Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

Uruguay

Tobacco giant loses lawsuit in Uruguay

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/world/389834/tobacco-giant-loses-lawsuit-uruguay

The World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes has ruled in favor of Uruguay in a suit filed by Philip Morris International seeking compensation for economic damages caused by the nation’s anti-tobacco measures.

Uruguay imposed a ban on smoking in public spaces in 2006, as it raised taxes on tobacco products and forced firms to include large warnings and graphic images including diseased lungs and rotting teeth on cigarette packages.

It also banned the use of the words “light” and “mild” from cigarette packs to try to dispel smokers’ misguided beliefs that the products are safer.

“The health measures we implemented for controlling tobacco usage and for protecting the health of our people have been expressly recognised as legitimate and also adopted as part of the sovereign power of our republic,” Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez said in a televised speech.

Vazquez, an oncologist, helped spearhead the measures during his first term in office from 2005 to 2010.

In a lengthy decision published on Friday, the ICSID said it had ruled to dismiss Philip Morris’ demand that the regulations be withdrawn, or not applied to the company, or that it be paid $US22 million ($NZ30 million) in damages instead.

It ordered the tobacco company to pay Uruguay $US7 million and to cover “all the fees and expenses of the Tribunal and ICSID’s administrative fees and expenses.”

Phillip Morris said it respected the tribunal’s decision.

“We’ve never questioned Uruguay’s authority to protect public health, and this case wasn’t about broad issues of tobacco policy,” Marc Firestone, Philip Morris International senior vice president and general counsel, said in a statement.

“The arbitration concerned an important, but unusual, set of facts that called for clarification under international law,” added Firestone.

The tobacco company said that it would like to meet with Uruguay’s government, to explore regulatory frameworks that would enable smokers “in the country to have informed access to reduced-risk alternatives to smoking.”

Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), the oldest anti-tobacco organization in the United States, applauded Uruguay for winning the case, but said Phillip Morris “accomplished its primary goal.”

Phillip Morris “will no doubt shed some public crocodile tears, but their main goal in launching the suit has been realized, six years and millions of dollars have been spent defending a nondiscriminatory law that was intended purely to protect public health,” said Laurent Huber, executive director for ASH.

“This has already resulted in regulatory chill in other countries, preventing tobacco legislation that would have saved lives,” Huber said.

Uruguay: The little country that changed tobacco laws

Uruguay won a major case against Philip Morris in a World Bank ruling that could embolden other small countries that want to deter tobacco use.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2016/0709/Uruguay-The-little-country-that-changed-tobacco-laws

The Latin American nation of Uruguay, with a GDP of $50 billion, went up against a tobacco company that takes in $80 billion annually – and won, ruled an international court on Friday.

Uruguay is a small country that impacts world politics only rarely. But that is precisely the point, say its allies in the fight against tobacco.

“The lesson here is that when a small country like Uruguay gets attacked, the public health community around the world will rally behind them so that these countries don’t have to fight these cases alone,” Matthew L. Myers, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, tells The Christian Science Monitor.

That Uruguay triumphed so completely in its litigation against Philip Morris International – the court even ordered Philip Morris to pay Uruguay’s court costs – suggests packaging laws for tobacco have friends in high places.

“What the tobacco companies do in these cases is just hunker down and look ugly and say, ‘We’re going to spend more money than you’ve got,’ ” Stanton Glantz of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education told the Monitor in May. “So the train of losses will embolden other countries to not be so frightened.”

The case was a risky one for Uruguay, Mr. Myers says. Some suggested Philip Morris would bankrupt the country if the government refused to settle a lawsuit over cigarette packaging regulation out of court, but Michael Bloomberg, three-term New York City mayor and founder of Bloomberg Philanthropies, promised the country financial support for court fees.

In 2015, a fund was established through the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids to help smaller countries fight for their anti-tobacco laws in court. Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation contributed money, meaning future efforts by tobacco companies to litigate restrictive packaging laws could become cases of billionaires fighting billionaires.

“It shows countries everywhere that they can stand up to tobacco companies and win,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a press release. “No country should ever be intimidated by the threat of a tobacco company lawsuit, and this case will help embolden more nations to take actions that will save lives.”

With this decision, the court upheld two strict laws on cigarette packaging. Throughout the seven years of litigation, Uruguay has required graphic warnings about the health dangers of tobacco to cover 80 percent of the cigarette pack, both front and back. It also limits each company to a single pack design, undercutting color-coded brands and use of words such as “light,” and forcing the company to pull seven of its twelve brands off Uruguay’s shelves, the Financial Times reported.

“We’ve never questioned Uruguay’s authority to protect public health,” Marc Firestone, general counsel at Philip Morris, told the Associated Press. “The arbitration concerned an important, but unusual, set of facts that called for clarification under international law, which the parties have now received.”

The debate around tobacco marketing has moved into the judicial sphere, where governments and tobacco companies are fighting cases around both domestic trademark laws and international trade agreements. This marks the second case this summer in which a government has won the right to restrict tobacco packaging in court. The first nation to win such a case was Australia, and then in May a British court upheld the government’s right to require plain, green packaging on cigarette cartons, the Monitor has reported previously.

“Because Australia was successful, the UK was successful, and because the UK was successful the EU can be successful, and because of this whole cascading impact, you see a lot of countries going above and beyond,” Timothy Mackey, a professor specializing in health law at the University of California San Diego, told the Monitor at the time.

The most immediate impact could come from Latin America itself, Meyers says, where governments in Uruguay and Chile have been weighing the implications of even stricter laws to require unadorned, uniform packaging plain on cigarette cartons. The court’s decision could embolden these countries to further regulate the tobacco industry inside their borders.

Uruguay defeats Philip Morris test case lawsuit

Uruguay has won a landmark lawsuit against Philip Morris International, which was suing the South American country for its strict regulations on smoking in what was seen as a test case for the tobacco industry.

Friday’s decision sets an important precedent for other countries considering implementing similar legislation, with anti-tobacco campaigners accusing Philip Morris of using litigation to scare others from following Uruguay’s example.

“The attempts of the tobacco companies have been roundly rejected,” said Uruguay’s President Tabaré Vázquez, an oncologist who has made the fight against tobacco one of his flagship policies. “It is not acceptable to prioritise commercial considerations over the fundamental right to health and life,” he added in a televised address to the nation.

In its lawsuit at the World Bank’s International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes, which marked the first time a tobacco group had taken on a country in an international court, Philip Morris argued that Uruguay had violated terms of a bilateral investment treaty with Switzerland, where it has its headquarters in Lausanne.

The world’s biggest tobacco company — whose annual revenues of more than $80bn across 180 countries far exceed Uruguay’s gross domestic product of closer to $50bn — claimed that a 2009 anti-tobacco law damaged its intellectual property rights and hit sales.

Philip Morris — which has lost lawsuits in Norway, Australia and the UK — opposed the Uruguayan anti-tobacco law’s requirements that graphic health warnings cover 80 per cent of both sides of cigarette packets, and that brands have a single image, thereby prohibiting sub-brands such as Marlboro Red or Marlboro Gold. That forced Philip Morris to withdraw seven of its 12 brands from shops in Uruguay.

“We’ve never questioned Uruguay’s authority to protect public health,” said Marc Firestone, general counsel at Philip Morris, who clarified that the company had been complying with the regulations at issue in the case for the past seven years. “The arbitration concerned an important, but unusual, set of facts that called for clarification under international law, which the parties have now received,” he added.

Some observers have remarked on the apparent irony that in 2013 Uruguay legalised marijuana, which is due to start being sold in pharmacies this month, while at the same time it is clamping down on tobacco. But others say that Uruguay’s trailblazing efforts to regulate marijuana and tobacco are consistent, arguing that both industries are insufficiently controlled.

“This is a major victory for the people of Uruguay — and it shows countries everywhere that they can stand up to tobacco companies and win,” said former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who provided Uruguay’s lawsuit with financial support. “No country should ever be intimidated by the threat of a tobacco company lawsuit, and this case will help embolden more nations to take actions that will save lives,” he added.

According to health ministry figures, the number of Uruguayans who smoke had fallen to 22 per cent of the population by 2014, from 35 per cent in 2005. The number of young smokers fell to 8 per cent in 2014, from 23 per cent in 2006, when Uruguay became the first country in the region to ban smoking in enclosed public spaces.

Phillip Morris loses tough-on-tobacco lawsuit in Uruguay

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pmi-uruguay-lawsuit-idUSKCN0ZO2LZ

The World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) ruled in favor of Uruguay on Friday in a suit filed by Philip Morris International seeking compensation for economic damages caused by the nation’s anti-tobacco measures.

Uruguay imposed a ban on smoking in public spaces in 2006, as it raised taxes on tobacco products and forced firms to include large warnings and graphic images including diseased lungs and rotting teeth on cigarette packages. It also banned the use of the words “light” and “mild” from cigarette packs to try to dispel smokers’ misguided beliefs that the products are safer.

“The health measures we implemented for controlling tobacco usage and for protecting the health of our people have been expressly recognized as legitimate and also adopted as part of the sovereign power of our republic,” Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez said in a televised speech.

Vazquez, an oncologist, helped spearhead the measures during his first term in office from 2005 to 2010.

In a lengthy decision published on Friday, the ICSID said it had ruled to dismiss Philip Morris’ demand that the regulations be withdrawn, or not applied to the company, or that it be paid $22 million in damages instead.

It ordered the tobacco company to pay Uruguay $7 million and to cover “all the fees and expenses of the Tribunal and ICSID’s administrative fees and expenses.”

Phillip Morris said it respected the tribunal’s decision.

“We’ve never questioned Uruguay’s authority to protect public health, and this case wasn’t about broad issues of tobacco policy,” Marc Firestone, Philip Morris International senior vice president and general counsel, said in a statement.

“The arbitration concerned an important, but unusual, set of facts that called for clarification under international law,” added Firestone.

The tobacco company said that it would like to meet with Uruguay’s government, to explore regulatory frameworks that would enable smokers “in the country to have informed access to reduced-risk alternatives to smoking.”

Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), the oldest anti-tobacco organization in the United States, applauded Uruguay for winning the case, but said Phillip Morris “accomplished its primary goal.”

Phillip Morris “will no doubt shed some public crocodile tears, but their main goal in launching the suit has been realized, six years and millions of dollars have been spent defending a nondiscriminatory law that was intended purely to protect public health,” said Laurent Huber, executive director for ASH.

“This has already resulted in regulatory chill in other countries, preventing tobacco legislation that would have saved lives,” Huber said.

(Reporting by Anthony Esposito and Malena Castaldi; Writing by Anthony Esposito; Editing by Tom Brown)

Philip Morris and Uruguay ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7

Download (PDF, 3.36MB)

Celebrating 10 years of smoke-free Uruguay

http://www.fctc.org/fca-news/opinion-pieces/1406-celebrating-10-years-of-smoke-free-uruguay

Uruguay is celebrating 10 years as a smoke-free (SF) country in 2016. When it banned smoking in public spaces and workplaces a decade ago, it became the first county in the Americas, and only the fourth in the world, to do so.

President Dr Tabaré Vázquez, an oncologist, is rightly credited for pushing Uruguay’s tobacco control agenda to the forefront globally, but 10 years ago inspiration was provided by a variety of sources inside and outside the country – with civil society leading – likely boosted by Uruguay’s tiny size, which made it easier to ‘spread the word’, and a surprisingly receptive public.

Today I am proud to have participated in this agenda-setting campaign, which has had a major impact on public health in my country. In the early 2000s, Uruguay had one of the highest rates of smoking in Latin America and the highest rate of male deaths caused by lung cancer. In the region, young Uruguayans faced among the highest rate of exposure to tobacco smoke indoors.

A 1996 decree banned smoking in government offices and all enclosed premises, but it included designated smoking areas, which we now know are ineffective. No matter – the regulation was not enforced nor monitored.

External influences

Encouraged by ongoing negotiations on the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and by a SF regional initiative of the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) in 2001, some Uruguayans began imagining a smoke-free country.

In March 2003, PAHO held a capacity-building workshop in Jamaica. Three Uruguayans attended as observers: Dr Diego Estol (Director General of the Ministry of Health [MoH]), myself (representing the National Medical Association) and Dr Adriana Blanco (from the Municipality of Montevideo). There, the idea of Uruguay becoming Latin America’s first smoke-free country was born.

In December 2003, PAHO held a SF workshop in Uruguay. There, representatives of the MOH and civil society organizations – united in the National Tobacco Control Alliance (ANCT) – agreed on a project aimed to make government, health and educational facilities 100-percent SF in two years.

In January 2004, a MoH decree banned smoking in education and health facilities, but there was only moderate enforcement and compliance. Also in 2004, a national SF network (RULTA) was launched.

Smoke-free dancing

On 24 August 2004, a new non-smokers’ association (FPU) organized the first 100-percent SF dinner-dance, which attracted over 400 people. A few weeks later, the Uruguayan Society of Cardiology (SUC) held its first congress, also with a SF dinner-dance. These events were “pilot projects” to prove that smokers would respect a ban.

In September 2004, Uruguay ratified the FCTC, and later that year the MOH created a tobacco control advisory commission (that included civil society).

On 1 March 2005, Dr Vázquez took office as President. Later that month, the advisory commission advised the Minister of Health on measures for implementing the FCTC.

Shopping malls go SF

Things began to move quickly. On 31 May the President issued various decrees, including one regulating smoking in indoor places. In July, two shopping malls surveyed their customers: only 3.6 percent of them said they would stop visiting if the malls completely banned smoking. They chose to go 100-percent SF. That same month, MOH banned smoking in all government facilities.

On 5 September, President Vázquez issued a new decree, establishing a complete smoking ban from 1 March 2006.

Media campaigns played an important role. In 2004, the National Resource Fund (FNR), a wealthy and well known public institution, got involved in SF, launching a media campaign to increase public awareness of the risks of smoking and second-hand smoke.

Thanks a million

In late 2005, supported by PAHO, the civil society alliance, ANCT, conducted another campaign to increase awareness about the health risks of second-hand smoke. And in February 2006, President Vázquez launched Thanks a million – a campaign aimed at involving smokers themselves in the movement and at preparing the ground for the coming complete ban.

Thanks a million attracted 1.3 million participants, who thanked smokers for not lighting up indoors. In November 2006, an opinion poll showed that 94 percent of Uruguayans supported SF workplaces.

Ten years later, what has been the impact of Uruguay’s SF campaign?

Two international studies compared indoor air contamination levels, and nicotine levels, before and after the smoking ban. They found a roughly 90-percent reduction in both.

A 2010 national study revealed a 22-percent drop in admissions to hospitals for heart attacks after the ban came into force.

Following Uruguay´s lead, in less than 10 years 12 other Latin America countries have become SF.

What’s next for SF Uruguay?

Despite this impressive record, Uruguay should not relax but continue building on these achievements. For example in 2010, 81 percent of smokers who had a family car reported that smoking was “never allowed” when children were in the vehicle; that number grew to 84 percent in 2012. Also in 2012, 88 percent of smokers said they would support a law banning smoking in vehicles carrying children.

Uruguay should also consolidate and deepen its SF policy by:

Conducting periodic awareness media campaigns;
Improving enforcement of SF workplaces;
Banning smoking in areas next to access doors to educational , health facilities and restaurants.
* FCA Director, Americas region and President, Tobacco Epidemic Research Centre of Uruguay (CIET)

– See more at: http://www.fctc.org/fca-news/opinion-pieces/1406-celebrating-10-years-of-smoke-free-uruguay#sthash.VPqGrDxF.dpuf

How can Philip Morris sue Uruguay over its tobacco laws?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/16/philip-morris-uruguay-tobacco-isds-human-rights

The investor-state dispute settlement puts companies’ rights ahead of human rights. Its effects are devastating for developing nations – we must abolish it

Protesters attend a rally against the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) in Berlin, October 2015. Photograph: Gregor Fischer/AFP/Getty Images

Protesters attend a rally against the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) in Berlin, October 2015. Photograph: Gregor Fischer/AFP/Getty Images

When the architects of the international order that took shape after the second world war created the United Nations, they gave the organisation a lofty goal: “Save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” Through the UN charter – akin to a world constitution – solemnly adopted in 1945 in San Francisco, they also said they were “determined to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained”.

Since then and in line with that vow, the UN has put on the world stage not only the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but also legally binding instruments, including 10 core human rights conventions and countless declarations and resolutions.

But now more than ever, one single mechanism – the little-known investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) – threatens the existing system of justice, the concept of checks and balances, the very core of the rule of law. Its implications for the respect of human rights around the world are devastating. If it is allowed to continue to exist, it will hijack the dreams of a just international order born out of the second world war. It must be abolished because it undermines fundamental principles of the UN, state sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law. Far from contributing to human rights and development, the international investment regime and ISDS have resulted in growing inequality among states and within them.

Article 103 of the UN charter is clear: in case of conflict between the charter and any other agreements, including ISDS, it is the UN charter that prevails.

The ISDS mechanism is a unique privatised system of arbitration, often buried in bilateral investment treaties and multilateral trade agreements (such as Nafta and TTIP). It grants an investor the right to use private dispute settlement proceedings against a foreign government, yet governments cannot sue the investors. The system is neither transparent nor accountable and often results in aberrant judgments without the possibility of appeal. Over the years, it has led to inconsistent, unpredictable and arbitrary awards contrary to national and international public order.

In 1993, a waste management business, Metalclad, sued Mexico for indirect expropriation after Mexico had adopted an ecological decree declaring the area where the company was doing business and seeking to develop a landfill to be a natural reserve. The ISDS tribunal found that the government had taken a measure tantamount to expropriation and ordered Mexico to pay $16.7m (£11m) in compensation – later reduced to $15.6m. One commentator suggested that such broad interpretations of expropriation provisions could reverse the established tenet of environmental policy that the polluters should bear the cost of their pollution rather than be paid not to pollute.

More recently, Philip Morris sued Uruguay after it adopted a number of anti-tobacco regulations with a view to implementing the 2003 World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control, aimed at tackling the health dangers posed by tobacco. A decision from the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes is expected later in 2015, but the figures are telling: Philip Morris is claiming $25m in compensation from Uruguay. This is not only absurd: it gives me moral vertigo.

The last 25 years have delivered numerous examples of abuse of rights by investors and unconscionable ISDS arbitral awards, which have not only led to violations of human rights, but have had a chilling effect, deterring states from adopting necessary regulations on waste disposal or tobacco control.

There is no justification for the existence of a privatised system of dispute settlement that is neither transparent nor accountable. Investors can have their day in court before national jurisdictions, often with multiple opportunities for appeal. Investors can also rely on diplomatic protection and ISDS procedures.

The ISDS cannot be reformed. It must be abolished

The ISDS cannot be reformed. It must be abolished. A peaceful, just, stable and sustainable international order cannot be ensured by the private sector, whose driving force is short-term profit.

No one should underestimate the adverse human rights impacts of free trade and investment agreements on human rights, development and democratic governance. Respect for human rights must prevail over commercial laws.

It is time for the UN general assembly to convene a world conference to put human rights at the centre of the international investment regime. In this context, a binding treaty on business and human rights is long overdue.

Uruguay Slams Big Tobacco, Defends Marijuana Policy

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Uruguay-Slams-Big-Tobacco-Defends-Marijuana-Policy-20150929-0025.html

President Tabare Vazquez of Uruguay addresses attendees during the 70th session of the United Nations General Assembly at the U.N. headquarters in New York,

“We can regulate these markets without a prohibitionist stance,” Vazquez said.

​Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez defended his country’s “sovereign” decisions over public health and slammed the multinational tobacco industry, which he said “in order to double its profits doesn’t have any problem in killing its customers.”

During his speech before the UN General Assembly, Tuesday, Vazquez singled out Phillip Morris for suing Uruguay over the country’s anti-smoking campaign. The company is suing Uruguay for US$25 million under a bilateral investment treaty between Uruguay and Switzerland.

“It is not ethical that tribunals of multinational organizations can give priorities to trade aspects over the defense of fundamental human rights,” said Vazquez.

He said that perhaps Uruguay was being singled out, because they are a small country, so that others don’t follow their lead against big tobacco and Uruguay’s attempt to “give its people a better life.”

“Public health is an essential component of the sovereignty of nations,” said Vazquez, who worked as a doctor for many years.

As part of public health policies, Vazquez spoke on his country’s moves to deal with drug abuse and alcoholism and defended his country’s 2013 legislation that legalized marijuana.

“We can regulate these markets without a prohibitionist stance,” said Vazquez.

He also called on other countries to do more.

“Nothing can be achieved in isolation,” he said. “Let us make better use of what we have.”

He highlighted the need to address poverty and use preventative measure to particularly address the “global epidemic” of cancer.

“By 2030, 1 million Latin Americans will die yearly from cancer,” he said. “Seven million will die globally.”

On Latin American issues, Vazquez again called for an end to the U.S. blockade on Cuba, and pledged his support for the Colombian peace accords and the dialogue between Venezuela and Colombia over border issues. Vazquez, who is the pro-tempore president of the Union of South American Nations, attended a meeting between Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez last week in Quito, Ecuador, to resolve border tensions.

Finally, Vazquez said the international community should to take preventative means to deal with the world’s problems.

“It is important … to implement systems to address poverty,” he said, highlighting that the global community must focus on improving education, health, dignity and respect for the planet and future generations.

He discussed the European refugee crisis and the image of Aylan Kurdi that shocked public opinion and led to a “swift” international reaction.

“Let’s hope it’s not a passing reaction,” he said, “We have to deal with the causes that led to this.”

“The world seems to be a lunatic asylum run by its own patients,” he said, but added that humanity could not “resign itself to this situation.”

Philip Morris against all of us

 

Dear friends,

The tobacco giant Philip Morris is suing Uruguay for having some of the best anti-smoking laws in the world, and there’s a good chance it could win, unless we step in.

It’s a scary reality: a single company, with a product that kills, could overturn laws that protect our health. This court has already come under fire for not listening to the public in similar lawsuits. Let’s ensure they listen now: if we launch a giant call and work with a world class legal team to carry our voices into the courtroom, the judges won’t be able to turn a blind eye.

Let’s tell the court that this doesn’t just affect Uruguay — if Big Tobacco gets their way, it opens the door for challenges everywhere — at least 4 other countries are in the legal crosshairs, and many more have anti-smoking laws at risk.

We have to move fast — the court is already hearing arguments. Click to protect our public health and our democracies from corporate greed — each of our names will be submitted to the court:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/uruguay_vs_big_tobacco_loc_2/?buiSbhb&v=56805

Uruguay requires 80% of the cigarette package to be covered with medical warnings and graphic images. Smoking had reached crisis levels, killing around 7 Uruguayans each day, but since this law was put in place smoking has decreased every year! Now tobacco giant Philip Morris is arguing that the warning labels leave no space for its trademarks.

It’s all part of a global Philip Morris strategy to sue and intimidate countries. The company already slapped an expensive lawsuit on Australia — and if it wins against Uruguay, it could run cases against more than a hundred other countries including France, Norway, New Zealand, and Finland who are all considering new life-saving legislation.

Experts say Philip Morris has a good chance of winning because it’s using a closed door international tribunal that ruled for corporations two-thirds of the time last year. And their rulings are binding, even though many of the judges are private citizens with corporate ties instead of impartial legal experts. It’s up to us to force them to consider the devastating effect their ruling could have on health across the world.

Uruguay has its own legal team, but they’re rightly focused on arguing their individual defence. We can submit a unique legal argument about how this ruling would set a precedent for every country with smoking laws and a similar trade agreement. And we can show the court that public opinion is behind them if they rule in favour of Uruguay and health protection everywhere.

The more of us sign, the harder it is for the court to ignore us. Click below to join the call and forward this email to everyone:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/uruguay_vs_big_tobacco_loc_2/?buiSbhb&v=56805

When big corporations launch deadly attacks on our public good, our community has jumped into action — from Monsanto to H&M, we’ve made sure that profits don’t come before people. This is our chance to do it again, for all of us.

With hope,

Emma, Maria Paz, Katie, Mais, Alice, Ricken, Risalat and the whole Avaaz team

MORE INFORMATION

Uruguay sued by cigarette makers over anti-smoking laws (BBC)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-30708063

Philip Morris Sues Uruguay Over Graphic Cigarette Packaging (NPR)
http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2014/09/15/345540221/philip-morris-sues-uruguay-over-graphic-cigarette-packaging

Big Tobacco puts countries on trial as concerns over TTIP deals mount (The Independent)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/big-tobacco-puts-countries-on-trial-as-concerns-over-ttip-deals-mount-9807478.html

The Secret Trade Courts (New York Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/27/opinion/27mon3.html?_r=1&

Recent Trends in IIAs and ISDS (UN Conference on Trade and Development)
http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2015d1_en.pdf

The arbitration game (The Economist)
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21623756-governments-are-souring-treaties-protect-foreign-investors-arbitration

Michael Bloomberg fights big tobacco in Uruguay

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-32199250

Michael Bloomberg is a man on a mission. This, of course, isn’t the first “noble cause” he’s latched on to but the “evil” of tobacco is something he feels particularly strongly about.

In co-operation with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Mr Bloomberg has just launched a multi-million dollar fund to help smaller countries fight legal battles with tobacco companies, among them the small South American country of Uruguay.

Uruguay has considerably fewer smokers than Michael Bloomberg’s usual backyard of New York but this country of just three million people has become an unlikely battleground between anti-smoking campaigners and big tobacco. Its government is embroiled in a long running and expensive legal battle with the cigarette industry over its anti-smoking laws.

And the former Democrat, come Republican, come Independent once touted as a potential presidential nominee has stepped into fray.

“We are in this to help countries that can’t afford to defend themselves against an industry which will try to kill a billion people this century,” Bloomberg tells me, pulling no punches in his New York headquarters.

“If that isn’t a noble cause I don’t know what is. You can talk about saving society but you have to translate that into action.”

“There’s nothing else I will do that will save as many people,” Michael Bloomberg told me

Smoking in the developing world

Although tobacco consumption is falling in the west, the opposite is true in the developing world. That’s why Gates and Bloomberg have set up this fund.

In Uruguay itself the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so to speak. A country, which used to have the highest smoking rates in Latin America, is witnessing tobacco consumption decline rapidly. Silvina Echarte, from the Health Ministry’s dedicated anti-tobacco strategy group, says this is all down to new, aggressive laws.

“We have numbers, we have scientific evidence saying that these kind of policies and the enforcement of these kind of policies have been effective,” says Echarte.

Those laws include directives which mandate that 80% of a packet must be covered in health warnings and there’s a complete ban on tobacco advertising and promotion.

Most egregiously, say the tobacco manufacturers, a company cannot sell more than a single variation of the same brand: Marlboro Red and Marlboro Light, for example.

That legislation goes too far say the cigarette companies and that’s why the test case between the tobacco giant, Phillip Morris International (PMI) and the government is seen as so important; the right of an individual country to pursue its own aggressive health policies against the commercial freedoms of the cigarette companies.

Uruguay used to have the highest smoking rates in South America

Tobacco is, of course, a perfectly legal product and is sold around the world. Where it can advertise, Phillip Morris’ marketing and promotional ads are clever and well produced; urging smokers “not to be a maybe”, to try something different.

‘We do not target kids’

Health campaigners say the industry deliberately targets young people. That allegation is emphatically denied by PMI.

Cigarette companies don’t often give interviews to the media, perhaps feeling – with some justification – that they’re always portrayed as the villain in the piece. But on this occasion, PMI did agree to speak to me at their international headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Counsel Marc Firestone categorically denied those accusations of trying to “pull in” young, would-be smokers.

“We do not target kids, that is not our audience,” Firestone tells me. “We do seek to maintain brand loyalty among existing adult smokers and there are many who prefer our brands and those who don’t currently prefer we would like them to switch to our brands.”

Firestone rejects the suggestion that Uruguay is being deliberately “targeted” by the cigarette industry as part of a broader strategy to scare off smaller countries perhaps contemplating similar legislation. His accusation is that Uruguay’s laws breach existing trade agreements.

Uruguayan cigarette packaging already features anti-smoking adverts

“We had to withdraw seven of our 12 brands and obviously that disrupts our ability to compete in the marketplace with lawful products. So that’s why I say the regulation itself is highly unusual,” says the man from PMI.

‘It’s going to be a big fight’

Michael Bloomberg may be a champion of the capitalist system and made his own fortune in the free market but the tobacco companies’ arguments don’t wash with him.

“There’s nothing else I will do that will save as many people,” Bloomberg tells me. “It’s going to be a big fight. You’ve got to do something about these companies. You can’t just sell something that if used as advertised will kill people.”

Michael Bloomberg has made himself unpopular before with his campaigns against the gun lobby and global warming but you get the distinct impression that it’s his money and he’ll spend it as he wants on the issues he cares about.