Overcoming tobacco industry opposition to standardized packaging in the Americas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Countries in the Region of the Americas have been slow to adopt standardized packaging of tobacco products. The objectives of this analysis are to report on the progress made in adopting such packaging in countries in the Region, review known tobacco industry strategies for opposing these policies and discuss the resources available to academics, advocates and policy-makers who might be interested in advancing the use of standardized packaging in the Region. Of the 23 countries worldwide that have fully adopted standardized packaging laws, only 2 are in the Region (Canada and Uruguay). Six other countries (Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico and Panama) have tried to introduce standardized packaging through draft bills, all of which have been delayed or withdrawn. There are indications that the tobacco industry has used its playbook of arguments to oppose the policy in those countries, including allegations that standardized packaging breaches national laws and international treaties protecting intellectual property, alongside threats of litigation. It is possible that these threats and allegations may have had a greater effect in the Region because of the lengthy (6 years) and costly (legal fees of US$ 10 million) international investment arbitration brought by Philip Morris International against Uruguay's strong tobacco packaging laws. However, all of the industry's arguments have been debunked, and national courts and international legal forums have upheld standardized packaging as a lawful policy. Governments in the Region of the Americas should follow the examples of Canada and Uruguay and reject the industry's false arguments and litigation threats. This analysis discusses some of the financial and technical resources that can assist them.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".