One of the reasons is theoretical. Businesses can be expected to benefit to the fullest, both in domestic and foreign markets. In general, the possible impact of the MEA on profitability in the internal market is not expected to affect decisions taken in foreign markets. However, in the short term, companies facing a decline in domestic demand could have excess production capacity. Given the short-term marginal cost of cigarette production, there may have been a temporary incentive to increase sales to other countries. However, this assumes that the short-term marginal curve of cigarette production is positively tilted, reflecting capacity constraints, and that other countries have not also implemented tobacco control strategies. Given that there was no increase in demand prior to the MSA implementation date, it seems unlikely that companies faced significant capacity constraints at that time. In some world markets, cigarette consumption has declined, partly due to the introduction of additional tobacco controls (notably in Europe)27,28 It is important to point out that the purpose of this article was to compare global regulation with the situation in 2003. There are several reasons for this approach. For example, the comprehensive agreement was presented as an integrated package negotiated with the intention of implementing it as written.
It was not presented as the starting point for further negotiations. We tried to assess the implications if the proponents of this position had succeeded in implementing global regulation as written. Much of the “loss” since the global comparison has been the inability to reach FDA jurisdiction for tobacco products. While there is a general consensus that the global comparison has created serious procedural problems for the FDA to actually act in this jurisdiction1, many of these issues have been resolved in the bill based on the global comparison sponsored by Senator McCain. On April 2, 1998, the Senate Commerce Committee passed legislation that increased cash payments from $368.5 billion, as originally proposed in the global comparison, to $516 billion. The 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) is an agreement between the attorneys general of 46 states, five U.S. territories, the District of Columbia and the four largest U.S. tobacco companies on advertising, marketing, cigarette advertising, and compensation for health care costs related to tobacco-related diseases.
The MSA also called for the creation of a non-profit organization, the Legacy Foundation, funded by the states of implantation. This foundation was tasked with informing the nation about the social costs, the nature of addiction and the negative health effects of tobacco use. Tobacco comparison agreements have brought fundamental changes in the way tobacco products are promoted, marketed and sold in the United States. The agreements provide for a large number of restrictions on the sale and marketing of cigarettes, including a prohibition on a participating producer taking measures directly or indirectly aimed at young people in advertising, marketing or promoting tobacco products. . . .