Tobacco Industry's Interest In Trade Negotiations? Totally Redacted

from the public-interest? dept

The folks at Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) sent a freedom of information request to the EU Commission, asking for details of meetings that trade officials held with the tobacco industry. This matters, because the tobacco industry is one of the major abusers of trade agreements, repeatedly making use of the "corporate sovereignty" ISDS provisions to effectively sue any country passing anti-smoking health laws -- as was covered a few months back by John Oliver:
So, as new trade agreements are being negotiated -- especially since the powers that be tell us these agreements are designed to protect the health and well being of the public -- it seems that Big Tobacco's efforts in these negotiations is pretty relevant. After numerous delays and confusing responses, CEO finally received a response. And it's [redacted]. Well, not entirely, but basically anything useful is blacked out. Such as this lovely document, which is oh so revealing:
Democracy in action!

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2015 @ 8:41am

    If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 27 Aug 2015 @ 8:52am

    What is their interest?

    Their interest is in getting as many new generations of young people hooked as possible.

    Isn't that obvious?

    Each new 'user' is a lifetime revenue stream. And they are likely to get other members of their family and friends addicted to this product.

    Cigarettes are safe and legal. But a huge problem our society has is that we allow licensed physicians prescribe pain killers to people who need them. Drugs that have been carefully manufactured and have huge amounts of scientific data before they were ever allowed to be prescribed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DannyB (profile), 27 Aug 2015 @ 8:55am

      Re: What is their interest?

      /sarcasm about cigarettes being actually safe. They're not, in case you didn't know. :-)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2015 @ 9:04am

        Re: Re: What is their interest?

        Good to add that sarcasm note, but it is flippantly dishonest to compare cigarettes and pain meds the way you did.

        Both may be bad for health and addictive, but only 1 makes you loopy and dangerous behind the wheel of a vehicle.

        People are destructive and as long as they are only destroying themselves we need to keep our noses out of it. Cigarettes are hardly something to be concerned about when placed into perspective with a lot of other items that certainly require our attention more.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          kallethen, 27 Aug 2015 @ 10:42am

          Re: Re: Re: What is their interest?

          People are destructive and as long as they are only destroying themselves we need to keep our noses out of it. Cigarettes are hardly something to be concerned about when placed into perspective with a lot of other items that certainly require our attention more.

          But cigarettes can be destructive to other people, namely 'second hand smoke.'

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2015 @ 10:51am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: What is their interest?

            ...cigarettes can be destructive to other people, namely 'second hand smoke.'...

            Something the marijuana advocates better pay attention to.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2015 @ 2:20am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: What is their interest?

            That second hand smoke scare was a propaganda screen. The EPA report was tossed out of court so far, it still hasn't landed. If you go on the EPA website they have a notice that says they still believe they were right. LOL...Even the researchers said the science was bad. 'But, we did it for a good reason, to stop people smoking.' The case was RJ Reynolds vs EPA 1998.

            If second hand smoke were a real hazard, then cooks in every restaurant would be wearing hazmat suits as they cooked your dinner. Second hand smoke is a nauseous nuisance and was rightfully banned in certain public areas. But they politicians just let the it go and went too far. Now we suffer from a nanny state as banning something gets a lot of political mileage and only harms a small segment of the population.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2015 @ 11:16am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is their interest?

              Smoking is bad - Mmmmkay?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Uriel-238 (profile), 28 Aug 2015 @ 1:36pm

              Someone took advantage of a notion once, therefore the notion is wrong!

              Yeah who gives a crap of the health and welfare of that bottommost rung of working stiffs, the bar waitress? the next thing you know, they're going to expect us to care about gas-station attendants.

              Cooks don't have to wear hazmat suits because OSHA requires the installation of a fairly high-powered active ventilation system, and this is for smoke that doesn't (typically) contain tar or nicotine.

              Smoking in bars in California is legally banned, but it's a ban not well enforced and many bars are full of cigarette smoke. And they dont have a kitchen-standard ventilation system. Neither, for that matter, do family rooms where parents smoke and don't quit for the sake of their kids, either because they don't care or are just plain that addicted. But fuck 'em, they're someone else's larvae.

              Never mind that the smog from Los Angeles has been regarded as a health threat, also without the tar or nicotine, at a lesser density than is found in bars, homes and motor vehicles. But we can ignore that data given it might tap into our already meager profits.

              Fuck the commons if we can profit by wrecking it for everyone else!

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            John Fenderson (profile), 28 Aug 2015 @ 6:07am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: What is their interest?

            "cigarettes can be destructive to other people, namely 'second hand smoke.'"

            Only under certain circumstances, namely spending a lot of time in a very smoky environment.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 27 Aug 2015 @ 1:01pm

          "Flippant and Dishonest"

          And yet you choose that a pain med might make you loopy

          Even when pain meds are prescribed in low enough doses to avoid the loopy, they're still required to go through rigorous testing by the FDA.

          Tobacco, I suspect is not scrutinized to the same degree that the FDA requires prescription drugs to be, whether they make you loopy or not.

          And people smoke more when their parents and peers smoke. So there's certainly a social vector by which this self-destructive behavior is communicated.

          (Others have already mentioned second hand smoke).

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2015 @ 5:12pm

        Re: Re: What is their interest?

        Sure they are... depending on what you do with them. Only toxic/carcinogenic when smoked/eaten/rubbed on skin/leached into your water supply.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2015 @ 9:53am

      Re: What is their interest?

      ...The question is, would the same be true of regulated cannabis consumption lead to the same number of deaths as alcohol and tobacco? Remember, Tobacco and alcohol directly contribute, alongside prescribed medications, to the greatest number of deaths than pretty much the rest of US deaths combined.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2015 @ 11:02am

      Re: What is their interest?

      "Each new 'user' is a lifetime revenue stream."

      Not necessarily, as many have quit.
      Big Tobacco plays both sides of this street in that they also sell products that supposedly help one quit smoking, the results are inconclusive.
      Many who have successfully quit have done so cold turkey.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2015 @ 9:11am

    At least we are still free to read between the lines...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Coyne Tibbets (profile), 27 Aug 2015 @ 11:40am

    We should at least be paid

    I think USTR should charge a flat $250 million per seat for corporate representatives to take part in trade treaty negotiations. (EU should do the same.)

    Given all the influence they have in the process and the protection they receive, companies should have to pay for the right to impose their dictatorial desires on the rest of us. The massive profit these treaties simply hand over to these sovereign corporations makes a fee like this mere pocket change; even if it is more than those corporations will ever pay in taxes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2015 @ 12:42pm

    Coyne, companies already pay money to take part in trade treaty negotiations. They just call them campaign contributions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 27 Aug 2015 @ 2:28pm

    http://aftinet.org.au/cms/node/519
    The Philip Morris tobacco company is currently suing the Australian government over its tobacco plain packaging legislation, using an obscure 1993 Hong Kong- Australia investment treaty. Philip Morris is actually a US-based company, but could not sue under the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement, because public opposition kept this clause out of the agreement. Philip Morris rearranged its assets to become a Hong Kong investor in order to use an obscure treaty. This shows how giant global companies can abuse such clauses in trade agreements,’’ said Dr Ranald.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Morris_v._Uruguay
    The company complains that Uruguay's anti-smoking legislation devalues its cigarette trademarks and investments in the country and is suing Uruguay for compensation under the bilateral investment treaty between Switzerland and Uruguay.[2] (Philip Morris is headquartered in Lausanne.)[3]

    http://www.tobaccolabels.ca/plain-packaging-ireland-vs-big-tobacco/
    New Zealand, France, Norway and Finland are all considering plain cigarette packaging legislation

    The government is facing down legal threats from Big Tobacco over plans to introduce standardised packaging for cigarettes, with Japan Tobacco International (Ireland) threatening the government over it immimnent plans.

    The tobacco industry has already demonstrated its ability to inflict expensive litigation in Australia, which is fighting tobacco giant Philip Morris over similar restrictions to those planned by the Irish government.

    The Australian government has faced a number of separate legal challanges – domestically and internationally.

    The World Trade Organisation is expected to rule on a legal challenge against Australia in 2016, according to a statement from Philip Morris.

    And this is only a 1 page search...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2015 @ 2:38pm

    i suppose the part that is looking after us is the redaction itself, saving us from ruing our eyes with all the long words and the bull shit!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2015 @ 5:22pm

    Corporate Sovereignty needs to be outlawed and made out right illegal.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.