Dear Editor
It is deeply unethical that BAT has taken African countries to court to dilute their efforts to protect their populations’ health from tobacco. These countries are still fighting infectious diseases and face a double burden of poor health as a result of non-communicable diseases, with very limited budgets to deal with these.
According to the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights in the context of business activities (June 2017), these countries are obliged to protect their public’s health, and this includes regulating to restrict marketing and advertising of harmful products such as tobacco.
BAT is headquartered in the UK, so the UK is required to take the necessary steps to prevent human rights violations abroad and it is “contradictory to remain passive where the conduct of an entity may lead to foreseeable harm”.
Moreover, “extraterritorial obligation to protect requires the UK to take steps to prevent and redress infringements of rights that occur outside their territories due to the activities of business entities over which they can exercise control.”
If the UK does not fulfil its extraterritorial responsibility to protect future smokers in Africa, it is possible that it could be liable for damages when many develop cancer, heart disease and strokes. It is incoherent to give British aid for healthcare to these countries while at the same time a UK company is promoting harmful products that diminish people’s right to health.
On a related subject, British MP pension fund, the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund (PCPF), invests in BAT and some UK local authority pensions invest large sums in the tobacco industry which many already consider unethical even before the article in the Guardian.
Dr Bernadette O’Hare
University of Malawi and University of St Andrews