Ideas in Tobacco Control: Bits and Pieces on Tobacco Industry Influence, Tobacco Lawsuits, and Cessation Treatment
The fight to reduce tobacco-related mortality in society is a multidisciplinary project requiring cooperation between people in public health, trade and customs, finance, tourism, environment and law. From this long list of participants the absence of one is justified for reasons both logical and rational, and glaringly obvious to anyone except the tobacco industry; of this responsibility the tobacco industry absolves itself. This statement begs the question: Should the tobacco industry be allowed to participate in public health efforts? After all, they produce legal products and will be financially affected by advancing public health efforts.
In my view, the answer to this question must be at all times, with no exception, an adamant 'no'. The tobacco industry, although a legitimate business, and who surely is filled with employees who don't want their kids to die of lung cancer, is the agent and instigator of widespread death and disease; the advancement of which today has been termed as a tobacco epidemic. I am particularly fond of the opinion of prominent tobacco control advocate Ruth E Malone: 'The epidemic was, in a most fundamental way, industrially created and is industrially sustained.' Ruth E Malone, 'The Tobacco Industry' in William H Wiist (ed), The Bottom Line or Public Health: Tactics Corporations Use to Influence Health and Health Policy, and What We Can Do to Counter Them (2010) at 160.
The tobacco industry is both legitimate and lethal, and for that reason we cant afford to be canoodling with them in the back of the legislative limo, nor other vehicles for the promotion of public health. Article 5.3 of the FCTC is there for a reason. It is there because tobacco industry influence undoubtedly undermines public health efforts.
The COP4 (Conference of the Parties 4) is coming up this November, and representatives from all Parties that have signed the FCTC will be there to discuss the adoption of Guidelines to several Articles in the FCTC, among which are articles pertaining to the prohibition of flavourings in tobacco products, testing of tobacco product contents and measures on illicit trade. Worldwide tobacco manufacturers have been up in arms on flavourings in particular saying that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that such a measure will help reduce youth smoking and attractiveness of cigarettes. The question is: If the measure doesn't work, why are tobacco manufacturers at all worried? It just doesn't make sense.
Another argument that is put forth by the tobacco industry is that certain measures will contravene existing trade agreements. Which, by right, should be easily shot down especially in light of comments from the World Trade Organization that if necessary, governments may 'put aside WTO commitments' to protect human life. Thomas Glynn, John R Seffrin, Otis W Brawley, Nathan Grey and Hana Ross, 'The Globalization of Tobacco Use: 21 Challenges for the 21st Century (2010) 60 CA Cancer Journal for Clinicians 50 at 55. However, somehow trade has won time and time again over health, and of the reasons for this I am not aware.
What I am aware of is the perils of interactions with the tobacco industry. Interactions with the tobacco industry must be limited to prevent circumvention of new laws and measures in Malaysian society.
There are many new things that must be introduced in Malaysia, and one thing that is at the forefront of my mind is the increasing of accessibility to cessation treatment. At the moment, the majority of Malaysians are not aware of the possibility of doctors helping them quit smoking. In Australia, there is an advert on tv that informs Australians: See your doctor about treatment. A similar advert on Malaysian tv would no doubt increase awareness about cessation options.
Another thing that I would love to see more of is litigation against tobacco companies by people with lung cancer and other diseases resulting from tobacco use. Litigation of this nature in the U.S. has led to the Master Settlement Agreement and the release of hundreds of thousands of internal tobacco industry documents which exposed tobacco industry tactics. In the words of Thomas Glynn et al: 'Litigation against the tobacco industry has proven to be an especially effective way of exposing tobacco industry practices, calling attention to the health dangers of tobacco use, causing the tobacco industry to pay out billions of dollars in damages and settlements, and involving the legal community as an important ally in the effort to reduce tobacco use.' [Emphasis added.] (Ibid)
Recent cases that have caught my eye are the Australian case of Amaca Pty Ltd v Ellis [2010] HCA 5 and the American case of Fabiano v Philip Morris Companies, Inc. 2010 NY Slip Op 20286. Both cases are worthwhile reads, the latter involving a woman who started smoking when she was fourteen and died in 2002, advancing on the design-defect theory (that the tobacco company was negligent in not adopting 'safer' cigarette designs) and the former on causation issues when the complainant has been exposed to both tobacco smoke and asbestos dust, whether the two had a synergistic effect in causing the complainant's cancer, and the weight given to epidemiological evidence.
From these two cases one can see just how complex tobacco litigation is, but it exposes to the public many facets of the tobacco industry that as of now, in the Malaysian public at least, is hidden from view.
In my view, the answer to this question must be at all times, with no exception, an adamant 'no'. The tobacco industry, although a legitimate business, and who surely is filled with employees who don't want their kids to die of lung cancer, is the agent and instigator of widespread death and disease; the advancement of which today has been termed as a tobacco epidemic. I am particularly fond of the opinion of prominent tobacco control advocate Ruth E Malone: 'The epidemic was, in a most fundamental way, industrially created and is industrially sustained.' Ruth E Malone, 'The Tobacco Industry' in William H Wiist (ed), The Bottom Line or Public Health: Tactics Corporations Use to Influence Health and Health Policy, and What We Can Do to Counter Them (2010) at 160.
The tobacco industry is both legitimate and lethal, and for that reason we cant afford to be canoodling with them in the back of the legislative limo, nor other vehicles for the promotion of public health. Article 5.3 of the FCTC is there for a reason. It is there because tobacco industry influence undoubtedly undermines public health efforts.
The COP4 (Conference of the Parties 4) is coming up this November, and representatives from all Parties that have signed the FCTC will be there to discuss the adoption of Guidelines to several Articles in the FCTC, among which are articles pertaining to the prohibition of flavourings in tobacco products, testing of tobacco product contents and measures on illicit trade. Worldwide tobacco manufacturers have been up in arms on flavourings in particular saying that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that such a measure will help reduce youth smoking and attractiveness of cigarettes. The question is: If the measure doesn't work, why are tobacco manufacturers at all worried? It just doesn't make sense.
Another argument that is put forth by the tobacco industry is that certain measures will contravene existing trade agreements. Which, by right, should be easily shot down especially in light of comments from the World Trade Organization that if necessary, governments may 'put aside WTO commitments' to protect human life. Thomas Glynn, John R Seffrin, Otis W Brawley, Nathan Grey and Hana Ross, 'The Globalization of Tobacco Use: 21 Challenges for the 21st Century (2010) 60 CA Cancer Journal for Clinicians 50 at 55. However, somehow trade has won time and time again over health, and of the reasons for this I am not aware.
What I am aware of is the perils of interactions with the tobacco industry. Interactions with the tobacco industry must be limited to prevent circumvention of new laws and measures in Malaysian society.
There are many new things that must be introduced in Malaysia, and one thing that is at the forefront of my mind is the increasing of accessibility to cessation treatment. At the moment, the majority of Malaysians are not aware of the possibility of doctors helping them quit smoking. In Australia, there is an advert on tv that informs Australians: See your doctor about treatment. A similar advert on Malaysian tv would no doubt increase awareness about cessation options.
Another thing that I would love to see more of is litigation against tobacco companies by people with lung cancer and other diseases resulting from tobacco use. Litigation of this nature in the U.S. has led to the Master Settlement Agreement and the release of hundreds of thousands of internal tobacco industry documents which exposed tobacco industry tactics. In the words of Thomas Glynn et al: 'Litigation against the tobacco industry has proven to be an especially effective way of exposing tobacco industry practices, calling attention to the health dangers of tobacco use, causing the tobacco industry to pay out billions of dollars in damages and settlements, and involving the legal community as an important ally in the effort to reduce tobacco use.' [Emphasis added.] (Ibid)
Recent cases that have caught my eye are the Australian case of Amaca Pty Ltd v Ellis [2010] HCA 5 and the American case of Fabiano v Philip Morris Companies, Inc. 2010 NY Slip Op 20286. Both cases are worthwhile reads, the latter involving a woman who started smoking when she was fourteen and died in 2002, advancing on the design-defect theory (that the tobacco company was negligent in not adopting 'safer' cigarette designs) and the former on causation issues when the complainant has been exposed to both tobacco smoke and asbestos dust, whether the two had a synergistic effect in causing the complainant's cancer, and the weight given to epidemiological evidence.
From these two cases one can see just how complex tobacco litigation is, but it exposes to the public many facets of the tobacco industry that as of now, in the Malaysian public at least, is hidden from view.
Comments
Post a Comment