Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 26/9/2019 (282 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.
Global cities like New York and London were among the first to pioneer effective tobacco control policies — such as smoke-free workplaces, public cessation services and higher tobacco taxes.
These life-saving policies were so successful that an international treaty called the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control was negotiated in 2003 to promote similar evidence-based policies throughout the world. Until recently, many assumed the 181 countries that ratified the treaty had benefitted from it.
This month we published new research in the British Medical Journal showing that a pre-existing decline in global cigarette consumption was not accelerated by this international tobacco control treaty.
Worse yet, our depressing findings show that while people are smoking less in richer countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, tobacco consumption is rising by over 500 cigarettes per adult in poorer countries such as China, Indonesia and Vietnam.
These unexpected results raise two important questions: what could explain these global disparities in tobacco control, and what can be done to address them?
Global disparities may largely be explained by shifting economic trends and governments’ different capabilities in implementing tobacco control policies.
Rapidly growing metropolises, including Beijing, Jakarta and Ho Chi Minh City, have not had the same success in protecting their residents against the dangers of tobacco as the richer early-adopting cities.
As a result, these cities will lose billions of dollars in lost productivity and health-care expenditures, and the number one preventable cause of premature death will grow worse every year for hundreds of millions of people.
Yet these emerging cities are not necessarily themselves to blame. Our research, when combined with past studies on the tobacco industry, provides some of the first quantitative evidence for what economists would call an "equilibrium effect" in the tobacco market — whereby the implementation of tobacco control policies in richer countries incentivized tobacco companies to relocate their lobbying, marketing and promotion activities to poorer countries with far less stringent policies.
In fact, there is a tragic irony to this story: the oligopolies dominating the global tobacco market are all headquartered in the very cities that pioneered the tobacco control policies, and these policies now drive industry operations to emerging cities with far fewer protections against this deadly product.
Phillip Morris in New York. British American Tobacco and Imperial Tobacco in London. Japan Tobacco in Tokyo. Not only are these publicly traded companies leveraging capital from wealthy investors in these cities to worsen the tobacco epidemic abroad, they are repatriating billions of dollars back into these wealthy cities through systemic tax avoidance and international smuggling coordinated at the highest levels — all while aggressively fighting against effective tobacco control policies around the world.
Our research demonstrates that the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control has not yet led to equitable protection against the harms of tobacco for the great cities of the world.
By 2044 there will be twice as many people living in the world’s cities as in rural areas, meaning we cannot leave any city behind if we have any hope of defeating the global tobacco epidemic.
The next stage of this long war must be fought city by city. Whether that means raising tobacco taxes in Beijing, curtailing industry marketing in Jakarta, requiring plain tobacco packaging in Ho Chi Minh City or taking legal action in New York and London — we all have a role to play in fighting to prevent the one billion deaths that are expected from tobacco in the 21st century.
Steven J. Hoffman is director of the Global Strategy Lab and a professor of global health, law and political science and Mathieu Poirier is an assistant professor of soclal epidemiology at York University.
This article was first published at The Conversation Canada: theconversation.com/ca.
Your support has enabled us to provide free access to stories about COVID-19 because we believe everyone deserves trusted and critical information during the pandemic.
Our readership has contributed additional funding to give Free Press online subscriptions to those that can’t afford one in these extraordinary times — giving new readers the opportunity to see beyond the headlines and connect with other stories about their community.
To those who have made donations, thank you.
To those able to give and share our journalism with others, please Pay it Forward.
The Free Press has shared COVID-19 stories free of charge because we believe everyone deserves access to trusted and critical information during the pandemic.
While we stand by this decision, it has undoubtedly affected our bottom line.
After nearly 150 years of reporting on our city, we don’t want to stop any time soon. With your support, we’ll be able to forge ahead with our journalistic mission.
If you believe in an independent, transparent, and democratic press, please consider subscribing today.
We understand that some readers cannot afford a subscription during these difficult times and invite them to apply for a free digital subscription through our Pay it Forward program.