There have been requests to exclude certain products from trade agreements because they harm public health or the environment. Recently, product exclusion campaigns have included chemicals (in general or certain chemicals such as glyphosate), sugary drinks and sweets (or sugar in general) and alcoholic beverages. So far, the same has been done for tobacco products. This document argues that product exclusions are neither legally feasible nor desirable. Product exclusion measures would be contrary to market access rules and obligations agreed by countries in the WTO, which also serve as a basis for other trade agreements, such as bilateral free trade agreements. It is important that the exclusion of products from current wto market access obligations does not in itself have any effect on public health, since the main effect is that the local production of the excluded goods would replace the goods that are now imported. The conclusion is that trade policy is not an instrument of regulatory ambition. Nor does it oppose regulation aimed at improving public health. Trade policy is about trade and the instruments and agreements that exist for the pursuit of better and less discriminatory trade conditions simply cannot be used for various regulatory proposals, however relevant they may be. Second, we will discuss how international trade rules address trade barriers for regulated products. This is an important part, because the exclusion of products such as chemicals and sugar-sweetened beverages in trade agreements does indeed concern products that can be placed on the market and that have been explicitly covered in the past in all trade agreements. In addition, requests for the exclusion of certain products in Europe generally concern products manufactured in Europe, which raises obvious problems of direct discrimination against products. Articles III and XI of the GATT.
Article III(4) of the GATT provides that “products from the territory of one Member imported into the territory of another Member shall enjoy treatment no less favourable than like products of domestic origin, with respect to all laws, regulations and requirements relating to their internal sale, offer to sell and purchase.  The claim that Article 24 could be used was also echoed by Boris Johnson during his 2019 campaign for the leadership of the Conservative Party. . . .