The Heinrich Foundation report also notes that over the past decade, China has increasingly exported specific inputs – including antibiotics, vitamins -.B as well as medical devices such as diagnostic reagents, gloves, syringes and medical devices to the pharmaceutical industry. India has also increased exports of all types of medicines, particularly generic ingredients and drugs. However, even if this is taken into account, China and India still account for only 5.4% of world health exports covered by the original WTO agreement. The situation is again observed in the United States. The United States has attempted to include drugs in bilateral and non-multilateral trade agreements with China and India and has failed. This is partly because the United States did not want the two countries to develop and compete with their massive pharmaceutical sector and have tried to limit Chinese and Indian capabilities. Nevertheless, both China and India have had to upgrade their own industries, both to support their billions of people and because the development of a local pharmaceutical industry would be an important source of jobs and national income. The analytical framework highlights the provisions of trade and investment agreements that need to be studied, the avenues to be explored and the possible consequences that should be taken into account in terms of pharmaceutical policy. This can be a checklist or useful model for assessing health and human rights impacts and researching the impact of trade agreements on medicines. Finally, the four agreements also contain rules in other chapters (CETA Ch. 27, TPP/CPT-Ch. 26, USMCA Ch. 29) that apply to the development of national provisions such as.
B those that require the prompt publication of proposed laws, regulations, procedures and administrative decisions, and the provision of “reasonable means” for “interested persons” and other contracting parties to comment on such proposals (Article 21.1, TPP/CPTPP Art 26.2, Section 29.2 of the USMCA).