Strong advocacy led to successful implementation of smokefree Mexico City

Abstract

Objective To describe the approval process and implementation of the 100% smokefree law in Mexico City and a competing federal law between 2007 and 2010. Methods Reviewed smokefree legislation, published newspaper articles and interviewed key informants. Results Strong efforts by tobacco control advocacy groups and key policymakers in Mexico City in 2008 prompted the approval of a 100% smokefree law following the WHO FCTC. As elsewhere, the tobacco industry utilised the hospitality sector to block smokefree legislation, challenged the City law before the Supreme Court and promoted the passage of a federal law that required designated smoking areas. These tactics disrupted implementation of the City law by causing confusion over which law applied in Mexico City. Despite interference, the City law increased public support for 100% smokefree policies and decreased the social acceptability of smoking. In September 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the City law, giving it the authority to go beyond the federal law to protect the fundamental right of health for all citizens. Conclusions Early education and enforcement efforts by tobacco control advocates promoted the City law in 2008 but advocates should still anticipate continuing opposition from the tobacco industry, which will require continued pressure on the government. Advocates should utilise the Supreme Court’s ruling to promote 100% smokefree policies outside Mexico City. Strong advocacy for the City law could be used as a model of success throughout Mexico and other Latin American countries.

Role of stakeholders in Nigeria’s tobacco control journey after the FCTC: lessons for tobacco control advocacy in low-income and middle-income countries

“…This experience is consistent with the results of similar support for civil society groups in other countries, including South Africa,5 Mexico,59 Costa Rica,63 Colombia,64 Uruguay65 and Thailand 3. In many African countries like South Africa, Burkina Faso, Tanzania, Nigeria and Kenya, civil society groups partner with government to achieve progress in tobacco policy formulation and implementation 61.…”

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

“…74–80 These reports highlight foreign exchange earnings, public revenue and employment associated with tobacco production (agriculture and manufacturing) and use (retail and hospitality), providing a foundation for alliance building with tobacco supply chain workers. 79,80 Predictably, however, they ignore the economic and social costs associated with tobacco use and growing, the fact that money not spent on tobacco will be spent on other goods generating alternative employment and public revenue, 71 and the potential for tobacco farmers, with targeted support, to diversify. 81 …”

“…137 Such challenges seek to delay, overturn or weaken (allowing, for example, smoking in ventilated areas or limiting the size of health warnings (Box 3)) 138 public health measures. Amongst other measures, proposals in LMICs to increase the size of health warnings (Thailand, 139 Sri Lanka, 140,141 Nepal 142 ) and introduce graphic health warnings (Paraguay, 143 Philippines 1,144 ), and restrictions on public smoking (Uganda, 138 Kenya, 138 Mexico, 79,145 Argentina, 1,146 Brazil 1 ), marketing (South Africa, 138,140 Panama, 1 Colombia 1 , Brazil 1 ), and additives (Brazil 147–149 ) have all recently been challenged in national courts. Interestingly, many of these cases fail, 1,138,140– 142,150–152 reflecting a similar pattern in Europe.…”

Advancing progressive health policy to reduce NCDs amidst international commercial opposition: Tobacco standardised packaging in Australia

“…Health groups can partner with legal scholars with skills in international law and investment to assist policymakers to assess the legal risks for a particular government from various trade and investment agreements. In countries such as Uruguay, where sufficient legal support domestically did not exist, a transnational tobacco control network (Crosbie, Sebrie, & Glantz, 2011; Crosbie, Sosa, & Glantz, 2016; Uang, Crosbie, & Glantz, 2017), comprised of domestic and international health groups, philanthropy donors and legal scholars, helped fill this void and assisted the government to legally defend its tobacco packaging and labelling regulations (Crosbie et al, 2017a). This transnational network, which includes characteristics of epistemic communities can influence policymakers as they act as scientific gatekeepers in the policymaking process (Mamudu, Gonzalez, & Glantz, 2011).…”