The US Labor Advisory Committee on Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy includes representatives of every major labor union and labor coalition in America.

Its report commences:
Dear Mr. President:
…….
The LAC strongly opposes the TPP, negotiated between the United States (U.S.), Australia, …… We believe that the Agreement fails to advance the economic interests of the U.S. and does not fulfill all of the negotiating objectives identified by Congress in the Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015.
The threat to future economic gains here in the U.S. and the standard of living of our people will be put in jeopardy by the Agreement.
These threats will grow over time based on the potential for open ended expansion of the TPP to countries ranging from Indonesia to China.
The LAC believes the agreement should not be submitted to Congress or, if it is, it should be quickly rejected. The interests of U.S. manufacturers, businesses, workers and consumers would be severely undermined by the entry into force of the TPP.
Sincerely,…….

Full text, external link, WARNING 124 pages of pdf LAC Report
For a more readable interpretation, Leo W. Gerard, International President, United Steelworkers, external link Burn the TPP.

World Trade Organisation rules against US dolphin safe labeling which has made significant reductions in the millions of dolphin deaths (another source says 97% reduction).

The US had already weakened the law in a series of amendments including replacing the import ban with a voluntary labeling policy, but ultimately lost and must now pay compensation to Mexican fishers or make further changes to the law.

Full story, external link WTO Ruling on Dolphin-Safe Tuna Labeling Illustrates Supremacy of Trade Agreements

In a similar way Canada and Mexico are attacking the US country of origin labeling (cool) for beef and pork which may see the World Trade Organisation rule it is a “barrier to trade”.

Update, Country of Origin labelling, 9th Dec 2015,

“The WTO authorized over $1 billion annually in trade sanctions against the United States unless and until the popular consumer policy is weakened or eliminated. ”

In the same article a history of US law changes reacting to Investor State Dispute Settlements (ISDS) via the WTO

“After previous WTO rulings, the United States has rolled back U.S. Clean Air Act regulations on gasoline cleanliness rules successfully challenged by Venezuela and Mexico and Endangered Species Act rules relating to shrimping techniques that kill sea turtles after a successful challenge by Malaysia and other nations. The U.S. also altered auto fuel efficiency (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards that were successfully challenged by the European Union.”

External link, WTO Orders Sanctions Unless U.S. Cuts Consumer Labels, Disproving Obama TPP Claims

Public Forum 18th November, NSW Parliament House, Sydney, speakers were

Dr Patricia Ranald, Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network, on Overview of the TPP and foreign investor rights to sue governments
Jon Edwards, Doctors without Borders (MSF)on medicines,
Professor Kimberlee Weatherall on copyright,
Tom Skladzien AMWU economist, on labour rights, temporary labour.

View the video here, external link Forum Video

Professor Weatherall’s comments, “An insufficient policy framework for the 21st century” are relevant to health, she notes that the TPP will make law reform harder.

The Trans Pacific Partnership will provide additional monopoly rights for the costly biologic medicines used to treat cancer and other serious diseases.

Up to three extra years of monopoly for Australians and significantly more in some other countries.

External link AFTINET: Higher Prices for Medicines. Stronger Monopolies…

Estimated National Benefit

The Australia Institute stated in November 2015:

Other modelling finds slightly more, possibly 0.5% extra GDP after ten years or total 0.7% in 2030:
Sydney Morning Herald Economics Editor Ross Gittens concluded from various modelling, that after ten years, GDP will be 0.5% higher. New York’s Quartz news outlet quotes modelling to say Australia’s GDP increase will be 0.3% after ten years (US will be 0.2%). The World Bank finds total 0.7% more in 2030 (US total 0.4% more) (SMH Jan 2016).

These figures are consistent with various economists saying that the US and Australia have very open economies, hence little benefit.

The Peterson’s Institute in the US said “we dont calculate any increase in the number of people at work (in the US). But about one-half of 1 per cent of the US workforce will move from import-competing jobs (typically in manufacturing) to exporting jobs (typically in services)…”

Costs and Risks

The biggest risks are that

• there is no end date on a trade agreement, just negotiated amendments and journalists have pointed out how little negotiating power Australia holds when negotiating with the US.
• the agreement includes ISDS provisions

Details will emerge as the thousands of pages (originally written by multinationals) are analysed.

Inclusion of ISDS provisions are a major risk. Eminent economist Joseph Stigliz makes this point:
“if these provisions were in place when the lethal effects of asbestos were discovered, rather than shutting down manufacturers and forcing them to compensate those who had been harmed, under ISDS, governments would have had to pay the manufacturers not to kill their citizens.”

External link Trans-Pacific Partnership: we’re selling economic sovereignty for little return

“We need to keep prices low so our patients—and millions of others still waiting for treatment in the developing world—can get the medicines they need.

But right now the U.S. government is advocating for trade terms with eleven other Pacific Rim nations that could restrict access to generic medicines, making life-saving treatments unaffordable to millions.”

External link Help Us Fix the TPP provides more explanation, Video, Tweet your support, write to President Obama, Share on Facebook.

“Australia has a broader responsibility in these negotiations than simply improving Australia’s trade figures. Like it or not, The Australian Government’s success or otherwise in rejecting the aggressive demands of the brand name pharmaceutical lobby will affect the future health outcomes of millions of vulnerable people across the region. For the sake our patients and those like them we urge Australia to stand strong,” said Médecins Sans Frontières  Australia spokesperson Jon Edwards 25th Sept 2015.