Tuesday, June 28, 2011 5:32:02 AM
Tobacco Companies Fight Australian Cigarette Bill
Australia has some of the world's highest taxes on cigarettes, and packs sold there include graphic photos of various maladies.
Gillianne Tedder/Bloomberg News
By MATT SIEGEL
Published: June 27, 2011
SYDNEY, Australia — Legislation that would ban logos from appearing on cigarette packages in Australia is drawing the ire of business lobbying groups and even members of the United States Congress, who warn that the Australian government could be in breach of its international trade obligations.
The legislation would require that tobacco products be sold in plain green packaging, limiting the brand recognition enjoyed by global tobacco names like Marlboro and Camel. The law is expected to pass with broad bipartisan support when it is formally introduced in July, and it would go into effect at the start of next year, with a six-month transition period.
The government hopes that the bill, along with some of the world’s highest taxes on tobacco, will continue to drive down smoking rates in Australia. The government also hopes that the law will serve as a template for other countries. The possibility of a domino effect is what tobacco companies are afraid of, said Andrew Hughes, a marketing expert at Australian National University in Canberra. “What’s to stop this same law being applied in other parts of the world?” he asked.
Philip Morris Asia, which is based in Hong Kong and makes Marlboro cigarettes, said Monday that it had initiated legal action against the Australian government, contending that the new rules would violate Australia’s bilateral investment treaty with Hong Kong.
The company’s legal action, called a notice of claim, starts a mandatory three-month period for negotiations. “We believe we have a very strong legal case and will be seeking significant financial compensation for the damage to our business,” Anne Edwards, a spokeswoman for Philip Morris, said in a statement.
The Australian plans are among the strictest in the world, but other countries are also pushing new initiatives to reduce smoking.
Last week, United States health officials released graphic warning labels that will cover the top half of cigarette packages beginning next year. The images will be the first major change to warning labels in more than 25 years; they include photographs of damaged teeth and lungs and a person exhaling smoke through a tracheotomy opening in his neck.
Other governments are closely watching Australian efforts to restrict tobacco packaging. The British government, for example, has begun a consultation on ways to reduce the promotional effect of cigarette packs.
Tobacco is severely taxed in Australia, where smokers spend about 16 Australian dollars, or $16.70, a pack. The packs come with pictures of maladies like mouth ulcers, cancerous lungs and gangrenous limbs.
The new packs would go one step further by trying something new: shrinking the logos down to the point at which it is difficult to distinguish one brand of cigarettes from another.
Under the law, 75 percent of the front of the packaging and 90 percent of the back would have to be covered by health warnings.
The experiment has generated a roar of protest from tobacco companies and business groups like the International Chamber of Commerce, which says cigarette makers are being singled out even though they sell legal products.
“What company would stand for having its brands, which are worth billions, taken away from them?” Scott McIntyre, a spokesman for British American Tobacco Australia, said in a statement. “A large brewing company or fast food chain certainly wouldn’t, and we’re no different.”
British American Tobacco Australia, also known as BATA, is Australia’s market leader and one of the world’s largest tobacco groups by revenue, with brands including Lucky Strike. It has threatened to cut prices to remain competitive.
The company has also promised a costly legal battle and has warned that the law could lead to an increase in counterfeit cigarettes.
Imperial Tobacco, a global company that produces brands like Davidoff and Gauloises, has created a large advertising campaign against the plain packaging law that features a stern, matronly figure who asks: “Do you really like living in a nanny state?”
Representative Donald A. Manzullo, a Republican from Illinois and a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he believed Australia’s new legislation would flout international trade laws.
“Several trade-related U.S. and international business associations have raised concerns that plain packaging cannot be implemented in a way consistent with Australia’s global trade obligations,” Mr. Manzullo said in a recent letter to an Australian government minister, a copy of which was obtained from a staff member who asked to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to distribute it. “I agree. Australia’s plain packaging proposal legally abrogates sanctioned trademark rights.”
Rich Carter, a spokesman for Mr. Manzullo, confirmed the contents of the letter but said that the congressman was “no supporter of tobacco” and was concerned only about trade.
With more legal challenges like the one from Philip Morris expected, Australia finds itself in a risky position: if it loses, it may have to pay billions of taxpayer dollars in damages to the tobacco companies.
A challenge with the Australian High Court is expected but George Williams, an expert in constitutional law at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, said it is unlikely to be successful because “it’s not clear that banning the use of a trademark” is unconstitutional.
Tobacco companies are expected to then argue that law violates Australia’s obligation as a signatory to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, also known as Trips, an agreement that sets minimum standards for intellectual property rights for members of the World Trade Organization.
Tobacco-producing countries — including the Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Mexico and the Philippines — have already raised concerns about the Australian bill at the trade organization.
But challenges through the trade organization are unlikely to be successful, said Benn D. McGrady, a lawyer at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University.
The trade law bans entities from illegally copying copyrighted material, he said, rather than creating “a positive right to use the trademark.”
The language used by Mr. Manzullo, the congressman, is “strikingly similar” to that used by the tobacco companies and is indicative of just how threatened tobacco companies feel, said the Australian health minister, Nicola Roxon. “I don’t think anyone would be surprised that the tobacco companies have a significant reach in political spheres across the world, as well as with other industry organizations,” she said.
Still, Ms. Roxon said that she was concerned neither by the legal challenge nor the foreign politicians. “We are very confident of our legal advice,” she said. “We’re very confident that we are complying with our international obligations and we’re very confident that Australians will be supportive of their representatives.”
© 2011 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/business/global/28ihsmoke.html [ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/business/global/28ihsmoke.html?pagewanted=all ]
*
invisible hand of the free market just keeps on keepin' on doing God's work ([items linked in] http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64627607 and preceding and following)
Australia has some of the world's highest taxes on cigarettes, and packs sold there include graphic photos of various maladies.
Gillianne Tedder/Bloomberg News
By MATT SIEGEL
Published: June 27, 2011
SYDNEY, Australia — Legislation that would ban logos from appearing on cigarette packages in Australia is drawing the ire of business lobbying groups and even members of the United States Congress, who warn that the Australian government could be in breach of its international trade obligations.
The legislation would require that tobacco products be sold in plain green packaging, limiting the brand recognition enjoyed by global tobacco names like Marlboro and Camel. The law is expected to pass with broad bipartisan support when it is formally introduced in July, and it would go into effect at the start of next year, with a six-month transition period.
The government hopes that the bill, along with some of the world’s highest taxes on tobacco, will continue to drive down smoking rates in Australia. The government also hopes that the law will serve as a template for other countries. The possibility of a domino effect is what tobacco companies are afraid of, said Andrew Hughes, a marketing expert at Australian National University in Canberra. “What’s to stop this same law being applied in other parts of the world?” he asked.
Philip Morris Asia, which is based in Hong Kong and makes Marlboro cigarettes, said Monday that it had initiated legal action against the Australian government, contending that the new rules would violate Australia’s bilateral investment treaty with Hong Kong.
The company’s legal action, called a notice of claim, starts a mandatory three-month period for negotiations. “We believe we have a very strong legal case and will be seeking significant financial compensation for the damage to our business,” Anne Edwards, a spokeswoman for Philip Morris, said in a statement.
The Australian plans are among the strictest in the world, but other countries are also pushing new initiatives to reduce smoking.
Last week, United States health officials released graphic warning labels that will cover the top half of cigarette packages beginning next year. The images will be the first major change to warning labels in more than 25 years; they include photographs of damaged teeth and lungs and a person exhaling smoke through a tracheotomy opening in his neck.
Other governments are closely watching Australian efforts to restrict tobacco packaging. The British government, for example, has begun a consultation on ways to reduce the promotional effect of cigarette packs.
Tobacco is severely taxed in Australia, where smokers spend about 16 Australian dollars, or $16.70, a pack. The packs come with pictures of maladies like mouth ulcers, cancerous lungs and gangrenous limbs.
The new packs would go one step further by trying something new: shrinking the logos down to the point at which it is difficult to distinguish one brand of cigarettes from another.
Under the law, 75 percent of the front of the packaging and 90 percent of the back would have to be covered by health warnings.
The experiment has generated a roar of protest from tobacco companies and business groups like the International Chamber of Commerce, which says cigarette makers are being singled out even though they sell legal products.
“What company would stand for having its brands, which are worth billions, taken away from them?” Scott McIntyre, a spokesman for British American Tobacco Australia, said in a statement. “A large brewing company or fast food chain certainly wouldn’t, and we’re no different.”
British American Tobacco Australia, also known as BATA, is Australia’s market leader and one of the world’s largest tobacco groups by revenue, with brands including Lucky Strike. It has threatened to cut prices to remain competitive.
The company has also promised a costly legal battle and has warned that the law could lead to an increase in counterfeit cigarettes.
Imperial Tobacco, a global company that produces brands like Davidoff and Gauloises, has created a large advertising campaign against the plain packaging law that features a stern, matronly figure who asks: “Do you really like living in a nanny state?”
Representative Donald A. Manzullo, a Republican from Illinois and a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he believed Australia’s new legislation would flout international trade laws.
“Several trade-related U.S. and international business associations have raised concerns that plain packaging cannot be implemented in a way consistent with Australia’s global trade obligations,” Mr. Manzullo said in a recent letter to an Australian government minister, a copy of which was obtained from a staff member who asked to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to distribute it. “I agree. Australia’s plain packaging proposal legally abrogates sanctioned trademark rights.”
Rich Carter, a spokesman for Mr. Manzullo, confirmed the contents of the letter but said that the congressman was “no supporter of tobacco” and was concerned only about trade.
With more legal challenges like the one from Philip Morris expected, Australia finds itself in a risky position: if it loses, it may have to pay billions of taxpayer dollars in damages to the tobacco companies.
A challenge with the Australian High Court is expected but George Williams, an expert in constitutional law at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, said it is unlikely to be successful because “it’s not clear that banning the use of a trademark” is unconstitutional.
Tobacco companies are expected to then argue that law violates Australia’s obligation as a signatory to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, also known as Trips, an agreement that sets minimum standards for intellectual property rights for members of the World Trade Organization.
Tobacco-producing countries — including the Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Mexico and the Philippines — have already raised concerns about the Australian bill at the trade organization.
But challenges through the trade organization are unlikely to be successful, said Benn D. McGrady, a lawyer at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University.
The trade law bans entities from illegally copying copyrighted material, he said, rather than creating “a positive right to use the trademark.”
The language used by Mr. Manzullo, the congressman, is “strikingly similar” to that used by the tobacco companies and is indicative of just how threatened tobacco companies feel, said the Australian health minister, Nicola Roxon. “I don’t think anyone would be surprised that the tobacco companies have a significant reach in political spheres across the world, as well as with other industry organizations,” she said.
Still, Ms. Roxon said that she was concerned neither by the legal challenge nor the foreign politicians. “We are very confident of our legal advice,” she said. “We’re very confident that we are complying with our international obligations and we’re very confident that Australians will be supportive of their representatives.”
© 2011 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/business/global/28ihsmoke.html [ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/business/global/28ihsmoke.html?pagewanted=all ]
*
invisible hand of the free market just keeps on keepin' on doing God's work ([items linked in] http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64627607 and preceding and following)
Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790
F6
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
