A strong global tobacco treaty (FCTC) would be a catalyst for international tobacco control by providing minimum standards. But while strong international standards would help states and cities adopt effective policies in line with a strong FCTC, a weak treaty would be detrimental to local, US tobacco control efforts.

The FCTC will be seen as the international standard and could make tougher local and national tobacco control laws vulnerable to a challenge under international trade rules, including the World Trade Organization. Similarly, tobacco corporations could use FCTC rules to argue against states or countries adopting new rules that are more stringent than those in the FCTC.

A weak treaty could prevent progress on tobacco control on a national level by setting low standards. For example, it would make it more difficult to ban all tobacco advertising in the US as well as a ban on the use of misleading terms as "light" and "mild."

The tobacco industry has a long history of using trade law as a tool to challenge or block tobacco control policies, often with the US government's support. Transnational tobacco companies can legally challenge tobacco control laws as violations of trade agreements that place them at a competitive disadvantage. For example, the liberalization of tobacco trade forced open markets in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand. Cigarette consumption subsequently increased 10 percent.

1. Philip Morris threatened to challenge Canada's proposed ban on the terms "light" and "mild" by claiming a violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and an international agreement on patents and trademarks.

2. In May 2002, health authorities in Thailand moved to place graphic warnings on the covers of cigarette packets. Philip Morris tried to block the move, claiming the health ministry requirements would infringe on its freedom of speech and that trademark rights were violated based on the World Trade Organization's trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights agreement.

Currently, the US proposes that governments provide "adequate protection" from secondhand tobacco smoke in public places, on public transport and in indoor work places. "Adequate protection" is ill defined and open to misinterpretation, and the tobacco industry could use this to their advantage. For example, tobacco companies could sue California, arguing that the California Smokefree Workplace Law is discriminatory in the face of the FCTC and therefore have to be repealed or pay damages.

In 2001, US trade officials pressured South Korea not to raise the tariff on foreign cigarettes by 40 percent citing unfair trade issues - despite the fact that higher taxes on cigarettes means less smokers:
"For us it was a clear case of fairness and discrimination with no basis in health and safety issues," said Rich Mills, a spokesman for the US trade office. Added Ari Fleischer, White House spokesman: "It was a straight trade issue."