The reform to the Glacier Law approved on April 7 did more than weaken a law. It set a troubling precedent: environmental protection standards can be rolled back when they come into conflict with large-scale economic interests. This not only compromises the present, but also undermines the State’s ability to guarantee rights in the future, putting new generations at risk.
From a regulatory perspective, mining activities operate within a framework that combines outdated historical legislation —such as the Mining Code of 1885— with investment promotion regimes —such as Law 24,196— and new economic incentive mechanisms like the Large Investment Incentive Regime (RIGI).
Combined with the weakening of political, regulatory, and institutional environmental protection tools, this creates a scenario that prioritizes attracting investment over protecting common goods and fundamental rights.
The Last Straw
This reform represents a substantial alteration to Argentina’s current environmental protection system, particularly regarding the protection of water as a strategic legal asset.
The existing framework, based on scientific and technical standards and the precautionary principle, had made it possible to establish reasonable common limits on extractive activities in highly fragile ecosystems.
To better understand what is at stake, it is important to recognize that large-scale metal mining, as it currently operates in the country, has a structural dependence on water resources. Large-scale mining depends on water in order to exist and expand. The communities living in these areas do as well. And water is far from an infinite resource.
According to information disclosed in environmental assessment instruments, projects such as Alumbrera in the province of Catamarca —now entering a new reopening phase with estimated extraction levels lower than during its peak years— project water consumption between 3 and 5 million liters per day in their upcoming stages.
If we calculate an —already excessive— consumption of 150 liters of drinking water per person per day, then even in the best-case scenario this project would consume, every single day, the amount of water needed by the entire population of towns such as Agua de Oro in Córdoba, Lago Puelo in Chubut, or Tafí Viejo in Tucumán.
Meanwhile, ongoing operations such as Veladero report water consumption levels close to 9 million liters per day — three times that amount.
Moreover, these levels of use must be analyzed in light of their location: arid or semi-arid regions where water is scarce and strategically critical.
This, and nothing else, explains why disputes over water have existed for decades. Examples include Famatina, Esquel, Andalgalá, Chubut, and Mendoza. Local communities, aware of the importance of this resource for both present survival and future development, organize, educate themselves, and sustain resistance strategies over many years. Because water is essential not only for the survival of communities, but also for sustaining regional microeconomies.
These environmental defenders protect not only water, but also a way of life and a development model that successive governments continue to ignore. Anyone reading this would do the same in their place, because this is about defending their own survival and that of the place where they live.
As resistance grows stronger, the social license required for mining development becomes an increasingly difficult aspiration for companies to achieve.
Irresponsible Mining
Water, essential for the lives of communities, is being made available to the mining agenda promoted by the national government and several provincial governments, which present it as the only development alternative for especially arid regions of the country.
Those defending the reform promise responsible mining and legal certainty for corporations. But what kind of “responsible mining” are we talking about? Which companies are behind this reform?
As is already well known, this reform is the result of mining lobbying by multinational corporations that dominate the sector, including Glencore, Barrick, BHP, and First Quantum Minerals.
Glencore, linked to projects such as MARA in Catamarca and El Pachón in the province of San Juan —and backed by the hedge fund BlackRock— has been criminally convicted for corruption in jurisdictions such as the United States and the United Kingdom. The company also faces multiple proceedings over socio-environmental impacts not only in Argentina but in different parts of the world, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Philippines, and Peru. These allegations range from water contamination to the killing of environmental defenders.
Barrick Gold, for its part, has faced allegations related to human rights and environmental violations, including reports of sexual violence in Papua New Guinea and deaths and violent repression in Tanzania. In 2018, the company received a ruling that included the permanent closure of the Pascua Lama project in Chile after serious breaches involving water resource protection and glacier environments were confirmed.
Likewise, BHP, involved in the development of the Vicuña project, has faced allegations of violations of Indigenous rights and labor rights abuses. The company was responsible for the collapse of the Samarco tailings dam in Brazil in 2015, considered one of the most significant environmental disasters in the region and currently the subject of major international litigation.
Similarly, First Quantum Minerals, promoter of the Taca Taca project in Salta, was involved in a judicial process in Panama that culminated in 2023 when that country’s Supreme Court declared the mining contract unconstitutional for violating multiple constitutional provisions, including environmental protection principles and fundamental rights.
These records cannot be treated as isolated incidents. They are part of a global pattern in which extractive expansion often occurs at the expense of fragile ecosystems, strategic water sources, and community rights.
Faced with companies that dominate the global industry, exert enormous pressure, and relentlessly pursue natural resources, it is impossible to believe that provinces already overwhelmed by economic crisis can effectively protect glaciers, water resources, or build truly sustainable development.
Legal Uncertainty
For these reasons, the debate surrounding the Glacier Law reform was never merely a technical or sector-specific discussion.
This became evident in the massive social mobilization preceding the legislative debate and in the more than 100,000 people registered for the Public Hearing — a hearing that failed to comply with existing regulations and minimum democratic standards.
Furthermore, the reform violated both the principle of progressivity and the precautionary principle, constituting a clearly unconstitutional regression that is likely to trigger dozens of legal actions, ultimately undermining the promised “legal certainty.”
In light of these precedents, claiming that weakening the Glacier Law will pave the way for “responsible” mining is highly questionable. Without strict environmental standards, effective oversight, and genuine community participation, risks do not decrease — they increase.
Continuing to defend the Glacier Law is not opposing development. It is affirming that development cannot be built at the expense of water, territories, and communities.
Author: María Laura Carrizo, Fundeps
Contact: lauracarrizo@fundeps.org
More than 300 Organizations Reject the Possible Repeal of the Front-of-Package Labeling Law
The National Government has submitted to Congress a bill to fully repeal the law popularly known as the “Front-of-Package Labeling Law,” a measure that public health and consumer rights organizations describe as a serious setback for the right to information and the protection of public health.
The bill, signed by President Javier Milei, Chief of Staff Manuel Adorni, and Minister of Health Mario Lugones, argues that the repeal is necessary to reduce “regulatory and economic constraints and harmonize criteria within MERCOSUR.” However, more than 300 civil society and academic organizations reject the initiative because it could eliminate a comprehensive policy specifically designed to protect public health—especially that of children and adolescents—and guarantee consumers’ access to information.
A Direct Attack on the Right to Information and Health
The government’s repeal proposal has sparked deep concern among civil society organizations and the scientific community, which warn that it would leave citizens completely unprotected. Law No. 27,642 not only establishes warning labels on food packaging; it also regulates advertising of ultra-processed products aimed at children, promotes healthy school environments, and prohibits marketing strategies for foods with excessive levels of critical nutrients. Repealing the law would mean immediately dismantling the entire protection system.
Contrary to the Executive Branch’s claims that the system is “inconsistent” or “oversimplified,” several studies conducted by Argentina’s Ministry of Health, UNICEF, and FIC Argentina after the law’s implementation demonstrate that the warning labels work:
Before the law was enacted, according to the 2019 National Nutrition and Health Survey, only 13% of the population was able to interpret the complex traditional nutritional information displayed on the back of packaging. The octagonal warning labels democratized access to information for the entire population, regardless of educational level.
The Fallacy of Regional Harmonization
The Executive’s bill argues that regional harmonization within MERCOSUR is necessary. However, organizations and experts warn that the models currently under discussion in the region are considerably less effective than Argentina’s current system, which is based on the Pan American Health Organization Nutrient Profile Model (NPM), considered the most accurate and protective system in the region.
For example, while the Argentine model rigorously identifies harmful excess sugars in 68% of yogurts on the market, the Uruguayan model only flags 9%, and the Brazilian model a mere 1%. Likewise, the octagonal warning label system has proven to be clearer and more effective than the “magnifying glass” model used in Brazil, better capturing consumers’ attention and promoting substantially healthier purchasing decisions.
“We strongly reject this measure, which represents a direct attack on public health. There are no health or scientific arguments that justify repealing the Labeling Law. Moving forward with this proposal would deprive the population of a simple and effective tool for making informed decisions, and would constitute a serious setback for the right to health and adequate food.”
Academic institutions, public health organizations, and human rights groups are urgently calling on members of the National Congress to prioritize the strong scientific evidence available, firmly reject this attempt at regression, and defend the right to health and transparent information for all people in Argentina.
Contact:
Maga Ailén Merlo Vijarra, magamerlov@fundeps.org
MERCOSUR and Front-of-Pack Labeling: Legal Arguments to Preserve Argentina’s Protection Standards
The Healthy Eating Promotion Law is currently at risk due to the MERCOSUR front-of-pack labeling harmonization process, which threatens to weaken the protection standards achieved in Argentina. This document provides concrete legal tools and arguments for those defending the human rights to health and adequate food. The analysis reviews the constitutional and international principles that require the Argentine State to uphold the current level of protection and examines the compatibility of the octagonal warning label system with international trade law. A technical resource to challenge, on every level, any regulatory rollback
We filed a complaint against the AFA and Vaporesso for illegal electronic cigarette advertising
On March 18, 2026, Vaporesso, a global manufacturer of electronic nicotine delivery devices, and the AFA publicly announced a “strategic partnership” in connection with the 2026 FIFA World Cup. The campaign, titled “Move Beyond Ordinary,” included social media posts, a video featuring images of the Argentine National Team, giveaways of jerseys and World Cup tickets, and the inclusion of the Vaporesso logo on the AFA’s official website as a regional sponsor.
Following criticism from public health experts and civil society organizations, the AFA removed the logo from its website and deleted its social media posts. However, Vaporesso’s campaign remains active on its own digital channels, with unrestricted access from Argentina.
Why it is illegal
Argentina’s National Tobacco Control Law (Law No. 26,687) expressly prohibits the advertising, promotion, and sponsorship of tobacco and nicotine products — including electronic cigarettes — in any media outlet, digital platform, or public event. This prohibition remains fully in force under the new Ministry of Health regulation (Resolution 549/2026): authorizing commercialization does not lift restrictions on advertising and sponsorship.
The complaint is based on four arguments. First, the campaign violates Articles 5 and 8 of Law 26,687, which prohibit brand sponsorship and any form of direct or indirect advertising or promotion of tobacco and nicotine products through any medium accessible in Argentina. Second, the campaign began on March 18, 2026, when ANMAT Provision 3226/2011 was fully in force and categorically prohibited electronic cigarette advertising: the subsequent repeal does not extinguish liability for violations already committed. Third, using sports idols and the symbols of the World Cup-winning National Team to promote harmful products constitutes an abusive and misleading practice that violates the Consumer Protection Law (Law 24,240). Fourth, the campaign contravenes international treaties with constitutional hierarchy — including the Convention on the Rights of the Child — which require the State to protect the health and best interests of children and adolescents against strategies aimed at normalizing the consumption of addictive and harmful products.
“Having a vaping brand sponsor the Argentine National Team and use Messi’s image to sell products to adolescents is illegal. It is also a very clear example of what we have been denouncing for years: the industry systematically violates the law while the State fails to monitor or sanction it. Since Law 26,687 was enacted, the State has not imposed a single sanction for noncompliance. This leads us to the question the Ministry of Health has yet to answer: if they were unable to enforce a simple prohibition for fifteen years, how are they going to enforce the rules now that they have authorized the sale of electronic cigarettes and heated tobacco products?” said Laura Fons, attorney in Fundeps’ Health Area.
What we demand
With the support of different civil society organizations and professional associations, we are asking the Ministry of Health to order the immediate suspension of the campaign and the removal of all related content from social media, websites, and digital platforms; to terminate the commercial agreement between the AFA and Vaporesso on the grounds that it is manifestly illegal; to impose the corresponding sanctions on both entities for violations of Law 26,687 and related regulations; and to adopt preventive and non-repetition measures to prevent future sponsorship campaigns for tobacco and nicotine products.
The risk for children and adolescents
According to a 2025 study by SEDRONAR, 35.5% of high school students have already tried electronic cigarettes. A single liquid pod may contain nicotine equivalent to an entire pack of cigarettes. Nicotine exposure during developmental stages alters brain maturation, affects attention and impulse control, and creates persistent addiction.
Campaigns like “Move Beyond Ordinary” are not accidental: the tobacco industry studies how to maximize reward responses in the adolescent brain. Associating vapes with sports icons turns a harmful product into a symbol of success and belonging. That is exactly what the law prohibits.
Tobacco and nicotine advertising circulates widely on social media, often in subtle and covert ways. For this reason, Fundeps launched a collective monitoring campaign that encourages people to detect, document, and report illegal advertising on social media and digital platforms. The goal is to gather evidence that helps expose these practices and strengthen the enforceability of regulations protecting the right to health.
Contact
Maga Merlo Vijarra — magamerlov@fundeps.org
The Right to Food in Argentina: Implications and Challenges of the Healthy Eating Promotion Law in the Context of Emergency Food Policies
Despite the constitutional recognition of the right to adequate food in 1994, food insecurity and the logic of emergency-based responses have shaped Argentina’s food policy over the last decades. This report analyzes that process from a human rights perspective, reviewing the main regulations and policies between 2002 and 2025. It examines the tensions between the prevailing assistance-based model and the State’s obligations under international human rights law, and presents the Healthy Eating Promotion Law (Law No. 27,642) as the most significant paradigm shift in this field in the last two decades. In a context marked by regulatory setbacks and worsening food insecurity, the document identifies current challenges for the effective implementation of the right to food and outlines possible paths for its protection and enforceability.
Irresponsible Mining: One Month After the Glacier Law Reform
From a regulatory perspective, mining activities operate within a framework that combines outdated historical legislation —such as the Mining Code of 1885— with investment promotion regimes —such as Law 24,196— and new economic incentive mechanisms like the Large Investment Incentive Regime (RIGI).
Combined with the weakening of political, regulatory, and institutional environmental protection tools, this creates a scenario that prioritizes attracting investment over protecting common goods and fundamental rights.
The Last Straw
This reform represents a substantial alteration to Argentina’s current environmental protection system, particularly regarding the protection of water as a strategic legal asset.
The existing framework, based on scientific and technical standards and the precautionary principle, had made it possible to establish reasonable common limits on extractive activities in highly fragile ecosystems.
To better understand what is at stake, it is important to recognize that large-scale metal mining, as it currently operates in the country, has a structural dependence on water resources. Large-scale mining depends on water in order to exist and expand. The communities living in these areas do as well. And water is far from an infinite resource.
According to information disclosed in environmental assessment instruments, projects such as Alumbrera in the province of Catamarca —now entering a new reopening phase with estimated extraction levels lower than during its peak years— project water consumption between 3 and 5 million liters per day in their upcoming stages.
If we calculate an —already excessive— consumption of 150 liters of drinking water per person per day, then even in the best-case scenario this project would consume, every single day, the amount of water needed by the entire population of towns such as Agua de Oro in Córdoba, Lago Puelo in Chubut, or Tafí Viejo in Tucumán.
Meanwhile, ongoing operations such as Veladero report water consumption levels close to 9 million liters per day — three times that amount.
Moreover, these levels of use must be analyzed in light of their location: arid or semi-arid regions where water is scarce and strategically critical.
This, and nothing else, explains why disputes over water have existed for decades. Examples include Famatina, Esquel, Andalgalá, Chubut, and Mendoza. Local communities, aware of the importance of this resource for both present survival and future development, organize, educate themselves, and sustain resistance strategies over many years. Because water is essential not only for the survival of communities, but also for sustaining regional microeconomies.
These environmental defenders protect not only water, but also a way of life and a development model that successive governments continue to ignore. Anyone reading this would do the same in their place, because this is about defending their own survival and that of the place where they live.
As resistance grows stronger, the social license required for mining development becomes an increasingly difficult aspiration for companies to achieve.
Irresponsible Mining
Water, essential for the lives of communities, is being made available to the mining agenda promoted by the national government and several provincial governments, which present it as the only development alternative for especially arid regions of the country.
Those defending the reform promise responsible mining and legal certainty for corporations. But what kind of “responsible mining” are we talking about? Which companies are behind this reform?
As is already well known, this reform is the result of mining lobbying by multinational corporations that dominate the sector, including Glencore, Barrick, BHP, and First Quantum Minerals.
Glencore, linked to projects such as MARA in Catamarca and El Pachón in the province of San Juan —and backed by the hedge fund BlackRock— has been criminally convicted for corruption in jurisdictions such as the United States and the United Kingdom. The company also faces multiple proceedings over socio-environmental impacts not only in Argentina but in different parts of the world, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Philippines, and Peru. These allegations range from water contamination to the killing of environmental defenders.
Barrick Gold, for its part, has faced allegations related to human rights and environmental violations, including reports of sexual violence in Papua New Guinea and deaths and violent repression in Tanzania. In 2018, the company received a ruling that included the permanent closure of the Pascua Lama project in Chile after serious breaches involving water resource protection and glacier environments were confirmed.
Likewise, BHP, involved in the development of the Vicuña project, has faced allegations of violations of Indigenous rights and labor rights abuses. The company was responsible for the collapse of the Samarco tailings dam in Brazil in 2015, considered one of the most significant environmental disasters in the region and currently the subject of major international litigation.
Similarly, First Quantum Minerals, promoter of the Taca Taca project in Salta, was involved in a judicial process in Panama that culminated in 2023 when that country’s Supreme Court declared the mining contract unconstitutional for violating multiple constitutional provisions, including environmental protection principles and fundamental rights.
These records cannot be treated as isolated incidents. They are part of a global pattern in which extractive expansion often occurs at the expense of fragile ecosystems, strategic water sources, and community rights.
Faced with companies that dominate the global industry, exert enormous pressure, and relentlessly pursue natural resources, it is impossible to believe that provinces already overwhelmed by economic crisis can effectively protect glaciers, water resources, or build truly sustainable development.
Legal Uncertainty
For these reasons, the debate surrounding the Glacier Law reform was never merely a technical or sector-specific discussion.
This became evident in the massive social mobilization preceding the legislative debate and in the more than 100,000 people registered for the Public Hearing — a hearing that failed to comply with existing regulations and minimum democratic standards.
Furthermore, the reform violated both the principle of progressivity and the precautionary principle, constituting a clearly unconstitutional regression that is likely to trigger dozens of legal actions, ultimately undermining the promised “legal certainty.”
In light of these precedents, claiming that weakening the Glacier Law will pave the way for “responsible” mining is highly questionable. Without strict environmental standards, effective oversight, and genuine community participation, risks do not decrease — they increase.
Continuing to defend the Glacier Law is not opposing development. It is affirming that development cannot be built at the expense of water, territories, and communities.
Author: María Laura Carrizo, Fundeps
Contact: lauracarrizo@fundeps.org
Setback for Public Health: Argentina Authorizes the Commercialization of Electronic Cigarettes and Heated Tobacco Products
On May 4, 2026, the Official Gazette published Ministry of Health Resolution No. 549/2026 and ANMAT Provision No. 2543/2026, which repeal the bans on the importation, commercialization, distribution, advertising, promotion, and sponsorship of electronic cigarettes and heated tobacco products that had been in force since 2011 and 2023, respectively. In addition, these regulations establish a framework for the regulated commercialization of these products and nicotine pouches. As a result, products with proven harmful effects on human health and high addictive potential—especially for children and adolescents—will now enter the market.
Context: Where We Come From and Where We Are Heading
Tobacco control policy in Argentina has a long history of coordinated efforts among the public sector, international organizations, health professionals, and civil society. National Tobacco Control Law No. 26,687, enacted in 2011, marked a milestone in public health protection: it established smoke-free environments, banned tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship, required health warnings on packaging, and restricted sales to minors. That same year, ANMAT prohibited the commercialization of electronic cigarettes, and in 2023 the Ministry of Health extended the ban to heated tobacco products (HTPs).
These measures were not arbitrary. They were based on the precautionary principle—a cornerstone of international health law—in light of evidence showing that none of these products are harmless, that nicotine causes severe addiction, and that the tobacco industry has historically demonstrated its ability to design strategies aimed at attracting young consumers.
Resolution No. 549/2026 itself acknowledges in its recitals that the use of vapes and electronic cigarettes reaches 35.5% of secondary school students, according to a 2025 SEDRONAR study. Rather than using this alarming figure to strengthen protective policies, the government uses it to justify opening the market under the argument that prohibitions were ineffective. That generalized claim is, at the very least, partially false and deeply concerning regarding the direction of public policy.
While enforcement of the electronic cigarette ban was indeed deficient, this was largely due to the State’s evident inability to ensure effective oversight. Moreover, unlike electronic cigarettes, heated tobacco products had barely entered the Argentine market and now will be allowed to do so. What failed was not the law itself, but State enforcement. If authorities could not enforce the previous bans, how will they regulate a much broader market now?
What Changes Under the New Regulations
Resolution No. 549/2026 repeals the ban on heated tobacco products and creates the Tobacco and Nicotine Products Registry (RPTN), under which electronic cigarettes, heated tobacco devices, and nicotine pouches may now be imported and commercialized in Argentina, subject to registration requirements. ANMAT Provision No. 2543/2026, in turn, repeals the electronic cigarette ban that had been in force since 2011.
The new regulations expressly state that advertising, promotion, and sponsorship of these products remain prohibited under Law 26,687, and they establish specific technical restrictions for the regulated products. However, moving from a prohibition model based on the precautionary principle to a regulated commercialization model—at a time of rising adolescent consumption and uncertain enforcement capacity—constitutes a high-risk public health gamble and a clear setback in the protection of children and adolescents.
Nicotine pouches deserve special attention. Although they had not been explicitly banned like electronic cigarettes and heated tobacco products, they were considered covered by the general framework of Law 26,687. Nevertheless, by late 2025 these products had entered the Argentine market massively, being sold without complying with the packaging and warning requirements established by national law and using prohibited marketing strategies. The new resolution explicitly regulates them and clarifies that they are tobacco products—or equivalent products—fully covered by existing legislation. In doing so, the government implicitly recognizes that these products had been commercialized unlawfully while the State failed to intervene.
Weak and Contradictory Justifications
The recitals of Resolution No. 549/2026 build their justification around four interconnected arguments: that the precautionary principle cannot be absolute or permanent; that countries considered international references have incorporated these products into their epidemiological surveillance systems; and that increasing consumption rates reported by SEDRONAR, together with the existence of an informal market, require regulation. None of these arguments supports the conclusion reached by the resolution.
Lack of Transparency, Participation, and Well-Founded Distrust
ANMAT Provision No. 2543/2026 partially bases its decision on Complementary Act No. 1 and on a Technical Report from the National Tobacco Control Program, both identified only by internal file numbers. Although cited as supporting documents, neither was incorporated into the administrative file nor published in the Official Gazette. Their conclusions are referenced selectively and superficially in the recitals, while the full technical evidence, arguments, and data allegedly supporting this regulatory shift remain inaccessible to the public. Administrative acts that affect rights must be self-sufficient: their grounds must be fully stated within the act itself so that any person may understand, assess, and potentially challenge the reasons behind the decision.
Beyond the lack of transparency regarding the evidence used, it is also important to highlight the absence of participation and consultation processes involving specialized organizations and health professionals, unlike the process that led to the regulations now being repealed.
The resolution also invokes the need for monitoring, oversight, and specific studies as part of its justification. But this promise clashes with a documented reality: since the enactment of Law 26,687, the State has neither imposed sanctions for violations of tobacco control regulations nor generated systematic epidemiological evidence to assess its own policies. The latest National Risk Factor Survey dates back to 2018. Argentina’s Global Youth Tobacco Survey also contains data only up to that year. The only recent data available comes from SEDRONAR 2025, which measures substance use among secondary school students but is not a specific tobacco surveillance instrument. If the State failed for fifteen years to generate updated evidence or effectively enforce existing prohibitions, there is no reason to believe it will now succeed under a more complex regulatory framework involving more products, more actors, and more technical variables to control—especially without additional resources allocated to that task. The central question left unanswered by the resolution is this: if the State could not enforce the prohibitions already in place, what concrete capacity does it now have to implement a far more complex regulatory regime?
Improving Policy Cannot Mean Moving Backwards
At Fundeps, we recognize that tobacco control regulations can and should be improved, and we actively work toward strengthening them. But in a context where the tobacco epidemic is increasingly affecting children and adolescents, strengthening public policy means closing enforcement gaps, updating epidemiological evidence, and ensuring effective compliance with existing restrictions. It does not mean opening markets for addictive products under the promise of regulation that the State has not demonstrated the capacity to enforce. The new regulations expose children and adolescents to the proliferation of these products in stores, kiosks, public spaces, and digital environments.
We emphasize that Law No. 26,687—and therefore the protections regarding smoke-free environments and bans on advertising, promotion, and sponsorship—remains fully in force and applies entirely to these new products. We demand full compliance with the law, effective enforcement supported by specific resources, and the complete publication of the technical documents underlying these recent measures.
At Fundeps, we will continue monitoring the implementation of the new regulatory framework, documenting violations, filing complaints before the relevant authorities, and coordinating with civil society, academic, and public health organizations to uphold evidence-based tobacco control policies free from conflicts of interest and grounded in the right to health.
Author: María Laura Fons
Contact: Maga Merlo – magamerlov@fundeps.org
Collective Monitoring: Detect, Record, and Report Illegal Tobacco and Nicotine Advertising on Social Media
On social media, tobacco, and nicotine advertising is widespread, often in subtle and disguised forms. This includes traditional and electronic cigarettes, nicotine pouches, heated tobacco products, and their accessories, which appear integrated into posts, videos, or content designed to seem spontaneous.
Despite the recent regulatory changes authorizing the commercialization of these products, advertising of tobacco and nicotine products remains prohibited in Argentina, both in traditional media and in digital environments. The amendments introduced by these new regulations represent a clear setback in the frameworks designed to protect public health, particularly the health of younger generations.
However, under the new resolution, electronic cigarettes, heated tobacco products, and even nicotine pouches are now expressly covered by the National Tobacco Control Law. Therefore, although the commercialization of these emerging products is now permitted, their sale to individuals under the age of 18 remains strictly prohibited, and marketing restrictions continue to apply. In this context, it is now more important than ever to demand proper implementation of the national law, ensuring effective oversight and enforcement against deceptive tobacco industry advertising strategies that constantly seek to reach younger generations and normalize the consumption of these products.
We already knew that the tobacco industry’s efforts to expand its market among younger generations had succeeded in positioning electronic cigarettes among the most commonly used substances among students, even while their commercialization remained prohibited. This was evidenced in a 2025 SEDRONAR study, which found that 35.5% of adolescents had already tried electronic cigarettes—then still illegal products—while 28.7% reported having tried conventional cigarettes (either manufactured or hand-rolled), despite the fact that their sale to individuals under 18 is prohibited. In addition, a study conducted by CEDES that same year found that nicotine pouch consumption among adolescents had already reached approximately 4.3%.
The promotion of these products is framed as part of aspirational lifestyles, associated with enjoyment, belonging, or freedom. Through influencers, cultural events, giveaways, or sponsored content, brands manage to reduce risk perception and normalize consumption, especially among young people and adolescents.
In response to this situation, at Fundeps we are promoting a collective monitoring campaign that invites people to detect, record, and report illegal advertising on social media and digital platforms. The goal is to gather evidence to expose these practices and strengthen the enforcement of regulations that protect the right to health.
What can be reported?
Different types of content can be reported, including:
Where can these be found?
These types of advertisements circulate on websites, streaming channels, and social media platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, and X.
How to participate?
To participate, record the advertisement you see and complete the form available on the website. The data is collected anonymously and does not constitute a formal complaint.
Each report contributes to building collective evidence about these practices, exposing non-compliance with the law, and strengthening actions to protect public health, especially that of children and adolescents.
To learn more about how to identify these violations, you can consult the guide also available on the platform.
Contact:
Maga Merlo Vijarra, magamerlov@fundeps.org
Call Open to Join a Collective Legal Action in Defense of the Right to Abortion
Since 2024, the National Government has failed to comply with its obligations to guarantee access to abortion rights for pregnant people across the country.
For this reason, a collective legal action is underway before Federal Civil, Commercial, and Administrative Court No. 2 of La Plata, demanding that the National Government fulfill its obligations regarding the supply and distribution of essential medication to ensure access to abortion services. The case was filed by the Asociación Civil La Ciega.
In this context, the court has ordered broad dissemination of the case and set a deadline for all individuals and organizations who consider themselves affected by the lack of supplies for accessing abortion services to come forward and participate in the proceedings. The call will remain open until March 28 of this year.
More information is available on the website of the National Judiciary, by entering the case number (Case No. FLP 1876/2025) in the “Case Search” section.
To receive guidance on how to participate or register your organization, you can contact the Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS) team at consultas@cels.org.ar.
This is a new opportunity to take part and actively defend the implementation of Law 27,610 and the right to access abortion for all pregnant people in Argentina.
Contact:
Luz Baretta, luzbaretta@fundeps.org
Fundeps Appoints a New Director
Luciano holds a degree in Social Communication and has extensive experience in community communication, training, and human rights promotion. Throughout his professional career, he has worked with civil society organizations, educational institutions, and public bodies, bringing an approach that connects reflection and practice with a strong commitment to participation and the strengthening of community and civic engagement.
We are confident that his experience and his understanding of communication as a tool to advance rights will be a valuable contribution to this new stage of Fundeps, at a time that continues to present significant challenges for those working to defend human rights.
At the same time, we would like to express our deep gratitude to Mayca Balaguer and Eliana Juncos, who were a fundamental part of Fundeps for more than ten years and later served as Executive Director and Deputy Director, respectively.
During this time, their commitment and leadership were key to consolidating Fundeps’ institutional work, strengthening our team, and expanding our agendas in research, advocacy, and capacity-building. In a complex context, they were able to sustain and care for a collective project that continues to grow thanks to that shared journey.
We are deeply grateful for the work and dedication they brought to this organization over the years. We know they will continue contributing to the defense and advancement of human rights with the same experience, sensitivity, and conviction they demonstrated along this path.
Each stage brings new challenges as well as new opportunities. At Fundeps, we remain committed to collective work, building alliances, and advancing human rights as a path toward more just, equitable, and sustainable societies.
Civil Society Organizations and Communities Call for Respect for Rights at the IDB Annual Meeting in Asunción
Organizations that are part of the IDB Working Group will use the Assembly as an opportunity to hold meetings with Bank authorities, governments, and other stakeholders. Among the issues we seek to place on the agenda are the growing restrictions on civic space in the region, the risks associated with the commodification of nature, the role of the IDB in the Amazon, the development of regional infrastructure corridors, and the challenges of advancing a truly just energy transition.
Participation Agenda
During the week of the Assembly, we will participate in various dialogue and coordination activities.
On March 9, a workshop will be held with Paraguayan organizations, in collaboration with local groups such as Henoi, Sunu, Axial, and Climate Reality, to analyze the impacts of IDB-financed projects in the country and strengthen regional civil society coordination.
On March 10, a full-day working session with the Bank will take place to discuss its Civil Society Engagement Strategy and Action Plan.
On March 11, Suhayla Bazbaz, Director of Community Cohesion and Social Innovation (Mexico) and a member of the IDB Working Group, will participate in the IDB–Civil Society/Stakeholders Forum in the panel “The Importance of Multilateral Engagement with Civil Society Organizations: Challenges and Perspectives,” focused on the challenges of ensuring informed and meaningful participation of civil society in the Bank’s decision-making processes.
That same day, a meeting is scheduled with the Bank’s President, Ilan Goldfajn. These exchanges are part of an ongoing dialogue process that the working group has maintained with the IDB presidency in recent years. Dialogue sessions between the IDB and social organizations will also be held on the following topics: regional logistics corridors, the Amazonia Forever program, the new procurement policy, and restrictions on civic space.
Concerns Regarding the South Connection Program
Within the framework of the Assembly, we will present observations on the South Connection Regional Program for South American Connectivity (Conexión Sur in Spanish), an IDB initiative aimed at promoting regional corridors for transport, logistics, energy, and digital connectivity in South America.
While we recognize the importance of improving regional connectivity, the program’s current design poses social, environmental, and governance risks if substantial changes are not introduced.
The program prioritizes global competitiveness and integration into international value chains, with a strong emphasis on logistics corridors, ports, and energy transmission, while paying limited attention to territorial impacts, local economies, and the needs of the communities living in the areas where this infrastructure will be developed.
Without complementary local productive development strategies, the new corridors could reinforce economic patterns based on the export of raw materials and extractive activities, without generating substantial improvements in the quality of life of local populations.
IDB Project in Paraguay
The Bioceanic Road Corridor, financed by the IDB through a USD 200 million loan to the government of Paraguay, aims to connect the port of Santos in Brazil with ports in northern Chile, with the goal of facilitating international trade and improving access to markets in the country’s western region.
However, local organizations and communities have expressed concern about the lack of adequate consultation with Indigenous peoples such as the Ayoreo, as well as the project’s potential impacts. These could include displacement, loss of livelihoods, risks of gender-based violence, pressure on Indigenous territories, and damage to biodiversity in one of the most fragile areas of the Paraguayan Chaco.
Participation and Transparency
The working group has also expressed concern about the limited participation of civil society, Indigenous peoples, local communities, and Afro-descendant populations in the design of several of the Bank’s strategic initiatives, including Conexión Sur, the Amazonia Forever program, and the Biodiversity and Natural Capital Action Plan.
These processes have offered few opportunities for meaningful dialogue with the actors living in the territories where these initiatives will be implemented. In the case of the Biodiversity Plan, for example, organizations warn that despite references to inclusive approaches in the document, there were no substantive opportunities for exchange with these groups during its development.
Strengthening early participation, transparency, and accountability is key to improving the quality of the Bank’s policies and preventing socio-environmental conflicts.
In this context, part of the agenda will be dedicated to a dialogue with Bank teams to present an assessment of current trends in restrictions on civic space. We hope to share recommendations from civil society and learn about the concrete steps the Bank is taking to address these situations.
A Just Energy Transition
Finally, we will present our concerns regarding how the IDB is addressing the energy transition in the region. While we recognize the urgency of moving toward low-carbon energy systems, the Bank’s current approach continues to reproduce “business-as-usual” dynamics.
Among the main criticisms is the continued support for fossil fuel infrastructure, including the promotion of gas as a transition technology, as well as the expansion of mining and green hydrogen in the region without adequate processes for information sharing, consultation, and impact assessment. In response, we call on the IDB to prioritize social and environmental justice, strengthen the implementation of safeguards, guarantee the effective participation of affected communities, and develop an energy plan aligned with the Paris Agreement and human rights.
In a regional context marked by the climate crisis, socio-environmental conflicts, and shrinking civic space, transparency, public participation, and accountability are essential conditions to ensure that investments in infrastructure and energy truly contribute to sustainable development and the well-being of communities.
Contact
Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org
More than 160 organizations are calling on Formula 1 to end tobacco and nicotine sponsorships
The Formula 1 ban on cigarette sponsorship ended in 2006. However, tobacco companies Philip Morris International (PMI) and British American Tobacco (BAT) are currently promoting nicotine pouches—one of their newest products—through Formula 1 team sponsorships. PMI sponsors the Ferrari team to promote its product Zyn, while BAT sponsors the McLaren team with its Velo brand. The logos appear prominently on the cars and on the racing suits of their star drivers, including 2025 world champion Lando Norris and seven-time world champion Lewis Hamilton. These sponsorships are also widely promoted on social media to hundreds of millions of followers.
At the same time, Formula 1 has actively worked to expand its global youth audience, including recent partnerships with Disney, Lego, and Mattel’s Hot Wheels. These collaborations include the presence of Mickey Mouse and friends at F1 races, as well as exclusive Lego and Hot Wheels products aimed at children. According to Formula 1 itself, more than 4 million children aged 8 to 12 follow the sport in the European Union and the United States, while 54% of its TikTok followers and 40% of its Instagram followers are under 25.
“By sponsoring Formula 1 teams, tobacco companies are attempting to reach the same young audiences that F1 has sought to attract. Formula 1 must not be complicit in this strategy. To protect the health of its young fans, it is essential that F1 update its ban on cigarette sponsorships to include other tobacco and nicotine products, such as nicotine pouches,” states the letter addressed to F1 CEO Stefano Domenicali.
In separate letters, the organizations also urged the chief executives of Disney, Lego, and Mattel to join the call for Formula 1 to ban all forms of tobacco- and nicotine-related sponsorship.
“Tobacco companies seek to associate their brands with Formula 1 and its most recognizable drivers because they know that children and adolescents will see them,” said Yolonda C. Richardson, President and CEO of Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. “Promoting tobacco and nicotine products in the same spaces where Disney, Lego, and Hot Wheels are present is part of the industry’s ongoing strategy to attract new generations, while claiming that their products are only for adults. F1 must protect children and immediately end any ties with the tobacco industry, ensuring that it does not become a platform for promoting harmful and addictive products.”
Nicotine pouches pose significant health risks for younger generations. These products expose young people to high levels of nicotine, a highly addictive substance that can affect brain development—which continues until around age 25—and increase vulnerability to other addictions. In the United States, nicotine pouches are the only tobacco product whose youth use has increased in recent years.
The letter addressed to Formula 1 was signed by 162 organizations from 57 countries.
Contact
Maga Ailén Merlo Vijarra, magamerlov@fundeps.org
Abortion in Córdoba: Progress and Challenges in the Implementation of Law No. 27.610
The report presents the findings of a study aimed at identifying the conditions of access to Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy (IVE) within the public healthcare system of the province of Córdoba.Through a participatory survey of 80 healthcare providers who guarantee the service across 18 departments, the research examined team characteristics, conditions of access to legal abortion, the implementation of the Manual Vacuum Aspiration (MVA) technique, the impact of the current context, and good practices in the care of specific populations.
The report serves as a key advocacy tool to strengthen access to safe abortion throughout the province.