The Trans Pacific Partnership: Global Nutrition at Risk

  • Henry Greenberg
  • Stephanie Shiau
Part of the Nutrition and Health book series (NH)


Because of rapid and transformative changes in urbanization, globalization, and democratization, there have been and will continue to be dramatic changes in nearly all aspects of civil society. A global nutritional transition is part of this and to a large extent is driving a dramatic advance in trade policy. Trade agreements are now carried out by regional trade agreements (RTA) and not the World Trade Organization which offered significant protection for national policies, particularly important for developing economies. RTAs do not offer this. The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) poses genuine threats to health, particularly chronic diseases and more specifically those related to food, diet, and nutrition, i.e. heart disease and diabetes. An important aspect of the TPPA is that it gives multinational corporations control of functions that are normally assumed to be part of a nation’s prerogatives. We see the TPPA as sending a message to the public health establishment to enter the trade policy debates with energy and vigor.


Global trade Trade agreements Tariffs Trans Pacific Partnership 



Foreign direct investment


General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs


Multinational corporation


Noncommunicable diseases


Regional trade agreements


Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement


World Trade Organization


  1. 1.
    Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, et al. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science. 2008;319:756–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schmitz C, Biewald A, Lutze-Campen H, et al. Trading more food: Implications for land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and the food system. Global Environ Change. 2011;22:189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Subramanian A, Wei S-J. The WTO promotes trade, strongly but unevenly. J Intl Econ. 2007;72:151–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lopert R, Gleeson D. The high price of “free” trade: U.S. trade agreements and access to medicines. J Law Med Ethics. 2013;41(3):199–223.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kelsey J. The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: a gold-plated gift to the global tobacco industry. Am J Law Med. 2013;39:237–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thow AM, Hawkes C. The implications of trade liberalization for diet and health: a case study from Central America. Globalization Health. 2009;5:5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lanas F, et al. Risk factors for acute myocardial infarction in Latin America: the Interheart Latin America study. Circulation. 2007;115:1067–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Friel S, Gleeson D, Thow AM, et al. A new generation of trade policy: potential risks to diet-related health from the trans pacific partnership agreement. Globalization Health. 2013;9:46.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greenberg H, Shiau S. The vulnerability of being ill informed: the trans-pacific partnership agreement and global public health. J Pub Health. 2014;36:355–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Swinburn B, Sacks G, Vandevijvere A, et al. INFORMAS (International Network for Food and Obesity/non-communicable disease Research, Monitoring and Action Support): overview and key principles. Obes Rev. 2013;14(Suppl1):1–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Institute International Food Policy Research. Global nutrition report 2014: actions and accountability to accelerate the World’s progress on nutrition. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute; 2014.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Daniels ME, Donilon TE, Bollyky TJ, Council on Foreign Relations. The emerging global health crisis: non-communicable diseases in lower and middle income countries, Independent Task Force Report, No 72. Washington, DC: Council on Foreign Relations; 2014.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Friel S, Hattersley L, Snowden W, et al. Monitoring the impacts of trade agreements on food environments. Obes Rev. 2013;14(suppl1):120–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    A better way to arbitrate. The Economist 2014;Oct 11:14.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Lock K, Smith RD, Dangour AD, et al. Health, agricultural, and economic effects of adoption of healthy diet regulations. Lancet. 2010;376:1699–709.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    Galea S. An argument for a consequentialist epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2013;178:1185–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Puska P, Stahl T. Health in all policies—the Finnish initiative: background, principles, and current issues. Annu Rev Public Health. 2010;31:315–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EpidemiologyMailman School of Public Health, Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Human Nutrition, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations