Wait A Minute, Big Tobacco Is Suing Someone? A Country?

[Judi Lynn]

Wait A Minute, Big Tobacco Is Suing Someone? A Country?
Article Date: 10 Sep 2010

Philip Morris has filed suit against Uruguay, as the country looks to enlarge health warnings on packaging up to 80%, and require the tobacco giant to adjust packaging to plain or solid colors. Uruguay is one of the most economically developed countries in South America, with a high GDP per capita and the 50th highest quality of life in the world.

So what's the skinny on this national tobacco controversy? Dr. Raphael Lencucha, University of Lethbridge, Alberta explains that Philip Morris is exercising law regarding discriminatory treatment of trademarks protected by the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement.

The regulation of tobacco packaging, such as warning labels and plain packaging is an important intervention to both dissuade non-smokers from becoming smokers and encourage smokers to quit. It is also an intervention the tobacco industry has worked to resist in the past. Individuals with an interest in global health governance should follow Philip Morris' case against Uruguay with interest to observe whether, and if so how, international health law is used to support governmental decisions to protect health.

There is obvious division between the tobacco industry and countries trying to protect citizens by increasing control, advertising and packaging methods. The World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), to which Uruguay is a standing participant, does require countries to post warning labels of at least 30% coverage of the tobacco pack, and that warnings should be visible on all sides of the pack.

Uruguay wants to increase this by 50%, so Philip Morris has filed legal proceedings. The country continent of Australia is also facing legal confrontations with tobacco business as they have committed as a nation to plain packaging only within its ocean borders.

More:
http://www.medilexicon.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=200579

[dipsydoodle]

1. visible on all sides of the pack ?

That's an odd one. Would mean back , front and the other four sides too ? I just checked a packet of Rothmans and that's just got front and back warnings - about 40% front and 60% back.

Aside from Australia there was talk a year ago of us having plain packets here in the UK : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8282579.stm

Our infamous Death Cigarettes went completly overboard on warnings : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_%28cigarette%29 Almost the entire packet was a warning.

:hi:

[Judi Lynn]

2. Uh, oh! Death Cigarettes? Yikes!

http://upload.wikimedia.org.nyud.net:8090/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Nci-vol-2565-150_death_cigarettes.jpg/220px-Nci-vol-2565-150_death_cigarettes.jpg
Never heard of them. What a concept! <wheeze>

Someone's got a sense of humor. :hi:

[dipsydoodle]

3. One of my pals in those days

arranged contracts for supply and restocking of cigartette vending machines. That was how I knew about the Death packets. Some of the packets were really grim with lareg photos of infected lungs whatever.

Yuk.

[raccoon]

4. K&R. The SOB's. nt