Davos: Philip Morris voted 3rd worst corporate offender in 2011 Public Eye Awards

The Public Eye Awards mark a critical counterpoint to the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos. Organized since 2000 by Berne Declaration and Friends of the Earth (in 2009 replaced by Greenpeace), Public Eye reminds the corporate world that social and environmental misdeeds have consequences - for the affected people and territory, but also for the reputation of the offender.  (http://www.publiceye.ch)


Does Philip Morris deserve this distinction?  Of course!  


When a private multinational company sues a government (particularly from a low and middle income country like Uruguay) because it passed legislation to protect the health of its citizens, there should be no doubt as to the vileness of that company and the public shame that it deserves.  


What exactly did the Uruguay government do?  It required tobacco companies to print pictorial health warnings on tobacco packages, which occupy 80% of the front and back of such packages.  It also prohibited brand variants, which mislead consumers into thinking that one brand variant may be safer than another (e.g. Marlboro Lights is "safer" than regular Marlboro); the scientific evidence clearly shows that "light", "mild", "low-tar", and similar variants are no less safe than other brand variants.


It's common sense really that warning messages should be as large as possible in order to get the attention they deserve.  If we warn people not to enter shark-infested water or high-voltage electrical facilities, or to not drink poisonous acid, aren't the warning signs usually as large as possible, as legible as possible, as colorful as possible?


And if a law prohibits a company from selling "mild" or "milder" poison as compared to "regular" poison, isn't it justified by common sense?

So imagine a private company like Philip Morris (that earns more in a year than some countries' GDP) thinking that just because it has money, it can boss entire governments around.  Fortunately, the Uruguay constitutional court decided against Philip Morris and upheld the constitutionality of Uruguay's tobacco control law.


This reminds me of similar cases in the Philippines.  In five separate courts, Philip Morris, Fortune Tobacco, Might Corporation, Japan Tobacco, and La Suerte all filed cases against the Philippine Department of Health in order to stop the implementation of a DOH order requiring 60% pictorial warnings on tobacco packs.  Recently, five former DOH secretaries asked the Supreme Court to allow them to intervene in support of the DOH order, while late last year, former senator and DOH secretary Juan Flavier, together with over a hundred other complainants filed a case against all the tobacco companies and asked the court to uphold the DOH order.  


http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?title=Former%20Health%20chiefs%20seek%20court%20ruling%20on%20cigarette%20warning&id=24657


http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/sim/sim/view/20101106-301793/The-Doctor-Is-Still-In


Let's pray that justice is indeed blind to the influence of the tobacco lobby, so that soon, Filipinos will be provided with truthful information about tobacco harms, while Uruguayans will continue to benefit from their large anti-tobacco health warnings.

Related articles

• DAVOS-Prize for worst company awarded on fringes of WEF (reuters.com)