This Community is Archived.

This community is no longer active as of December 2018. Thanks to those who posted here and made this information available to others visiting the site.

Stop the TPP Fast-Track NOW

By Pooja Yerramilli | 12 May, 2015

The Senate is currently voting on whether to fast track the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which, as currently written, would threaten access to medicines around the world.

Please see YP's stance here:

To take action, please call your Representative or Senator. Or take action at the links below:

Attached resources:



GHD Online Replied at 4:36 PM, 12 May 2015

Hi everyone!

Great news: The Senate did not pass the TPP Fast Track. That buys us some time to advocate for key changes with regards to the IP stipulations!

Geneviève Bois Moderator Emeritus Replied at 4:48 PM, 12 May 2015

Great news!

Jordan Jarvis Moderator Replied at 4:59 PM, 12 May 2015

Good news indeed. For those of you in the community who aren't that familiar with the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the implications it could have on global health, please see the below op-ed by Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans
Frontières (MSF)-USA Board of Directors President, Dr. Deane Marchbein, featured in Health Affairs' blog:

The Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Threat To Global Health?
Deane Marchbein
May 8, 2015

Lost in the political discussions over the passage of the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP)—a trade agreement currently being negotiated in secret
between the U.S. and 11 other Pacific-Rim nations—is the very real
negative impact it would have on global health.

Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) works in over 60
countries, and our medical teams rely on access to affordable medicines
and vaccines. We are deeply concerned that the TPP, in its current form,
will lock-in high, unsustainable drug prices, block or delay the
availability of affordable generic medicines, and price millions of people
out of much-needed medical care.
The public health repercussions of this deal could be massive. The
negotiating countries represent at least 700 million people, and U.S.
negotiators refer to the TPP as a “blueprint” for future trade deals. The
TPP attempts to rewrite existing global trade rules and would dismantle
legal flexibilities and protections afforded for public health.

Problematic Provisions
We have concerns with several U.S. government demands in the TPP. For
example, the TPP would lower the standard for patentability of medicines.
It would force TPP governments to grant pharmaceutical companies
additional patents for changes to existing medicines, even when the
changes provide no therapeutic benefit to patients. These provisions would
facilitate “evergreening” and other forms of abuse of the patent system by
lengthening monopolies and delaying access to generic competition.

Another concerning provision in the TPP involves so-called “data
exclusivity” for biologics, a new class of medicines that includes
vaccines and drugs used for cancer and multiple sclerosis treatment. Data
exclusivity blocks competing firms from using previously generated
clinical trial data to gain approval for generic versions of these drugs
and vaccines. If pharmaceutical companies have their way, the TPP will
block generic producers of biologics from entering the market for at least
12 years, during which patients would be forced to endure astronomical

The rationale given for such an exclusivity period is that it will promote
innovation by allowing originator companies enough time to charge high
prices and recoup their research and development investment. This simply
isn’t supported by the evidence. On the contrary, the Federal Trade
Commission finds that no years of data exclusivity were necessary to
promote innovation in biologic drugs.

Twelve years of data exclusivity is not only unprecedented in any trade
agreement, it is not the law in any of the TPP negotiating countries
outside of the U.S., and it would keep lifesaving medicines out of reach
of millions of people. The Obama Administration has actually called for
data exclusivity to be reduced to seven years at home, so it is puzzling
that the U.S. Trade Representative would be aggressively pushing for these
terms in the TPP.
These provisions and others currently included in the TPP are at direct
odds with the U.S. government’s own long-standing commitments to global
health. U.S. taxpayer-supported initiatives like PEPFAR, the Global Fund
for AIDS, TB and Malaria, and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, rely on
affordable, generic medicines in order to operate effectively.

Research And Development
As an organization caring for patients worldwide, Doctors Without
Borders understands that there should be incentives to recover research
and development investments and to promote innovation. Unfortunately, the
public is in the dark on what this research and development truly costs.
We are told that it costs billions to research and develop a new medicine,
although a significant amount of early research and development actually
happens at publicly funded centers and universities.

We are told that the only way to ensure that people receive the medicines
they need is by increasing intellectual property provisions, such as those
encapsulated in the TPP. In reality, the existing monopoly-based
innovation system that the TPP is attempting to standardize has left us
with more patents and fewer medical breakthroughs.

The most recent and dramatic example of this failure in innovation played
out just last year, when Ebola raged through West Africa. Doctors Without
Borders and other global health actors were ill-equipped to fight a
disease that was identified 40 years ago but for which there are still no
adequate diagnostics, treatments, or vaccines.

As TPP countries aim to conclude negotiations in the next few months, it
is essential that the United States and other negotiating countries work
to protect existing access to medicines’ safeguards and to promote a
public-health driven biomedical innovation system.


Phillip Baker Moderator Replied at 7:00 PM, 13 May 2015

Fantastic news, thanks for the update! It shows the strength of civil
society agitation on the issue (including YPs).

Joseph Stiglitz has a good related thought piece out today:

One ominous part of all this are the so-called investor state dispute
mechanisms (ISDS) built into the 'new generation' trade deals like the TPP.
An ISDS enables private investors to pursue arbitration directly against
governments to recuperate losses resulting from the adoption of domestic
regulations, including those designed to protect public health and the

Proponents say these are rarely used. Actually, foreign investors are
increasingly doing so: the cumulative number of ISDS cases increased from
almost none in 1995 to more than 500 in 2012 (see pg.19 of this UNCTAD
report 58 in 2012 alone. Of which the Philip Morris
plain packaging case against Australia is one.

Stiglitz frames this as a 'secret corporate takeover'. Alarmist or not far
from the truth?

This Community is Archived.

This community is no longer active as of December 2018. Thanks to those who posted here and made this information available to others visiting the site.