Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

Law Suits

UK court rejects tobacco companies’ appeal on plain packaging

http://in.reuters.com/article/us-tobacco-court-appeal-idINKBN13P1ED

A UK court has dismissed an appeal brought by some of Britain’s largest tobacco companies over the government’s new plain packaging rules.

In its decision handed down on Wednesday, the court dismissed all appeals brought by British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco, Imperial Brands and several paper manufacturers.

The companies argued that the law, which went into effect in May, unlawfully deprives them of their intellectual property by banning the use of all marketing on packages, including logos, colors and special fonts.

“This is a victory for public health and another crushing defeat for the tobacco industry,” said Deborah Arnott, chief executive of health charity Action on Smoking and Health.

“This ruling should also encourage other countries to press ahead with standardized packaging, now that the industry’s arguments have yet again been shown to be without foundation.”

BAT, the world’s second-biggest tobacco company, called the decision “disappointing” and said it was considering its options carefully.

(Reporting by Martinne Geller in London; Editing by Louise Heavens, Greg Mahlich)

Big Tobacco threatens Supreme Court fight after losing plain packaging appeal

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/30/big-tobacco-threatens-supreme-court-fight-losing-packaging-appeal/

The world’s largest tobacco companies have threatened to take their battle against the Government’s plain packaging policy to the UK’s highest courts after losing their latest appeal against the branding crackdown.

The court of appeal today upheld legislation that forces all tobacco products to use uniform packaging in a ruling described by anti-smoking groups as a “crushing defeat” for the tobacco industry.

The latest blow to cigarette-makers British American Tobacco, Imperial, Japan Tobacco International and Philip Morris International follows their failed court challenge in May this year, one month after the new anti-tobacco legislation came into effect.

Under the new rules all tobacco packaging must be olive green and include large images showing the negative health consequences of smoking as a visual deterrent.

Tobacco companies have repeatedly branded the move unlawful and say it will be ineffective at reducing smoking rates. They will continue to oppose the regulation despite a second legal defeat. The exception to the industry-wide defiance is PMI, which said in May that it would focus on developing its smoke-free products rather than fight the case.

Daniel Sciamma, the UK managing director of Japan Tobacco, said that the company was already considering an appeal to the Supreme Court.

“This commercial vandalism sets a dangerous precedent for other targeted industries, who must be concerned that their brands will now be under threat. We obviously disagree with the court’s decision as it endorses the confiscation of our brands,” Mr Sciamma said.

Meanwhile BAT warned that the court decision “does not necessarily mark the end of the challenge” and a spokesman for Imperial said that it was reviewing the judgement before considering its legal position.

Jefferies analyst Owen Bennett said the impact of plain packaging would weigh most heavily on Imperial and Winston and Camel maker Japan Tobacco, which both rely on the UK for around 15pc of their overall earnings

For Marlboro maker PMI and BAT, the UK market makes up less than 1pc of their business.

Despite the minority exposure to the UK market the tobacco companies still have a strong incentive to fight the clampdown, which could spur similar legislation in other markets.

“Seeing results such as this may actually encourage other markets to follow suit,” said Mr Bennett, adding that should other countries wish to implement plain packaging in the years ahead then the outcome of any challenges would most likely be the same.

Major tobacco firms are appealing a landmark $15B ruling they lost

https://www.thestar.com/business/2016/11/21/major-tobacco-firms-are-appealing-a-landmark-15b-ruling-they-lost.html

Three major tobacco firms are appealing a landmark $15 billion Superior Court ruling they lost in June 2015.

Lawyers for Imperial Tobacco, JTI-Macdonald and Rothmans-Benson & Hedges began arguments today during hearings that are expected to last until the end of the week.

The companies were targeted by two separate lawsuits heard at the same time that were filed in 1998 and only went to trial in 2012.

They were sued by people who were addicted to cigarettes and couldn’t quit as well as by those who had suffered from cancer or emphysema.

Some 76 witnesses testified and nearly 43,000 documents were deposited as evidence, including internal tobacco company documents that showed smokers didn’t know or understand the risks associated with cigarettes.

Cigarette companies argued their customers knew the risks of smoking and that their products were sold legally and were strictly regulated by the federal government.

The same cigarette companies are also being sued by the Quebec government in a $60-billion lawsuit aiming to recover health care costs related to smokers.

WITH MIXED PROGRESS, NATIONS REVIEW WAR VS. TOBACCO INDUSTRY

http://macaudailytimes.com.mo/mixed-progress-nations-review-war-vs-tobacco-industry.html

In Nepal, health warnings cover 90 percent of cigarette packs, while Australia requires those packets be wrapped in drab, plain paper. Indonesia’s new ban on outdoor advertising brought down tobacco billboards depicting smiling, smoking youths. And India wants scary photos of rotting lungs and mouth tumors covering packets sold in the country.

Still, national drives to discourage smoking and cut back tobacco sales haven’t done enough, campaigners say. Smoking-related deaths are still rising worldwide, with 80 percent of them expected to occur in developing country populations by 2030.

“Most people in the United States think tobacco is over and done with, but it’s still the largest preventable cause of disease on the planet” killing 6 million people a year — or one person every six seconds, said John Stewart, deputy campaigns director at the Boston-based lobbying group Corporate Accountability International.

Starting Monday, representatives from at least 178 countries are meeting for five days in the Indian capital to discuss how they can further the fight against smoking and push back against tobacco company lobbyists.

Since they set down stiff regulations and guidelines in a landmark 2003 treaty called the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control — the first and only global treaty dealing with public health — most of the 180 signatories have ratified it and passed laws restricting tobacco advertising or sales.

Still, many governments remain entangled with powerful tobacco companies, while industry lobbyists continue attempts to stymie efforts to implement anti-smoking laws through bribery, misinformation and even suing national governments for lost profits, campaigners say.

“The tobacco industry is definitely feeling the heat,” Stewart said. “They’ve got their back against the wall.”

Indian courts are currently grappling with 62 lawsuits filed by tobacco companies or cigarette makers challenging laws requiring that 85 percent of all cigarette packets be covered with photos of medical horrors.

In Japan, a 10-percent hike in taxes on cigarettes has led to a 30-percent decline in smoking. But the country still has some of the lowest tax rates on cigarettes among industrialized nations, while its finance ministry owns 33 percent in Japan Tobacco.

The anti-tobacco campaign has had some success. It is widely accepted, at least among national leaders, that smoking causes cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory disease, along with a host of other harmful health impacts.

That awareness still has not trickled down to national populations, though. And campaigners say tobacco interests have shifted their focus to poorer, less educated populations in the developing world.

India — among the first to ratify the anti-tobacco treaty in 2004 — is still considered one of the biggest battlegrounds in the fight against the tobacco industry, public health specialists say.

Despite harsh laws passed more than a decade ago banning smoking in public and sales to children, smoking is still common across the country. A government survey in 2010 showed nearly 35 percent of adults were either smoking or chewing tobacco.

Meanwhile, more than 1 million Indians die each year from tobacco-related diseases that cost the country some $16 billion annually, according to the World Health Organization.

“The revenues that the government earns from tobacco taxes are far less than the billions that are spent on health care,” said Bhavna Mukhopadhyay of the Voluntary Health Association of India, a public health organization.

“Public health and the health of the tobacco industry cannot go hand in hand,” she said, noting that campaigners are now pushing for countries to make tobacco companies and their shareholders civilly and criminally liable for the harm done by tobacco.

Part of the trouble in India is “the Indian consumer is spoilt for choice,” she said, with cigarettes sold alongside chewing tobacco and cheap, hand-rolled smokes known as bidis.

The easy availability and wide choice means many smokers get hooked at a young age. Some are initiated early through the common, cultural practice of chewing something called gutka, which combines tobacco with spices, lime and betel nut and is widely sold as a mouth freshener.

Putting pictorial warnings on cigarette packets is an attempt to educate people about the risks.

“The idea was that even an illiterate person, or a child, would understand the message about the health risks from smoking,” said Monika Arora of the Public Health Foundation of India, who runs an anti-smoking campaign aimed at young Indians. Nirmala George, New Delhi, AP

India’s move away from cigarettes creates a withdrawal problem for millions of tobacco workers

SBS World News India Correspondent reports: India is taking bold steps to fight the influence of Big Tobacco, but one of the most pressing challenges remains finding alternative employment for millions of tobacco workers.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/11/13/indias-move-away-cigarettes-creates-withdrawal-problem-millions-tobacco-workers

It’s just after dawn and there’s a steady flow of traffic on the road to the Hunsur tobacco market, just outside the southern Indian city of Mysore.

Big bails of the dried brown leaves are being transported to auction on the backs of small trucks, Massey Ferguson tractors and bullock-driven carts.

By 7am hundreds of farmers have arrived at the market. Cigarette maker ITC, part-owned by British American Tobacco – maker of international brands such as Benson and Hedges and Lucky Strike – will buy approximately half the tobacco that’s for sale.

Shivabasappa is a second-generation tobacco grower. If the buyers judge his crop of Virginia flue-cured tobacco to be first-class he’ll earn 150 rupees (about $3) a kilogram.

“Tobacco has made me rich,” Shivabasappa told SBS. “I am making a lot of money so I will continue to farm it.”

The Karnataka farmer knows there are moves to curb his industry, but he’s proud of what he does. It’s lucrative enough to get a bank loan and attract a wife.

And that is one of the challenges for countries trying to reduce tobacco consumption – providing alternative employment for those who rely on the industry for their livelihoods.

India is the world’s third largest producer of tobacco behind China and Brazil and millions of people in all three countries are linked to the sector.

Earlier this year, India’s government approved a crop diversification program in 10 states.

Alternative employment for tobacco farmers was one of the key issues discussed over the past week at a World Health Organisation conference in Noida, near New Delhi.

Delegates from about 180 countries met to discuss progress on the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. In force since 2005, the treaty aims to deter tobacco use that kills approximately 6 million people every year.

“I’m pleased to say, following the adoption of the agreement, governments around the world have taken decisive steps not only to reduce tobacco use, but also to stand up to the multinational tobacco companies standing in the way of global progress,” Margaret Chan, Director-General of the WHO, wrote in the Guardian.

“The tide of tobacco use is beginning to turn. After decades of Big Tobacco targeting low and million-income countries and years of steadily increasing sales, tobacco sales show signs of dropping.”

“Where tobacco companies have tried to threaten and bully nations, governments have responded with firm measures to protect public health,” wrote Dr Chan.

The tobacco industry in India has been at war with the central government this year following a new rule stipulating that 85 per cent of cigarette packets be covered with health warnings.

And just as big tobacco fought those laws in Australia, it is challenging them in India too, with dozens of legal battles currently before the courts.

In an attempt to hold ground, India has called for backup; they want help from an international coalition of the willing.

Addressing the WHO conference, India’s health minister, JP Nadda told delegates his country couldn’t do it alone.

“Along with national will and resources, we also need the strength of international collaboration to mitigate the rising burden of the health, social and economic cost of tobacco,” he said.

Ahead of the conference, tobacco farmers protested outside the health ministry and the WHO regional office in New Delhi asking the government to boycott the meeting.

Thousands of farmers also sent the government a petition asking that no “unreasonable” proposals be adopted at the conference.

In Karnataka, one of the biggest tobacco producing states in India, farmer Shivabasappa is very aware the World Health Organisation is working with governments to curb tobacco production and consumption.

“Tobacco and cigarettes don’t cause cancer,” he says. “People who don’t smoke get cancer. It comes from alcohol and other things. Why should tobacco be banned?”

It’s unclear whether he is misinformed or unwilling to slay the golden goose.

UPS Tobacco Lawsuit Wraps Up (UPS)

http://www.investopedia.com/news/ups-tobacco-lawsuit-wraps-ups/

Arguments ended last week in a lawsuit between United Parcel Service Inc. (UPS) and New York state and city authorities, reports Reuters. The lawsuit alleges that UPS turned a blind-eye toward illegal cigarette shipments, which were being sent into New York City from low-tax areas in upstate New York.

Currently, New York City charges high taxes on tobacco products to discourage smoking. However, businesses on Native-American reservations are not required to collect tobacco taxes. Enterprising businessmen have been shipping untaxed cigarettes down to New York City for at least a dozen years. (See also: How Will E-Cigarettes Affect Big Tobacco?)

In 2005, UPS and New York State signed an agreement where UPS promised to monitor its shipments more carefully to avoid shipping untaxed cigarettes. In 2010, new federal regulations were created to bind all delivery carriers from shipping illegal cigarettes.

The lawsuit against UPS claims that the delivery company purposefully violated the 2005 agreement and 2010 regulations. According to prosecutors, UPS knowingly shipped almost 700,000 cartons of untaxed cigarettes into New York City between 2010 and 2014. The state is asking for an $872 million fine, along with a court-appointed compliance monitor to enforce the 2010 regulations. (See also: The Real Cost Of Smoking.)

UPS denies the allegations. The company says it followed the 2005 agreement and 2010 regulations.

The judge presiding over the case, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, said last week that she will rule by Dec. 25.

Florida Jury Awards Nearly $29 Million in Damages in Smoker’s Death

http://www.newsinferno.com/florida-jury-awards-nearly-29-million-in-damages-in-smokers-death/

On October 25, a Florida jury awarded $20 million in punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in a trial over a chain smoker’s lung disease death. The jury added to the $8.8 million in compensatory damages awarded a day earlier.

Jurors awarded widower Alan Konzelman about $10 million more than he had sought, Law360 reports. He was awarded $8.8 million in compensatory damages for his pain and suffering over his wife’s death. He had asked for $5 million plus about $300,000 for his wife’s medical expenses. He had asked for $14 million in punitive damages and received $20 million.In closing arguments last week, Konzelman’s attorney told jurors how the sailor’s wife of 29 years died of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The attorney explained that Konzelman loved his wife “deeply” and spent every possible moment with her. “They had an amazing and adventurous life . . .They sailed, they got married, they had fun together . . . And they had a right to grow older together.”

An attorney for R.J. Reynolds argued that Elaine Konzelman knew smoking was dangerous and her husband and four children had long been urging her to quit. The attorney said she kept smoking despite warnings on cigarette packs and public health campaigns, according to Law360.

This case is one of thousands arising from the landmark Engle class action against tobacco companies. Dr. Howard Engle, a lifelong smoker, was one of the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit. They said they had been turned into nicotine addicts by a tobacco industry that did not warn them of the health risks of the habit. The Florida Supreme Court decertified the class in 2006 and overturned a $145 billion verdict, but it allowed up to 700,000 people who could have won judgments to rely on the jury’s findings to file lawsuits of their own. Among the conclusions, the jury found that smoking causes certain diseases and that tobacco companies hid smoking’s dangers.

In a case decided in December 2015, an attorney said changes in practices made by tobacco companies were not voluntary, but were the result of a series of government lawsuits and a 2009 act of Congress that put the tobacco industry under the regulatory power of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). But the changes came too late for Elaine Konzelman and many like her. The attorney in the 2015 case said “there is no evidence whatsoever that the tobacco companies have done anything to mitigate what they’ve done in the past. . . If they have changed, they probably don’t put down in writing every thought that they have anymore.”

Uruguay: A giant leap to prevent tobacco-assisted suicide

https://blogs.worldbank.org/health/uruguay-giant-leap-prevent-tobacco-assisted-suicide

Tobacco is arguably one of the most significant threats to public health we have ever faced. Since the publication of the landmark U.S. Surgeon General’s Report on Tobacco and Health in 1964, that provided evidence linking smoking to diseases of nearly all organs of the body (see graph below), the international community slowly began to realize that a century-long epidemic of cigarette smoking was causing an enormous, avoidable public health catastrophe across the world.

History is not linear. The road to progress tends to be circuitous and full of uncertainties, and even more than a few steps backwards. In spite of this reality, at certain points in time, we have to admire those individuals and countries who have stepped in to shine the light to allow us all to move forward.

Recently, Uruguay, a small country in South America, offered us a good example of how a government that is committed to protecting the health and wellbeing of its people was able to withstand for more than 6 years the pressure of litigation from a giant multinational tobacco company, whose annual revenues of more than US$80 billion exceed the country’s gross domestic product of close to US$50 billion. As discussed in detail below, Philip Morris started proceedings in February 2010 claiming that the comprehensive tobacco control measures adopted by the Government of Uruguay since 2003 violated obligations under international trade and investment arrangements.

We are heartened by the resolve of leaders in Uruguay, which reflects the “garra charrúa” or the “resourceful, daring, and never to give up attitude” of the Uruguayan people. Perhaps in this case is apt to paraphrase the words of Apollo 11 astronaut, Neil Armstrong, after he stepped onto the lunar surface for the first time in 1969, to describe Uruguay’s victory as “one small step for a country, one giant leap for global tobacco control.”

Although cigarettes are “legal” goods that are produced, traded, and sold across the world, it is an indisputable fact, as one of us can attest as a specialist in vascular disease, that tobacco acts in a number of direct and indirect ways to cause damage to our blood vessels, heart and brain. Over time, these injuries raise blood pressure, reduce ability to tolerate exercise, and increase risk for blood clots and cancer.

adverse_effects_of_tobacco_smoking-png_1

Indeed, the bleak truth is that tobacco is the only “legal” product that kills when used as advertised. Despite decades of accumulated epidemiologic and experimental evidence on the causal relationship between tobacco smoking and lung cancer and other diseases, as well as significant progress achieved in reducing tobacco use globally since the adoption in 2005 of the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), smoking remains one of the largest causes of preventable disease and death, with nearly 80% of the world’s one billion smokers living in developing countries. Data from the 2015 Global Burden of Disease study show that tobacco-attributable deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) lost have continued to rise across the world because of increases in population and aging that overwhelm declines in both exposure and risk-delated rates of related disease burden. In 2015, more than 7.1 million people died due to all tobacco smoke-related cases, up from 6.8 million people in 2005.

The lawsuit by Philip Morris, the biggest tobacco company in the world, against Uruguay argued that the country’s rules on tobacco packaging negatively impacted its intellectual property rights and sales in violation of the terms of a bilateral investment treaty between Uruguay and Switzerland, where the tobacco company has its headquarters. At its core, the lawsuit opposed provisions in two tobacco control measures adopted by the Government of Uruguay for protecting public health from the adverse effects of tobacco promotion, including false marketing that certain brand variants are safer than others, even after misleading descriptors such as “light,” “mild,” “ultra-light” were banned, and to increase consumer awareness of the health risks of tobacco consumption and encourage people, particularly the youth, to quit or not to take up smoking. Ordinance 514 issued by the Ministry of Public Health in 2008 requires each cigarette brand to have a “single presentation” and prohibits different packaging or “variants” for cigarettes sold under a given brand. Presidential Decree 287 of 2009 mandates an increase in the size of prescribed health warnings of the surface of the front and back of the cigarette packages from 50% to 80%, leaving only 20% of the cigarette pack for trademarks, logos and other information. The application of these provisions forced Philip Morris to withdraw most of its brands (such as Marlboro Red, Marlboro Gold, or Marlboro Green) from retail stores in Uruguay.

On July 8, 2016, however, the International Center of Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), an independent arm of the World Bank Group, dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety and ruled that Uruguay should be awarded compensation for all the expenses and costs associated with defending against these claims. In essence, the ruling accepted the claim made by the Government of Uruguay that its anti-tobacco measures were “about protection of public health, not interference with foreign investment.” We should be clear, as Uruguay’s President, Dr. Tabaré Vázquez, an oncologist, stated in a televised address to the country after the ruling, the ICSID award reinforces that “it is not acceptable to prioritize commercial considerations over the fundamental right to health and life.”

This landmark international ruling came at just the right time, as India prepares to host in early November 2016, the Conference of the Parties (COP7), bringing together 180 Parties, which includes almost every country in the world, as well as regional economic integration organizations like the European Union, for reviewing the implementation of the WHO’s FCTC and the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products.

At COP7, the victory of Uruguay needs to be highlighted echoing the words of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an international public health champion, who provided financial support to help Uruguay deal with the litigation: “No country should be ever be intimidated by the threat of a tobacco company lawsuit, and this case will help embolden more nations to take actions that will save lives.” Indeed, countries across the world have now an important precedent to follow for the benefit of their people.

Tobacco giants return to court in battle against new plain-packaging rules

http://www.aol.co.uk/news/2016/10/18/tobacco-giants-return-to-court-in-battle-against-new-plainpackaging-rules/

Tobacco giants return to court today in their battle against the Government’s new plain-packaging rules.

They suffered what anti-smoking campaigners described as a ”crushing defeat” at the High Court in May.

The day before new regulations come into force, a judge in London declared that they were ”valid and lawful in all respects”.

Mr Justice Green rejected a judicial review action brought against Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt.

The judge declared: “There is no basis upon which I could or should strike down the regulations or prevent them coming into effect tomorrow.”

Philip Morris International, British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco and Japan Tobacco International had challenged the legality of the ”standardised packaging” regulations.

The judge heard submissions that the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 would destroy valuable property rights and render products indistinguishable from each other.

But he ruled: “The regulations were lawful when they were promulgated by Parliament and they are lawful now in the light of the most up-to-date evidence.”

His decision that the regulations were ”justified and proportionate in the public interest” came after Europe’s highest court rejected a series of legal challenges.

Action on Smoking and Health (Ash) chief executive Deborah Arnott, said at the time: “This landmark judgment is a crushing defeat for the tobacco industry and fully justifies the Government’s determination to go ahead with the introduction of standardised packaging.”

After the ruling, one of the companies, Philip Morris International (PMI) said it was ”disappointed”, but although there were ”strong grounds”, it would not be appealing.

Three Court of Appeal judges in London will now hear a challenge against the judge’s ruling, expected to last four days.

Health Groups Sue FDA Over Cigarette Warning Labels

Eight public anti-tobacco groups are suing the government to require graphic and grotesque warning labels on packs of cigarettes.

http://www.nacsonline.com/Media/Daily/Pages/ND1006162.aspx

WASHINGTON – This week, eight public health groups filed a lawsuit against the U.S Food and Drug Administration to force the government to require graphic warning labels on packs of cigarettes.

The lawsuit was filed on Oct. 4 in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Cancer Society, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Truth Initiative and several individual pediatricians.

The groups maintain that the FDA is required by law to issue a final rule implementing Section 201(a) of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, which requires cigarette packages and advertisements to bear color graphic images and specified textual warnings.

On June 21, 2011, the FDA announced the nine graphic cigarette health warnings required to appear on every pack of cigarettes, carton and cigarette advertisement no later than September 2012. However, reports the Wall Street Journal, tobacco companies sued, and those labels were struck down in federal court on First Amendment grounds in 2013. The FDA has not taken up the issue of graphic warning labels since.

The Journal notes that the lawsuit filed this week is asking the court to set a deadline for the FDA to establish a new graphic warning rule, saying that the FDA “has been in violation [of the 2009 law] for more than four years.”’

Across the globe, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids estimates that more than 90 other countries have graphic warning labels, with Australia and Spain including photos on cigarette packs of gangrene feet and decaying teeth.