Report
A boost to global drive for stricter anti-tobacco laws
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/health/a-boost-to-global-drive-for-stricter-antitobacco-laws/article8006059.ece
In a significant boost to stricter tobacco control laws, the Australian government on Friday won an international legal battle against tobacco giant Phillip Morris, which had challenged “plain packaging” laws.
Globally, the public health community has been demanding implementation of “plain tobacco packaging” — which means standardised packaging of tobacco products without any exclusive branding (colours, imagery, corporate logos and trademarks). The laws will only allow the manufacturers to print the brand name in a mandated size and font. Australia, the first country to implement these laws, had passed the plain packaging legislation in November 2011.
The Australian tribunal in the arbitration, based in Singapore, unanimously agreed with Australia’s position and gave a verdict against Phillip Morris. The verdict was awaited by many countries wanting to implement stricter tobacco control legislation. “The judgment in favour of Australia is a vindication of policy taken in public interest. It is important that judiciary everywhere in the world recognises the irrefutable evidence on the incalculable harm done by tobacco to the health of millions across the world. Law must prioritise societal interest over narrow corporate interests, while adjudicating on matters of public policy,” said K. Srinath Reddy, the president of the Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI) and one of the leading voices of India’s anti-tobacco campaign.
According to the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) India report, smoking kills over one million people in India annually and is the fourth leading cause of non-communicable diseases (NCD) such as cancer and heart diseases, which account for 53 per cent of all deaths in India. According to the Health Ministry, economic burden of tobacco consumption is around Rs.1,04,500 crore per annum.
Biju Janata Dal MP Jay Panda had introduced a private member’s Bill on plain packaging, demanding that pictorial warnings occupy at least 60 per cent of the front panel of the pack. He welcomed the verdict given by the Australian tribunal.
“This is an issue that is close to my heart. I have been fervently advocating this reform as a measure to control tobacco consumption in our country; especially since India is the second largest consumer of tobacco. Given the scale of the issue facing us, today’s verdict would offer us greater confidence to follow Australia’s lead towards a stronger public health policy. In this light, I urge all stakeholders to stick to the important April 1, 2016 notification for increased pictorial health warnings.”
In July 2014, the Allahabad High Court allowed a writ petition asking for implementation of plain packaging and directed the government to implement the scheme at the earliest.
The laws are to be implemented in India by April 2016.
Report: North Dakota only state spending enough on tobacco prevention
http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/news/north-dakota/3900535-report-north-dakota-only-state-spending-enough-tobacco-prevention
GRAND FORKS — A report released this week argues that almost every state in the country is not spending enough money on tobacco prevention and cessation programs–every state, that is, except for North Dakota.
The report, released by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, focuses in part on the billions of dollars states have received since they settled lawsuits against major tobacco companies in 1998. With $10 million set aside for fiscal year 2016, North Dakota is the only state to spend at levels recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was one of five states to spend at least 50 percent of what the CDC recommends.
“It’s so frustrating because it’s such a critical investment, and we’re talking about such a small amount of money,” said John Schachter, director of state communications for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. “When there’s a pot from which to draw from logically–tobacco taxes and the settlement–as we say, it’s a no-brainer.”
States spent as much as $717.2 million on tobacco prevention programs in fiscal year 2008, but that dropped during the recession and bottomed out at $459.5 million in 2013, according to the campaign’s report. Spending will reach $468 million in fiscal year 2016, a fraction of the estimated $25.8 billion they will collect in settlement funds and tobacco taxes, though the budgets for two states were not yet available.
Tobacco companies spend about $9.6 billion a year on marketing, according to the campaign’s report.
“We believe states should use (settlement) payments to fund tobacco cessation and underage tobacco prevention programs at levels recommended by the Centers for Disease Control,” Brian May, a spokesman for tobacco giant Philip Morris, wrote in an email to the Herald.
While tobacco companies cannot advertise on television or the radio, Schacter said “it’s pretty clear the industry is out there in force.” He said the industry spends most of its marketing dollars at “point of sale,” such as displays at convenience stores and gas stations.
“The states still know it’s an issue, but for whatever reason they’re deciding to spend the money elsewhere,” Schachter said.
N.D. in the lead
The campaign’s report highlights North Dakota as an example for the rest of the states to follow, citing a drop in high school student smoking rates in recent years.
But North Dakota hasn’t always been a leader in tobacco prevention spending. In fiscal year 2009, it spent just $3.1 million on those programs, or one third of CDC-recommended funding. That changed with the passing of a measure in 2008 requiring a portion of the settlement dollars be used to reduce tobacco use.
“The settlement did not dictate how the money from the settlement was spent, but it did point out that the settlement was entered into because of the unacceptable behavior of the tobacco industry,” said Jeanne Prom, executive director of the North Dakota Center for Tobacco Prevention and Control Policy.
North Dakota’s tobacco tax revenue is not used for prevention efforts, she said.
Minnesota will receive $791.7 million in total tobacco revenue in fiscal year 2016 but will spend only $21.5 million on prevention programs, less than half of what the CDC recommends, according to the campaign’s report.
Laura Oliven, the tobacco control manager at the Minnesota Department of Health, called the CDC recommendations “aspirational.” She also pointed out that the campaign’s figures don’t capture Blue Cross Blue Shield’s Center for Prevention in Minnesota.
Minnesota’s adult smoking rate has dropped to 14.4 percent, the lowest it has ever recorded, the health department announced in January.
“We do a lot to maximize the funds we have,” Oliven said. “I guess the theme here really is that while we’ve made a lot of great strides, there’s still considerable work to be done.”
Local outcomes
Haley Thorson, a tobacco prevention coordinator at the Grand Forks Public Health Department, said tobacco settlement dollars helped fund a study asking residents about second-hand smoke.
She called that a “pivotal piece of information” in Grand Forks passing a law in 2010 that outlawed smoking in bars, casinos and truck stops.
“That policy was passed by the City Council because we really did have the pulse of how the community supported that policy,” she said.
North Dakota passed a similar statewide law in 2012.
The health department receives roughly $300,000 annually from the Center for Tobacco Prevention and Control Policy, or BreatheND. Thorson said they focus much of their efforts on tobacco-related policies.
“We used to go into schools and educate kids on the harms of tobacco use, but the better bang for our buck is to establish a comprehensive tobacco-free school policy that allows them to be educated in an environment where they’re not exposed to tobacco use,” she said.
Those efforts appear to be working.
The percentage of North Dakota high school students who smoked at least once in the past month plunged to 11.7 percent this year after hovering around 20 percent for the eight previous years, according to survey results provided by Thorson.
“For the states that aren’t spending anything or next to nothing, they need to see results like these,” Thorson said.
EU admits parts of tobacco deal too bureaucratic
https://euobserver.com/justice/131355
The EU’s anti-fraud agency Olaf has said that an agreement the EU signed with tobacco company Philip Morris International (PMI) in 2004 has given PMI an incentive to cooperate in cigarette smuggling investigations, but also indicated that some of the inquiry tools the EU acquired under the agreement may have been too bureaucratic to work in practice.
The EU-PMI deal, which ended a legal struggle and cemented a cooperation to combat cigarette smuggling and counterfeiting, will expire next year.
EUobserver has looked at various aspects of the agreement, and uncovered PMI’s annual compliance reports via a freedom of information request.
The reports showed that Olaf had made little use of several of the investigative tools it was given under the agreement.
For example, the deal gave Olaf the power to interview PMI employees, but PMI said it never received any request for such interviews during the 11 years the agreement has been in place.
According to the reports, Olaf also blindly trusted PMI’s promise to hold due diligence probes into the company’s business partners – Olaf never requested the due diligence reports despite the right to ask for them.
Olaf was unavailable for comment before publication of the article about its investigative tools under the agreement, but their press office has sent this website an e-mail with comments since.
Responding to questions why Olaf never used some of the options given under the agreement, its press office said “the specific situations envisaged in certain clauses have not arisen in the context of Olaf investigations”.
Although Olaf did not specify how or quantify how often, the spokesperson wrote that PMI “has on multiple occasions provided national investigators and Olaf with information of direct investigative value”.
“This information has regularly led to seizures by Member States’ enforcement authorities, and in many cases to arrests and criminal indictments,” it said.
“Transnational criminal organisations were dismantled and potential losses to Member States’ and the EU budget of many million euros were prevented. PMI and other companies also provided assistance to dismantle illegal cigarette production facilities in some EU Member States and neighbouring countries,” the e-mail continued.
Olaf noted that “on several occasions Olaf has addressed requests to PMI for information in relation to on-going investigations”, but also hinted that not all the inquiry tools put in place by the deal were considered effective.
“Investigative needs will also frequently dictate much faster means of enquiry than formal requests with a deadline of 45 days for replies, such as when a container with a suspicious load is already en route,” said Olaf’s press office.
The European Commission has promised an assessment of the agreement before the end of the month. Based on that assessment, a decision will be made whether or not to start negotiations for a possible renewal of the deal.
EUobserver has published a four-part series of articles about the EU’s agreement with tobacco company PMI
Report | ‘One in three cigarettes illegal’ findings questioned by experts
http://macaudailytimes.com.mo/report-one-in-three-cigarettes-illegal-findings-questioned-by-experts.html
A report published last month, which found that one in three cigarettes in Macau SAR are illegal, has continued to come under scrutiny after experts and regional organizations questioned its creditability.
The report, entitled “Asia-16: Illicit Tobacco Indicator 2014”, was jointly commissioned by the International Tax and Investment Center (ITIC) and Oxford Economics (OE), and found that around 34.5 percent of all cigarettes consumed within Macau were illegal.
Last month, the Times reported on a press conference held by OE in Macau, outlining the main findings of the report. Since then, we have been alerted to recent critiques of versions of the reports from 2012 and 2013, including one which was published by Professor Hana Ross on May 20, 2015 titled “A Critique of the ITIC/OE Asia-14 Illicit Tobacco Indicator 2013”.
According to Ross, who is the Principal Research Officer of Economics of Cape Town’s University Tobacco Control Project, the 2012 and 2013 reports both fail to provide scientifically sound and unbiased information to policy-makers. She contends, “The figures and statistics [that they report] are the product of either incorrect or unverified/unverifiable estimation methods applied to often questionable data from multiple sources that do not blend.”
She added that “the results are not comparable across countries and are inconsistent with results of other studies.”
In her critique, Ross explains that the problems associated with the “Asia-16” report fall into four general categories: scientific method and data-gathering issues; a lack of detail allowing others to replicate the survey; the selective presentation of results; and what Ross terms “plain mistakes and errors.”
The main argument for tackling the illegal trafficking of cigarettes, according to the “Asia-16” report, is to prevent national governments from losing out on missed tax revenues. Some however, believe that the results may have been influenced by the interests of large tobacco organizations.
Oxford Economics was forthcoming at the time of the press conference in revealing that supporting data had been provided by both Nielson and the tobacco firm, Philip Morris International (PM). Indeed, the disclaimer at the beginning of the report reads that OE and ITIC “prepared the Report in accordance with specific terms of reference between Philip Morris International Management” and that “financial support was provided by PM.”
In the 2013 edition, the disclaimer read, “should any party choose to rely on the report, they do so at their own risk. ITIC and OE will not accept any responsibility or liability for the report.” Ross highlighted this in her criticism and reiterated that she “would caution any stakeholders against relying on this report when assessing the trade in illicit cigarettes in their country or in the region.” This may be considered one of the reasons why this part of the disclaimer was not included into the 2014 edition, “Asia-16”.
An additional critique, also authored by Ross, was published last month. It is a review of another report from ITIC, entitled “ASEAN Excise Tax Reform: A Resource Manual”. The October critique was commissioned by The Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance (SEATCA), which according to their own descriptions, “supports ASEAN member states in developing and implementing effective, evidence-based tobacco control policies in line with the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.”
Skeptics point out that the ITIC report “focuses only on tobacco taxation” whilst failing to mention the overall implications of tobacco products for public health or the overall economy. “Governments should be wary of the recommendations in this manual,” wrote Ross.
A media and communications representative from SEATCA told the Times: “We have not seen the Asia-16 report [2014 edition], however we have seen earlier editions and have commissioned a critique of Asia-14.”
When asked about the role of tobacco firm financing, the representative answered: “If Asia-16 is anything like those [previous] reports, we would not be surprised if it was funded by tobacco money.”
The report was based on a survey of 1000 packs allegedly discarded in Macau. Survey organizers collected the discarded packages and determined the origins of the cigarettes. According to Adrian Cooper, CEO of Oxford Economics, this is the most accurate method of ascertaining the proportion of illicit cigarettes in a given area as “people are not always forthcoming or honest” when they are asked about the origins of their cigarettes.
The main conclusions from the survey were that countries which impose higher taxes on cigarette sales and which are located within close proximity to cheaper locations “tend to see a higher rate of illicit consumption.” The results of the study pertaining to Macau look at data exclusively from 2014, and so did not reflect the recent regulations introduced in 2015, including a new tax hike and a reduced personal duty-free allowance.