Publication:
Success counteracting tobacco company interference in Thailand: An example of FCTC implementation for low- and middle-income countries

dc.contributor.authorNaowarut Charoencaen_US
dc.contributor.authorJeremiah Mocken_US
dc.contributor.authorNipapun Kungskulnitien_US
dc.contributor.authorSunida Preechawongen_US
dc.contributor.authorNicholas Kojetinen_US
dc.contributor.authorStephen L. Hamannen_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherOsaka Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherChulalongkorn Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherIndiana Universityen_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-06-11T04:49:55Z
dc.date.available2018-06-11T04:49:55Z
dc.date.issued2012-04-01en_US
dc.description.abstractTransnational tobacco companies (TTCs) interfere regularly in policymaking in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The WHO Framework Convention for Tobacco Control provides mechanisms and guidance for dealing with TTC interference, but many countries still face 'how to' challenges of implementation. For more than two decades, Thailand's public health community has been developing a system for identifying and counteracting strategies TTCs use to derail, delay and undermine tobacco control policymaking. Consequently, Thailand has already implemented most of the FCTC guidelines for counteracting TTC interference. In this study, our aims are to describe strategies TTCs have used in Thailand to interfere in policymaking, and to examine how the public health community in Thailand has counteracted TTC interference. We analyzed information reported by three groups with a stake in tobacco control policies: Thai tobacco control advocates, TTCs, and international tobacco control experts. To identify TTC viewpoints and strategies, we also extracted information from internal tobacco industry documents. We synthesized these data and identified six core strategies TTCs use to interfere in tobacco control policymaking: (1) doing business with 'two faces', (2) seeking to influence people in high places, (3) 'buying' advocates in grassroots organizations, (4) putting up a deceptive front, (5) intimidation, and (6) undermining controls on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. We present three case examples showing where TTCs have employed multiple interference strategies simultaneously, and showing how Thai tobacco control advocates have successfully counteracted those strategies by: (1) conducting vigilant surveillance, (2) excluding tobacco companies from policymaking, (3) restricting tobacco company sales, (4) sustaining pressure, and (5) dedicating resources to the effective enforcement of regulations. Policy implications from this study are that tobacco control advocates in LMICs may be able to develop countermeasures similar to those we identified in Thailand based on FCTC guidelines to limit TTC interference. © 2012 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.en_US
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Vol.9, No.4 (2012), 1111-1134en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/ijerph9041111en_US
dc.identifier.issn16604601en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-84860252643en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/14201
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84860252643&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectEnvironmental Scienceen_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleSuccess counteracting tobacco company interference in Thailand: An example of FCTC implementation for low- and middle-income countriesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84860252643&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections