The tobacco lobby strikes back

Those who have watched Hollywood film The Insider would have got a peep into the cloak-and-dagger world of dealing with Big Tobacco, as the industry is infamously referred to in health circles. The film, starring Russell Crowe, is an adaptation of the television news expose by the CBS programme 60 minutes on the dirty secrets of the tobacco industry. It revolves around the testimonial of a scientist in a tobacco company, revealing the addictive nature of nicotine. And to cut a long story short, the events lead up to the unprecedented $246 billion settlement the industry makes with Mississippi and some other states.

But that was the story of the 1990s, filled with subterfuge. Today, the gloves are off, and Big Tobacco “has both changed its face and its tactics,” says WHO Director General Dr Margaret Chan.

Spearheading the attack against the tobacco industry at the recent World Conference on Tobacco or Health (WTCOH), she said: “The wolf is no longer in sheep's clothing, and its teeth are bared.”

INDUSTRY'S TACTICS

The industry's tactics aimed at undermining anti-tobacco campaigns and subverting the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) are no longer cloaked by an image of corporate social responsibility, she remarked, adding, “ they are out in the open and they are extremely aggressive.” This is visible in countries like Australia, Uruguay and Turkey, where the industry is locked in high-profile litigation. Australia has its hands full — from having to deal with being called a “nanny-state” for its “excessive regulations” to being hauled to the WTO for laws that protect public health.

The industry wants to see a domino effect, said Dr Chan. When one country's resolve falters under the pressure of costly, long-drawn litigation, and threats of billion-dollar settlements, some others are likely to topple as well, she said. And this financial burden can be difficult on small countries like Uruguay.

But there are some other tactics too, said Dr Chan, “some new, others just old butts in new ashtrays.” In fact, echoing similar sentiments, Dr Douglas Bettcher, Director of WHO's Tobacco-Free Initiative, said on one side, there were the “same old, same old” tactics of intimidating policymakers and making “exaggerated” threats of “loss of employment”. But changing with the times, the industry is also using online social and marketing sites to pull in young people as fans, he pointed out. The challenge is to “denormalise” the tobacco industry, making it an outcast even in the corporate sector, he added.

KEEP IT PLAIN

But bringing home the message of head-on confrontation between Governments and the tobacco industry, was the strong and scientific contingent from Australia that gave the WTCOH audience a blow-by-blow account on their “plain packaging” experience.

The Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 became law in Australia on December 1, last year. And the legislation envisaged that tobacco packs made or packed in Australia would be in plain and dark brown packs, and not olive green (one of the colour choices), as olive producers protested, said Professor Jane Halton, Secretary, Australian Department of Health and Ageing.

The standard matt brown packs would sport no logos, brand imagery, symbols, or colours associated with the tobacco company or brand — just graphic pictures of tobacco-caused diseases, on the packs with the brand and product name mentioned in standard colour, position, font and style. The law will come into effect later this year.

Four tobacco majors operating in Australia — British American Tobacco, Philip Morris Limited, Imperial Tobacco and Japan Tobacco International — responded, with each of them bringing constitutional challenges against the plain packaging legislation in Australia's High Court, Ms Halton said. Philip Morris Asia also filed a formal notice of arbitration under the Australia-Hong Kong Bilateral Investment Treaty.

And more recently, Ukraine initiated initial consultations at the WTO, she said. Trade-related disputes at the WTO can only take place between member countries, and the implications of the move by Ukraine is still to be completely revealed, say intellectual property experts.

Following the plain packaging legislation, front groups sprouted “overnight”, noted delegates with the Australian contingent. The Alliance of Australian Retailers contested the plain packaging law. And it was only later, through a midnight e-mail to some advocacy workers, that the tobacco industry's hand in the Alliance was revealed, a representative said.

Then there was the “I deserve to be heard” campaign launched by Philip Morris, encouraging smokers to speak up against cigarette taxes, smoking restrictions and plain packs; and Imperial Tobacco Australia launched the “Nanny State” campaign, Ms Halton said. Illustrating her point on how attacks on the Government by the tobacco industry were multi-pronged, she said that since April 2010, her department received 64 Freedom of Information (FOI) requests relating to tobacco plain packaging — 53 from the tobacco industry.

Though similar to the Indian Right to Information system, in this case, Ms Halton remarked, the FOI queries were to tie-up funds and resources in the department that could be used to implement reforms in tobacco control, particularly plain packaging. “For example, one particular set of FOI requests from BAT Australia cost the department more than $643,000 to process,” she said.