may not pursue plain packaging legislation.

“You then don’t get governments doing what they can to protect public health because of the fear of the ramifications through the trade agreement.”

To help minimise this, Friel and many others are calling for strong legal exceptions to be included in the TPP. These exceptions would allow countries to defend their legislative and policy decisions on public health or environmental grounds.

“Public health needs to have a voice at the table. Countries need to ensure that they have regulations and standards that are as high quality as possible so they are in a strong position to engage with the trading system.

“The TPP has the potential to improve global health equity – but only if it is done fairly. I don’t think the strength of the industry lobby should be underestimated.”