Ashes to Ashes: America's Hundred-Year Cigarette War, the Public Health, and the Unabashed Triumph of Philip Morris.

1997 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 685
Author(s):  
Kenneth De Ville ◽  
Richard Kluger
2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 448-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessamina Lih Yan Lie ◽  
Gary Fooks ◽  
Nanne K de Vries ◽  
Suzanne M Heijndijk ◽  
Marc C Willemsen

IntroductionTransnational tobacco company (TTC) submissions to the 2012 UK standardised packaging consultation are studied to examine TTC argumentation in the context of Better Regulation practices.MethodsA content analysis was conducted of Philip Morris International and British American Tobacco submissions to the 2012 UK consultation. Industry arguments concerning expected costs and (contested) benefits of the policy were categorised into themes and frames. The inter-relationship between frames through linked arguments was mapped to analyse central arguments using an argumentation network.Results173 arguments were identified. Arguments fell into one of five frames: ineffectiveness, negative economic consequences, harm to public health, increased crime or legal ramifications. Arguments highlighted high costs to a wide range of groups, including government, general public and other businesses. Arguments also questioned the public health benefits of standardised packaging and highlighted the potential benefits to undeserving groups. An increase in illicit trade was the most central argument and linked to the greatest variety of arguments.ConclusionsIn policy-making systems characterised by mandatory impact assessments and public consultations, the wide range of cost (and contested benefits) based arguments highlights the risk of TTCs overloading policy actors and causing delays in policy adoption. Illicit trade related arguments are central to providing a rationale for these arguments, which include the claim that standardised packaging will increase health risks. The strategic importance of illicit trade arguments to industry argumentation in public consultations underlines the risks of relying on industry data relating to the scale of the illicit trade.


2020 ◽  
pp. tobaccocontrol-2019-055585 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren Kass Lempert ◽  
Stanton Glantz

BackgroundPhilip Morris Products SA (PMPSA) submitted a premarket tobacco application (PMTA) to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking an order permitting it to market IQOS in the USA. US law requires FDA to deny marketing authorisation if applicants fail to demonstrate that their product is ‘appropriate for the protection of the public health’. FDA issued a marketing order for IQOS in April 2019, which Philip Morris is using to promote IQOS outside the USA.MethodsWe analysed FDA’s Technical Project Lead Review and marketing order for IQOS, relevant law and guidance on PMTAs and independent research on the health impacts of IQOS.ResultsFDA found that the evidence PMPSA submitted did not demonstrate reduction in long-term disease risks and that IQOS aerosol emits toxins with carcinogenic and genotoxic potential, some at higher levels than conventional cigarettes. PMPSA did not appropriately consider the health impacts of dual use, the product’s attractiveness to youth or data showing that consumers do not accurately perceive the addiction risks of IQOS. Despite FDA’s own scientists’ recommendations and independent research showing that IQOS presents serious risks to users including cytotoxic, genotoxic, hepatotoxic, cardiovascular and pulmonary risks, FDA concluded that IQOS is ‘appropriate for the protection of the public health’.ConclusionFDA’s decision allowing IQOS to be marketed in the USA disregarded valid scientific evidence and misapplied the public health standard mandated by law. This decision may have important health impacts, influence marketing IQOS outside the USA and erode public confidence in FDA’s future PMTA decisions.


Author(s):  
Xiuli Han

The year 2010 witnessed a case which involved both public health epitomized by tobacco control and investment embodied as intellectual property. The future arbitral award of the pending case will carry significant meaning to understand the relationship between obligations to protect public health and to protect investment for a sovereign state. The author tries to make sure that even though the regulatory legitimacy should be determined case by case, it seems that the trend of treaties and jurisprudences show that only if some basic principles, such as non-discrimination, proportionality, due process of law, and the public interest are respected, the regulation of the host state would be unchallengeable. It is tenable to argue that Uruguay need not compensate subject to the listed regulatory requirements above.


2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 591-599 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Alemanno

A visual display ban on tobacco products, imposed by national legislation of an EEA State, such as the one at issue in the case at hand, constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 11 EEA if, in fact, the ban affects the marketing of products imported from other EEA States to a greater degree than that of imported products which were, until recently, produced in Norway. It is for the national court to identify the aims which the legislation at issue is actually intended to pursue and to decide whether the public health objective of reducing tobacco use by the public in general can be achieved by measures less restrictive than a visual display ban on tobacco products (author's headnote).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document