Philip Morris vs. Uruguay

by: Juan Antonio Montecino and Rebecca Dreyfus, Foreign Policy in Focus

Philip Morris International believes Uruguay is Marlboro Country. On February 19, the tobacco giant filed a lawsuit against that country, charging that new health measures involving cigarette packaging amount to unfair treatment of the company.

Uruguay’s new legislation, submitted in June 2009 and expected to go into effect in March 2010, requires that 80 percent of each side of cigarette boxes be covered by graphic images of the possible detrimental health effects of smoking. The company argues that the law limits the space for branding and thus infringes on its intellectual property rights.

These requirements are nothing new in Uruguay or elsewhere in the world. Before this law, Uruguay had legislation that required 50 percent of each side of the box contain health warnings. Although health-warning laws in other countries vary, they have been around for many years. Brazil, for example, requires that 100 percent of one side of cigarette boxes feature health warnings, while in Australia the measures go even further, requiring a warning on 30 percent of the front and 90 percent of the back.

Uruguay is not the first, second, third, fourth, or even the fifth country to implement these laws. There is a wide array of support for such laws throughout the world, from neighboring countries like Chile and Argentina to distant lands like Australia and Canada. But Philip Morris has not launched a lawsuit like this one before.

Ironically, the U.S.-based Philip Morris is filing its claim under a bilateral investment treaty between Uruguay and Switzerland, even though that European country became the most recent nation to adopt strict cigarette packaging rules on January 1, 2010.

Philip Morris has its headquarters in New York but its operations center in Lausanne, Switzerland. The firm is famous for Marlboros (the world’s top-selling cigarette) and controls around 15 percent of the international cigarette market outside the United States.

This case echoes many others currently underway in developing regions, where powerful corporations from the developed north seek to take advantage of “investor protections,” under trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties, to ensure profits at any cost. Such claims are decided by international arbitration tribunals that cannot force a country to repeal its laws but can award massive compensation to the foreign investor.

Philip Morris’s lawsuit is a logical step in the tobacco industry’s aggressive push toward new markets, at a time when traditional markets in the developed world are drying up. The World Health Organization reported that “smoking is on the rise in the developing world but falling in developed nations. Among Americans, smoking rates shrunk by nearly half in three decades (from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s), falling to 23 percent of adults by 1997. In the developing world, tobacco consumption is rising by 3.4 percent per year.”

According to Philip Morris’ latest annual report, profits from emerging markets grew 17 percent between 2007 and 2008, and now, at $33 billion, surpass profits from the European Union. Also, Philip Morris’ profits have grown the most in Latin America and Canada, by a hefty 23 percent.

There are many arguments in favor of discouraging smoking in the name of the public interest. Smoking has large social costs, both through smoking-related health care spending and negative effects on worker productivity. Smoking-related illnesses disproportionately impact the poor, who have less access to health care and for whom tobacco consumption represents a much larger portion of household income.

Tabaré Vázquez, a trained medical doctor whose term as the country’s president ended March 1, promoted Uruguay’s anti-smoking laws. Uruguay's new center-left president, Pepe Mujica, comes from Vázquez's own party and will likely support the anti-smoking law. On the campaign trail and in declarations since his election, Mujica has stressed that a continuation of his predecessor's policies will figure prominently in his agenda.

All nations should be allowed to implement legislation they believe protects their population’s health — without having to face expensive lawsuits from global corporations. Philip Morris’s suit is just the latest in the tobacco industry’s long history of abuse of power.

Rebecca Dreyfus is a research assistant with the Institute for Policy Studies and a contributor to www.justinvestment.org, a website jointly operated by IPS and the Bolivia-based Democracy Center. Juan Antonio Montecino is a research assistant at the Center for Economic Policy and Research in Washington D.C. working on Latin American economic development. Both are contributors to Foreign Policy In Focus.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.





     

»




Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



+1 reason why DENIED 1-payer

+1 reason why DENIED 1-payer healthcare, b/c it would enable 1 central data bank on these killer tobacco & other products....Have to laugh @ Uruguayans more empowered than the 'great americans' on their country's health!!PM is a real death panel S Palin.



Gee wilikers and Golly Gosh,

Gee wilikers and Golly Gosh, Mr. self-rightousness!!! So you don't like them and so they shouldn't be able to file a lawsuit? No wonder conservatives think liberals are elite, arrogant hypocrites. As a liberal myself, I say let the courts decide and don't take away anyone's rights to a fair hearing.



Nicotine is more addictive

Nicotine is more addictive than heroine. There's no record of a full ban in nicotine products so we don't know the reaction of people, but we do know that jews in concentration camps would exchange their loaf of bread (all their food of the day) for one "cigarette' made with 3 or 4 cigarette butts picked up from the floor. That's how much you need nicotine. You'd rather die than the prospect of living without it.

Everybody smokes in Uruguay. (I know, I'm from there). 3/4 of the population smoke. My mom, dad, brothers, sister, everybody smokes. My dad died at 60 from a tobacco use related illness and he couldn't stop smoking. My father in law died from the same, also smoker, he was able to stop smoking but it was too late.

In Uruguay there aren't consumer laws like in America. I remember watching cigarette ads in TV every time during the day. I mean, THEY TARGET KIDS!!!! there are candy cigarettes sold at stores!

After 20 years of smoking and many, many unsuccessful attempts to quit, FINALLY, I've been nicotine free for 2 months now. I believe that living in America has been the main reason why I was able to quit. The fact that the majority of people despise smoking here, and the fact that I don't have to see tobacco absofuckinglutely everywhere I turn to, has made my quitting possible.

The pro-consumer laws against tobacco have saved my life. Its a shame that the majority of 3/4 of the population of Uruguay (most of the people I've known anyways) will probably die because of tobacco use and nobody cares.



GO

GO URUGAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



gratis blogg

cadolj sffnim szciyp gratis laptop erhfqz hhpajh biykua

cnfdhz lpnssi dbmqal erbjudanden mediamarkt cpkqkg nfwjet vagbcd

mtjfbn gszbne cukxit http://medieval-chaos.magnox.ca/wiki/index.php?title=User:SamubuWogelu - gratis prikbord advertenties - ofjcbb kmcagf acxnqb