Potential Us Consequences Of The Trans Pacific Partnership

Transcript

Potential US Consequences Of the Trans Pacific Partnership Based on a critical analysis of prior trade agreements Inge Burbank BS, Mass Communications Colorado Educator on the Trans Pacific Partnership [email protected] September 2013 ©Inge Burbank, 2013 Introduction: The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a secret trade agreement that is nearing the end of negotiations as of Fall 2012. It has been negotiated solely between participating-nation Presidents, their chief trade advisors, and some 600 corporate advisors, who have been working together to craft this more than 25-chapter agreement: only five, it is said, of which have to do with actual trade. Despite international trade being a Constitutional right given to Congress, Congress has not only been closed out of the negotiations process, but has been denied full access to the agreement’s text. The media and citizens at large are also denied access to the text, until several years after the agreement has passed. Some readers will want to dig into this document in its entirety, while others may want to choose select categories of interest from the table of contents on the following page. However, I recommend taking the time to read it in full, since it is written in a connect-the-dots fashion that documents these proven patterns of free trade consequences in America. In addition, each section has morsels of eye-opening information and/or statistics, which you will want to be aware of. This document will highlight: • • • • • • • • General US consequences of trade agreements: rising trade deficits, lost American jobs Impacts of NAFTA, the World Trade Organization and KORUS State and national laws and policies which impede corporate “lost potential profits” already going to global tribunals of corporation vs. offending nation under trade agreement “barriers” Exporting of blue and white collar American jobs: growing threats under the TPP Food safety: likely to be less safe under the TPP Environmental consequences of free trade and the TPP The TPP and medications: extended drug patents, less generics, higher prices Internet Freedom: tighter regulations than the Congressionally rejected SOPA, PIPA Through this research, I have shown how our citizens are the consistent losers of modern Free Trade Agreements, to set the stage of presenting specific concerns regarding the TPP. I am making this available online free of charge. Read, share the link with your on- and offline groups, and use this information to educate your friends, family and elected officials. The TPP is projected to hit Congress on the “fast track” on a surprise unknown date in fall 2013 (winter at the latest) – which means that Congress gets a very limited time to read, understand and research, little or no time for meaningful debate or constituent input, and no amendments or modifications will be allowed. They will only be allowed a straight yes/no vote. In addition, the currently expired presidential Fast Track Authority is slated for renewal vote by Congress in fall of 2013 – and is gaining in bipartisan congressional support. I urge all Americans to CALL YOUR CONGRESSMEN’S OFFICES – on the phone – and urge them to vote NO on both the renewal of presidential Fast Track Authority (slated for early fall of 2013), and NO on the Trans Pacific Partnership. 2 Table of Contents: Prior US Free Trade Agreements Increased trade deficits and US Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) have lost millions of American blue- and white-collar jobs………………….…..page 4 US consequences of NAFTA Soaring deficits with partner nations, US FDI in Mexico, 1 million lost US jobs, bankrupted American farms, and increased numbers of undocumented Mexican immigrants……….….……...……………………..…………………………...page 6 World Trade Organization US FDI in cheap labor markets, corporations’ ability to sue national governments under Investor State Rights, global tribunals bypassing national court systems….…..………………………………………………..………....page 7 China joins WTO in 2001 Skyrocketing US trade deficits, US FDI in China, nearly 3 million lost US jobs (numbers and categories); China’s growing investment in university education, with emphases on sciences…………………..……………………..……………….....page 7 KORUS (US-Korea Trade Agreement) two years in: Rising deficits, US FDI, the risk to US white-collar jobs………………..……...…page 9 Growing concerns about the TPP.…….……………………………..…………...……page 10 The TPP: Why heavy white-collar job loss is likely Key TPP partner nation exceeding US higher education in the sciences; wages lower than China’s; emerging high-tech center of Asia……………………page 10 The TPP: America’s food safety Increasing foodborne illness from imported foods, the rise of (and growing global opposition to) GMO foods and health implications, diminished food safety and security…………………………………………….…....page 11 The TPP: Environmental impact concerns………………………………….…….….page 12 The TPP: Driving medication prices up with longer patents, fewer generics….page 14 The TPP: Criminalizing everyday media/internet activities under copyright violation, and prohibiting digital media access for the deaf and blind………………..……page 15 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...…… page 17 Endnotes………………………………………………………………………………..pages 18-22 3 Prior Trade Agreements: Creating rising trade deficits, US corporate Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), and lost American Jobs Modern US bilateral and multinational trade agreements have consistently offered the same promise: decreased trade deficits with partner nations, and tens of thousands of American jobs to support the predicted surge of US exports. However, the actual realities of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) have shown quite the opposite for America, with increased trade deficits, expanded US foreign direct investment, and millions of lost jobs to partnering cheap-labor partner nations. While FTAs have created reciprocal markets between our country and partnering nations, the actual outcome has been a disproportionate opening of the US market to imports.1 With soaring imports from US trade partner nations, and a comparatively slower growth in American exports, the combined US trade deficit with our FTA partner countries is now over 500% higher than before the trade deals began.2 As US exports have grown, exports to non-FTA partner countries have exceeded export growth to FTA nations by 38% over the past decade – increasing at an average yearly rate of 6.6%, compared to 4.8% to US-FTA nations.3 To illustrate recent trade deficits between the US and our top 10 trade partners, figure 1 shows the numbers as of June 2013 – with figures represented in the billions of dollars.4 Trade Balance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Canada China Mexico Japan Germany Korea UK France Brazil Saudi Arabia 150.59 55.08 110.73 32.24 23.75 20.35 24.49 15.29 21.0 9.71 166.07 202.78 138.38 68.69 54.39 31.40 25.71 21.16 13.10 23.80 -15.48 -147.70 -27.65 -36.45 -30.64 -11.05 -1.22 -5.87 +7.9 -14.1 Rank Country Exports Imports Worldwide US FDI: Under modern trade agreements and the ability to trade services as well as goods, US foreign direct investment has contributed significantly to American job loss. By December 2011, the US Department of Commerce estimated that American firms had accumulated $4.1 trillion worth of direct investment abroad, while foreign investors had spent only $2.6 trillion to acquire or establish businesses in the United States. US FDI has climbed steadily since 2003, dropping sharply in 2005 due to one-time tax provisions - but then rebounding sharply in 2006.5 Figure 1; data from US Census Bureau The United States has become the largest foreign direct investor in the world. As of December 2008, there were over 2,200 US parent companies with more than 26,000 affiliates operating outside the US – employing over 50% of their workers abroad. By comparison, foreign companies had just over 5,500 affiliates operating in the US. 4 American jobs being lost under modern FTAs: With US unemployment rates above 7% in 2013 – and as high as 10% in the past five years6 - the outsourcing of American jobs has become an increasingly direct threat to the our workforce, due to the inclusion of “deep integration” provisions in trade agreements that protect the rights of US and foreign investors, and liberalize trade into services in partner nations. Combined, these provisions have made the lowest-wage countries more attractive for US corporations for production and other jobs that once belonged to Americans.7 While the hits to US manufacturing and call centers are irrefutable, 663,000 large-company jobs in information technology, human resources, finance and purchasing have been offshored since 2002, with estimates that by 2016, an additional 375,000 jobs in these sectors will be moved abroad.8 As of 2010, the most frequently outsourced business tasks to foreign countries9 included: Customer support Tax preparation Computer programming Manufacturing Accounting Engineering Data entry Research Healthcare admin support Legal service Creative services Web design With the increased exodus of US jobs to cheap labor markets, American workers have additionally seen downward wage pressure in the US.10 And as better jobs for the US working class are lost, “replacement jobs” in the economy have also seen a downward pay shift. Jobs at the mid-range payscale ($14 to $21 per her hour) have accounted for 60% of lost jobs – yet only 22% of the jobs gained fell into that wage category, with 58% of them paying a much lower median wage of $7.70 to $13.83 per hour.11 With lost jobs and lower wages, almost a third of working American families earn wages so low that they are struggling just to cover necessities. 12 By Sep. 2010, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 53% (compared to 30% in 1999) felt that trade agreements have hurt our nation overall, and 69% of Americans feel that trade agreements with other nations have cost jobs in the US.13 5 US Consequences of NAFTA: Soaring trade deficits, US Foreign Direct Investment, lost American jobs, and a sharp rise in undocumented Mexican Immigrants Before NAFTA’s passage, proponents of the FTA claimed that it would improve the US trade balance with Mexico and Canada, and gain 200,000 jobs in the United States due to increased exports.14 However, by 2012, the US-Canada trade deficit had tripled to -$31.39 billion, from -$10.77 billion in 1993 – and our former $1.66 billion trade surplus with Mexico has become a $61.63 billion deficit.15 A 2010 study revealed that rather than creating 200,000 jobs in the US, 682,900 American jobs had by then had been displaced by NAFTA.16 According to the US Office of the Trade Representative, US FDI in Mexico had hit $91.4 billion by 2011 (up by over 8% from the prior year) – with investments primarily concentrated in manufacturing, nonbank holding companies and the finance/insurance sectors.17 In addition to lost manufacturing and other jobs, approximately 170,000 small American farms have gone under since NAFTA, decreasing our total of family farms by 21%. The ongoing agricultural trade deficits with Canada and Mexico have significantly contributed to US farm loss, with the average annual agricultural trade deficits with the two countries nearly tripling within five years of NAFTA’s signing. Our vegetable deficit with Canada and Mexico, alone, is now at $3.6 billion; more than eight times the pre-NAFTA level.18 In US H.R.191 – the NAFTA Accountability Act – some members of Congress have recognized that this FTA has facilitated and accelerated the United States’ outsourcing of manufacturing facilities and jobs to Mexico due to lower wages.” On the conservative side, H.R. 191 states that NAFTA has led to nearly 1,000,000 American job losses, and that Mexico has become an export platform displacing production in the US. In addition, the resolution concedes that “an unprecedented flood of imports of manufactured and agricultural goods now enter the United States”.19 Undocumented Immigration from Mexico From the mid-1990s to 2007, undocumented migration to the US from Mexico has grown rapidly. Between 2000 and 2006, it’s estimated that 575,000 Mexicans emigrated each year – though the World Bank places the figure at a considerably higher 644,000. As of 2008, it is estimated that 6 million undocumented Mexicans were living in the US.20 The increase of these undocumented immigrants is blamed largely on the loss of as many as 2 million farming jobs across Mexico under NAFTA, with reports that entire towns have emptied as thousands of small Mexican farms have gone under as a result of NAFTA’s terms. Unable to find other work, the vast majority of these displaced workers are coming to the US, desperately seeking work. 21 As of a May 2012 public opinion poll by Angus Reid, 40% of Americans feel that the US should “do whatever is necessary” to renegotiate NAFTA – while only 15% felt the terms of the agreement were adequate.22 6 World Trade Organization: Growing Investor State Rights, corporations now suing nations Global expansion has been defined as “the expansion of foreign direct investment, multinational corporations, integration of world capital markets and resulting financial capital flows, and constraints on government policies imposed by international institutions.” Through this lens, one of the chief consequences of the WTO and similar agreements is that the binding rules of these FTAs undermine national sovereignty by disallowing member states to pass laws or create policies that risk creating “barriers to trade” under the agreement’s terms.23 Further, many of these cases are being settled not through the traditional court system, but through global tribunals such as the World Trade Organization dispute resolution body (a panel of three)24, and the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), established by World Bank executives.25 While there have been scores of Investor State Rights cases under modern FTAs alleging “barriers to trade”, we have most recently seen the case of Indonesia suing the US over the 2009 congressionally passed Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which prevented the sales of flavored cigarettes to curb smoking among youth. Indonesia – a major exporter of clove cigarettes – accused this act of violating WTO terms, since it prohibited the sales and distribution of their clove cigarettes, while still allowing the sales of US-produced menthol cigarettes. In this case, the WTO deemed our public health act a trade agreement violation, and ruled against the United States – and is set to approve trade sanctions if requested by Indonesia.26 In the August 2013 round of TPP negotiations in Brunei, President Obama was expected to back down on his stance on tobacco, and negotiate the agreement with new text protecting the interests of tobacco companies. This would expand investor rights, and increase the likelihood of tobacco companies suing trade partner nations over public health policies 27 – such as Philip Morris vs. Australia28, and Philip Morris vs. Thailand29: both cases initiated over national public health laws on cigarette packaging, designed to make smoking less appealing to their citizens. China’s Admission to the WTO – 2001: Soaring US trade deficits, US Foreign Direction Investment, and millions of lost American Jobs Again, one of the key promises made by US proponents of normalized trade with China was projected increased exports to China’s large and growing consumer market, as well as new American jobs to support these exports.30 Contrary to this promise, the US-China trade deficit continues to soar – and despite China’s growing middle class, the most rapidly growing US exports to China are not consumer goods, but largely include bulk commodities such as grain, scrap and chemicals.31 *figures in billions of dollars US-China imports US-China exports US-China trade deficit 2000 100.01 16.18 -83.83 2005 243.47 41.19 -202.27 2012 425.57 110.48 -315.095 In December 2000, the US-China trade deficit was at -$83.83 billion ($16.18 billion in exports; $100.01 billion in imports). By 2005, the deficit had more than doubled, and by 2012 had taken an additional 55% leap.32 However, these figures are likely skewed in China’s favor, since US exports as reported by the US International Trade Commission Figure 2; data from US Census Bureau 7 include re-exports (goods produced abroad, and imported to the US for immediate resale shipment to other countries). In 2011 alone, US exports to China were $103.9 billion – with re-exports back to China representing 6.72%, or $6.98 billion, of that figure.33 Between 2008 and 2011, China’s share of the total US non-oil trade deficit soared from 69.6% percent just under 78%. And while US exports to China in 2001 supported nearly 170,00 American jobs, Chinese imports displaced US production that would have supported an estimated 1,139,500 American jobs.34 US FDI in China: costing American jobs in multiple categories Unfortunately, proponents of normalized US-China trade failed to consider the impact of China’s entry on foreign direct investment and the outsourcing of American jobs - and FDI has played a key role in the growth of China’s manufacturing sector.35 Soon after China joined the WTO, American direct foreign investors began investing heavily in China, reflected by US FDI numbers from the US Census Bureau36: 2000: $11.14 billion US FDI 2005: $28.45 billion US FDI 2010: $60.45 billion US FDI While the US has lost approximately 5 million total jobs to cheap overseas labor markets since the WTO’s and NATFTA’s signings, over 2.8 million American jobs have gone to China, alone, since they joined the organization in 2001. As of 2010, nearly 1 million of these lost jobs were in the once booming and US job-providing industries of computers and electronic parts.37 Jobs gained 13,500 10,700 13,500 20,200 14,600 20,100 Highlighted industries affected by job loss Computers, textiles, electronic parts, apparel and furniture Textiles and electronics Manufacturing Manufacturing Textiles and furniture Medical device manufacturing Auto parts production, electronics, manufacturing Middle wage manufacturing Computer and electronic parts Computer and electronic parts Jobs lost Table: the ten US states losing the most jobs to China as of 20111 According to the National Science Board, the US is rapidly losing high-tech/white collar jobs as American multinational companies expand their research and development labs in China and other Asian countries. In recent years, US-based companies such as 3M Co., Caterpillar Inc. and General Electric have spent billions of dollars to expand their overseas research labs, wanting to “tap a broader pool of scientific talent”. Between 2003 and 2009, roughly 85% of the growth in R&D workers employed by US multinationals was abroad. These and other US-multinational companies are now establishing labs in nations where engineering and scientific talent is becoming heavily concentrated. By 2008, just over 55% of engineering degrees awarded worldwide were in Asia, compared to just 4% in the US. Overall US employment in high-tech manufacturing (computers, communications, medical equipment, aerospace, pharmaceuticals and other fields) has seen a 28% decrease GA MA OH PA NC FL -101,2000 -99,300 -124,100 -127,200 -122,400 -134,500 IL -139,400 21,200 NY TX CA -183,300 -269,300 -519,000 21,900 36,400 64,300 Figure3; data from CBS News 8 since 2000, down to about 1.8 million such jobs remaining in the US. While the numbers are partly due to more efficient manufacturing methods and the recession, it also reflects the growing abilities of China and other Asian nations to produce high-tech goods at low wages.38 In an effort to build China’s white-collar middle class, their government is investing $250 billion a year in a 2010-2015 plan to educate tens of millions of Chinese university students with science emphases that include energy, biology, advanced information technology and highend manufacturing.39 At the same time, US universities are partnering with Chinese institutions to develop strong degree programs in the sciences; most recently, the University of Pittsburgh partnering with Sichuan University to establish a joint engineering institute.40 China’s education boom is already putting pressure on employment opportunities and wages for university graduates across the world. Wages have not only stagnated but are actually falling – including in the United States,41 where a record 21.6 million American students were projected to be enrolled in colleges and universities by the 2012-2013 academic year.42 US-Korea FTA (KORUS): Rising deficits, and US FDI in an educated Korean workforce Like previous trade agreements, KORUS – the biggest deal of its kind since NAFTA43 - was hailed by supporters as a tool to increase US imports, and create American jobs to support them. President Obama said that KORUS would increase US goods exports by “$10 billion to $11 billion,” supporting “70,000 American jobs from increased goods exports alone”.44 However, before the second anniversary of KORUS, the US trade deficit with Korea is already increasing, as evidenced by figures from the US Census Bureau45 (figures in billions of dollars) 2010 U US-Korea Trade deficit on the rise 2012 First Half of 2013 -10.05 -16.61 -11.05 Figure 4; data from Census Bureau By 2013, US foreign direct investment in Korea was skyrocketing, with a 113.6% increase between March 2012 and February 2013. The US is now holding the largest single-country share of FDI in Korea, at just under $50 billion.46 In June of this year, Korea’s Minister of Trade, Yoon Sang-jick, reported that he is considering further strengthening support for foreign investors, particularly with incentives based on their job creation for Korean citizens.47 Worldwide, Korea has one of highest numbers of science graduates per 100,000 25-34 yearolds. With English proficiency now being a major job requirement for many companies in Korea – and a number of degree programs now being taught in English - numerous indicators point to the possibility of losing more well-paying American jobs under KORUS.48 Already, there is growing interest in Korea by foreign investors in research and development facilities, logistics centers and regional headquarters of multinational corporations, from companies eyeing Korea’s highly developed electronics sector, as well as interest from multinational parts and materials corporations.49 With extensive US FDI holdings in Korea and recent reductions in their corporate taxes50, American white-collar jobs will be at particular risk for outsourcing. The vast majority of Korea’s 9 youth now graduates from high school, and of them, over 80% go on to study at one of over 400 colleges and universities across their country. Currently, Korea has high numbers of graduates in fields such as engineering, business, manufacturing, and law and legal services – and over one third of Korea’s unemployed are college graduates, eager for jobs.51 Growing concerns about the Trans Pacific Partnership Based on prior FTA trends, Americans are increasingly concerned with the TTP’s likelihood of exacerbating US trade deficits, American job loss via increased imports, US FDI and outsourcing, and an alarming growth in investor state rights; cases which are often ruled on in global tribunals, with no processes to appeal. An overarching concern is the secrecy of the negotiations, Congress’ inability to access the complete text or otherwise participate before the agreement is fast-tracked this fall, and what is currently known about the agreement through leaked documents. Aside from the above matters, the five chief concerns with the Trans Pacific Partnership lie in: • • • • • US jobs Food safety The environment and drinking water Medication costs/access to generic drugs Internet freedom TPP: Heavy white-collar American job loss likely Throughout the past 20 years of US trade agreements, America been the consistent loser in jobs as US multinational corporations shift operations overseas to cheap-labor markets. While it began with manufacturing, we have seen a distinct trend of professional white-collar jobs now being shipped abroad. If the US signs the Trans Pacific Partnership, Vietnam will pose a particular risk - where the minimum wage ranges from USD $50.23 to $112.85 per month,52 compared to a monthly minimum wage of $187 to $261 per month in China.53 However, the threat to US jobs will go beyond minimum-wage occupations, and place America’s college graduates in competition with equally bright, educated Vietnamese workers. As of 2008-09, nearly 1.8 million Vietnamese were studying in 150 universities across their nation. In addition, a number of US partner universities are already working with Vietnamese universities to develop strong programs in traditionally well-paying fields such as chemistry, computer science and a variety of engineering fields. The University of Buffalo is working with Thai Nguyen University of Technology near Hanoi to not only establish strong engineering programs, but to gain their accreditation under the American Board for Engineering and Technology.54 Further, English has now become the most popular second language in Vietnam, with most university graduates fluent. Vietnam is swiftly emerging as a high tech center of Asia, with foreign direct investments and IT outsourcing already moving in from US-based multinationals like Intel and IBM.55 Intel has built its largest assembly and test plant to date near Ho Chi Minh City, and by 2009 the company was paying to send Vietnamese engineering scholars to Oregon’s Portland State University, to return to their country and run the facility. According to Intel, one of their primary 10 reasons for importing these scholars was so that they could gain strong English and cultural skills – indicating a clear intent of shifting major operations to Vietnam, utilizing low-paid Vietnamese workers. Already in the US, new jobs are not being created to accommodate the rising number of American college graduates, according recent figures released by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. In June 2013, unemployment rates for 4-year university graduates hit at an all-time high of about 6% (10% for graduates aged 22-27), and underemployment is averaging 33% (45% for the younger graduates).56 Meanwhile, the US college class of 2013 has graduated with an average of $35,200 in student debt, with student loan interest rates nearly doubling this year.57 This leaves many Americans gravely concerned about the future of our nation and workforce, particularly with the continued signing of free trade agreements that do not protect American jobs. The TPP: Food Safety in America According to the US bureau of Economic Analysis, the US imported $73.34 billion in foods and beverages in 2012, up from $71.09 billion in 2011.58 Fifteen percent of America’s overall food supply is now imported, with considerably higher numbers for fresh fruits (50%), fresh vegetables (20%) and seafood (80%). Of these imports, the FDA currently inspects less than 2 percent. 59 By the end of last year, the United States imported 4.1 billion pounds of food products from China, a nation in which the USDA has cited numerous concerns regarding food safety60, including: • Use of chemicals (and agricultural drugs) on Chinese farms, including US-banned toxic chemicals, which, even if not currently used, have contaminated soil through prior use, or is contaminating crops through spray drifts from adjacent farms Many Chinese farms and food processors are in heavily industrialized areas where water and soil are contaminated by industrial pollution and toxic waste Elevated levels of lead and the extremely toxic metal cadmium have been found in tests of crop soils Contamination of water by human and animal excrement in rural farming areas Poor safety standards in food manufacturing, handling and storage, which can contribute to bacteria, viruses, parasites, fungi and their toxins Unsafe additives, toxic dyes or fake ingredients to preserve food (due to refrigeration scarcity), cut production costs, or improve product appearance Outdated food processing facilities with old, rusty equipment, poor control of worker health and hygiene, weak monitoring, contaminated water, and fraudulent recordkeeping Inadequacy of food labeling, often lacking proper ingredient listings and nutritional information • • • • • • • 11 Each year, approximately 1 in 6 Americans (or 48 million people) get sick from foodborne diseases, with 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths.61 Further, the CDC reports that foodborne disease outbreaks caused by imported food appeared to rise in 2009 and 2010, with nearly half of the outbreaks stemming from foods imported from areas which previously had not caused outbreaks.62 Over the summer of 2013, the CDC has attributed at least four widespread outbreaks of foodborne illness in the US to imported foods: • • • Salmonella: 18 states, 84 illnesses, 17 hospitalizations (Mexican cucumbers, June)63 Salmonella: 9 states, 16 illnesses, 1 hospitalization and death (Turkish sesame paste, June)64 Hepatitis A: 10 states, 159 illnesses, 69 hospitalizations (Turkish pomegranate seeds from used in an antioxidant berry drink, August)65 Cyclospora (an intestinal parasite): 22 states, 609 illnesses, 35 hospitalizations (Taylor Farms de Mexico lettuce, served at Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurants, August)66 • Americans are highly concerned about what will happen to both our food sovereignty and food safety under the Trans Pacific Partnership, with the lack of inspection, newly added trade partners who have lower food safety standards, the growing global expansion of genetically modified foods, and increasing investor state rights which will likely challenge food safety laws – such as the US Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Act – in global tribunals. Genetically Modified Foods: Genetically modified foods (GMOs), and the increasing infringement on the global food supply by agri-giants like Monsanto, are of increasing concern. Most developed nations consider these foods unsafe, and over 60 countries around the world (including Australia, Japan, and all nations of the European Union) have either banned or placed significant restrictions on the growth and sales of genetically modified foods.67 In one recent poll, it was found that up to 90% of American voters support the labeling of GMOs in the United States.68 According to the USDA, 88% of US corn crops are now genetically modified, 93% of our soybeans - and the agency has recently approved over 40 new fruit and vegetable seeds for genetic modification.69 Seventy percent of items in grocery stores now contain genetically modified organisms,70 and, of concern to many parents, three major US infant formula brands – Enfamil, Similac and Gerber (90% of the infant formula market) – now contain non-labeled genetically modified organisms.71 Peer-reviewed scientific studies across the world (including the US) have linked GMOs to numerous serious health conditions - many of which have been on the rise in recent years: cancer, liver and kidney damage72, gut problems, food allergies73, autism, blood cell disorders, leukemia74, Parkinson’s disease75, and more. With GMO health concerns rising globally, the summer of 2013 saw major importers in Japan, Korea and the Philippines either suspending or on guard against US wheat shipments, after wheat grown in Oregon had been contaminated by genetically modified organisms.76 The TPP: Environmental impact concerns Under modern trade agreements, there have been numerous lawsuits over investor state rights concerning laws and restrictions designed to protect the environment. In 2008, US 12 mining company, Bilcon, filed a $188 million claim against Canada with the global tribunal, UNCITRAL. The company planned to extract and export large quantities of basalt from a proposed 152-hectare project, located in a key breeding area for several endangered species, including the world’s most endangered whale. Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans determined that blasting activity in this sensitive area raised environmental concerns and thus required a rigorous assessment. In response, Bilcon filed suit, alleging that the assessment was arbitrary, discriminatory and unfair, and thus a breach of NAFTA’s “national treatment” and “most favored nation” obligations. In November 2012, US-based corporation, Lone Pine Resources, challenged Quebec’s moratorium on fracking, with a $241 million suit. The moratorium was enacted in 2011 to assess environmental impacts along the St. Lawrence River. Lone Pine alleged that such policymaking contravened NAFTA’s protections against expropriation and for “fair and equitable treatment.” One of the chief environmental concerns to the US under the TPP is with hydraulic fracturing. In 2009, there were more than 493,000 active natural gas wells across 31 states (almost double 1990’s number), with over 1,000 citizen complaints filed by residents living near fracked gas wells regarding tainted water, severe illnesses, livestock and fish deaths. Now, the hydraulic fracturing/natural gas industry is eyeing federal mineral rights throughout America’s 700 million acres of federally managed land, which includes national forests, national wildlife refuges, native Tribal lands, private property, and drinking water sources for millions of people as well as wildlife.77 Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown contamination of drinking water within a close proximity to fracking wells, including high concentrations of ethane and methane in nearby drinking water wells, with some samples containing propane.78 Larger fracking sites often require billions of gallons of water to operate, which is taken from lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, ponds and wells. Because the water becomes contaminated in the fracking process, it becomes toxic waste: with hydrocarbons, heavy metals (such as arsenic), radioactivity from the shale and added chemicals, which must then be disposed of rather than returned to the watershed.79 In the southwest United States, where water is scarcer, conservation and clean water are particularly sensitive issues. The US is now considering applications to export 45% of our natural gas. Under current policy, the Department of Energy (DOE) must first conduct a public analysis to determine if the exports are in line with public interest before exporting natural gas. However, when the US is involved with a trade agreement that includes “national treatment for trade in gas”, the DOE loses their governmental authority to regulate natural gas exports. Therefore, the TPP could easily lead to automatic approval of natural gas permits for partner nations, without any review or consideration process – putting corporate profits above environmental and public health concerns.80 In addition, the US will most likely see more investor state rights cases, as communities across the nation vote to ban or place moratoriums on fracking. With high global prices for natural resources, governments are becoming more protective in ensuring that their people benefit from these resources, with minimal environmental harm. However, all such governments are facing increasing opposition from transnational corporations. In these battles, trans nationals are using the powerful weapon of investor state rights granted under multinational and bilateral trade agreements. Foreign investors are challenging host countries’ regulatory activities such as environmental, energy, economic and health policies, at an historic level. In 2011, at least 450 FTA investor 13 disputes were in progress over a wide variety of laws – more than six times higher than known cases in 2001.81 Of the 169 cases pending with the ICSID global tribunal in March 2013, 60 involved oil, mining or gas, compared to just seven such cases during the 1980’s-1990s combined. In 2012 alone, 48 new cases filed were filed with ICSID: 19 of them related to gold mining, oil or gas. Six of the TPP partner nations (including Brunei) are rich in minerals or fuels – and it is possible that US foreign direct investment is already occurring in these countries, with the power of investor state rights able undermine law and policy as “trade barriers”. The US will not be exempt from such cases. In 2010, fracking supported roughly 600,000 American jobs. However, since the lifespan of a fracking well is 40 years or less82, the long-term protection of our environment and safe drinking water seems infinitely more important to America’s future. The TPP: driving medication prices up with longer patents, fewer generics Currently, nearly 70% of Americans are on at least one prescription drug, more than than half are on two, and 20% of patients are on five or more prescription medications – with antibiotics, anti-depressants and pain-killing opioids being the most commonly prescribed.83 More children are also taking medications: by 2009, one in four were taking a long-term medication, with 7% of them on two such drugs.84 Americans are increasingly relying on generic drugs: availability that will vastly decrease under the TPP’s extension of pharmaceutical patents. Standards for patents will not only be lowered, but will be newly granted for minor variations in existing medications, even if the changes are not proven to enhance effectiveness. According to the FDA, generic drugs are, on average, 80-85% cheaper than name brand medications. In 2010 alone, generics saved Americans $158 billion over name-brand drugs85, and by 2011, 80% of prescriptions filled were generic-equivalent medications.86 Generic drug use saved the U.S. health care system $1.07 trillion between 2002 and 2011, with $192.8 billion in savings achieved just in 2011 alone.87 A 2010 survey revealed that 48 million insured and uninsured Americans, ages 19-64, did not fill a prescription that year due to cost – a 66% increase over 2001 numbers. Also in 2010, 27 million Americans “skipped doses or did not fill a prescription for their condition because of the cost.” In addition, nearly 1 in 5 insured Americans with a chronic medical condition did not fill a 88 prescription due to unaffordability. By 2012, almost half of Americans did not fill their prescription medications, and/or did not take as directed because of cost89: Did not fill the prescription Those with NO Rx Benefits Those with Rx benefits 45% (up from 27% in 2011) 18% (up from 16% in 2011) Skipped doses without doctor’s approval 31% (up from 22% in 2011) 12% (same as 2011) Cut pills in half without doctor’s approval 19% (up from 15% in 2011) 9% (up from 6% in 2011) Figure 5; data from Consumer Reports 14 Low-cost generics have made life-saving medications available to people in the US and worldwide who could otherwise not afford them. Generics from India, for example, have dramatically lowered medical costs in developing nations, and have proven critical to global AIDS programs. Before their $1 a day generics were available, medication for AIDS patients cost $10,000 per person per year, which left life-saving treatment unavailable to millions.90 Some of the current brand-name lifesaving medications (such as cancer drugs) are so staggering that they are out of reach for many Americans. Name brand medications (and their recent annual sales) with patents expiring in fall 201391 Avonex (MS relapses) Rebif (MS, injected) Neurogenic (cancer) Lidoderm (nerve pain) Niaspan (cholesterol) Cymbalta (multiple uses) Figure 6; data from Fierce Pharma Biogen Idec (Dec. 31) Merck (Dec. 31) Roche (Dec. 12) EpiCept (Sep. 15) Abbott / Teva (Sep. 20) Eli Lily (Sep. 11) $2.9 billion (2012) $2.3 billion (2012) $1.29 billion (2012) $918 million (2011) $835 million (2012) $2.8 billion (2012) In 2014, another round of medications will be losing their patents, under what industry professionals are calling the “patent cliff”. Companies losing patents on some of their most profitable name-brand medications next year include: GlaxoSmithKline, Abbott Labs, Agouron Pharmaceuticals, Forest Labs, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, and two medications each for Teva Pharmaceuticals and Merck.92 These medications represent treatment for a wide variety of medical conditions, including blood pressure, dementia, high-risk diabetes, cancer, and multiple sclerosis. If the TPP passes, pharmaceutical companies like these will now be able to extend their monopolies for an additional 20 years, simply by tweaking them with a new additive. The TPP provisions will also allow extended monopoly control over regulatory information (“data exclusivity”), by providing a minimum five years’ exclusivity for information related to new drugs – and three for older medications, even if the data is already in the public domain.93 At particular risk for high medication costs will be those who remain uninsured, Medicare-D customers with already high co-pays – and the costs of both our Medicare and Medicaid programs will skyrocket if generic drugs are not readily available. The TPP: criminalizing everyday media/internet activities under copyright violation After US congressional rejection of bills such as SOPA (Stop Online Privacy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act), the TPP includes copyright protections even more restrictive than either proposed act: protections that will supersede current US laws. The first concern with TPP and internet freedom is the agreement’s Article 4 - “Copyright and Related Rights” - which extends copyright protections to the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years for all TPP partner countries – and 95 to 120 years for corporate owned work.94 Under Article 16, all signatory nations will be required to provide legal incentives for Internet Service Providers to privately enforce copyright protection rules – essentially placing the financial and other burdens on these service providers to be “copyright police” of the new and binding multinational trade laws.95 15 In addition, the TPP will adopt criminal sanctions for copyright infringement that is done even without a commercial motivation, based on the provisions of the 1997 US No Electronic Theft Act, putting everyday internet users at risk for unintentional violations.96 A recent study of music, film and software piracy in emerging countries revealed that the driving factor of media piracy is not criminal intent, but rather the high prices of media goods and low incomes. Relative to incomes in lower-wage countries, the cost of a single CD, DVD or copy of Microsoft Office is five to ten times higher than prices in the US and Europe.97 Fair Use: “Fair use” is an exception granted under US copyright law that allows limited uses of copyrighted material without having to ask the owner’s permission. These uses include, but are not limited to: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research.98 However, under the TPP, it appears that the only fair use exemptions may be for nonprofit libraries, educational institutions, archives, and noncommercial broadcasting companies.99 A study in Northwest Journal of Intellectual Property states that the TPP will require participating nations to provide criminal penalties not just for willful copyright infringement on a commercial scale, but “significant willful copyright or related rights infringements that have no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain”. Although technical protection measures can protect against serious copyright infringements, they can also stop perfectly legal uses of protected material, such as using photos found online for educational presentations. It can also impact common daily activities, such as creating or sharing photo memes that utilize the photos of TV or movie characters, sharing a recipe from an online copyrighted source, or even using a clip of a copyrighted song to use as a cell phone ringtone: all everyday activities which are not intended for profit. Digital Locks: The TPP will compel all signatory nations to create laws banning the circumvention of digital locks (technological protection measures). Breaking a lock on a CD or DVD that an individual has already paid for and owns (such as “burning” an extra copy of a CD for their car) would now be a criminal copyright violation. Under TPP stipulations, breaking digital locks to access captions for the deaf and hearing impaired will be a criminal act. Already, the blind and visually impaired throughout the world have a difficult time accessing e-books and other digital materials, because they often come with digital locks that are not compatible with the adaptive technologies used to convert text to braille, voice or other accessible formats. While breaking these digital locks is already illegal in the US, even with permission from the US Copyright Office, it would still be a criminal offense under the TPP for them to break these locks. As a result, modern technology that has opened new doors for the visually and hearing impaired will be locked out of the marketplace.100 Internet cached items: As of February 2011, the first paragraph of the TPP’s copyright section states: Each Party shall provide that authors, performers, and producers of phonograms have the right to authorize or prohibit all reproductions of their works, performances, and phonograms, in any manner or form, permanent or temporary, including temporary storage in electronic form. Yet in a computer’s normal operations, web browsers make these temporary copies, called 16 “caches” – and surfing the internet would be impossible without a computer making these temporary copies. The UK Supreme Court recently decided that temporarily stored web pages containing copyrighted material were not an infringement of these rights.101 Otherwise, millions of ordinary people would be infringing copyright every time they browsed the web. Something as simple as streaming an online copyrighted video – even if it is not intentionally saved to the hard drive – leaves a copy of the video in a computer’s cache from the buffering process. Under the TPP’s “temporary storage” provisions, temporary copies are defined as criminal copyright infringement. But any resulting cases can now bypass the US court system, and be heard and ruled on in global tribunals.102 Conclusion Modern US free trade agreements have shown negative consequences for America, with increased trade deficits, and foreign direct investment paving the way for the mass exodus of good-paying US jobs to cheap-labor markets. Outsourcing has now become rampant, particularly with Asia ramping up their higher education in technology and other sciences. The jobs being gained in our economy are fewer and lower paying than the jobs are lost – and now, even America’s college graduates are at risk for outsourcing. Job availability is shrinking, with more qualified people vying for fewer available positions in the workplace. If the TPP is signed, America’s unemployment rate will likely remain high, potentially increase, and we have to question whether there will be enough jobs left to sustain America’s population if this trend is not reversed. US multinational corporations are the sole beneficiaries of this trend, and the sustainability of American jobs is on the line. Both our food and environmental safety are at risk under the TPP, with growing investor state rights cases challenging laws, policies and regulations in global tribunals. Even if an individual state’s law is alleged to be a “trade barrier” (which has already occurred with two California environmental laws), the US government and its coffers will be the target of “potential lost profits”. Generic medication availability will be drastically impacted, leaving many Americans, as well as TPP country citizens, without access to stabilizing and lifesaving medications they might have otherwise afforded. And now, everyday uses of the internet, which we have all become accustomed to, can be ruled a criminal offense, without hearing by the US court system. Since any future changes to the TPP terms will require full agreement and sign-off by all signatory nations, Congress’ decision on this agreement will affect our nation on a long-term, and perhaps even permanent, basis. In this light, the Trans Pacific Partnership should not even be considered until full Congressional review is allowed, with extended debate, hearings, constituent input, and amendments or other modifications to protect both our citizens, and the future sustainability, of America. 17 Endnotes 1 “Global Imbalances and the U.S. Trade Deficit,” Robert A. Blecker, May 2011, Professor and Chair, Department of Economics, and Affiliate Faculty, School of International Service, American University, http://nw08.american.edu/~blecker/research/Blecker_Imbalances_May2011.pdf 2 “Job-Killing Trade Deficits Soar under "Free Trade" Agreements, Public Citizen Eyes on Trade, http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/02/job-killing-trade-deficits-soar-under-free-trade-agreements.html 3 “Job-Killing Trade Deficits Soar under FTAs: U.S. Trade Deficits Grow More Than 440% with FTA Countries, but Decline 7% with Non-FTA Countries”, Public Citizen, http://www.citizen.org/documents/FTA-v-No-FTAFactsheet.pdf 4 US Census Bureau, Foreign Trade, http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/toppartners.html 5 Outsourcing and Insourcing Jobs in the U.S. Economy: Evidence Based on Foreign Investment Data, June 21, 2013, Congressional Research Service, James K. Jackson, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32461.pdf 6 Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject, US Department of Labor, http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 7 “Global Imbalances and the U.S. Trade Deficit”, Robert A Blecker, May 2011, Professor and Chair, Department of Economics, and Affiliate Faculty, School of International Service, American University, http://nw08.american.edu/~blecker/research/Blecker_Imbalances_May2011.pdf 8 “More US Service Jobs Heading Offshore”, Dec. 7, 2012, USA Today, http://www.cnbc.com/id/100290239 9 “The 12 Most Frequently Outsourced Business Tasks”, Wall Street Cheat Sheet, April 20, 2010 http://wallstcheatsheet.com/breaking-news/the-12-most-frequently-outsourced-business-tasks.html/ 10 “NAFTA’s Broken Promises 1994-2013: Outcomes of the North American Free Trade Agreement”, Public Citizen, Washington, DC http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTAs-Broken-Promises.pdf 11 Middle Class Worse Off Than You Think: MIT Professor, CNBC, Nov. 5, 2012, http://www.cnbc.com/id/49697900 12 “Ranks of working poor increasing”, Jan. 15, 2013, Washington Post, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-15/business/36343636_1_jobs-with-lower-wages-fastest-job-growthfamilies 13 “53% in US Say Free Trade Hurts Nation: NBC/WSJ Poll”, Sep. 28, 2010, CNBC, http://www.cnbc.com/id/39407846 14 “Broken promises: NAFTA cost U.S. jobs and reduced wages”, Oct. 4, 2006, Economic Policy Institute, http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20061004/ 15 http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2010.html#2012 16 “Heading South: US-Mexico trade and job displacement after NAFTA”, Robert E. Scott, Economic Policy Institute, http://epi.3cdn.net/fdade52b876e04793b_7fm6ivz2y.pdf 17 Office of the US Trade Representative, http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/mexico 18 “NAFTA’s Broken Promises 1994-2013: Outcomes of the North American Free Trade Agreement”, Public Citizen, Washington, DC, http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTAs-Broken-Promises.pdf 19 Bill Text 113th Congress (2013-2014) H.R.191.IH, US Library of Congress, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/query/z?c113:H.R.191.IH: 20 “Migration Under NAFTA: Exporting Goods and People;” Rodolfo García Zamora, Professor of Development Studies at the University of Zacatecas Tufts University, http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/PardeeNAFTACh8ZamoraMigrationNov09.pdf 21 22 ibid “Americans and Canadians Feel They Have Lost Out with NAFTA”, Angus Reid Global, May 17, 2012, http://www.angusreidglobal.com/polls/44771/americans-and-canadians-feel-they-have-lost-out-with-nafta/ 23 “What You Should Know About Globalization and the World Trade Organization”, Deardorff and Stern, Review of International Economics, UC-San Diego, http://weber.ucsd.edu/~jlbroz/Courses/Lund/syllabus/deardorff_stern_WTO.pdf 24 World Trade Organization, Settling Disputes, http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/utw_chap3_e.pdf 18 25 International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=ShowHome&pageName=Abo utICSID_Home 26 “Indonesia to Sue U.S. Ban on Clove Cigarettes,” Jul. 26, 2013, Tempo Media, http://en.tempo.co/read/news/2013/07/26/056500080/Indonesia-to-Sue-US-Ban-on-Clove-Cigarettes 27 “Obama Goes to Bat for Big Tobacco in TPP”, Action on Smoking and Health, Aug. 19, 2013, http://ash.org/obama-goes-to-bat-for-big-tobacco-in-tpp 28 Philip Morris Asia Limited v. The Commonwealth of Australia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2012-12 http://www.italaw.com/cases/851 29 “Philip Morris Sues Thai Government Over Cigarette Packaging”, Jun. 26, 2013, Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130626-709598.html 30 “Beyond the Factory Floor: The experiences of displaced manufacturing workers as they retrain in community college settings”, Mary Jane Entz, Iowa State University, 2010, http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2716&context=etd 31 “Growing U.S. trade deficit with China cost 2.8 million jobs between 2001 and 2010", Robert E. Scott, Sep. 20, 2011, http://www.epi.org/publication/growing-trade-deficit-china-cost-2-8-million/ 32 US Census Bureau, 2000 : U.S. trade in goods with China, US Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2000 33 “Global Imbalances and the U.S. Trade Deficit”, Robert A Blecker, May 2011, Professor and Chair, Department of Economics, and Affiliate Faculty, School of International Service, American University, http://nw08.american.edu/~blecker/research/Blecker_Imbalances_May2011 34 “The China Toll: Growing U.S. trade deficit with China cost more than 2.7 million jobs between 2001 and 2011, with job losses in every state”, Aug. 23, 2012, Robert E. Scott, Economic Policy Institute, http://www.epi.org/publication/bp345-china-growing-trade-deficit-cost/ 35 “Global Imbalances and the U.S. Trade Deficit”, Robert A Blecker, May 2011, Professor and Chair, Department of Economics, and Affiliate Faculty, School of International Service, American University, http://nw08.american.edu/~blecker/research/Blecker_Imbalances_May2011.pdf 36 U.S. Direct Investment Position Abroad on a Historical-Cost Basis by Selected Country: 2000 to 2010, US Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1296.pdf 37 Growing U.S. trade deficit with China cost 2.8 million jobs between 2001 and 2010, Robert E. Scott, Sep. 20, 2011, Economic Policy Institute, http://www.epi.org/publication/growing-trade-deficit-china-cost-2-8-million/ 38 “U.S. Loses High-Tech Jobs as R&D Shifts Toward Asia”, James A. Hagerty, Jan. 18, 2012, Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577167003809336394.html 39 Next Made-in-China Boom: College Graduates, Jan. 6, 2013, Keith Bradsher, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/business/chinas-ambitious-goal-for-boom-in-collegegraduates.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 In addition 40 Pitt Announces Partnership With China’s Sichuan University to Establish Joint Engineering Institute, April 1, 2013 http://www.news.pitt.edu/Pitt_Sichuan_Partnership 41 “American Workers Losing Ground on Wages”, John Schmid, Wall Street Journal, http://www.jsonline.com/business/american-workers-losing-ground-on-wages-b9914759z1-208979131.html 42 “Fast Facts”, National Center for Education Statistics, http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372 43 “Obama Administration Takes Credit for Job-Creating Trade Deal, As Republicans Ask What Took So Long”, Mar. 2012, CBS News, http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-administration-takes-credit-job-creating-tradedeal-republicans-ask-what-took-so 44 “The U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement: More American Jobs, Faster Economic Recovery through Exports”, White House, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/fact_sheet_overview_us_korea_free_trade_agreement.pdf 45 Trade in goods with South Korea, US Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/foreigntrade/balance/c5800.html 46 2013 Investment Climate Statement - Republic of Korea, Feb. 2013, US State Department, http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/ics/2013/204670.htm 47 “Foreign investments that create jobs in Korea will get incentives’ Jun 10, 2013 19 http://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/Policies/view?articleId=108925 “South Korea: Degrees taught in English to Continue”, Jul. 17, 2011, University World News, http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20110715171111979 49 2013 Investment Climate Statement - Republic of Korea. US State Department, http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/ics/2013/204670.htm 50 Foreign Direct Investment, Gateway to Korea, http://www.korea.net/AboutKorea/Economy/Foreign-DirectInvestment 51 Education in South Korea Glutted with graduates, Nov. 3, 2011, The Economist, http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2011/11/education-south-korea 52 “Vietnam’s minimum wage leaves its workers impoverished”, Apr. 22, 2013, Thanh Nien News, http://www.thanhniennews.com/index/pages/20130414-vietnam-minimum-wage-leaves-working-group-inpoverty.aspx 53 “Guangdong raises minimum wage by 19%”, Jun. 2, 2013, China Daily, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2013-02/06/content_16209181.htm 54 “Higher Education in Vietnam: Student Growth, Faculty Shortages and International Partnerships, Nick Clark, Editor, World Education News & Reviews, http://www.wes.org/ewenr/10aug/practical.htm 55 “Why Vietnam?”, DTT Technology Group, http://dttsoftware.com/vn-itlandscape.html 56 Fed: Nearly half of recent college grads struggling, Irina Ivanova, Jun. 27 3013,Crains New York Business, http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20130627/ECONOMY/130629889 57 Class of 2013 grads average $35,200 in total debt, Blake Ellis, May 17, 2013, CNN Money, http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/17/pf/college/student-debt/index.html 58 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/trade/2013/pdf/trad1212.pdf 59 “FDA unveils rules to make imported food meet U.S. standards”, Washington Post, July 26, 2013 http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-26/national/40864532_1_foreign-food-facilities-food-safety-foodsafety 60 “Imports from China and Food Safety Issues”, US Department of Agriculture, Jul. 2009, US Dept. of Agriculture, http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/156008/eib52_1_.pdf 61 Estimates of Foodborne Illness in the United States, Centers for Disease Controls and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/ 62 CDC research shows outbreaks linked to imported foods increasing; Fish and spices the most common sources, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mar. 14, 2012, http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0314_foodborne.html 63 Centers for Disease Control, http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/saintpaul-04-13/ 64 Centers for Disease Control, http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/montevideo-tahini-05-13/ 65 Centers for Disease Control, http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/outbreaks/2013/a1b-03-31/index.html 66 US Food and Drug Administration, FDA Investigates Multistate Outbreak of Cyclosporiasis,, Aug. 23, 2013, http://www.fda.gov/Food/RecallsOutbreaksEmergencies/Outbreaks/ucm361637.htm 67 GMO FACTS, Non GMO Project Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/ 68 Activists Say Americans Support Labeling Genetically Modified Food, Eliza Barclay, NPR, Mar. 27, 2012, http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/27/149474012/activists-say-americans-support-labeling-geneticallymodified-food 69 “At trade talks, U.S., E.U. ready for fight on genetically modified crops”, Michael Birnbaum,May 17, 2013, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-17/world/39337341_1_crops-trade-pact-american-farming 70 “GMO Food Debate In The National Spotlight”, Nov. 3, 2012, http://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelhennessey/2012/11/03/gmo-food-debate-in-the-national-spotlight/ 71 “Similac, Enfamil, and Gerber Good Start - who combined account for more than 90% of all infant formula sales in the U.S.”, May 21, 2013, PR Newswire, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/is-your-baby-part-of-a-riskyscience-experiment-national-coalition-calls-on-big-3-infant-formula-brands-to-remove-gmo-ingredients-andprotect-american-babies-2013-05-01 72 Need Another Reason To Avoid GMOs? One word: cancer, Leah Zerbe, Prevention magazine, 48 20 http://www.prevention.com/food/healthy-eating-tips/animal-study-links-gmos-cancer Genetically Engineered Food Alters Our Digestive Systems, May 31, 2011, Alliance for Natural Health, http://www.anh-usa.org/genetically-engineered-food-alters-our-digestive-systems/ 74 Are Genetically Engineered Foods Promoting Autism?, Institute for Responsibility, http://www.responsibletechnology.org/autism blood cell disorders and leukemia http://www.naturalnews.com/040857_gmo_leukemia_gm_crops.html 75 “US Study Links GMOs to Parkinson’s Disease”, Mar 1, 2011, http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/03/01/us-study-links-pesticides-to-parkinsonsdisease.aspx 76 “Asia wheat buyers fret even as US says gene-altered strain isolated”, Jun. 17, 2013, Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/17/asia-us-wheat-idUSL3N0ET0KA20130617 77 “Proposed Rules For Fracking On Public Lands Lack Scientific Merit”, Briana Mordick, Aug. 22, 2013, http://www.science20.com/briana_mordick/proposed_rules_fracking_public_lands_lack_scientific_merit-118922 78 . “Methane-Contaminated Drinking Water Connection Fuels Fracking Fight", Jun. 28, 2013, Sustainable Business News, http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25020 79 “Drilling 101”, Shale Shock, http://shaleshock.org/drilling-101/ 80 An Explosion of Fracking?”, Sierra Club, http://www.sierraclub.org/trade/downloads/TPP-Factsheet.pdf 81 Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International Investment, February 18, 2013, Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International Development, Columbia University, http://www.vcc.columbia.edu/content/investorstate-dispute-settlement-government-s-dilemma 82 “Drilling 101”, Shale Shock, http://shaleshock.org/drilling-101/ 83 Prescription Drugs, Mayo Clinic, Olmsted Medical Center Find Germ fighters, antidepressants, opioids top list; women, elderly likelier to have prescriptions Wednesday, June 19, 2013 http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2013rst/7543.html 84 “So Young and So Many Pills: More than 25% of Kids and Teens in the U.S. Take Prescriptions on a Regular Basis, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 28, 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203731004576046073896475588.html 85 Facts About Drugs, Food and Drug Administration, http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/buyingusingmedicinesafely/understandinggenericdrugs/uc m167991.htm 86 “Savings: $1 Trillion Over 10 Years - Generic Drug Savings in the US, 2012” , Generic Pharmaceutical Association, http://www.gphaonline.org/media//cms/IMSStudyAug2012WEB.pdf 87 Savings: $1 Trillion Over 10 Years - Generic Drug Savings in the US, 2012” , Generic Pharmaceutical Association, http://www.gphaonline.org/media//cms/IMSStudyAug2012WEB.pdf Not just Americans, but citizens facing illnesses around the world, need continued access to affordable medications. 88 48 Million Americans Forgo Filling Prescription Medication in 2010 Due To Cost, Aug 31, 2011, Rx Rights, http://www.rxrights.org/your-thoughts/48-million-americans-forgo-filling-prescription-medication-in-2010-due-tocost 89 “Sluggish Economy forces Americans to cut corners to pay for medications: those without prescription drug coverage near crisis point”, consumerreports.org http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/09/sluggish-economy-forces-americans-to-cut-corners-to-pay-formedications/index.htm 90 Obama Administration, Congress Intensify Opposition To Global Generic Drug Industry, Jun. 28, 2013, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/obama-generic-drugs_n_3513011.html 91 Top 15 drug patent losses for 2013, Nov. 1, 2012, FiercePharma, http://www.fiercepharma.com/specialreports/top-15-patent-expirations-2013 92 Drug Patent Expiration Table Estimated Dates of Possible First Time Generic Prescriptions, Blue Cross & Blue Shield, https://securews.bcbswny.com/web/content/WNYmember/home.html 93 “How the TPP Endangers Access to Affordable Medicines”, Public Citizen, http://www.citizen.org/documents/TPP1pagernew2.pdf 94 Trans Pacific Partnership, Electronic Frontier Foundation, http://tppinfo.org/category/TPP/ 95 “TPP: Creates Legal Incentives For ISPs To Police The Internet. What Is At Risk? Your Rights, Rossini & Opsahl, Aug. 24, 2012, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/08/tpp-creates-liabilities-isps-and-put-your-rights-risk 73 21 96 97 Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, Electronic Frontier Foundation, https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp Media Piracy in Emerging Economies, Joe Karaganis, Social Science Research Council, 2011, http://www.ssrc.org/publications/view/C4A69B1C-8051-E011-9A1B-001CC477EC84/ 98 US Copyright Office, http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html 99 Trans Pacific Partnership Intellectual Property Rights Chapter, Draft, February 11, 2011 http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/tpp-10feb2011-us-text-ipr-chapter.pdf 100 http://tppinfo.org/category/TPP/ 101 UK Supreme Court says temporary copies of websites do not infringe copyright, refers questions to ECJ, Apr. 18, 2013, Future of Copyright, http://www.futureofcopyright.com/home/blog-post/2013/04/18/uk-supreme-courtsays-temporary-copies-of-websites-do-not-infringe-copyright-refers-questions-toec.html?no_cache=1&cHash=709b490d1b66661edba889916af26cfa 102 http://tppinfo.org/category/TPP/ 22