"Accommodating" smoke-free policies: tobacco industry's Courtesy of Choice programme in Latin America

Objective

To understand the implementation and effects of the Courtesy of Choice programme designed to “accommodate” smokers as an alternative to smoke‐free polices developed by Philip Morris International (PMI) and supported by RJ Reynolds (RJR) and British American Tobacco (BAT) since the mid‐1990s in Latin America.

Methods

Analysis of internal tobacco industry documents, BAT “social reports”, news reports and tobacco control legislation.

Results

Since the mid‐1990s, PMI, BAT and RJR promoted Accommodation Programs to maintain the social acceptability of smoking. As in other parts of the world, multinational tobacco companies partnered with third party allies from the hospitality industry in Latin America. The campaign was extended from the hospitality industry (bars, restaurants and hotels) to other venues such as workplaces and airport lounges. A local public relations agency, as well as a network of engineers and other experts in ventilation systems, was hired to promote the tobacco industry''s programme. The most important outcome of these campaigns in several countries was the prevention of meaningful smoke‐free policies, both in public places and in workplaces.

Conclusions

Courtesy of Choice remains an effective public relations campaign to undermine smoke‐free policies in Latin America. The tobacco companies'' accommodation campaign undermines the implementation of measures to protect people from second‐hand smoke called for by the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, perpetuating the exposure to tobacco smoke in indoor enclosed environments.Latin Americans are highly exposed to second‐hand tobacco smoke (SHS) both in public places and in workplaces.^1,2 In 2001, the Pan American Health Organization launched its “Smoke Free Americas” initiative³ to “raise awareness of the harm caused by secondhand tobacco smoke, and support efforts to achieve more smoke‐free environments in the Americas.” There is longstanding strong public concern over the effects of SHS in Latin America. In 1997, research conducted for Philip Morris International (PMI) showed that about 80% of respondents in four Latin American countries agreed that “Other people''s tobacco smoke poses a long term health risk to nonsmokers.”⁴ These results reflect a stronger consensus that SHS is hazardous than Philip Morris (PM) found in the US in 1989—62% of non‐smokers and 32% of smokers—as the movement for smoke‐free workplaces and public places was beginning to accelerate them.⁵ A 2001 survey conducted for the World Health Organization (WHO) in the main urban areas of Argentina showed strong public support (94%; 96% non‐smokers and 89% smokers) for the creation of smoke‐free places to avoid SHS.⁶ Public opinion polls conducted in 2006 in Argentina⁷ and Uruguay⁸ reported that 92% of respondents agreed that “SHS is dangerous for nonsmokers'' health”, showing an increase in public concern about SHS by 12% since 1997.The main barrier to progress in implementing smoke‐free policies in Latin America has been the efforts by two transnational tobacco companies, PMI and British American Tobacco (BAT), which control almost the entire cigarette market in the region through their subsidiaries (PMI 40%, BAT 60%). Similar to the voluntary self‐regulating advertising codes, which the tobacco companies use to fight restrictions on tobacco advertising,^9,10 the tobacco industry has orchestrated public relations campaigns in Latin America since the mid‐1990s to avoid legislated smoke‐free policies.^11,12 As in the US, beginning in the late 1980s,¹¹ this effort mobilised the hospitality industry to block meaningful tobacco control legislation to preserve the social acceptability of smoking and to protect industry profits. These programmes, known as Accommodation in the US and Courtesy of Choice in most parts of the rest of the world,^11,13,14,15 encourage the voluntary creation of smoking and non‐smoking sections in the hospitality industry as an alternative to legislation requiring 100% smoke‐free environments. Also, as in the US, the tobacco industry sought to present ventilation as the “solution” to SHS.¹⁶As of April 2007, 12 Latin American countries (Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela) had ratified the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). The FCTC, the first international public health treaty, calls for the implementation of “effective legislative, executive, administrative or other measures … at the appropriate governmental level to protect all persons from exposure to tobacco smoke” (Article 4.1) “in indoor workplaces, public transport, indoor public places and, as appropriate, other public places.” (Article 8).¹⁷ Given the fact that the only truly effective protection from SHS is the creation of 100% smoke‐free environments,¹⁸ in 2003, Venezuela approved a state law (in Monagas¹⁹) and between 2005 and 2006, Argentina passed and regulated two provincial laws (in Santa Fe and Tucumán) to establish 100% smoke‐free public places and workplaces. In March 2006, Uruguay became the first 100% smoke‐free country in the Americas. In response to this movement, one can expect the tobacco industry to accelerate its Accommodation efforts as a way of undermining such effective smoke‐free policies to implement FCTC.