Eric Crosbie1, George Thomson2. 1. Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, CA. 2. Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington.
Abstract
AIMS: To describe the process of enacting tobacco standardised packaging (SP) amidst tobacco industry legal threats in New Zealand. METHODS: Relevant government and NGO documents, and media items were reviewed. Policymakers and health advocates in New Zealand were interviewed. The data were triangulated and thematically analysed. RESULTS: In 2011, the New Zealand Government announced the goal of becoming a smokefree country (reducing smoking prevalence to 5%) by the year 2025, and considered adopting SP. In April 2012, the Government announced it would introduce SP, but tobacco companies threatened the Government with litigation in international courts for violating investment and intellectual property rights. In response, the Government adopted a 'wait and see' approach, waiting until two legal challenges against Australia's SP law were resolved before it enacted its legislation in September 2016. Health advocates, limited due to funding constraints, attempted to alter the Government's approach to the legal threats without success. Interviews with policymakers and health advocates confirmed these threats helped produce a regulatory chill, delaying the policymaking process by three years. CONCLUSION: The New Zealand case illustrates how the threat of a potential international lawsuit can create a chilling effect by helping delay the implementation of public health policies.
AIMS: To describe the process of enacting tobacco standardised packaging (SP) amidst tobacco industry legal threats in New Zealand. METHODS: Relevant government and NGO documents, and media items were reviewed. Policymakers and health advocates in New Zealand were interviewed. The data were triangulated and thematically analysed. RESULTS: In 2011, the New Zealand Government announced the goal of becoming a smokefree country (reducing smoking prevalence to 5%) by the year 2025, and considered adopting SP. In April 2012, the Government announced it would introduce SP, but tobacco companies threatened the Government with litigation in international courts for violating investment and intellectual property rights. In response, the Government adopted a 'wait and see' approach, waiting until two legal challenges against Australia'sSP law were resolved before it enacted its legislation in September 2016. Health advocates, limited due to funding constraints, attempted to alter the Government's approach to the legal threats without success. Interviews with policymakers and health advocates confirmed these threats helped produce a regulatory chill, delaying the policymaking process by three years. CONCLUSION: The New Zealand case illustrates how the threat of a potential international lawsuit can create a chilling effect by helping delay the implementation of public health policies.
Authors: Marwah M Hassounah; Abdulmohsen H Al-Zalabani; Mohammed D AlAhmari; Afraa A Murriky; Anwar M Makeen; Abdullah M M Alanazi Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-04-13 Impact factor: 3.390