At the time of the study, Michael Givel was with the Institute for Health Policy Studies versity of California, San Francisco, and the University of Oklahoma, Norman, Okla. Stanton A. antz is with the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, Institute for Health Policy udies, Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco. pondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Stanton A. Glantz, PhD, Tobacco ontrol Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, CA 941431390 eil: cine.ucsf.edu. On June 20, 1997 a group of attorneys and health advocates proposed a global settlement of all public and private litigation against the tobacco industry. This agreement was controversial, and the subsequent implementing legislation was defeated. We sought to determine whether the global settlement represented a missed opportunity or a dead end.We compared the global settlement with subsequent laws, regulations, settlements, and judgments against the tobacco industry and found that other than Food and Drug Administration regulation of tobacco, tobacco control advocates have achieved many of the policies included in the global settlement and several beyond it. The policies that have been developed since 1997 have advanced tobacco control substantially, often beyond the provisions of the global settlement.

Website: http://www.ajph.org/