Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
effect across wales, northern Ireland, and england. canada's adoption of large
graphic health warnings has subsequently been replicated by thailand, Brazil, the
eU, and elsewhere—an issue on which national policy development and Fctc
negotiations clearly interacted.
Such progress is not formally part of the Fctc, but is impossible to understand
in isolation from it. as Philip Morris senior vice-president David Davies (2003)
recognised in a speech to a tobacco industry conference in november 2003:
we have lived with regulations and other restrictive policies in this industry for a long
time now. a major shift in our environment is of course the adoption of the Fctc. while
the convention has been signed by more than seventy countries, it has been ratified by
only five. Whether ratified or not, the treaty has had a significant influence on us, simply
because it has accelerated the pace of regulation in individual countries.
The significance of such successes notwithstanding, there are inevitably questions
about the capacity of the FCTC to fulfil its objectives. While the final text was widely
welcomed within the public health community, the enthusiasm of its reception owed
much to the despair with which the penultimate draft had been received. the coalition
of countries and civil society organisations pressing for a strong Fctc did not
entirely prevail over those states advocating a minimalist convention. The defining
dispute of the negotiations was regarding the tensions between tobacco control and
trade liberalisation, and the clear majority of countries pressing for a privileged
position for health measures was not reflected in the final text. While from a public
health perspective this still constitutes a clear advance on the stark subordination of
the Fctc to trade agreements of prior texts, the convention's silence on such issues
can be seen as representing a triumph of U.S. diplomacy and as exposing the extent
to which the Fctc has been circumscribed by liberal economic orthodoxy.
an optimistic assessment of the relationship between the Fctc and trade
agreements highlights the language of the Fctc's preamble, in which the parties are
described as 'determined to give priority to their right to protect public health' (wHo
2003). In the case of future disputes, it has been argued, this could be construed
as indicating an intent to allow non-discriminatory tobacco control measures even
where trade is adversely affected (Yach
et al. 2007). this appears a rather thin reed
on which to build such hopes, but a more definitive verdict must await the arbitration
of future challenges, with the Fctc's requirements on large health warnings and
bans on misleading descriptors seeming likely targets for challenge.
the achievement of a convention can itself be seen as posing challenges for
tobacco control, most notably with regard to ensuring effective implementation of
its provisions. the prospect of perverse impacts cannot be disregarded, since the
very impact of the Fctc in accelerating national legislation could also be viewed as
creating new opportunities for tobacco companies to shape public policy. In 2004,
just days after Mexico's ratification of the FCTC, the government announced an
agreement with three tobacco companies that clearly contradicted Fctc obligations
on health warnings, ingredients disclosure, and sponsorship (Samet
et al. 2006). In
