Local Nordic tobacco interests collaborated with multinational companies to maintain a united front and undermine tobacco control policies

Abstract

Objective To analyse how local tobacco companies in the Nordic countries, individually and through National Manufacturers’ Associations, cooperated with British American Tobacco and Philip Morris in denying the health hazards of smoking and undermining tobacco control. Methods Analysis of tobacco control policies in the Nordic countries and tobacco industry documents. Results Nordic countries were early adopters of tobacco control policies. The multinational tobacco companies recognised this fact and mobilised to oppose these policies, in part because of fear that they would set unfavourable precedents. Since at least 1972, the Nordic tobacco companies were well informed about and willing to participate in the multinational companies activities to obscure the health dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke and to oppose tobacco control policies. Cooperation between multinational companies, Nordic national manufacturer associations and local companies ensured a united front on smoking and health issues in the Nordic area that was consistent with the positions that the multinational companies were taking. This cooperation delayed smoke-free laws and undermined other tobacco control measures. Conclusions Local tobacco companies worked with multinational companies to undermine tobacco control in distant and small Nordic markets because of concern that pioneering policies initiated in Nordic countries would spread to bigger market areas. Claims by the local Nordic companies that they were not actively involved with the multinationals are not supported by the facts. These results also demonstrate that the industry appreciates the global importance of both positive and negative public health precedents in tobacco control.

The evolution of health warning labels on cigarette packs: the role of precedents, and tobacco industry strategies to block diffusion

“…In June 1977, the multinational companies formed the International Committee on Smoking Issues (ICOSI, renamed the International Tobacco Information Center, INFOTAB, in 1980) to replicate the functions the TI performed in the USA 60 68. ICOSI member companies agreed to act together and respond worldwide by developing strategies to undermine tobacco control.…”

“…The implementation of multiple HWLs in Sweden and their diffusion led the multinational companies to intensify their efforts in the mid-1980s to undermine HWLs in Europe and globally 60. On the global challenges facing the industry, in a 1985 speech to 70 representatives from multinational companies, national manufacturers’ associations and local companies, INFOTAB's chair observed:

The tendency is for each country to think its problems are unique.

…”

“…PM management in Europe considered the proposal a ‘HWL crisis.’96 PM's local corporate affairs officials began lobbying politicians, contacting media, and developing a network of supportive third parties, including labour unions96 97 and the smokers’ rights group, Smokepeace Sweden, the industry had organised 60 98. PM, Turmac Tobacco Company and Svenska Tobak filed a complaint with the National Board of Health and Welfare alleging that the proposal violated tobacco companies’ rights of freedom of expression and property rights as embodied in their trademarks 99–101.…”

The vector of the tobacco epidemic: tobacco industry practices in low and middle-income countries

“…As in high-income countries [51-54], low and middle-income country political activity has been key to protecting the TTCs’ interests by producing a favorable policy environment that would allow them to maximize their profits by limiting marketing restrictions and taxes, maintaining the social acceptability of tobacco use, and preventing or countering tobacco-control efforts. The TTCs worked politically through lobbying, offering voluntary self-regulatory codes, and mounting corporate social responsibility public relations campaigns.…”

“…This cooperation successfully delayed smoke-free indoor air laws and undermined advertising bans in the region [54]. …”