THE FRONT
A Thai Tobacco Tie AFTER SUCCEEDING IN FORCING Thailand to open its cigarette market to U.S. products but failing to pressure the Thai government to repeal its anti-smoking health measures, the U.S. government dropped a trade action against Thailand in November 1990. The U.S. government's campaign to open the Thai tobacco market began in May 1989. In response to a petition from the Cigarette Export Association (CEA), composed of Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and Brown and Williamson, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) initiated a Section 301 action against Thailand. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 directs the USTR to negotiate with countries which discriminate against U.S. imports and to impose sanctions on trading partners who refuse to remove barriers to the import of U.S. goods. The CEA petition complained about a Thai ban on the import of foreign cigarettes and a prohibition against cigarette advertisements. The CEA claimed that the ad ban discriminated against foreign tobacco companies, which would need to advertise to compete with the government-affiliated Thailand Tobacco Monopoly. Health advocates in both the United States and Thailand criticized the USTR's decision. Michael Daube, chair of the Tobacco and Cancer Program of the International Union Against Cancer, stated, "The proposed trade sanctions are ethically unsupportable, and their implementation would demonstrate an appalling lack of regard for the health of the Thai people." In addition to asking USTR to drop the case, health activists argued against the U.S. position at a highly publicized Congressional hearing and before a dispute-settlement panel of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which the USTR had asked to examine the Thai import ban. Despite the health advocates' arguments, the panel ruled that the import ban violated GATT rules. After the ruling and Thailand's subsequent decision to lift its import ban, the USTR terminated its investigation. But the USTR's "victory" was only partial, since it dropped the case without winning the revocation of Thailand's ad ban. Though the USTR did not ask the GATT panel to assess the advertising restrictions, the panel, apparently persuaded by evidence presented by health advocates, ruled that Thailand's ad ban was legitimate under GATT rules which permit trade restrictions in order to protect human health. Anti-smoking activists believe the unsolicited GATT decision led the USTR to end its efforts to have the ad ban revoked. Though they expect that allowing cigarette imports will increase smoking, anti-smoking advocates take comfort in the fact that the ad ban will stay in place. Greg Schwartz of the Washington, D.C.based Advocacy Institute, says that with the lifting of the import ban, there will be a "demand for Western cigarettes built on their image and an increase in smoking and, down the line, deaths." But, he adds, far fewer people will die than would have if the advertising ban had been lifted as well. Health advocates point to the case of South Korea, where the U.S. government forced the Seoul government to allow U.S. tobacco companies unrestricted access, as an example of the effects of the introduction of U.S. cigarettes. The U.S. Government Accounting Office found that after import restrictions were lifted in South Korea in 1988, smoking rates for male teenagers rose from 18.4 percent in 1988 to 29.8 percent in 1989, while rates for female teenagers more than quadrupled, going from 1.6 percent to 8.7 percent. U.S. pressure also forced the Japanese and Taiwanese governments to open their tobacco markets in the late 1980s. Health activists hope that their partial success in stopping efforts to push cigarette exports shows their growing strength. Alan Davis, vice president of the American Cancer Society, says the Thai case "is a perfect example of what the international health community can do by working together.... We've got to look at how we can work with other developing countries and what we can do to help Eastern Europe." -Robert Weissman ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- [] MULTINATIONAL MONITOR Jan/Feb 1991 VOLUME 12, NUMBERS 1 & 2, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991 Busting the Trash Trust THE NATION'S TWO largest garbage hauling companies, Waste Management, Inc. (WMI) and Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. (BFI), recently paid $50 million to settle a lawsuit in which they were accused of conspiring to fix prices across the United States. Cumberland Farms and six other companies filed the suit more than three years ago in a Pennsylvania federal district court on behalf of the two waste haulers' approximately 500,000 customers nationwide. It is the first case to accuse the two multinational trash disposal corporations of anti-trust violations on a national scale, although both have a history of convictions and fines for regional price-fixing and other illegal activities [see "BFI: The Sludge of the Waste Industry," Multinational Monitor, June 1990]. This is the "first time the garbage industry's overall pattern of racketeering has been pieced together," Jonathan Hutson of Citizen Action, a national public interest group, told Multinational Monitor. The companies, however, dismiss the plaintiffs' claims of a nationwide conspiracy, and "vigorously deny" that the agreement is an admission of any wrongdoing. The settlement followed the failure of the defendants' motion for dismissal of the case. When the court ruled that there was sufficient evidence for the trial to proceed, the corporations agreed to the $50 million payment "to avoid the expenses and uncertainty" of a trial, says Browning-Ferris. Waste Management Vice President J. Steven Bergerson adds that the settlement was reached "to protect the company against suits arising from old investigations." Waste industry observers such as Brian Lipsett of the Citizen's Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes see the payment as a validation of the plaintiffs' accusations. "It's clear to me that they settled to avoid a finding of guilt, because the evidence was so strong," Lipsett says. Critics argue that the companies settled to prevent public disclosure of their criminal activities. The settlement will effectively bury the numerous documents and depositions introduced by plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit. "These [plaintiffs'] documents may never be seen by the public," says Hutson. "This settlement shows just how far the companies will go to keep the lid on the seamy side of the business." Hutson points to the companies' repeated convictions and fines as evidence of the necessity of laws barring lawbreaking corporations from receiving government contracts [see "Crime Doesn't Pay," Multinational Monitor, May 1990]. "This [settlement] gives citizens' groups energy to press for 'bad boy' laws nationwide," says Hutson. "Ultimately that will be the most effective deterrent to corporate crime." -Nadav Savio ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- [] MULTINATIONAL MONITOR Jan/Feb 1991 VOLUME 12, NUMBERS 1 & 2, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991 Selling Deadly Spirits THE HYPE ABOUT THE WAR ON DRUGS is obscuring a major threat to the black community. As John Miller of the Institute on Black Chemical Abuse (IBCA) notes, alcohol "does more damage to the African-American community than any [illicit] drug." And, due in large part to the massive and cynical marketing ploys of the major alcohol companies, alcohol-related diseases afflict a far greater number of blacks than whites. Blacks make up only 12 percent of the U.S. population, yet they account for 18 percent of the clients in alcohol treatment programs. Blacks in the United States are twice as likely as whites to die of chronic liver disease. IBCA links alcohol to social problems in the black community ranging from spouse and child abuse to crime and homicide. The alcoholic beverage industry ignores this high toll and bombards African-Americans with advertisements that associate beer and liquor with sexuality and success. In a recently released video, "Marketing Booze to Blacks," which was jointly produced by IBCA and the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Michael Jacobson, CSPI's executive director, charges, "Alcohol producers spend more than $2 billion each year promoting America's drug of choice and continue to target a community that already has disproportionately high rates of alcohol-related problems." The proportion of alcohol ads in black-oriented magazines is much greater than in general circulation magazines. In these ads, alcohol is portrayed as glamorous and sexy and as a way to attract women, achieve success and gain access to "mainstream" society. Miller says that alcohol advertisements promise "a share in the American dream by the use of a product," sending out the message that wine coolers and beers are magic potions with the power to transform the lives of their consumers. Youth are especially vulnerable to this message, Miller claims. Alberta Tinsley-Williams founded Detroit's Coalition Against Billboard Advertising of Alcohol and Tobacco (CABAAT) after an ad for Wild Irish Rose, which included a photograph of a nearly naked woman, was placed near a church and a home for runaway teenagers. "Our children don't need to see this," says Tinsley- Williams. She resents marketers who target neighborhoods in which people aren't likely to be organized and asserts that residents of middle- and upper-income areas "wouldn't stand for" graphic, sexist images being splashed across their communities. The alcoholic beverages pushed by advertisements targeting blacks tend to be more potent than those aimed at white audiences. Malt liquor contains 20 to 100 percent more alcohol than regular beer and is marketed almost exclusively to Latinos and blacks. A brochure sent to retailers by the manufacturers of Olde English "800" malt liquor makes the racist marketing strategy shockingly clear: the product is said to have a "smooth, mellow taste brewed for relatively high alcohol content (important to the Ethnic market!)." Tinsley-Williams expresses disgust at the marketing methods of alcohol producers aimed at poor communities in which people receive "the least amount of education, the least amount of medical care [and] are likely to be unemployed." She asks, "How can you target people for addictive products that contribute to their demise?" -Holley Knaus