Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

Australia

Big hikes in tobacco seller’s licence fee and fines for selling to underage smokers

PLANS to increase tobacco lic­ence fees in Tasmania will disadvantage small retailers and could lead to a growth in black market sales, a business community advocate has warned.

http://www.themercury.com.au/lifestyle/big-hikes-in-tobacco-sellers-licence-fee-and-fines-for-selling-to-underage-smokers/news-story/3977c2ddbe8e282ee189d3e5f43ab5ed

Operators caught selling cigarettes to children will face the equal highest penalties in the nation and shopkeepers will have the cost of licence fees tripled under a State Government plan.

But Tasmania’s Small Business Council has warned the measures could drive tobacco sales underground.

Under the proposal, an increase in licence fees for retail workers will help to pay for a anti-smoking awareness campaign. The fee increase will be phased in over a two-year period, rising to $731.34 on January 1 next year and to about $1090 from January 1, 2018.

Anybody selling tobacco products must have a tobacco seller’s licence or be an employee of someone who holds a tobacco seller’s licence.

Business council executive director Robert Mallett supports an increase in the licence fee but says the Government has gone too far.

“To triple the fee is ridiculous and will kill a significant number of businesses,” he said.

“Government is addicted to tobacco taxes and sales. But, if the Government are going to be half-way serious, they need to fund the education campaigns out of the millions of dollars in taxes people pay on tobacco products.”

Mr Mallett said the fees would not hit major players such as a grocery giants Coles and Woolies but would have a significant impact on small businesses. “The chop-chop and black market will grow,” he said.

Mr Mallett also warned of an increase in thefts of tobacco.

Tasmania Health Minister Michael Ferguson said a $6.4 million preventive health plan would focus more Quit advertising and at pregnant women who smoked, and match the highest penalties in the nation for those supplying tobacco products to children — presently $18,120.

“As part of our bold plan, we will invest $1.8 million over four years to increase smoking control, education and targeted interventions,” he said.

“The government has set a bold target to reduce the number of Tasmanians smoking to 10 per cent by 2020, and down to 5 per cent by 2025.”

Mr Ferguson announced last week the Government would not pursue a proposal to increase the smoking age to 21 or 25.

Mr Ferguson said the largest investment the government will make is to provide $3.5 million “to support and incentivise communities and individuals to make positive health changes in their life through better nutrition and more physical activity”.

“A key focus of this will be children and students, with schools set to be supported through the Student Health Initiative,” he said.

“Through this, $2 million will be spent over four years on ensuring our youngest citizens learn healthy habits which will put them on a trajectory for a longer, healthier life.

“This initiative will help us achieve generational change.”

Tobacco retailers slugged under new Tasmanian plan to curb smoking

The Tasmanian Government will triple the licence fee charged to tobacco retailers in a bid to tackle high smoking rates.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-30/tasmanian-government-to-triple-tobacco-retail-licence/7674902

The Government has released its final Healthy Tasmania five-year strategic plan, which was put out for public consultation in December last year.

Health Minister Michael Ferguson said the $6.4 million plan contained 24 actions, mainly targeting smoking and obesity.

“We will be tripling the cost of tobacco seller licence fees, increasing compliance and enforcement, we will be providing options for more information to help people make the decision to quit even at the point of sale and we will be regulating the sale of e-cigarettes,” he said.

It is estimated $1.8 million will be raised over four years by increasing the licence fee to $731 next year and about $1,100 by January 2018.

The funds will go towards a social media quit campaign, and employing more education and compliance officers.

Mr Ferguson said he was not worried about a backlash from tobacco retailers.

“Along with the sale of tobacco it comes with the responsibility to fully fund the enforcement of tobacco legislation in this state,” he said.

“We will also be increasing the maximum penalty for providing tobacco to a young person.”

On Thursday, the Government backed away from its controversial move to lift the legal smoking age to at least 21,

“We believe at this point in time this is the appropriate balance,” Mr Ferguson said.

Anti-smoking groups welcome strategy

The Cancer Council’s Penny Egan has welcomed the plan.

“We’ve always said that the smoking age is just one of many strategies and so we’d rather focus on a whole range of things,” she said.

The plan has also included measures to help communities and individuals make healthier lifestyle choices.

The Heart Foundation’s Graeme Lynch said preventative health had been underfunded in Tasmania and welcomed the focus on smoking and obesity prevention.

“We hope that we can really turbo charge the activity around addressing the poor uptake of fruit and vegetables in Tasmania,” he said.

Stub you: How a tobacco giant is bypassing packaging rules

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/stub-you-how-tobacco-giant-bypassing-packaging-rul/3068812/

IMPERIAL Tobacco has deployed a new trick to circumvent plain packaging legislation and it’s caught the Federal Government flat footed.

Packs of 20 Peter Stuyvesant cigarettes – manufactured by Imperial – are being sold with a lift out soft pack inside the olive boxes mandated by the Rudd/Gillard Government in 2011.

The move means people are able to throw away the cardboard box carrying warnings of cancer, gangrene, blindness and heart disease and instead use a shiny silver pack to carry their smokes.

Imperial Tobacco is inserting soft packs inside its packets of Peter Stuyvesant cigarettes to get around the Federal Government's plain packaging legislation.

Imperial Tobacco is inserting soft packs inside its packets of Peter Stuyvesant cigarettes to get around the Federal Government’s plain packaging legislation.

A spokeswoman for Imperial denied the company was breaking the law before adding: “we are providing a fresher, premium product to consumers.”

The Federal Department of Health said it would investigate the issue – after it was raised by Australian Regional Media with Federal Health Minister Sussan Ley.

Ms Ley and the department declined to comment further because the investigation is ongoing.

The Plain Packaging Act states that: “If the pack contains lining – the lining of the pack must be made only of foil backed with paper,” which the soft packs in question are.

And while there is also a section precluding tobacco companies from having fold out panels on their packets there is nothing that specifically addresses this latest move by Imperial.

The regulations which accompany the Act also fail to do this.

The maximum penalty for manufacturers who breach the plain packaging legislation is $36,000.

This is not the first time Imperial has used extras with Peter Stuyvesant cigarettes to entice smokers.

A report by Quit Victoria in 2011 mentioned the brand’s previous behaviour.

“In February 2006, one month prior to the adoption of picture‐based warnings on tobacco packages, Peter Stuyvesant cigarettes were being sold in ‘trendy retro‐style tins’ which, unlike soft packets of cigarettes with on‐pack printed warnings, had health warning stickers that were easily peeled off,” the report stated.

“Retailers reported that the tins were very popular with younger smokers.”

Sunbury’s foodie precinct calls for permanent smoking ban

http://www.starweekly.com.au/news/sunburys-foodie-precinct-calls-for-permanent-smoking-ban/

A trial smoking ban in Sunbury’s foodie precinct has been hailed a tremendous success, with restaurateurs calling for a permanent ban ahead of statewide restrictions from late 2017.

The east side of O’Shanassy Street will stay smoke free between Station and Brook streets until at least April next year after Hume council passed a proposal put by Sunbury Community Health, Sunbury Business Association and traders.

District 3429 owner Ami Tran and Vic’s Food and Wine’s Vic Scerri said reaction to the trial ban, which started on April 4, had been overwhelmingly positive, even though the ban had been largely self regulated.

“It means families, parents, old people … they can actually enjoy their food without having to worry about smoke,” Ms Tran said.

“Smokers, too, have been good about it, just going elsewhere to have a cigarette. It’s been great for the area.”

Mr Scerri said diners had quickly adjusted to the change. “There’s no reason it shouldn’t continue.”

Council’s city communities director, Margarita Caddick, said the trial ban was being monitored and evaluated.

“Hume officers regularly patrol the area and we’re pleased that people have done the right thing and refrained from smoking,” she said.

“The trial is almost three months old, and no fines have been issued to date. Diners and local businesses have provided positive feedback.

“We think it’s going very well.”

A survey of more than 150 people last year found 88.5 per cent supported the trial ban.

In February, Cr Jack Medcraft said it could be the first step to a ban in other public places, such as carparks and shopping centres.

“We would cop flak over it from some people … but the survey with the O’Shanassy Street proposal showed the community is saying, if you want to smoke, go to another spot.”

Reaction to $2.1 million of streetscape improvements unveiled last November also continues to be favourable.

Powerlines were put underground and kerbs and drainage upgraded.

Wider paths have given traders more room for outdoor tables and chairs, while new council policies allow businesses to set up permanent structures.

But perhaps the most popular addition has been the fairy lights in the street’s elm trees.

Ms Tran, Mr Scerri and council planning and development director Kelvin Walsh said the project had helped solidify O’Shanassy Street’s growing reputation as a foodie destination and “a spectacular place to dine”

Melbourne City Council to consider smoking ban on major streets

Melbourne City Council is considering a smoking ban on footpaths along Swanston, Russell, La Trobe, Victoria and Lygon streets.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/melbourne-city-council-to-consider-smoking-ban-on-major-streets/news-story/079f88298ee7c7339038e6fc2edbb20b

FOOTPATHS on some of Melbourne’s major streets, including Lygon St, could become smoke free in a city-first proposal.

Melbourne City Council is considering whether to stop people lighting up on footpaths along Swanston, Russell, La Trobe, Victoria and Lygon streets.

People would also have to butt out on the footpaths outside the City Baths.

Council’s chair of people city portfolio Richard Foster said the response to previous smoking bans, covering nine city areas, was “overwhelmingly supportive”.

But the new proposal hinges on community consultation, which is open now and closes August 19.

“Smoke-free areas allow people to breathe easy and support the health of children and young people, older adults and people with health conditions,” Cr Foster said.

The smoking ban could affect popular Lygon St.

“In previous consultations around 85 per cent of respondents were in favour of introducing more smoke-free zones.

“Our approach helps to de-normalise smoking and support people who are trying to quit, or have recently quit.”

The council is considering the bans after a plea for help from RMIT university, which has a campus-wide ban but borders Swanston and La Trobe streets.

Property services executive director Chris Hewison said the university received regular complaints about smoking on footpaths outside RMIT doorways.

“Passive smoking or exposure to second-hand smoke affects the health of both smokers and nonsmokers,” he said.

“It can cause serious health disease and conditions — there is no level of exposure to second-hand smoke that is free of risk.”

monique.hore@news.com.au

A breath of fresh air for diners: Smoking ban begins in all outdoor dining areas in South Australia

  • Smoking in all alfresco dining venues is now banned in South Australia
  • Cancer Council SA wants to protect the public from second hand smoke
  • If caught smoking – diners receive a $200 fine, businesses are fined $1,250

Smoking will be banned from all alfresco dining venues in South Australia, starting from Friday.

The new rules apply to pubs, clubs, café, restaurants and fast food outlets after years of campaigning to try and protect the public from second hand smoke.

Cancer Council SA’s chief executive Lincoln Size says he is pleased workers and diners can now be protected.

‘We believe that South Australians of all ages should be able to enjoy alfresco dining areas without putting their health at risk from second hand smoke,’ Mr Size said.

‘Tobacco smoke contains thousands of chemical compounds – at least 250 of these found in secondhand smoke are known to be toxic or carcinogenic.

The law now requires a two metre wall be installed to divide the two areas of smoking and nonsmoking if venues hope to continue allowing diners to smoke.

Those caught smoking in outside areas will be given a $200 fine while businesses will be fined $1,250.

Cigarettes, cigars, pipes, shisha, hookah and water pipes all fall under the no-smoking ban.

Mr Size said 21 people in South Australia are killed as a result of smoking every week and the ban will help ‘de-normalise the behaviour.’

Smoking will only be allowed in beer gardens where ‘pre-packaged food of a kind generally intended to be consumed between meals,’ is served.

E-cigarettes: health advocates welcome court action against two manufacturers

Consumer watchdog takes Social-Lites and Elusion New Zealand to court, alleging both companies’ products contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jun/20/e-cigarettes-health-advocates-welcome-court-action-against-two-manufacturers

Health advocates have welcomed court action against two e-cigarette manufacturers, arguing it strengthens the case for proposed Victorian laws which would regulate electronic cigarettes in the same way as traditional tobacco products.

The consumer watchdog is taking two companies to the federal court after both allegedly claimed their e-cigarettes didn’t contain cancer-causing chemicals when in fact they did.

“It beggars belief that you can have a rechargeable battery device heating up a liquid of unknown composition, which you use at your mouth for hours at [sic] end, with no safety standards at all,” Quit Victoria director Dr Sarah White said on Monday.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission alleges that the two companies, Social-Lites and Elusion New Zealand, breached Australian consumer law by making representations on their websites from at least August 2015 that the e-cigarette products being sold did not contain carcinogens or toxic chemicals, and did not contain any of the chemicals found in conventional cigarettes.

The e-cigarettes sold by the two companies do contain harmful carcinogens and toxic chemicals, including formaldehyde acetaldehyde and acrolein, the ACCC alleges.

Formaldehyde is classified by the World Health Organisation international agency for cancer research as a Group 1A carcinogen, meaning there is sufficient evidence to show it causes cancer in humans. Acetaldehyde is classified as a Group 2B carcinogen, while Acrolein is classified as a toxic chemical.

“It is imperative that suppliers have scientific evidence to support claims that their products do not contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde,” ACCC chairman Rod Sims said.

“There is an increasing level of concern among international, national and state authorities regarding the composition of e-cigarettes, and the likely effects of their use. The ACCC will continue to work with its local and international counterparts to ensure consumers are receiving accurate information about these products,” Sims said.

The ACCC also alleges that the chief executive of Social-Lites and the director of Elusion were knowingly concerned in the alleged contraventions.

E-cigarettes are metal tubes that heat liquids typically laced with nicotine and deliver vapour when inhaled. The liquids come in thousands of flavours, from cotton candy to pizza.

Use of the devices has grown quickly in the past decade and experts fiercely debate whether they can help people give up smoking and whether they are safe, with some studies raising concerns about the toxicity of some of the ingredients.

Should tobacco vending machine be banned in ACT?

https://www.thesequitur.com/should-tobacco-vending-machine-be-banned-in-act-1290303/

There has been a wide discussion on the topic whether there should be a ban or not on the vending machine that dispenses tobacco products in and around ACT. The discussion has furiously spread across many non-government health organizations since last couple of months and they all are demanding a strict and quick action in this regards from the federal government of ACT. It is noticeable that a bill in this regard has recently been moved ahead by Roslyn Dundas – the Democrat MP. The bill recommends ban on tobacco vending machines.

What caused the need of ban?

The usage of tobacco products is on shiver increase by teenagers and children in the territory. And there has been a rapid growth in the number of diseases related to tobacco in the youth in ACT. This scenario has caused an alarm in the health organizations in ACT and hence they have been demanding a ban on tobacco distributing vending machines.

Eileen Jerga – the Executive Director of the National Heart Foundation of ACT says that “Tobacco should not be sold like a lolly or a biscuit”, “It’s a deadly and addictive product. We don’t sell alcohol or aspirin through self-service machines – why tobacco?

Moreover Eileen said that “If we are at all serious about reducing child smoking, we must tighten up on tobacco retail outlets. This is a very good place to start”

“Though tobacco vending machines have been restricted to licensed premises in the ACT, it’s clear there’s been little supervision and it’s been relatively easy for young people to get cigarettes out of these self-service machines.”

Anne Jones, Chief Executive of Action on Smoking and Health said “This ban would be consistent with the recommendations of the worldwide Framework Convention on Tobacco Control which Australia has recently signed; it would also support a commitment in the Federal Government’s new National Tobacco Strategy”.

“To protect the health of young people, retail of tobacco products should be restricted to face-to-face sales to ensure young people do not have easy access.

“We urge all parties in the ACT Assembly to support this bill.”

With the technological advancement in Vending Machines we have witnessed a number of types of vending machine that are helpful and beneficial to us in order to maintain and improve our health and life style. We have been using Snack Vending Machines, Drink Vending Machines and healthy vending machines that dispense healthy food items so why to use this dangerous one?

World’s ugliest colour discovered

http://www.trtworld.com/life/worlds-ugliest-colour-discovered-127128

The world's "ugliest" color could help people quit smoking

The world’s “ugliest” color could help people quit smoking

Australian researchers looked for the most repulsive colour to help save lives.

A group of experts from a marketing company have released the results of a survey which found that Pantone 448c, also known as opaque couché, is the ugliest colour in the world.

Officially the world’s ugliest colour: Pantone 448 C (aka Opaque Couch) or as I like to call it Dark Green Brown.

The Australian Government had asked the research agency GfK Bluemoon to find the ugliest colour to use on cigarette boxes to encourage people to stop smoking.

Nearly a thousand smokers took part in the survey and chose the “drab, dark brown” colour, which they associated with “tar,” “dirty” and “death.”

After the survey Australia set out on December 1 to legislate that the colour must be used on plain packs of cigarettes alongside graphic health warnings.

The government hopes that the move will make people think twice about continuing the habit.

Australia was the first country to adopt plain packaging in 2012, and experienced a sharp fall in smoking immediately afterwards.

The United Kingdom, Ireland, and France followed suit, adopting similar “plain packaging” laws to effectively fight tobacco use.

On May 31, in honour of World No Tobacco Day, the World Health Organisation (WHO) tried to encourage other countries to adopt similar plain packaging for tobacco products, following Australia’s success.

The Guidelines for Implementation of Article 11 (Packaging and labelling of tobacco products) of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) describes plain packaging as “measures to restrict or prohibit the use of logos, colours, brand images or promotional information on packaging other than brand names and product names displayed in a standard colour and font style [plain packaging].”

WHO Director-General Dr Margaret Chan said on No Tobacco Day “Plain packaging reduces the attractiveness of tobacco products. It kills the glamour, which is appropriate for a product that kills people.”

“It restricts tobacco advertising and promotion. It limits misleading packaging and labelling. And it increases the effectiveness of health warnings.”

However, the result of the survey has been disputed.

Famous painter Leonardo Da Vinci used opaque couché to encolour the dress of the subject of his famous painting “Mona Lisa,” being inspired by popular clothing at that time in history.

So beauty is really in the eye of the beholder.

Tobacco Giant Wanted To Sue Australia Over Graphic Warning Labels

http://www.thealternativedaily.com/tobacco-giant-wanted-sue-australia/

Buying cigarettes in Australia involves choosing among shelves of different graphically illustrated, awful illnesses, as that’s how cigarettes legally have to be packaged. Though in reality people can’t choose how smoking tobacco will affect them, the situation is closer to real life than a shelf of glorified smoking brands.

Tobacco giant Philip Morris tried to sue Australia over its packaging laws in 2012, but the Hague international court ruled the attempt an “abuse of rights” in December last year. The 186-page ruling was unsealed on Tuesday.

Australia was the first country to mandate that cigarettes be sold in plain packages, with no branding and full, visual, health warnings, in an attempt to reduce smoking rates, especially among youth. Other countries are now considering the initiative, and Britain is making it compulsory this month.

In Britain, the tobacco industry also tried to defeat the law, but the high court in London rejected the challenge this week. Health spokespeople lauded the rejection a “crushing defeat for the tobacco industry,” and Harpal Kumar, head of Cancer Research UK, said it was “the beginning of the end for packaging that masks a deadly and addictive product … it reflects a huge effort aimed at protecting children from tobacco marketing.”

Philip Morris, which manufactures brands such as Marlboro, argued that the rules impinge on their trademark and intellectual property. Not only did the company want Australia to withdraw the law, it wanted damages of at least US$4.2 billion plus compound interest from Australia — that is, the Australian people.

The company lodged its challenge using an old trade deal between Australia and Hong Kong that included foreign investments, by restructuring its company so that it would fall under the treaty. The court ruled, however, that the cigarette company had restructured itself just to gain protection under the deal, finding that an “abuse of rights.”

Tobacco companies also ran a strong media campaign around the legislation, arguing, rather weakly, that retail workers would find it hard to distinguish between the different brands when selling them, and that crime syndicates would benefit from the packaging. Imperial Tobacco claimed it made Australia a nanny state — that is, an overprotective government.

The trend of corporations suing countries has gained traction over the last decade, with Australia counting 42 investor-state dispute settlement provisions in international treaties in 2014. If the Trans-Pacific Partnership is ratified, transnational corporations based in the US will have an avenue to sue Australia. Though there’s an exclusion for tobacco control measures, there isn’t one for other health issues.

So what do cigarette packets in Australia look like now?

Under Australian legislation, cigarettes have to be sold in logo-free, dark-brown-olive packaging (one of the least attractive colours, according to government research, especially for young people). The number of cigarettes in each packet, as well as the brand, is indicated in plain, uniform text, and most of the packet consists of graphic health warnings, such as, “Smoking causes mouth and throat cancer” or, “Smoking harms unborn babies.”

Yet the impact of the packaging has been less than you might imagine, with one study finding that before it, 20 percent of smokers wanted to quit, and after, 27 percent wanted to quit. And according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, sales profits were barely affected by the measure, though they did decline after Australia implemented an increased sales tax.

Tobacco interventions pay off

However, a new US study from the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education found that when smokers quit, healthcare costs immediately plunged. It found that if 10 percent of US smokers gave up cigarettes, and the rest cut back by 10 percent, the US could shave $63 billion off medical costs.

The analysis makes the case for tobacco-control policies as “a very good form of health care and societal investment by governments.”

But smoking is still killing over 480,000 Americans a year, with thousands of young people taking up the habit every day.

Meanwhile, the US tobacco industry spends a million dollars every hour to promote its products, according to Tom Frieden, director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

And the day before the Australia Hague ruling was released, the US Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge by Philip Morris to a $25-million Oregon jury verdict in favor of a man whose wife died after smoking the company’s low-tar cigarettes.

The wife, Michelle Schwarz, began smoking in 1964, and tried to quit without any luck, before switching in 1976 to Philip Morris’ Merit brand, which was advertised as “full flavor” but “low-tar.”

She died in 1999 from a brain tumor that was the result of metastatic lung cancer. The suit accused the company of negligence and fraud.

According to the European Commission and the World Health Organization, smokers lose an average of 14 years of life. Tobacco smoke contains more than 4,000 chemicals, 250 of which are harmful and 50 of which cause cancer.

A world without advertising on packaging?

So, what would happen if other unhealthy products were sold in a similar way? What if sweet cereals, for example, were sold with giant warnings that they were more harmful than a lot of junk food, and the only information on the package was… information. What if microwave popcorn packaging only contained the product name, ingredients, quantity, and a giant warning that some of the ingredients cause cancer? Or if Coca Cola and Pepsi were sold in plain cans with obesity and kidney malfunction warnings? We should ask ourselves if consumers, especially younger ones, have a right to shop without manipulation.

—Tamara Pearson