“Accommodating” smoke-free policies: tobacco industry’s Courtesy of Choice programme in Latin America

Abstract

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.

Socioeconomic Patterning in Tobacco Use in Argentina, 2005

“…Tobacco is the number one preventable cause of death worldwide, killing 1 in 10 adults (Ezzati and Lopez, 2003;Mathers and Loncar, 2006 and Glantz, 2007a;Stebbins, 2001). Accusations against the industry include that has ignored the science on secondhand smoke, employed ineffective "youth smoking prevention" campaigns to boost its public image, promoted smuggling, and influenced government officials to weaken tobacco control (Aguinaga Bialous and Shatenstein, 2002;Sebrie and Glantz, 2007b).…”

Environmental Influences on Tobacco Use: Evidence from Societal and Community Influences on Tobacco Use and Dependence

“…It can be assumed that the tobacco industry is working to counteract the FCTC by using its economic power and influence to lead governments to adopt policies that, although compliant with the FCTC, are actually ineffective (Schick & Glantz 2007, Sebrié & Glantz 2007. Thus, it is more critical than ever that researchers work to amass a strong body of evidence from methodologically sound evaluation to provide true evidence-based guidance to governments regarding the kinds of policies and programs that will be effective in reducing tobacco use.…”

Protecting the World From Secondhand Tobacco Smoke Exposure: Where Do We Stand and Where Do We Go From Here?

“…Separation of smokers from nonsmokers, ventilation systems, air cleaning, and filtration are all ineffective strategies to eliminate SHS exposure and its harmful effects. The tobacco industry has been supporting each of these ineffective strategies, especially the accommodation strategy, at different levels worldwide (Aguinaga Bialous, Pressman, Gigliotti, Muggli, & Hurt, 2010; Campbell & Balbach, 2011;Dearlove, Bialous, & Glantz, 2002;Drope, Bialous, & Glantz, 2004;Sebrie & Glantz, 2007). Increasing evidence also indicates that SHS can infiltrate from separated smoking into nonsmoking areas in multifamily dwellings (Bohac, Hewett, Hammond, & Grimsrud, 2011;King, Travers, Cummings, Mahoney, & Hyland, 2010;Kraev, Adamkiewicz, Hammond, & Spengler, 2009).…”