MedTech Europe calls for medtech tariff and export restriction exemptions
MedTech Europe has issued a statement calling on European policymakers to exempt medical technologies from any trade tariffs or export restrictions.
In response to the European Commission's (EC) conclusion of a public consultation on proposed EU countermeasures impacting trade with the US, MedTech Europe expressed deep concern over a draft package that 'targets a broad range of finished medical devices, in vitro diagnostic (IVD) medical devices, and a variety of essential components used in their manufacture'.
The trade body's overall request was that medical technologies be included and prioritised in a 'zero for zero' tariff agreement on industrial goods or as part of any negotiated settlement that seeks to eliminate tariffs on both sides of the Atlantic.
The EC's consultation, which was announced on 8 May and closed on 10 June, was launched to gather input towards finalising proposals for the adoption of countermeasures against the Trump's administration's imposition of tariffs on the bloc.
Upon launching the consultation, EC president Ursula von der Leyen said: 'Tariffs are already having a negative impact on the global economies. The EU remains fully committed to finding negotiated outcomes with the US.
'At the same time, we continue preparing for all possibilities, and the consultation launched today will help guide us in this necessary work.'
President Trump's initial announcement of tariffs for many countries and regions worldwide on 2 April has been marked by continued flip-flopping. The EU was originally facing 20% blanket tariffs on all imported goods from 9 April; however, the White House walked back its plans on the date, instead choosing to enact a 90-day pause on the imposition of tariffs.
Trump has since threatened to raise tariffs on the EU to 50% if no deal is reached by the end of the pause period on 9 July.
According to reports by German newspaper Handelsblatt, the EU was willing to accept a flat fee of 10% tariffs. However, in a statement shared with Reuters, the EC dismissed the claims, stating: "Negotiations are ongoing, and no agreement has been reached at this stage. The EU has from the start objected to unjustified and illegal US tariffs.'
In concluding remarks, MedTech Europe stated: 'Patients must not become collateral damage in a trade dispute. Safeguarding their access to the technologies they depend on must remain a shared priority.'
On 11 June, leading players from the medtech industry convened on Capitol Hill alongside the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) to advocate for the elimination of tariffs on medical technologies.
After the Trump administration's announcement of a 90-day pause on the imposition of tariffs for most countries, barring China, AdvaMed CEO Scott Whitaker voiced similar hopes as MedTech Europe, restating his previous request that a 'zero for zero' tariff deal on medtech with all of the US's key trading partners be struck.
Navigate the shifting tariff landscape with real-time data and market-leading analysis.
Request a free demo for GlobalData's Strategic Intelligence
"MedTech Europe calls for medtech tariff and export restriction exemptions" was originally created and published by Medical Device Network, a GlobalData owned brand.
The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
9 minutes ago
- CNN
Israeli military rejects report that soldiers told to fire at Palestinians waiting for food, after repeated deadly incidents
The Israeli military has denied a new report that soldiers were ordered to fire at unarmed Palestinians waiting for humanitarian aid in Gaza, after hundreds of people were reported killed while approaching food distribution sites in recent weeks. On Friday, the daily Haaretz newspaper published an article alleging that Israeli soldiers in Gaza were instructed by their commanders to shoot at the crowds of Palestinians approaching aid sites, even as it was evident that the crowds posed no threat. One soldier who spoke anonymously with Haaretz described the approach routes to the aid sites as a 'killing field' where Israeli forces open fire even if there is no immediate threat. According to the article, Israeli forces recently began dispersing crowds with artillery shells, which resulted in a sharp rise in casualties. 'We strongly reject the accusation raised in the article — the IDF did not instruct the forces to deliberately shoot at civilians, including those approaching the distribution centers,' the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said in response to the article. 'To be clear, IDF directives prohibit deliberate attacks on civilians.' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz have also rejected the report as 'vicious lies designed to discredit the IDF – the most moral army in the world.' More than 500 Palestinians have been killed as they approached aid sites or trucks carrying aid since May 27, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health. Palestinians have come under fire on a near daily basis as they approach the sites, health officials and emergency responders have said. In one such incident earlier this month, more than a dozen eyewitnesses, including those wounded in the attack, told CNN that Israeli troops shot at crowds in repeated volleys of gunfire. Weapons experts said the rate of gunfire heard in the footage, as well as images of bullets retrieved from victims, were consistent with machine guns used by the Israeli military. On multiple occasions, the IDF has acknowledged firing what it called 'warning shots' at Palestinians approaching military positions near aid distribution sites. It has also said that it is examining reports of casualties, but it has not publicly released any findings to date. According to Haaretz, the Military Advocate General has instructed the IDF General Staff's Fact-Finding Assessment Mechanism – which reviews incidents involving the potential violations of the laws of war – to investigate suspected war crimes near the aid sites. 'Any allegation of a deviation from the law or IDF directives will be thoroughly examined, and further action will be taken as necessary,' the IDF said on Friday. CNN has reached out to the IDF for additional comment. The Gaza aid sites where the deaths have occurred are run by the controversial Israel- and US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), which hands out pre-packaged boxes of food at a handful of locations in southern and central Gaza. The group's distribution was chaotic from the start one month ago, with crowds of desperate Palestinians rushing the sites the moment they open to take the available aid before it runs out, often within less than an hour. GHF was set up to replace the United Nations aid distribution mechanism, which Israel and the US have accused Hamas of looting. Hamas has rejected those claims, and humanitarian groups say most of the UN-distributed food aid reaches civilians. GHF coordinates with the Israeli military to designate specific routes for Palestinians traveling to their aid sites and has come under sharp criticism from aid experts. It has acknowledged some episodes of violence occurring outside of its immediate aid sites, but repeatedly described food distribution operations as having 'proceeded without incident.' In response to the Haaretz reporting, the organization said it was 'not aware' of the specific incidents described. Nevertheless, it added, 'these allegations are too grave to ignore and we therefore call on Israel to investigate them and transparently publish the results in a timely manner.' On Thursday, the US State Department announced that it is awarding $30 million to the organization, a sign of continued US support for GHF, which says it distributed 46 million meals in four weeks of operations.
Associated Press
9 minutes ago
- Associated Press
California Gov. Gavin Newsom sues Fox News over alleged defamation in story about call with Trump
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom sued Fox News on Friday over alleged defamation, saying the network knowingly aired false information about a phone call he had with President Donald Trump around the time the National Guard was sent Los Angeles. The lawsuit alleges Fox News anchor Jesse Watters edited out key information from a clip of Trump talking about calling Newsom, then used the edited video to assert that Newsom had lied about the two talking. Newsom is asking for $787 million in punitive damages in his lawsuit filed in Delaware court where Fox is incorporated. That's the same amount Fox agreed to pay in 2023 to settle a defamation lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems. The company said Fox had repeatedly aired false allegations that its equipment had switched votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden during the 2020 election, and the discovery process of the lawsuit revealed Fox's efforts not to alienate conservatives in the network's audience in the wake of Biden's victory. 'If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump's behalf, it should face consequences -- just like it did in the Dominion case,' Newsom said in a statement. 'I believe the American people should be able to trust the information they receive from a major news outlet.' He asked a judge to order Fox News to stop broadcasting 'the false, deceptive, and fraudulent video and accompanying statements' that Newsom said falsely say he lied about when he had spoken to Trump regarding the situation in Los Angeles, where protests erupted on June 6 over Trump's immigration crackdown. Fox News called the lawsuit 'frivolous.' 'Gov. Newsom's transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him. We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed,' the company said in a statement. The law makes it difficult to prove defamation, but some cases result in settlements and, no matter the disposition, can tie up news outlets in expensive legal fights. Particularly since taking office a second time, Trump has been aggressive in going after news organizations he feels has wronged him. He's involved in settlement talks over his lawsuit against CBS News about a '60 Minutes' interview last fall with Democratic opponent Kamala Harris. This week, Trump's lawyers threatened a lawsuit against CNN and The New York Times over their reporting of an initial assessment of damage to Iran's nuclear program from a U.S. bombing. Newsom's lawsuit centers on the details of a phone call with the president. Both Newsom and the White House have said the two spoke late at night on June 6 in California, which was already June 7 on the East Coast. Though the content of the call is not part of the lawsuit, Newsom has said the two never discussed Trump's plan to deploy the National Guard, which he announced the next day. Trump said the deployment was necessary to protect federal buildings from people protesting increased immigration arrests. Trump later announced he would also deploy Marines to the area. On June 10, when 700 Marines arrived in the Los Angeles area, Trump told reporters he had spoken to Newsom 'a day ago' about his decision to send troops. That day, Newsom posted on X that there had been no call. 'There was no call. Not even a voicemail,' Newsom wrote. On the evening of June 10, the Watters Primetime show played a clip of Trump's statement about his call with Newsom but removed Trump's comment that the call was 'a day ago,' the lawsuit said. Watters also referred to call logs another Fox News reporter had posted online showing the phone call the two had on June 6. 'Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?' Watters asked on air, according to the lawsuit. The segment included text across the bottom of the screen that said 'Gavin Lied About Trump's Call.' Newsom's suit argues that by editing the material, Fox 'maliciously lied as a means to sabotage informed national discussion.' Precise details about when the call happened are important because the days when Trump deployed the Guard to Los Angeles despite Newsom's opposition 'represented an unprecedented moment,' Newsom's lawyers wrote in a letter to Fox demanding a retraction and on-air apology. 'History was occurring in real time. It is precisely why reporters asked President Trump the very question that prompted this matter: when did he last speak with Governor Newsom,' the letter said. ___ Associated Press journalist David Bauder contributed to this report.
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge won't block DOGE access to sensitive government data
A federal judge ruled Friday that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) can continue to access sensitive data on millions of Americans at certain agencies, handing at least a temporary defeat to the labor unions that have sued to block the practice. Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court in D.C. declined to grant the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services, pending further proceedings in the case. The AFL-CIO and other unions filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent DOGE employees from accessing information such as medical files, financial histories, social security numbers, and addresses. In his ruling, Bates said that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated sufficient evidence of harm to merit an injunction, although he remained concerned about the prospect of DOGE's access. 'Absent evidence those personnel will imminently misuse or publicly disclose that information, the Court cannot say that irreparable harm will clearly occur before the Court can make a final determination on the merits,' he wrote. 'And without irreparable harm, a preliminary injunction cannot issue.' Still, Bates acknowledged the sensitivity of the data access, writing that the 'DOGE Affiliates have their hands on some of the most personal information individuals entrust to the government.' '[T]he Court's concerns are as grave as ever, and it stands ready to remedy plaintiffs' harm should they ultimately succeed on the merits,' he wrote. Bates asked the parties to propose a schedule for reaching summary judgment. The ruling is yet another setback for the labor unions, who first brought their suit in February and have been twice denied temporary restraining orders. Bates himself has ruled on a number of Trump-related cases and has at times drawn ire from the president. He has ordered the administration to restore certain government websites and ruled that Trump's executive order targeting the law firm Jenner & Block was unconstitutional. A host of lawsuits over DOGE's access to private government data are slowly playing out across federal courts. A federal judge ruled last week that the government must submit a report detailing DOGE's level of access to personally identifiable information at the Office of Personnel Management in response to another lawsuit filed by the AFL-CIO. The Supreme Court earlier this month allowed DOGE to proceed in its efforts at the Social Security Administration, staying a preliminary injunction in a case brought by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.
