“If we can just ‘stall’ new unfriendly legislations, the scoreboard is already in our favour”: transnational tobacco companies and ingredients disclosure in Thailand

Abstract

Objectives:To review the strategies employed by overseas cigarette manufacturers operating in Thailand to obstruct the passage and subsequent enforcement of national public health legislation, specifically the ingredients disclosure provision of the 1992 Tobacco Products Control Act.Methods:Analysis of previously confidential tobacco industry documents relevant to non-compliance with the ingredients disclosure legislation.Results:Requirement for disclosure of ingredients contained in cigarettes contained in the Tobacco Products Control Act was identified by transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) not only as a significant threat to their operations in Thailand, but as a dangerous global precedent. Industry documents reveal a determined campaign to block, stall, or amend the proposed regulation during the legislative process. Industry representatives petitioned the Ministry of Health to revise the requirement from by brand disclosure to a more palatable by company submission. Strategies were adapted in the wake of the passage of the Act. Most significantly, the industry in concert with embassies in Bangkok threatened the Thai government with appeals to international trade bodies on the grounds of violation of international agreements. Industry documents also reveal that as submission of ingredient lists appeared unavoidable, leading companies operating in Thailand endeavoured to confound the disclosure requirement by disguising ingredients and reformulating brand recipes.Conclusions:The evidence presented highlights the importance of ingredients regulation and demonstrates how health policy can be transformed during its implementation. A greater understanding of trade agreements emerges as a priority for global tobacco control.

Perceptions of industry responsibility and tobacco control policy by US tobacco company executives in trial testimony

“…In the 1990s, with increasing and increasingly successful litigation, the issue of responsibility rose to the forefront as the tobacco industry attempted to define and limit what those responsibilities were. This response is consistent with other examinations of the tobacco industry to public policy: critics contend that in some cases voluntary programmes exist to prevent the implementation of more restrictive, and more effective, legislation [81][82][83] while in other cases, the industry has argued in favour of certain types of legislation, particularly legislation that would ''pre-empt'' future restrictions. [84][85][86] Legal status By examining changes in the stages of responsibility for tobacco control policies, we can look at the levels of responsibility as a way of protecting the core business of the industry, that of selling tobacco.…”

Exposing and addressing tobacco industry conduct in low-income and middle-income countries

“…LMICs have also been the victims of industry efforts to use economic treaties to threaten innovative tobacco control policies both historically 129,130 and recently. Uruguay is currently defending its large, graphic warning labels in international arbitration.…”

‘Trade policy, not morals or health policy’: The US Trade Representative, tobacco companies and market liberalization in Thailand

“…The dispute did serve to accelerate Thailand’s enactment of far-ranging tobacco control legislation, particularly the 1992 Tobacco Products Control Act (Thailand,1992). TTC challenges to unfavourable legislation (Vateesatokit et al, 2000; Chitanondh, 2003; Mackenzie et al, 2004) and tactical use of indirect advertising, sponsorship schemes and brand stretching in defiance of domestic legislation (Chitanondh, 2000) were, importantly, heavily circumscribed by national legislation, and never reached the levels or intensity of marketing seen in the other 301 countries (MacKenzie et al, 2007). …”