At a hearing on 16 May 2008 in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, public health and health professionals will demand that corporate interests be balanced with public interest representation on US Industry Trade Advisory Committees (ITACs) that advise the US Trade Representative (USTR) on trade policies affecting public health. Non-profit and public interest organizations have been systematically denied posts on industry-dominated trade advisory committees that impact the health of millions of people around the world. The appeal was filed in San Francisco by Earthjustice on behalf of a coalition of public health organizations including: the Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and Health (CPATH), the American Nurses Association (ANA), California Public Health Association-North, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and. the Chinese Progressive Association. The coalition claims that the current makeup of advisory committees used by the Bush administration to establish trade policy favors corporate interests and illegally excludes public health advocates. At issue are committees that advise the USTR on a variety of public and environmental health protections, from standards for healthy food, water, health care services, and hazardous waste disposal services, to access to generic pharmaceuticals and patenting of plants. Trade policies have limited consumer access to generic drugs, and could remove privacy protections from medical records and promote privatization of public water supplies. The present California controversy over toxic spraying to treat apple moths was instigated because Mexico invoked a NAFTA provision on agricultural imports. The Federal Advisory Committees Act (FACA) requires that advisory committees be "fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented." Though the US General Accounting Office has twice issued reports criticizing the US Trade Representative for not opening most of its committees to public interest representatives, and despite repeated requests from CPATH and other advocates, the USTR has failed to appoint representatives of public health organizations to several ITACs. So public health organizations have been forced to go to court, seeking to ensure balance on these federal advisory panels. "We are disappointed that the US Trade Representative has failed to obey the law and create more balanced advisory panels," said Ellen Shaffer, Co-Director of the Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and Health (CPATH). "We also regret that the administration declined to reappoint the American Nurses Association's policy analyst, Cheryl Peterson, to her long-standing position on a labor trade advisory committee, following the ANA's support for this lawsuit. Public health policy is too important to be left to a private club of special interests. In light of the USTR's recalcitrance, we must rely on the court to enforce this vital democratic principle." Martin Wagner, the Earthjustice attorney representing the coalition in the case said, "US trade policy affects the health of people and the environment around the world. But the US Trade Representative is getting its most direct guidance from committees dominated by industries seeking to maximize corporate profits rather than promote global health. This suit seeks to bring a public voice to these important decisions." "International trade agreements affect health services and the personnel who deliver them. On behalf of the nation's 2.9 million registered nurses, ANA contends it is critical that the U.S. trade advisory process is open, transparent and balanced," said Rebecca M. Patton, MSN, RN, CNOR, President of the American Nurses Association. "Currently the health advisory committees are made up exclusively of industry representatives," said Giorgio Piccagli, President of California Public Health Association-North. "The foxes are not just guarding the hen house, but they are selling the eggs in a private market. That's no way for international trade policy to be made. If there's room for the pharmaceutical, alcohol, food processing and health insurance industries, there must be room for us." "You would think that a trade panel empowered to make public health decisions that will impact millions of people would seek out a few doctors and medical experts with no ties to industry," said Erica Frank, President, Physicians for Social Responsibility. "But unfortunately, that is not happening." Evan Krasner, Executive Director of PSR/San Francisco added, "As we confront converging environmental crises, we must demand representation by those who place the health of people and the viability of our planet's future above corporate profit. Hopefully this legal action will bring some balance to the process." "The public health impact of increased trade can be devastating to people in developing nations," said Susanna Bohme, chair of the American Public Health Association's Forum on Trade and Health. "Many US industries seeking to outsource labor encourage less protective worker safety and environmental standards overseas, to increase profits. This is unconscionable. There needs to be more oversight by US public health experts demanding the highest international standards for Western corporations outsourcing labor." "The labor and environment 'side agreements' to NAFTA have failed completely to protect worker or environmental health, and subsequent trade agreements have not fixed the problems," according to Garrett Brown, Coordinator of the Maquiladora Health and Safety Support Network. "We need direct participation by public health professionals and our organizations in negotiating and implementing trade agreements, or the same mistakes will be repeated in the future." Read the complaint here: http://www.earthjustice.org/library/legal_docs/healthitacscomplaint.pdf For further background: http://www.cpath.org/id4.html