International trade agreements: a threat to tobacco control policy
Open accessAbstract
International covenants establish a role for governments in ensuring the conditions for human health and wellbeing, which has been recognised as a central human right. International trade agreements, conversely, prioritise the rights of corporations over health and human rights. International trade agreements are threatening existing tobacco control policies and restrict the possibility of implementing new controls. This situation is unrecognised by many tobacco control advocates in signatory nations, especially those in developing countries. Recent agreements on eliminating various trade restrictions, including those on tobacco, have expanded far beyond simply international movement of goods to include internal tobacco distribution regulations and intellectual property rules regulating advertising and labelling. Our analysis shows that to the extent trade agreements protect the tobacco industry, in itself a deadly enterprise, they erode human rights principles and contribute to ill health. The tobacco industry has used trade policy to undermine effective barriers to tobacco importation. Trade negotiations provide an unwarranted opportunity for the tobacco industry to assert its interests without public scrutiny. Trade agreements provide the industry with additional tools to obstruct control policies in both developed and developing countries and at every level. The health community should become involved in reversing these trends, and help promote additional measures to protect public health.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Since the 1990s, tension between trade and tobacco control has escalated as new legal rules concerning intellectual property and foreign investment have enabled investors, including tobacco companies, to challenge domestic public health policies in international trade and investment arbitration courts.
“Since the 1990s, the tension between trade and tobacco control has escalated1 as new legal rules concerning intellectual property and foreign investment have enabled investors (including tobacco companies) to challenge domestic public health policies in international trade and investment arbitration courts.2–4”
From Defending strong tobacco packaging and labelling regulations in Uruguay: transnational tobacco control network versus Philip Morris International (2018) · cites this paper as [2]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- United Nations High Commission for Human Rights. Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, July 12, 1993. http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/ huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/A.CONF.157.23.En?OpenDocument (Accessed February 19, 2004).
- Pollock AM, Price D. The public health implications of world trade negotiations on the general agreement on trade in services and public services. Lancet 2003;362:1072-5.
- Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and Health. Call for Public Health Accountability in International Trade Agreements. www.cpath.org. International trade agreements ii25 www.tobaccocontrol.com on December 16, 2023 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/ Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tc.2004.007930 on 26 July 2005. Downloaded from
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Crosbie, E., Sosa, P., & Glantz, S. A. (2018) · Tobacco control · doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053690 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
- Authors
- Shaffer, E. R., Brenner, J. E., & Houston, T. P.
- Affiliations
- Center for Policy Analysis (US)
- Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans (US)
- Corresponding author
- Shaffer, E R
- ORCID
- Houston, T P
- Venue
- Tobacco Control
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2005-07-26
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- suppl 2
- Pages
- ii19-ii25
- ISSN
- 0964-4563 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-3318
- PMC
- PMC1766197
- OpenAlex
- W2168335766
- Cited by
- 70
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 6.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Tobacco Control (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
- Social Sciences › Law › Intellectual Property Law
- Keywords
- international trade agreements, tobacco control, human rights, tobacco industry, intellectual property, trade negotiations, developing countries
- MeSH terms
- Smoking Prevention, Commerce, Humans, Human Rights, International Cooperation, Tobacco Industry
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review