<Home> <Health News> <Smoking> <Proceedings of INGCAT's Int'l NGO MObilisation Meeting in Geneva> <Human Rights and Consumer Protection>

Proceedings INGCAT International
NGO MObilisation Meeting
Geneva, 15-16 May, 1999.

Human Rights and Consumer Protection
Dr. Yussuf Saloojee
Executive Director, Council Against Smoking, South Africa

Governments have responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare of their citizens. Law which benefit society as a whole are generally upheld as valid even if they run counter to the interests of some individuals.

All societies accept restrictions on individual freedoms in the public interest. For example, speed limits on roads, prescription-only medicines, gun laws, bans on child pornography. They do so because they believe these prohibitions are for the common good.

Restrictions on the use and marketing of tobacco products are an important part of a comprehensive policy to reduce the harms of tobacco use.

They are two main types of tobacco control legislation:

(a) Protective - these measures protect non-smokers from harm by controlling smoking in public places; and
(b) Health promoting - these measures promote health by discouraging smoking. They include limits on cigarette marketing through tax and price policies; control of advertising and sponsorship; control of advertising and sponsorship; health warning requirements: and restriction of sales.

Traditionally the law has always been used to protect people from harm by others. The use of the law to promote health, however, is considered to be paternalistic - it protects people from themselves.

The tobacco industry has skillfully exploited people's desire for a free society to oppose regulation. The industry has formulated a standard set of arguments in defense of its products. These include casting doubt on the established facts ("not proof smoking causes cancer"); diverting attention to other issues ("why pick on tobacco when there are more importuned problems such as AIDS); projecting tobacco control laws as an invasion of civil liberties, and stressing the economic importance of tobacco.

The aim is to create "doubt", governments will have an excuse for not legislating against tobacco and smokers will have a reason for continuing to smoke. Tobacco will remain profitable and health advocates can be dismissed as the enemies of freedom.

Some key questions

1. "Is a ban on tobacco advertising and promotion and attack on freedom of speech?" No. The original purpose of free speech and freedom of the press is to guarantee free criticism of the government. It was not intended to glamorise and promote a harmful product. Restrictions on tobacco can be looked on as normal legal regulation of business and trade. In many countries there are legal products which cannot be advertised to the public such as pharmaceuticals.

2. "What about freedom of choice?" Every day, children are being pushed into starting a life-long addiction-the consequences of which they do not understand and will not understand until it is too late. Within a year of beginning smoking, most US teens will try unsuccessfully to quit. Addiction starts early. About 70% of teenage smokers say that if they could start afresh, they would not smoke. But the industry's public relations factory argues that smoking is about free choice.

3. "If we regulate tobacco, what will be net-alcohol, butter, coffee?" This is the same as saying that if we jail murders, we will end up jailing children for stealing marble. It confuses the important with the trivial in regulating consumer products, society must balance the potential for harm against the ability of people to use the product safely. In moderation, alcohol and red meat are not harmful. They only become hazardous when consumed in excess. Tobacco, on the other hand, kills when used exactly as the manufacturer recommends, and there is no safe level of use.

4. "What about smokers' rights?" People are free to drink, but they are not allowed to drink and drive. In the same way, people are free to smoke but not where it may harm others.

There is no conflict between good public health policy on tobacco and people's rights to basic freedoms. Consumers have a right to be protected from harmful products and it is government's responsibility to guarantee that right.

Working group report
Yussuf Saloojee, facilitator NGOs: ASH London, Consumers Association of Penang, INFACT, JUATLD, Public Service International, UICC Other: TFI, WHO SEARO, Strathclyde CMS

Long-term goals:
The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) should include:

  • A human rights and consumer protection charter specifying:
    -The right not to be harmed by products when used as the manufacturer intends.
    -The right to redress and compensation if harmed.
    -The right to information.
    -The right to a safe, clean environment.
    -The right to consumer education.

  • A charter for corporate accountability specifying that:
    -World trade policies must not increase tobacco consumption.
    -Health concerns must be considered when addressing trade issues.

Short term activities:

  • NGOs should define content areas, and develop clauses for the charter.

  • Tobacco issues should be included in the discussion at the World Trade Organisation negotiations in November 1999.

  • NGOs must build alliances and networks to work for the above goals. INFACT and the Consumers Association of Penang will participate in this process.

  • NGOs should lobby their governments so that, as the UK has recently done countries prohibit their foreign missions from promoting tobacco.

  • NGOs should encourage national policies to reduce smuggling and to stop duty-free sales.

  • NGOs should work for pricing policies that support public health and advertising bans, both of which are parts of consumer protection.