Expect many more such lawsuits if TPP passes: "Uruguay has presented a 500 page document to defend itself against an international lawsuit challenging the country's tough tobacco packaging regulations. The claim was brought by Philip Morris, the global tobacco giant, at the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in Washington DC."
::::::::
Reprinted from www.corpwatch.org
Uruguay has presented a
500 page document to defend itself against an international lawsuit challenging the country's tough tobacco packaging regulations. The claim was brought by Philip Morris, the global tobacco giant, at the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in Washington DC.
Philip Morris filed the original complaint on February 19, 2010, claiming that Uruguay's laws were a violation of a 1991 bilateral investment treaty between Uruguay and Switzerland. The company says that legal requirements that graphic warnings about the health hazards of smoking must cover most of the surface area of cigarette packets have harmed the company's trademarks and profits.
"The large size of these warnings prevents us from effectively displaying our trademarks and
goes beyond what could reasonably be considered appropriate to inform consumers of the well-established health risks of smoking," Morgan Rees, a spokesperson for Philip Morris, told Investment Arbirtation Reporter. "This is without precedent anywhere in the world."
On October 13, 2014, Paul Reichler, a lawyer with Foley Hoag, in Washington DC, responded on behalf of the Uruguayan government, citing the country's obligations under the World Health Organisation's 2005 Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
"
We will fight because it is our right and duty as a government to protect our citizens' health," Silvina Echarte Acevedo, the legal adviser leading the Uruguayan ministry of public health's case, told the Independent newspaper. "They are bullying us because we are small. This is like David and Goliath." (Uruguay's annual gross domestic product is $53 billion, less than that of Philip Morris which took in $80 billion last year)
Governments around the world are watching the outcome as they begin to consider similar tobacco packaging laws to curb the $756 billion global industry. "
They wanted to make an example of Uruguay," says Matt Myers, the executive.director of Tobacco Free Kids, a U.S. NGO. "It was a message designed to be global."
There is no doubt that Uruguay's strict tobacco packaging laws, which were first introduced in 2005, have had already had a major impact on local cigarette sales. After companies were required to
print photos of premature babies, decaying teeth, and hospital operations on cigarette packages, smoking rates dropped from 33 percent to 12 percent among Uruguayan teenagers and from 40 percent to 23 percent among adults.
Since the 2010 complaint to the ICSID, Philip Morris has expanded its war on national tobacco packaging regulations. In 2011, the company
sued Australia in local courts over the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act, but lost. The company has now appealed the decision to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, claiming that 2011 law violates a 1993 bilateral treaty between Australia and Hong Kong.
Philip Morris has been
more successful with a 2013 lawsuit in Thailand where courts have ordered the temporary suspension of a new tobacco packaging law. It is not alone in this fight - Japan Tobacco, another major tobacco giant, has also sued Thailand
click here
"They are in this to convince governments it's not worth the cost to enact laws to reduce tobacco's appeal," Chris Bostic, deputy director for policy at Action on Smoking and Health, a Washington-based NGO told Bloomberg. "
It's about chilling countries from moving forward." And it is having an effect - both New Zealand and the United Kingdom said to have slowed their plain packaging laws while they watch the outcome of the Uruguay-Philip Morris dispute.
But international health organizations have come out firmly on the side of Uruguay. "PAHO/WHO supports
Uruguay's defense of these measures, which are aimed at saving lives, and recognizes it as a role model for the region and the world," Carissa Etienne, the director of the Pan American Health Organization, the regional office of the World Health Organization, said in a press release last week. "Uruguay's continuing efforts to protect its population against tobacco consumption and exposure to secondhand smoke, despite challenges by the tobacco industry, demonstrate that the country will not be intimidated by the industry."
Authors Website: http://www.corpwatch.org/index.php
Authors Bio:CorpWatch: Non-profit investigative research and journalism to expose
corporate malfeasance and to advocate for multinational corporate
accountability and transparency. We work to foster global justice,
independent media activism and democratic control over corporations.
We seek to expose multinational corporations that profit from war,
fraud, environmental, human rights and other abuses, and to provide
critical information to foster a more informed public and an effective
democracy.
Our guiding vision is to promote human, environmental, social and worker rights at the
local, national and global levels by making corporate practices more
transparent and holding corporations accountable for their actions.
As
independent investigative researchers and journalists, we provide critical information
to foster a more informed public and an effective democracy.
We believe the actions, decisions, and policies undertaken and
pursued by private corporations have very real impact on public life –
from individuals to communities around the world. Yet few mechanisms
currently exist to hold them accountable for those actions. As a result,
it falls to the public sphere to protect the public interest.
In many cases, corporate power and influence eclipses even the democratic
political
process itself as they exert disproportional influence on public policy
they deem detrimental to their narrow self-interests. In less developed
nations, they usurp authority altogether, often purchasing government
complicity for unfair practices at the expense of economic,
environmental, human, labor and social rights.
Yet despite the
very public impact of their actions and decisions, corporations remain
bound to be accountable solely to their own private financial
considerations and the interests of their shareholders. They have little
incentive, nor requirement, for public transparency regarding their
decisions and practices, let alone concrete accountability for their
ultimate impact.