13th April 2018, Volume 131 Number 1473

Eric Crosbie, George Thomson

The constantly evolving nature of trade governance in the 21st century is increasingly having a profound impact on public health and the development of public health policies globally.1 New rules…

Subscriber content

The full contents of this page is only available to subscribers.

To view this content please login or subscribe

Summary

Political delays slow the diffusion of best practices. In this case the delays due to tobacco industry legal threats delayed standardised packaging, slowing smoking cessation and the reduction of initiation. They also delayed the reduction of government health expenditures and tobacco industry profits. Other countries introducing or implementing similar policies should learn from these experiences and take steps to proactively avoid unnecessary political delays that have a profound impact on public health.

Abstract

Aim

To describe the process of enacting tobacco standardised packaging (SP) amidst tobacco industry legal threats in New Zealand.

Method

Relevant government and NGO documents, and media items were reviewed. Policymakers and health advocates in New Zealand were interviewed. The data were triangulated and thematically analysed.

Results

In 2011, the New Zealand Government announced the goal of becoming a smokefree country (reducing smoking prevalence to 5%) by the year 2025, and considered adopting SP. In April 2012, the Government announced it would introduce SP, but tobacco companies threatened the Government with litigation in international courts for violating investment and intellectual property rights. In response, the Government adopted a ‘wait and see’ approach, waiting until two legal challenges against Australia’s SP law were resolved before it enacted its legislation in September 2016. Health advocates, limited due to funding constraints, attempted to alter the Government’s approach to the legal threats without success. Interviews with policymakers and health advocates confirmed these threats helped produce a regulatory chill, delaying the policymaking process by three years.

Conclusion

The New Zealand case illustrates how the threat of a potential international lawsuit can create a chilling effect by helping delay the implementation of public health policies.

Author Information

Eric Crosbie, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, CA; George Thomson, Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington.

Correspondence

Eric Crosbie, Postdoctoral Fellow, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, Room 366 Library, 530 Parnassus, San Francisco, CA.

Correspondence Email

eric.crosbie@ucsf.edu

Competing Interests

Eric Crosbie reports grants from National Cancer Institute Training Grant 2T32 CA113710-11 and Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program Dissertation Research Award 24DT-0003 during the conduct of the study.

References

  1. Mitchell A, Voon T. Implications of the World Trade Organization in combating non-communicable diseases. Public health. Dec 2011; 125(12):832–839.
  2. Gleeson D, Lopert R, Reid P. How the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement could undermine PHARMAC and threaten access to affordable medicines and health equity in New Zealand. Health Policy. Oct 2013; 112(3):227–233.
  3. Zeigler DW. The alcohol industry and trade agreements: a preliminary assessment. Addiction. Feb 2009; 104 Suppl 1:13–26.
  4. Thow AM, McGrady B. Protecting policy space for public health nutrition in an era of international investment agreements. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. Feb 1 2014; 92(2):139–145.
  5. Crosbie E, Gonzalez M, Glantz SA. Health preemption behind closed doors: trade agreements and fast-track authority. Am J Public Health. Sep 2014; 104(9):e7–e13.
  6. Gilmore AB, McKee M. Exploring the impact of foreign direct investment on tobacco consumption in the former Soviet Union. Tobacco control. Feb 2005; 14(1):13–21.
  7. Stumberg R. Safeguards for tobacco control: options for the TPPA. Am J Law Med. 2013; 39(2–3):382–441.
  8. Crosbie E, Sosa P, Glantz SA. Defending strong tobacco packaging and labelling regulations in Uruguay: transnational tobacco control network versus Philip Morris International. Tobacco control. Mar 23 2017;Online First: doi: 10.1136-053690.
  9. Alemanno A. The legality, rationale and science of tobacco display bans after the Philip Morris judgment. European Journal of Risk Regulation. 2011; 2(1):591–599.
  10. Jarman H. Attack on Australia: tobacco industry challenges to plain packaging. Journal of public health policy. Aug 2013; 34(3):375–387.
  11. Tienhaara K. Regulatory chill and the threat of arbitration: A view from political science. In: Brown C, Miles K, eds. Evolution in Investment Treaty Law and Arbitration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011: 606–628.
  12. Crosbie E, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry argues domestic trademark laws and international treaties preclude cigarette health warning labels, despite consistent legal advice that the argument is invalid. Tobacco control. May 2014; 23(3):e7.
  13. Neumayer E. Do countries fail to raise environmental standards? An evaluation of policy options addressing “regulatory chill”. LSE Research Online. 2001; 4(3):231–244.
  14. Coe J, Rubins N. Regulatory expropriation and the Tecmed case: context and contributions. In: Weiler T, ed. International Investment Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law. London: Cameron; 2005:597–667.
  15. Lydgate EB. Biofuels, Sustainability, and Trade-Related Regulatory Chill. Journal of Int Econ Law. 15 March 2012; 15(1):157–180.
  16. Harten GV, Scott DN. Investment Treaties and the Internal Vetting of Regulatory Proposals: A Case Study from Canada. Osgoode Legal Studies. 7 December 2015; 12(6):1–27.
  17. Māori Affairs Committee. Inquiry into the tobacco industry in Aotearoa and the consequences of tobacco use for Māori. Wellington, New Zealand: House of Representatives, November 2010. Available at: http://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/49DBSCH_SCR4900_1/2fc4d36b0fbdfed73f3b4694e084a5935cf967bb
  18. Malone RE, Balbach ED. Tobacco industry documents: treasure trove or quagmire? Tobacco control. Sep 2000; 9(3):334–338.
  19. King G, Keohane RO, Verba S. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 1994.
  20. Turia T. Speech: Tobacco free Aotearoa Conference. New Zealand Government. 8 November 2012. Available at: http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Presented/Papers/8/6/0/49DBHOH_PAP21175_1-Government-Final-Response-to-Report-of-the-M-ori.htm
  21. Edwards R, Hoek J, Thomson G. Smokefree 2025: patterns and trends in references to the smokefree goal in political speeches and press releases. N Z Med J. Jul 18 2014; 127(1398):122–125.
  22. Hartevelt J. Plain-packaged tobacco no sure thing. Dominion Post. 24 July 2012. Available at: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/7333603/Plain-packaged-tobacco-no-sure-thing Accessed 23 July 2016.
  23. Hartevelt J. Government Not in a Hurry on Plain Packaging Scoop Independent News. 8 July 2012. Available at: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1207/S00087/government-not-in-a-hurry-on-plain-packaging.htm Accessed 8 July.
  24. Crosbie E, Eckford R, Bialous SA. Containing diffusion: The tobacco industry’s multi-pronged trade strategy to block tobacco standardized packaging. Tobacco control. 2017;Under review.
  25. Philip Morris (New Zealand) Limited. Submission on the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill. Wellington, New Zealand: House of Represenatives Standing Committee on Health, 28 March 2013. Available at: http://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/50SCHE_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL12969_1_A385101/f049ad52ef7a7391762e5dc770a174403ada5e91
  26. British American Tobacco New Zealand. Submission opposing the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill. Wellington, New Zealand: House of Represenatives Standing Committee on Health, 28 March 2013. Available at: http://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/50SCHE_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL12969_1_A385351/c1fb0ae0f98dce9f518f832e24c1529a62ebb567
  27. Imperial Tobacco New Zealand Limited. Submission on Smokefree Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill. Wellington, New Zealand: House of Represenatives Standing Committee on Health, 9 April 2013. Available at: http://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/50SCHE_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL12969_1_A385113/6e51b2632a575e49502d37dfcb2f6dd2b9abf68a
  28. Waa AM, Hoek J, Edwards R, Maclaurin J. Analysis of the logic and framing of a tobacco industry campaign opposing standardised packaging legislation in New Zealand. Tobacco control. Sep 30 2016.
  29. Allen and Clarke Policy and Regulatory Specialists Limited. Submissions analysis on the proposal to introduce plain packaging of tobacco products in New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health, 21 November 2012. Available at: http://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/plain-packaging-submission-analysis-a-c.doc 
  30. Ministry of Health. Regulatory Impact Statement: Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health, 24 November 2012. Available at: http://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/plain-packaging-ris.pdf
  31. New Zealand Cabinet. Plain Packaging of tobacco products proposal. Wellington, New Zealand: Cabinet Social Policy Committee, 27 November 2012. Available at: http://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/plain-packaging-cabinet-paper.pdf
  32. New Zealand Cabinet. Minute of Decision CAB Min (13) 4/16: Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Government, 13 February 2013. Available at: http://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/plain-packaging-cabinet-paper-minutes.doc
  33. New Zealand Cabinet. Tobacco Plain Packaging: Approval for Drafting. Wellington, New Zealand: Cabinet Social Policy Committee, 21 August 2013. Available at: http://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/cabpaper-21aug13.pdf
  34. Steele SL, Gilmore AB, McKee M, Stuckler D. The role of public law-based litigation in tobacco companies’ strategies in high-income, FCTC ratifying countries, 2004-14. Journal of public health. Jun 1 2015.
  35. New Zealand Parliament. Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill-First Reading. Wellington, New Zealand: House of Representatives, 11 February 2014. Available at: http://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/50HansD_20140211_00000028/smoke-free-environments-tobacco-plain-packaging-amendment
  36. Radio News New Zealand. Plain packaging bill passes first hurdle. 11 February 2014. Available at: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/235845/plain-packaging-bill-passes-first-hurdle Accessed 10 March 2015.
  37. Action on Smoking and Health New Zealand. Submission on Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment. Wellington, New Zealand: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, 27 March 2014. Available at: http://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/50SCHE_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL12969_1_A384980/99bdba7b243cf05a8d3ed48099b39e961851c94e
  38. New Zealand Ministry of Health. Smoke-Free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill Departmental Report. Wellington, New Zealand: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, 18 June 2014. Available at: http://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/submissions-and-advice/document/50SCHE_ADV_00DBHOH_BILL12969_1_A399457/ministry-of-health-departmental-report
  39. New Zealand Parliament. Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill: As reported from the Health Committee. Wellington, New Zealand: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, 5 August 2014. Available at: http://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-nz/50DBSCH_SCR57000_1/3b7b2a74d0e52515fe202f3cdfaac3c15fd156d4
  40. One News. Q+A: Transcript interview with Christopher Bishop. Television. 10 June 2012. Available at: http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/transcript-interview-christopher-bishop-4921995
  41. Thomson GW, Wilson NA. Lost in the smoke: tobacco control in New Zealand during the 1990s. N Z Med J. Apr 14 2000; 113(1107):122–124.
  42. Wilson N, Thomson G. Politicians and tobacco control in New Zealand: a brief three-year audit. N Z Med J. Aug 26 2005; 118(1221):U1645.
  43. Hager N. Dirty Politics: How attack politics is poisoning New Zealand’s government political environment. Nelson, New Zealand: Craig Potton Publishing; 2014.
  44. Voxy. Māori Party congratulates England on plain cigarette packaging. 12 March 2015. Available at: http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/m%C3%A4%C2%81ori-party-congratulates-england-plain-cigarette-packaging/5/216091 Accessed 22 March 2015.http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1502/S00380/ireland-shows-the-way-with-plain-packaging-tobacco-law.htm
  45. The Maori Party. Ireland shows the way with plain packaging tobacco law. Scoop Independent News. 28 February 2015. Available at:
  46. Johnston M. Pressure to bring in tobacco plain-packaging. New Zealand Herald. 2 March 2015. Available at: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11410127
  47. Ryan S. Plain packaging for cigarettes: ‘It should be no problem’. New Zealand Herald. 6 October 2015. Available at: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11524706
  48. New Zealand Parliament. Hon. Annette King to the Associate Minister of Health. Wellington, New Zealand, 16 September 2015. Available at: http://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/order-paper-questions/written-questions/document/QWA_11145_2015/11145-2015-hon-annette-king-to-the-associate-minister
  49. Taylor R. Philip Morris Loses Latest Case Against Australia Cigarette-Pack Laws. Wall Street Journal. 18 December 2015. Available at: http://www.wsj.com/articles/philip-morris-loses-latest-case-against-australia-cigarette-pack-laws-1450415295 Accessed 20 January 2016.
  50. High Court of Australia. Japan International SA and British American Tobacco Australiasia v. the Commonwealth of Australia. Canberra, Australia, 5 October 2011. Available at: http://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/litigation/decisions/au-20121005-jt-intl.-and-bat-australasia-l Accessed 25 May 2016.
  51. Kirk S. Tobacco plain packaging likely to be law by end of year-John Key. Dominion Post. 15 February 2016. Available at: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/76917027/tobacco-plain-packaging-likely-to-be-law-by-end-of-year--john-key Accessed 20 June 2016.
  52. New Zealand Parliament. Hon. Annette King to the Associate Minister of Health. Wellington, New Zealand, 19 February 2016. Available at: http://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/order-paper-questions/written-questions/document/QWA_01145_2016/1145-2016-hon-annette-king-to-the-associate-minister
  53. New Zealand Ministry of Health. Realignment of tobacco control services, 1 March 2016. Available at: http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/preventative-health-wellness/tobacco-control/smokefree-2025/realignment-tobacco-control-services Accessed 20 July 2016.
  54. Collins S. Smokefree lobbyists face chop. New Zealand Herald. 27 June 2016. Available at: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11663855
  55. New Zealand Parliament. Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill-Second Reading. Wellington, New Zealand: House of Representatives, 23 August 2016. Available at: http://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20160630_20160630_20
  56. Australia Department of Health. Tobacco Plain Packaging Post-Implementation Review. Canberra, Australia, 26 Februrary 2016. Available at: http://ris.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/posts/2016/02/Tobacco-Plain-Packaging-PIR.pdf Accessed 14 April 2016.
  57. Crosbie E, Thomson G, Freeman B, Bialous S. Advancing progressive health policy to reduce NCDs amidst international commercial opposition: Tobacco standardised packaging in Australia. Glob Public Health. 2018 Feb 27:1-14. DOI: 10.1080/17441692.2018.1443485
  58. James W. UK government delays decision on cigarette branding ban. Reuters. 12 July 2013. Available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-cigarettes-packaging-idUSBRE96B0P820130712
  59. Hiilamo H, Crosbie E, Glantz SA. The evolution of health warning labels on cigarette packs: the role of precedents, and tobacco industry strategies to block diffusion. Tobacco control. Jan 2014; 23(1):e2.
  60. Lin MM. Health Ministry hits pause on plain tobacco packaging plan. Malay Mail Online. 21 March 2016. Available at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/health-ministry-hits-pause-on-plain-tobacco-packaging-plan Accessed 25 May 2016.
  61. Kozak R. Cigarette Maker to Cut Operations as Congress Debates Tobacco Law. Wall Street Journal. 9 July 2015. Available at: http://www.wsj.com/articles/cigarette-maker-to-cut-chile-operations-as-congress-debates-tobacco-law-1436475357 Accessed 30 May 2016.
  62. High Court of Australia. Japan Tobacco International SA v Commonwealth of Australia; British American Tobacco v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] HCA 43. Judgement given on 5 October 2012. Available at: http://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/litigation/decisions/au-20121005-jt-intl.-and-bat-australasia-l Accessed 25 May 2016.
  63. High Court of England and Wales. R (British American Tobacco and others) v Secretary of Health [2016] EWHC 1169. Judgement given on 19 May 2016. Available at: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/british-american-tobacco-others-v-department-of-health/ Accessed 25 August 2016.
  64. Le Conseil d’État F. CE, Japan Tobacco International SA, Philip Morris France SA, Republic Technologies France, National Confederation of Tobacconists and British American Tobacco France SA. Nos 399117, 399789, 399790, 399824, 3998883, 399938, 399997, 402883, 403472, 403823, 404174, 404381, 404394, 23 December 2016. Available at: http://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/litigation/decisions/fr-20161223-japan-tobacco-international-an Accessed 25 August 2016.
  65. Rana P. Inda’s Supreme Court Orders Tobacco Companies to Comply With Health Warning Rules. Wall Street Journal. 4 May 2016. Available at: http://www.wsj.com/articles/indias-supreme-court-orders-tobacco-companies-to-comply-with-health-warning-rules-1462366934 Accessed 25 May 2016.
  66. Miles T, Geller M. Australia wins landmark WTO tobacco packaging case. Reuters. 5 May 2017. Available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wto-tobacco-australia-idUSKBN1801S9 Accessed 6 July 2017.
  67. Crosbie E, Sosa P, Glantz S. Costa Rica’s successful implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: Overcoming decades of industry dominance. Salud publica de Mexico. 2016; 58(1):62–70.
  68. Uang R, Crosbie E, Glantz S. Smokefree implementation in Colombia: Monitoring, outside funding, and business support. Salud publica de Mexico. 2017; 59(2):128–136.
  69. Crosbie E, Sebrie EM, Glantz SA. Strong advocacy led to successful implementation of smokefree Mexico City. Tobacco control. Jan 2011; 20(1):64–72.
  70. Uang R, Crosbie E, Glantz SA. Tobacco control law implementation in a middle-income country: Transnational tobacco control network overcoming tobacco industry opposition in Colombia. Glob Public Health. Aug 17 2017:1–15.
  71. Crosbie E, Sosa P, Glantz SA. The importance of continued engagement during the implementation phase of tobacco control policies in a middle-income country: the case of Costa Rica. Tobacco control. Jan 2017; 26(1):60–68.
  72. Montanari L. Georgia Should Protect IP Rights Not Weaken Them with Plain Packaging. Forbes. 30 July 2017 2017. Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenzomontanari/2017/07/30/georgia-should-protect-ip-rights-not-weaken-them-with-plain-packaging/ - 2ddea2eb6b84. Accessed 30 August 2017.
  73. Sancelme N. The era of plain packaging is coming in Thailand. Vidon. 20 February 2017. Available at: http://www.vidon.com/en/news/249-the-era-of-plain-packaging-is-coming-in-thailand.html Accessed 11 December 2017.
  74. New Zealand Cabinet. Standardised Tobacco Product Packaging: Update & Next Steps. Wellington, New Zealand: Cabinet Social Policy Committee, February 2016. Available at: http://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/standardised-tobacco-product-packaging-update-next-steps-redacted.pdf

Download

The downloadable PDF version of this article is only available to subscribers.

To view this content please login or subscribe