[Intl-tobacco] Economist: US double standards

[Robert Weissman]

From: "Ross Hammond" <margross@igc.org>

An interesting piece from the folks at the Economist which points out the
differences between the stance of the US Dept. of Justice and the US
delegation to the FCTC negotiations.


April 2, 2002
Big tobacco cut down to size, yet again
The Economist

America’s justice department is seeking unprecedented restrictions on the
marketing of tobacco, according to recently-filed pre-trial documents. This
comes as a surprise as the Bush administration had sought a settlement of
the three-year-old case. The move may prove to be merely a negotiating ploy

UNDER the Clinton administration, the tort bar in America enjoyed something
of a heyday. Companies were assailed by a host of lawsuits. The biggest
settlement was the $206 billion which the tobacco industry agreed to pay
over 25 years to 46 American states to compensate for health costs incurred
through state-backed health insurance schemes for treating smoking-related
illnesses. Then the federal government got in on the act, launching its own
lawsuit in 1999. Everyone expected that the suit would be quietly
dropped by
the Bush administration. After all, George Bush, as governor of Texas, had
implemented a series of reforms that made it more difficult to sue
companies. Republicans had been beneficiaries of millions of dollars-worth
of campaign donations from tobacco companies. And attorney-general, John
Ashcroft, though he considers tobacco companies to be “merchants of death”,
had proposed a settlement of the lawsuit last year.

Therefore, there was some surprise when America’s Department of Justice
sought extremely harsh restrictions on tobacco companies in pre-trial
documents lodged in court earlier this month. The civil suit alleges fraud,
racketeering and conspiracy by the major tobacco companies to conceal the
health risks of an addictive and deadly product. The suit says that smoking
kills 400,000 people a year in the United Sates and costs some $20
billion a
year in federal health-care payments.

The remedies sought for these grave alleged wrong-doings are far-reaching
and focus on how cigarettes are promoted and marketed. Cigarette advertising
would be allowed only in print publications, and then only in black and
white. Half the space of any ad would have to be reserved for “graphic
health warnings”. This would mean an end to the aspirational lifestyle
advertising currently favoured by the American industry, as epitomised by
the rugged cowboy “Marlboro man”. Just as the ads would have to reflect
current-day health warnings, the suit also seeks that half of the
surface of
cigarette packages would have to carry similar “graphic health warnings.”

Promotion and distribution would also be curtailed under the government
suit. Trade promotions and give-aways, to which the industry turned
following the marketing restrictions imposed by the settlement with the
states, would be ended. According to the suit, trade promotions rose to
$3.54 billion, or 43% of the industry’s promotional budget, in 1999.
Cigarette companies would no longer be allowed to pay retailers “slotting
fees” for placing tobacco products where they are likely to catch customer’s
eyes. Such fees can be worth as much as $20,000 a year to a busy convenience
store.

The suit is also seeking that companies be forbidden from labelling
cigarettes as “light”, “low-tar” or “mild.” They would also be required to
list all ingredients, additives and toxic chemicals and would have to
disclose their marketing research and how the cigarettes are made.
The suit is particularly aimed at curbing smoking among the young. The
tobacco companies have long argued that their advertising is aimed
purely at
encouraging smokers to switch brands. But anti-tobacco advocates suspect
that it is really aimed at getting youngsters to take up the smoking habit.
The suit cites a secret industry study that surveyed smokers from 12 to 20
years old, even though many of those surveyed are not legally allowed to
smoke.

The tobacco industry is, unsurprisingly, fighting the suit vigorously. A
spokeswoman for Philip Morris, the leading defendant, called it “a
politically motivated suit filed by the Clinton administration” that ought
to have been dismissed. R.J. Reynolds, another defendant, said that the
earlier states' settlement “comprehensively addresses the issue of underage
smoking” and that it would fight any further restrictions.

The new proposed restrictions on the tobacco companies appear odd when
compared to America’s stance on the global anti-tobacco treaty being sought
by the World Health Organisation (WHO). The WHO likes what the American
government has done at home and is urging others around the world launch
lawsuits against tobacco firms as well. But the United States has not
returned the compliment. It has blocked the WHO's treaty, with
objections to
restrictions on advertising, which it claims go against free speech, and to
a ban on the use of words such as “light” or “low-tar” on cigarette packets,
even though it is seeking just such restrictions at home. Henry Waxman, a
Democratic congressman from California, has accused the Bush administration
of a “breath-taking reversal in US policy—going from global leader on
tobacco control to pulling back and advocating the tobacco industry’s
position.”

Just as there is an inconsistency between America’s stance on tobacco within
and outside the United States, there appear to be tensions within the
Department of Justice itself. The tobacco suit was filed to meet deadlines
established for continuation of the lawsuit. Career officials are fully
behind it. But until recently there had been doubts about whether Mr
Ashcroft and other political appointees would give it the backing—and the
funding—it required. However, Mr Ashcroft’s latest budget includes a
generous increase to $25m in direct funding, to be added to $18m from other
sources. The trial date is set for June of next year. The tobacco companies,
once among the mightiest lobbyists in Washington, seem to have few friends
left in either of America’s two main political parties.