Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28336521›Full record

ArticleTobacco control2018

Defending strong tobacco packaging and labelling regulations in Uruguay: transnational tobacco control network versus Philip Morris International.

Eric Crosbie, Particia Sosa, Stanton A Glantz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco control, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Commercial determinants of health: an ethical exploration.International journal of public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Addressing Legal Risks in Public Health Communication Campaigns.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 'Tobacco control · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Eric CrosbieCenter for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Particia SosaInternational Advocacy Center, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, Washington, DC, USA.
Stanton A GlantzCenter for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.

Funding

ANALYSIS OF TOBACCO INDUSTRY DOCUMENTSR01CA087472 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LING, PAMELA MAY · 2000 to 2018
$12.5M
Postdoctoral training in tobacco controlR25CA113710 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI GLANTZ, STANTON ARNOLD · 2006 to 2015
$5.4M
Postdoctoral training in tobacco controlT32CA113710 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LING, PAMELA MAY · 2016 to 2020
$2.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA087472NCI NIH HHS R25 CA113710NCI NIH HHS T32 CA113710
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDescribe the process of enacting and defending strong tobacco packaging and labelling regulations in Uruguay amid Philip Morris International's (PMI) legal threats and challenges.

methodsTriangulated government legislation, news sources and interviews with policy-makers and health advocates in Uruguay.

resultsIn 2008 and 2009, the Uruguayan government enacted at the time the world's largest pictorial health warning labels (80% of front and back of package) and prohibited different packaging or presentations for cigarettes sold under a given brand. PMI threatened to sue Uruguay in international courts if these policies were implemented. The Vazquez administration maintained the regulations, but a week prior to President Vazquez's successor, President Mujica, took office on 1 March 2010 PMI announced its intention to file an investment arbitration dispute against Uruguay in the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes. Initially, the Mujica administration announced it would weaken the regulations to avoid litigation. In response, local public health groups in Uruguay enlisted former President Vazquez and international health groups and served as brokers to develop a collaboration with the Mujica administration to defend the regulations. This united front between the Uruguayan government and the transnational tobacco control network paid off when Uruguay defeated PMI's investment dispute in July 2016.

conclusionTo replicate Uruguay's success, other countries need to recognise that strong political support, an actively engaged local civil society and financial and technical support are important factors in overcoming tobacco industry's legal threats to defend strong public health regulations.

Indexed as

Government RegulationLobbyingProduct LabelingProduct PackagingTobacco IndustryTobacco ProductsUruguayAdvocacyLitigationLow/Middle income countryPackaging and LabellingTobacco industry

Identifiers

PMID28336521
PMCPMC5610601

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.