“Working the System”—유럽연합조약 및 정책의 적용에 대한 브리티시 아메리칸 토바코(British American Tobacco)사의  영향력. 담배산업 내부 문건 분석

영국 배스(Bath)대학과 에든버러(Edinburg)대학 연구자들이 PLoS Med 최신호에 기고한 논문입니다. 요약문은 아래에 있구요… 원문은 첨부파일에 있습니다. (모두 714개에 달하는 브리티시 아메리칸 토바코(British American Tobacco)사의 내부문건을 분석했으므로 총 17쪽의 논문 중 300개의 참고문헌 목록이 6쪽이나 됩니다, 저자 요약문 1쪽, 편집자 요약문 1쪽을 제외하면 본문은 9쪽 정도의 분량입니다.)

이 논문을 소개한 연합뉴스의 기사도 아래에 있습니다.

================================

“EU 정책결정 담배회사가 좌지우지”

출처 : 연합뉴스 2010/01/12 15:35 송고
 
(런던 로이터 = 연합뉴스) 세계 제2위의 담배제조회사인 브리티시 아메리칸 토바코(BAT)가 화학, 석유, 식품회사들과 손잡고 유럽연합(EU)의 정책이 사람들의 건강에 나쁜 영향을 미치더라도 기업들에 유리한 쪽으로 결정되도록 영향력을 행사했다고 과학자들이 12일 지적했다.

   영국의 배스대학과 애든버러 대학 과학자들은 이날 과학잡지인 `공공과학도서관(PLoS)-메디신(의학)’에 기고한 글에서 지난 1995년부터 BAT와 화학분야 대기업 등이 네트워크를 구성, 로비 등을 통해 EU가 현재와 같이 기업에 편향된 정책 영향평가 체제를 갖추도록 하는 데 성공했다는 점을 뒷받침하는 증거가 있다고 주장했다.

   현재 유럽연합은 사실상 모든 정책제안에 대해 경제, 사회, 환경 등에 미칠 잠재적 영향을 미리 점검하는 영향평가를 받도록 돼 있으며 이 영향평가는 어떤 방법을 사용하느냐에 따라 그 결과가 달라지는 데 BAT 등은 경제적 영향에 초점을 맞춘 평가 도구를 사용하도록 함으로써 현재의 영향평가 제도를 기업에 유리하게 만들었다는 것이다.

   기업들이 이처럼 EU의 정책이 결정되는 방식을 근본적으로 바꾸는 데 성공함으로써 EU는 건강에 유해한 제품을 만드는 기업을 포함, 대기업들의 이익확대에 도움이 되는 방향으로 정책을 결정할 가능성이 커졌다고 배스 대학의 캐서린 스미스는 이 기고문에서 밝혔다.

   과학자들은 BAT 등이 자신들이 직접 나서지 않고 제3자인 싱크탱크나 컨설턴트 등을 내세워 로비를 펼쳤기 때문에 EU 관리들은 BAT 등의 영향력을 잘 인식하지 못했다고 덧붙였다.

   이 과학자들은 금연캠페인 단체인 SFP(Smoke Free Partnerspip)와 영국 암연구회로부터 연구자금을 받았으며 유럽의 규제개혁에 영향을 미치려는 시도에 대한 정보를 담고 있는 BAT의 내부문서 700여건을 분석하고 이와 관련된 유럽연합 정책결정자들과 로비스트들을 면담해 얻은 결과가 이 보고서에 담겨 있다고 밝혔다.

==============================

“Working the System”—British American Tobacco’s Influence on the European Union Treaty and Its Implications for Policy: An Analysis of Internal Tobacco Industry Documents (원문 전문은 첨부파일 참조)

출처 :  PLoS Med 7(1): e1000202. (January 12, 2010)
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000202

Katherine E. Smith1*, Gary Fooks1, Jeff Collin2, Heide Weishaar2, Sema Mandal1, Anna B. Gilmore1,3

1 School for Health, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom, 2 Centre for International Public Health Policy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 3 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom

Abstract(원문 전문은 첨부파일 참조)

Background

Impact assessment (IA) of all major European Union (EU) policies is now mandatory. The form of IA used has been criticised for favouring corporate interests by overemphasising economic impacts and failing to adequately assess health impacts. Our study sought to assess how, why, and in what ways corporations, and particularly the tobacco industry, influenced the EU’s approach to IA.

Methods and Findings

In order to identify whether industry played a role in promoting this system of IA within the EU, we analysed internal documents from British American Tobacco (BAT) that were disclosed following a series of litigation cases in the United States. We combined this analysis with one of related literature and interviews with key informants. Our analysis demonstrates that from 1995 onwards BAT actively worked with other corporate actors to successfully promote a business-oriented form of IA that favoured large corporations. It appears that BAT favoured this form of IA because it could advance the company’s European interests by establishing ground rules for policymaking that would: (i) provide an economic framework for evaluating all policy decisions, implicitly prioritising costs to businesses; (ii) secure early corporate involvement in policy discussions; (iii) bestow the corporate sector with a long-term advantage over other actors by increasing policymakers’ dependence on information they supplied; and (iv) provide businesses with a persuasive means of challenging potential and existing legislation. The data reveal that an ensuing lobbying campaign, largely driven by BAT, helped secure binding changes to the EU Treaty via the Treaty of Amsterdam that required EU policymakers to minimise legislative burdens on businesses. Efforts subsequently focused on ensuring that these Treaty changes were translated into the application of a business orientated form of IA (cost–benefit analysis [CBA]) within EU policymaking procedures. Both the tobacco and chemical industries have since employed IA in apparent attempts to undermine key aspects of European policies designed to protect public health.

Conclusions
Our findings suggest that BAT and its corporate allies have fundamentally altered the way in which all EU policy is made by making a business-oriented form of IA mandatory. This increases the likelihood that the EU will produce policies that advance the interests of major corporations, including those that produce products damaging to health, rather than in the interests of its citizens. Given that the public health community, focusing on health IA, has largely welcomed the increasing policy interest in IA, this suggests that urgent consideration is required of the ways in which IA can be employed to undermine, as well as support, effective public health policies.

Please see later in the article for the Editors’ Summary

Citation: Smith KE, Fooks G, Collin J, Weishaar H, Mandal S, et al. (2010) “Working the System”—British American Tobacco’s Influence on the European Union Treaty and Its Implications for Policy: An Analysis of Internal Tobacco Industry Documents. PLoS Med 7(1): e1000202. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000202

Academic Editor: Elizabeth Smith, University of California San Francisco, United States of America

Received: February 5, 2009; Accepted: November 4, 2009; Published: January 12, 2010

Copyright: © 2010 Smith et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: This work was supported by the Smoke Free Partnership (SFP) through a CR-UK grant (CR-UK is one of the SFP partners [www.cancerresearchuk.org]), the others being the European Respiratory Society (ERS at www.ersnet.org), and the Institut National du Cancer (INCa at www.e-cancer.fr). The funders had no influence on the research design, data collection, data interpretation or the writing of this article. AG is supported by a Health Foundation Clinician Scientist Award. GF is supported by the National Cancer Institute of the United States National Institutes of Health [grant number: 2 R01 CA091021-05].

Competing interests: JC and ABG were part of a WHO Tobacco Free Initiative (TFI) Expert Committee convened to develop recommendations on how to address tobacco industry interference with tobacco control policy, and as such my travel to a meeting in Washington D.C. was reimbursed by WHO TFI.

Abbreviations: BAT, British American Tobacco; BIA, business impact assessment; CBA, cost benefit analysis; CBI, Confederation of British Industry; DG, Directorate General; EPC, European Policy Centre; ETS, environmental tobacco smoke; EU, European Union; FRC, Fair Regulation Campaign; HIA, health impact assessment; IA, impact assessment; IBEC, Irish Business and Employers Federation; ICI, Imperial Chemical Industries; PPU, Public Policy Unit; RA, risk assessment; REACH, Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical Substances; RIA, regulatory impact assessment; TMA, Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association; UNICE, the Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe (now known as BusinessEurope)

* E-mail: K.Smith@bath.ac.uk