| March 19, 2002
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Mr. President:
We are writing to express our concern over the positions taken by the
United
States delegation at recent negotiating sessions of the Framework Convention
on Tobacco Control (FCTC) in Geneva. The U.S. delegation has repeatedly
used its considerable leverage to weaken the treaty by insisting on the
inclusion of language that would benefit U.S. tobacco companies rather
than
public health.
The 4th meeting of the FCTC Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB)
will
take place March 18-23. The United States government will Chair these
important proceedings. Unless U.S. negotiating guidelines are changed
to
reflect public health principles, the ability of concerned nations to
appropriately address the growing epidemic of tobacco-related disease
within
their borders will be weakened. The World Health Organization (WHO) has
already projected that tobacco-related deaths will rise sharply within
developing countries unless strong, comprehensive and coordinated measures
are taken to reduce tobacco consumption and restrict tobacco advertising
and
marketing.
The U.S. bears a special responsibility for the worldwide growth in tobacco
consumption, particularly by women and children in the developing world.
For many years our nation promoted the export of tobacco products and
actively fought efforts by other nations to adopt regulatory measures
to
protect the health of their citizens. These earlier practices have left
a
legacy of increasing deaths from tobacco-related disease among the emerging
economies of Asia, Africa, the Americas, and Eastern Europe.
We want to highlight a number of areas where U.S. negotiators have ignored
public health as a guiding principle and sought to weaken the draft treaty
and protect narrow commercial interests.
The U.S. opposed efforts supported by developing countries to ban tobacco
advertising and marketing that are consistent with their Constitutional
or
basic rights.
Many nations support the inclusion in the treaty of a provision banning
all
direct and indirect tobacco advertising, reserving to those countries
with
Constitutional limitations the right to enact lesser restrictions. The
overwhelming majority of independent peer-reviewed studies show that
tobacco-advertising leads to an increase in consumption, while comprehensive
bans significantly reduce consumption. The United States, however, has
opposed a ban, citing Constitutional concerns and offering language that
would significantly weaken this protection. While there are U.S.
constitutional issues involving advertising bans, the U.S. should not
prevent other nations from adopting advertising bans when the U.S. Surgeon
General has concluded that such limits have been shown to reduce tobacco
consumption, especially among youth. Under the WTO Agreement on Technical
Barriers to Trade, countries are permitted to establish regulations to
protect human health, as long as they are consistent with sound science.
The U.S. opposed efforts to protect workers in the private sector from
exposure to secondhand smoke while advocating a ban on smoking in government
buildings.
There is universal consensus among public health experts that exposure
to
secondhand smoke is a significant and thoroughly preventable health risk
to
nonsmokers. In the United States close to 70% of all workplaces are now
smoke-free environments. The United States should support the strongest
protections possible for citizens of other countries.
The U.S. opposed efforts that would prohibit the use of the dangerously
deceptive terms "low tar", "light" and "mild"
to market tobacco products.
On 27 November 2001, the U.S. National Cancer Institute released a
comprehensive report "Monograph 13: Risks Associated with Smoking
Cigarettes
with Low Machine-Yields of Tar and Nicotine" [i] detailing the 50-year
history of light and low-tar cigarettes in this country and their impact
on
the public health. The report found that there is no significant health
difference between any of the cigarettes currently on the market (e.g.
lights, regulars or full flavor) and that the industry's use of terms
such
as "light" and "low tar" is deceptive and harmful
to public health. On the
same day the report was released, the United States opposed a total ban
on
these terms, a provision that is supported by a broad range of nations.
The U.S. opposed efforts to exempt tobacco from normal trade rules.
The United States has blocked provisions that would prioritize public
health
over commercial considerations, despite widespread support for such measures
by the majority of countries in the negotiations, including many of our
major trading partners. Given the exceptionally hazardous and addictive
nature of tobacco products, public health measures should take precedence
over purely commercial considerations.
We are greatly concerned that if the United States maintains these
negotiating positions, tobacco-related deaths will continue to increase
worldwide. The United States has great expertise to share because it has
invested more than any other country in developing the science that
identifies the most effective programs and strategies for reducing tobacco
consumption and preventing young people from starting. We have an
opportunity to use this knowledge and experience to assist in the creation
of the strongest possible treaty, one that can help the other nations
of the
world avoid a tobacco epidemic of the magnitude faced by the United States.
How the U.S. responds during these negotiations will be a true test of
our
leadership in the international community.
We urge you to review and revise U.S. negotiating guidance on the FCTC.
It
is still early in the negotiations and a change in the U.S. posture could
yield agreement on policies, which could save millions of lives over the
next twenty years. Your intervention at this time will go far to restore
U.S. credibility as an international leader in tobacco control and ensure
that a strong treaty, which protects public health, emerges.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
Richard J. Durbin
Bob Graham
Tom Harkin
Edward M. Kennedy
John F. Kerry
Jack Reed
John D. Rockefeller, IV
|
