Philip Morris should not be interfering with Uruguay’s public health legislation

Philip Morris should not be interfering with Uruguay’s public health legislation
Tuesday 24 November 2015 11.24 EST

In its letter to the Guardian (Philip Morris: we are defending our business, not attacking human rights, 19 November), Philip Morris International (PMI) claims that “the Uruguayan senate approved the investment treaty with Switzerland after careful scrutiny, and with confidence that its provisions aligned with Uruguay’s domestic law”, and that the country should therefore silently allow its anti-tobacco provisions to be challenged by the tobacco corporation at an international arbitration panel.

Article 2 of said investment treaty clearly establishes that “The Contracting Parties recognize each other’s right not to allow economic activities for reasons of public security and order, public health or morality…”

With the lung cancer mortality rate declining 15% in Uruguay (and increasing in the rest of the world), the burden of proof should be on PMI to demonstrate that it is not a legitimate public health measure to ban the advertising of tobacco and otherwise limit its sale (all tobacco, on a non-discriminatory basis) instead of challenging the Uruguayan government’s legally mandatory protection of the right to health.

No proper court should ever have accepted such irresponsible litigation, which appears to be aimed at scaring others from following the example of Uruguay. But, as Alfred de Zayas rightly describes in the article to which PMI’s letter was responding (How can Philip Morris sue Uruguay over its tobacco laws?, 16 November), arbitration panels in investor-states disputes are about anything but real justice.

Roberto Bissio
Executive director, Instituto del Tercer Mundo (Third World Institute), Montevideo, Uruguay

• The only response possible to Marc Firestone, senior vice-president and general counsel of Philip Morris International (PMI), comes from Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

More:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/24/philip-morris-should-not-be-interfering-with-uruguays-public-health-legislation