Thow Anne Marie, McGrady Benn
Menzies Centre for Health Policy, Victor Coppleson Building, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia .
O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, United States of America .
Bull World Health Organ. 2014 Feb 1;92(2):139-45. doi: 10.2471/BLT.13.120543. Epub 2013 Oct 4.
Philip Morris has recently brought claims against Australia (2011) and Uruguay (2010) under international investment agreements (IIAs). The claims allege that Philip Morris is entitled to compensation following the introduction of innovative tobacco packaging regulations to reduce smoking and prevent noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). Since tobacco control measures are often viewed as a model for public health nutrition measures, the claims raise the question of how investment law governs the latter. This paper begins to answer this question and to explain how governments can proactively protect policy space for public health nutrition in an era of expanding IIAs. The authors first consider the main interventions proposed to reduce diet-related NCDs and their intersection with investment in the food supply chain. They then review the nature of investment regimes and relevant case law and examine ways to maximize policy space for public health nutrition intervention within this legal context. As foreign investment increases across the food-chain and more global recommendations discouraging the consumption of unhealthful products are issued, investment law will increase in importance as part of the legal architecture governing the food supply. The implications of investment law for public health nutrition measures depend on various factors: the measures themselves, the terms of the applicable agreements, the conditions surrounding the foreign investment and the policies governing agricultural support. This analysis suggests that governments should adopt proactive measures--e.g. the clarification of terms and reliance on exceptions--to manage investment and protect their regulatory autonomy with respect to public health nutrition.
菲利普·莫里斯公司最近依据国际投资协定（IIAs）对澳大利亚（2011年）和乌拉圭（2010年）提起了诉讼。这些诉讼称，在引入创新性烟草包装法规以减少吸烟和预防非传染性疾病（NCDs）之后，菲利普·莫里斯公司有权获得赔偿。由于烟草控制措施常常被视为公共卫生营养措施的典范，这些诉讼引发了一个问题，即投资法如何管控后者。本文开始回答这一问题，并解释在国际投资协定不断增加的时代，政府如何能够积极主动地保护公共卫生营养的政策空间。作者首先考虑为减少与饮食相关的非传染性疾病而提议的主要干预措施及其与食品供应链投资的交叉点。然后，他们审视投资制度的性质和相关判例法，并研究在这一法律背景下如何最大限度地为公共卫生营养干预争取政策空间。随着外资在整个食品链中的增加，以及更多不鼓励消费不健康产品的全球建议的发布，投资法作为管理食品供应的法律架构的一部分，其重要性将会增加。投资法对公共卫生营养措施的影响取决于多种因素：措施本身、适用协定的条款、外国投资的周边条件以及农业支持政策。这一分析表明，政府应采取积极主动的措施——例如明确条款并依靠例外情况——来管理投资，并保护其在公共卫生营养方面的监管自主权。
