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

Abstract

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.

Patterns of Red and Processed Meat Consumption across North America: A Nationally Representative Cross-Sectional Comparison of Dietary Recalls from Canada, Mexico, and the United States

“…Accordingly, in Mexico per-capita consumption of beef has risen appreciably, and per-capita consumption of pork has more than doubled since 1994 [ 34 ]. The ratification of USMCA in March 2020 continues trade protections for meat products and was widely praised by the meat industry [ 8 ].…”

“…Policies and trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its successor, the US–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), encourage high production, trade, and ultimately consumption of many food products, including red and processed meat [ 7 , 8 ]. Indeed, market data indicate that purchases of red and processed meat are above the global average of 29 g/capita/day in all three North American countries [ 9 ].…”

The threat of a UK-US trade deal to managing non-communicable diseases

“…The free trade agreement recently signed by the US, Mexico, and Canada (USMCA) also limits the application of ISDS, excluding it entirely between the US and Canada 10. Finally, both the CPTPP and the USMCA were amended before ratification to limit stronger intellectual property provisions around biological medicines 2930…”

The interface between international trade and investment agreements and food environment policymaking: A conceptual framework

“…Critics have long raised concerns regarding the WTO agreements-in particular, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)as constraining low-and middle-income countries' (LMICs)' ability to autonomously pursue development policies (Wade, 2003;Page, 2007). More recently, scholarship has revealed how the international trade and investment regime, especially through the proliferation of "WTO plus" bilateral and regional investment treaties and free trade agreements, has evolved into a system that often reaches behind borders into domestic policy arenas in ways that threaten the post-2015 development agenda (Chan, 2013;UNCTAD, 2014;Fukuda-Parr and Treanor, 2018;Rodrik, 2018;Labonte et al, 2019;Labonté et al, 2020;McNamara et al, 2021). Critically, disputes do not actually have to occur to influence policy making; the mere threat of a TIA challenge or dispute is often enough to discourage governments from pursuing a policy, in what is known as "regulatory chill".…”