Contact l Sitemap

home industries issues reasearch weblog press

Home  » Industries » Tobacco

Switzerland: Activists Demand Tougher Tobacco Treaty

by Gustavo CapdevilaInter Press Service
May 2nd, 2001

GENEVA -- Flaws plague the draft of an international anti-smoking treaty being discussed this week in talks sponsored by the World Health Organisation (WHO), charge civil society groups, particularly because proposed bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship have been watered down.

The text lacks teeth in several key areas so will do little in achieving the objective of significantly curbing tobacco consumption, says the Framework Convention Alliance, a network of some 100 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) from around the world.

The weeklong negotiations on the draft agreement include the participation of representatives from government, industry, tobacco farmers and anti-smoking groups.

The objective of the treaty, as summarised by Brazilian ambassador Celso Amorim, who is presiding over the talks, is ''to continually and substantially reduce the prevalence of tobacco use.''

The treaty -- intended to enter into force in 2003 -- should ''protect present and future generations from the devastating health, social, environmental and economic consequences of tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke,'' says Amorim.

The debate under way in this Swiss city is based on the text presented by the Brazilian diplomat, which summarises the results of the initial round of talks last October.

Amorim, a former minister of Foreign Relations, rejects charges launched by NGOs that the text is ''weak.''

He argues that the negotiations are taking place in an inter- governmental process with two basic requirements: ''a convention that is meaningful, but one that also -- at least in principle -- is ratifiable.'' The draft was written within these limits, Amorim emphasised.

Sources involved in the negotiations point out that even delegations coming from the same country hold deeply divided opinions because they include representatives from government health entities, who tend to favour a strict anti-tobacco agreement, and from industry and farming, who reject the plan outright, or will accept only a very lenient compromise.

Representatives of the Framework Convention Alliance said they ''were greatly encouraged'' by the many commitments delegates expressed at last October's meeting, which included a total ban on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, and strong measures to combat contraband.

Nevertheless, they said they are ''greatly concerned that the Chair's text falls short in several critical areas, especially tobacco advertising and promotion,'' and are calling for an ''energetic and precise'' agreement that is guided by the principle of protection and promotion of public health.

Smoking and tobacco use in general cause four million deaths annually, and if this trend continues, tobacco-related death will reach 10 million annually by 2030, according to WHO statistics.

As far as advertising, the anti-smoking activists maintain that Amorim's document focuses on youth prevention alone, while ''ignoring the legitimate needs of adults, especially smokers seeking to quit.''

Amorim repudiated such claims, pointing out that the draft agreement contains some very restrictive provisions, such as phasing out tobacco companies' transborder advertising and sponsorship of sports events.

A ban on tobacco advertising in electronic transmissions targeting people under 18 is an enforceable measure that would also limit publicity for people over 18, commented the diplomat.

One of the prickliest points included in the draft of the anti- smoking agreement involves the potential inclusion of clauses about liabilities and compensation for damages caused by tobacco use.

The matter primarily affects the big tobacco transnationals, but also those governments that hold monopolies, or at least major shares, in their domestic tobacco markets, such as Japan and China.

Amorim stressed that at a seminar convened by the WHO in April, delegates were unable to reach concrete conclusions; therefore, he said, the debate remains open.





This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.