Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

TPD

One in four e-cigs will be banned in Britain next year after being branded too strong in European Court ruling

Dec 23rd, 2015
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3372351/One-four-e-cigs-banned-Britain-year-branded-strong-European-Court-ruling.html

  • Experts are concerned that e-cigs are gateway for teens to smoke tobacco
  • Under new EU directive e-cigs will have to carry a health warning on them
  • New rules, in May, could also see cigarettes only sold in packets of 20
  • Around 2.6 million adults in UK have used e-cigs in the past decade

A quarter of e-cigarettes are set to be banned in Britain next year after Europe’s highest court paved the way for tough new regulations.

Juliane Kokott, advocate general to the European Court of Justice, warned that e-cigarettes may act as a ‘gateway’ for teenagers to go on to smoke tobacco.

Dr Kokott, the EU’s most senior legal officer, said regulation is needed because of ‘possible risks to human health’.

Her intervention will have huge implications for the debate currently raging between health experts in Britain, some of whom insist that e-cigarettes will save thousands of lives, and others who are concerned that they have not yet been proven to be safe.

Dr Kokott said an industry challenge against the new rules – which are due to be introduced in May as part of a new EU directive – should be dismissed.

Judges at the court will have the final say when they deliver a ruling in March.

If they take Dr Kokott’s advice, and dismiss industry objections, vaping devices will no longer be allowed to contain more than 20 mg of nicotine per ml of liquid.

Analysis by London Economics, a policy consultancy, suggests that 25 per cent of the gadgets currently on sale use liquid stronger than this threshold.

The EU Tobacco Products Directive will also mean adverts have to be much more strictly regulated so that teenagers are not targeted.

E-cigarettes will have to carry health warnings telling people they contain a ‘highly addictive substance’.

And the size of refills and of the ‘tanks’ on the gadgets will also be limited for the first time.

Dr Kokott also said that a separate challenge from big tobacco firms over plain packaging for cigarette boxes should be dismissed, paving the way for rules to be brought in from May.

If that change goes through, cigarette packets will only be sold in boxes of 20, the packets will only allowed to be brown or green, and will carry a health warning covering 65 per cent of the box.

E-cigarettes contain a liquid form of nicotine that is heated into vapour to be inhaled, avoiding the harm caused by tobacco smoke.

Industry figures yesterday warned that the new rules will mean vapers are ‘outlawed’ and may go back to smoking if they cannot get the strongest e-cigarettes – but health charities say it is right that emerging industry is properly regulated.

Health experts agree that the devices are much safer than smoking tobacco – but some are concerned about unresolved safety concerns.

The World Health Organisation has warned that they may be toxic to bystanders, many rail companies have banned people from vaping on trains or in stations, and the Welsh Government is planning to prohibit the practice in restaurants, pubs and offices from 2017.

Yet Public Health England claimed in a report earlier this year that vaping was ‘95 per cent safe’ – a claim that was widely criticised when it emerged that it originated with scientists in the pay of the e-cigarette industry.

Dr Kokott said in a written ‘opinion’ presented to the court yesterday: ‘It is not manifestly wrong or unreasonable to accept that e-cigarettes possibly cause risks to human health and that that product could — above all in the case of adolescents and young adults — develop into a gateway to nicotine addiction and, ultimately, traditional tobacco consumption.’

Around 2.6 million adults in Britain have used e-cigarettes in the decade or so that they have been on the market.

Public health experts are keen to promote the gadgets as a smoking-cessation tool.

But they are concerned that the devices are being advertised as a lifestyle accessory – in much the same way that tobacco was in the past.

Ian Gregory, who runs the 100K group of e-cigarette companies, threatened that vapers would feel ‘outlawed’ – and would vote to leave the EU in a bid to rid themselves of the regulation.

He said: ‘Britain’s vapers are determined to save the devices which they believe save their lives.

‘They will now start playing a game of Brexit Poker with the Commission – threatening to vote for Britain to leave the EU in the referendum unless the Commission insists on Britain having an opt-out.

‘There is little awareness yet among politicians as to just how damaging the EU Tobacco Products Directive could be for the e-cigarette industry.’

He claimed that the ban on stronger e-liquid would drive so many vapers back to smoking that it would cost 105,000 lives every year across Europe.

But Alison Cox, director of prevention at Cancer Research UK, said regulation is needed.

‘We believe e-cigarettes need light touch regulations which will help guarantee products are safe and effective, and prevent them being promoted to non-smokers and children,’ she said.

‘But the implementation of these regulations needs to be monitored to ensure that they don’t prevent smokers who want to use e-cigarettes from doing so. It’ s important that people who want to, are able to move away from tobacco cigarettes, which are responsible for one in four cancer deaths.’

Deborah Arnott, chief executive of health charity Action on Smoking and Health, added: ‘Growing numbers of governments around the world are banning the sale of electronic cigarettes.

‘The EU, by regulating them as consumer products, and allowing their sale and use, is recognising the value of these products as alternatives to smoking.’

Totally Wicked, the Blackburn-based e-cigarette company which headed the legal objection, last night played down the significance of the document.

Fraser Cropper, Totally Wicked’s managing director, said: ‘This is not a formal decision, nor a legal judgement on the questions we raised in our challenge.

‘It is a legal opinion prepared to assist the judges in making their decision and will be considered alongside the written and oral submissions. It is not binding.’

Brussels must resist lobbying by the tobacco industry

Oct 10th, 2015
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/brussels-must-resist-lobbying-by-the-tobacco-industry-1.2385730?mode=print&ot=example.AjaxPageLayout.ot

Emily O’Reilly

Lobbyists do a very straightforward job. They try to influence legislators to do things, or not to do things, that affect the bottom line of the people who pay them.

In 2012, the European Commission did something likely to affect the bottom line of the tobacco industry. It proposed a new Tobacco Products Directive aimed at reducing smoking rates across Europe, especially among young people.

And that was the starting pistol for hundreds of tobacco industry-hired lobbyists to fan out across Brussels and the member states, in a bid to curtail the potential commercial damage the new law could cause them worldwide.

Brussels is now a legislative powerhouse, and thus a hive of lobbying activity. Every morning, dozens queue for access passes in the European Parliament, while across the town, formal meetings fill diaries and countless informal meetings take place over coffee, lunch and dinner, as they seek a toehold on some part of the legislative ladder that will enable them to effect some change favourable to their clients.

Most of the biggest corporations in the world, from Google to British American Tobacco, to Shell and BP, have established a presence in the cobblestone streets around the EU quarter. With that has come an increasing stream of former EU officials going through the public service door and into a frequently lucrative private one. Highly prized insider intelligence and access is the currency that seeps through much of the legislative work of the EU.

By the time the Tobacco Products Directive finally passed into law two years later, the European Parliament, Commission and Council had been subjected to one of the most intense lobbying campaigns witnessed by the three institutions. It was, one commentator said, “the most lobbied dossier in the history of the EU institutions”.

And while the directive that emerged was generally well received as a significant contribution towards tobacco control and the safeguarding of public health, due to the hard work of many working on the issue, it was also clear that the lobbyists had won some victories along the way.

A softening of a plain packaging clause – meaning that it was left to member states to introduce such a measure if they chose – led to the current case taken by Japan Tobacco against the Irish Government’s decision to do just that.

The UK is being similarly sued by Philip Morris and British American Tobacco, and it in turn has brought a case to the ECJ to get clarity on certain aspects of the directive. Issues such as intellectual property and the right to free speech form part of the legal challenge.

The intent of the lobbyists was twofold. One, obviously, was to water down the original commission proposal, the other was to delay its passage to a point where perhaps a more favourable political climate might further dilute the bottom line impact of the proposed measures.

Now publicly available tobacco industry documents and evidence from MEPs and officials, testify to a massively well-funded and highly sophisticated campaign.

The approach was tailored, with bespoke approaches for individuals, institutions or ministers depending on cultural or political sensitivities and susceptibilities.

No argument was either too alarmist or too cynical to be discarded, whether wholesale unemployment of French tabac owners, or the cost to creaking health services of people actually living longer. The sophisticated use of “front groups” was another favourite tactic.

Strange things happened along the way, including the sudden and strange departure of the then EU health commissioner John Dalli. This threatened to derail the whole process ahead of the strongly anti-tobacco Irish presidency. Even stranger were break-ins to the Brussels offices of three anti-smoking NGOs which had material swiped from their databases.

As European Ombudsman, my involvement began when I received a series of complaints claiming that the European Commission had not been as transparent as it should be when it came to its dealings with tobacco lobbyists.

The complaints alleged that details of certain meetings had not been proactively published and that this was not in compliance with the 2003 UN Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which the EU had signed up to in 2005. Indeed the commission itself played a leading role in pushing for this convention under then EU health commissioner David Byrne.

That convention is strikingly clear in its refusal to see the tobacco industry as a “normal” commercial interest to which “normal” rules of commercial engagement and commercial protection should apply.

Using highly-charged vocabulary, including the words “epidemic” and “devastating”, the industry is characterised as a pernicious one, severely damaging to global public health, and one to which as little quarter as possible should be given by governments and regulators.

Alongside other non-binding guidelines, the UN convention instructs all member states who signed up to it, and all EU institutions, to limit their interactions with the tobacco industry and to make any such interactions as transparent and as accountable as possible.

There is no doubt but that the commission was heavily lobbied and by extremely smart people – including lawyers – who used a belt and braces approach when it came to attempts to dissuade it from certain lines of action.

An examination of documents which outlined the industry approach showed that one tactic was to – in effect – shake the commission’s confidence when it came to the legality of certain crucial directive elements.

No institution relishes a trip to the courts to account for its work, and the lobbyists were well aware that this was a potentially fruitful tactic.

It would appear that, at the very least, it may have worked to slow down the passage of the directive.

My inquiry included an inspection of the commission’s files. We found that the Barroso Commission had not sought to conceal meetings, but that details of certain meetings were revealed only when an access, or FOI, request was made.

We further found that while the lead commission department, the directorate general for health, did proactively release details of all its contacts with the tobacco lobby, other directorates general did not.

The most interesting finding perhaps was that officials, when asked, revealed that they did not consider contacts with lawyers representing the industry to be meetings with lawyers acting potentially as lobbyists.

At the very least, this failure to see lawyers as potential lobbyists was naïve.

The most cursory examination of lobbying methodology, and particularly when it comes to regulatory affairs, shows how valuable lawyers are to the process.

Most websites of the more influential lobbying firms in Brussels demonstrate a proud – and far from hidden – showcasing of their hiring of former commission and other EU-insider lawyers, clearly valued for their knowledge of how the system works, and, no doubt, of how it can be tweaked in their new employer’s interests.

This so called “revolving door” phenomenon has been the basis of another ongoing inquiry by my office.

My recommendations to the commission, published earlier this week, are simple: that all of the directorates general should proactively release details of contacts with the tobacco industry, just as the directorate general health does, and should recognise lawyers as potential lobbyists and not as a separate caste.

It must be noted that the EU Commission in power since November 2014 under the presidency of Jean-Claude Juncker has made several positive steps towards more lobbying transparency. This is an example to other EU institutions, and indeed is now at a level of transparency better than most EU member states.

However the commission is the EU executive, it has great responsibilities and must lead by example.

To some observers, all of this might appear either abstract or high-minded. But recent revelations, for example, about Volkswagen’s deliberate concealment of the actual emission rates of their cars, shows the real-world cost of regulatory failure.

Over time, details may well emerge of how lobbyists for the car industry also worked to try to water down public-interest initiatives to safeguard the environment and public health.

How many more lives might be saved or public health further safeguarded if the Tobacco Directive had been even stricter, if clever lobbyists hadn’t been able to nibble around its edges?

The commission says that it believes it has been faithful to the UN convention and that in any event, the guidelines are not legally binding.

The former, in my view, is not the case, and the latter should not matter.

I do believe the commission has the best interests of citizens at heart and, while full of intelligent, hard-working people, I also believe it needs to engage those citizens more fully in its work by alerting them to the forces that seek to steer the commission in a direction in which perhaps it should not go.

The more transparency there is around lobbying, the more that an engaged civil society can work with dedicated public servants in the EU, to ensure that clever, well-resourced industry agents do not upset the balance between the safeguarding of a public interest and the right of an industry to safeguard its profits.

Emily O’Reilly is European Ombudsman

Blackburn-based e-cigarette manufacturer set to fight ‘unfair’ ruling

Sep 28th, 2015
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/13788912.Blackburn_based_e_cigarette_manufacturer_set_to_fight____unfair____ruling/

AN EAST Lancashire electronic cigarette manufacturer will formally challenge an EU directive this week which it says breaches European Union law and would put its industry at an unfair trading disadvantage.

Blackburn-based Totally Wicked is the only e-cigarette firm to win the right to challenge Article 20 of the EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), which will bring e-cigarettes and e-liquid within its regulatory scope as a ‘tobacco-related product’ – despite not containing tobacco.

It means e-cigarettes would be subject to more stringent regulation than some tobacco products.

And the company, which believes the TPD is likely to adversely impact the availability of good quality, electronic cigarettes and e-liquids, will formally challenge its validity at the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in Luxembourg on Thursday.

Totally Wicked managing director Fraser Cropper said: “It is crucial that our industry is allowed to mature within a proportionate regulatory framework, which supports appropriate controls and safety requirements, and necessary social responsibility and continues to provide consumer choice to maximise the enormous potential of these products. Article 20 of this directive patently will not deliver this environment.”

Totally Wicked’s challenge is based on its view that Article 20 of the TPD represents a disproportionate impediment to the free movement of goods and the free provision of services, places electronic cigarettes at an unjustified competitive disadvantage to tobacco products, fails to comply with the general EU principle of equality, and breaches the fundamental rights of electronic cigarette manufacturers.

Left to develop under proportionate consumer regulation, e-cigarettes have the potential to render tobacco obsolete and prevent millions of deaths from smoking, a company spokesman added.

Portugal adds public vaping ban to new TPD law

Sep 7th, 2015
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

http://ecigintelligence.com/portugal-adds-public-vaping-ban-to-new-tpd-law/

Portugal has become the latest European Union member state to implement the EU’s Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), hewing closely to its requirements but also introducing a public vaping ban with limited exceptions.

The country’s new amendment to its tobacco law, which will come into force on 1st January, defines e-cigarettes using exactly the same wording as the TPD and adheres to it in key areas such as product and packaging restrictions.

But it also imposes a vaping ban in effectively all public enclosed spaces, notably including restaurants, bars and clubs; workplaces; and public-transportation locations.

Although this measure goes beyond the TPD, which sets no requirements on public usage, its tolerance of dedicated smoking and vaping areas in some smoke-free premises does appear to represent a watering-down of the Portuguese government’s position. An earlier draft of the amended tobacco law would have eliminated these exceptions entirely.

E-cigarette use will continue to be permitted, as will tobacco smoking, in physically separated smoking/vaping areas of bars and restaurants – as well as distinct areas of other locations such as psychiatric hospitals, rehabilitation centres, and nursing homes – as long as clearly identified rooms for the purpose have extraction ventilation systems meeting precise specifications.

A new report from ECigIntelligence, published this week, explores every aspect of the law in detail.

The government of prime minister Pedro Passos Coelho is also taking the now-standard step of prohibiting under-18s from using and buying e-cigarettes, again not required by the TPD but becoming a de facto pan-European policy; and the Portuguese law imposes slightly more stringent limitations on e-cig advertising and marketing than the TPD itself.

Portugal has taxed e-liquid at taxed at a rate of €0.60 ($0.70) per millilitre since the beginning of this year. The tax is unaffected by the new legislation.

What This Means: With only eight months to go before the May 2016 deadline for TPD implementation, the rush is on. Fewer than half of the 28 member states have officially begun their transposition process, so it is too early to tot up the final numbers, but preliminary indications from ECigIntelligence analysis are that it is mostly smaller countries which are opting for tobacco-style public-place restrictions, one of three important policy areas unaddressed by the TPD (the others being tax and sale to minors).

In this respect, Portugal complies with an emerging norm. Where it differed markedly even before introducing the new amendment to its tobacco law was in the imposition of an excise tax on e-cigs, thus far favoured by only a tiny minority of EU nations.

We do, however, expect many more of them to begin taxing e-cigarettes in due course, perhaps once the EU has completed its current consultation on the issue. That will not force any country to tax (or refrain from taxing), but it will set some guidelines

The revision of the 2014 European tobacco products directive

Feb 24th, 2015
by Editor.
No comments yet

Download (PDF, 734KB)

An analysis of the tobacco industry’ attempts to ‘break the health silo’

Dec 16th, 2014
by Editor.
No comments yet

Download (PDF, 1.52MB)

Davidoff London removes tobacco brands in favour of Vapelux electronic cigarettes

Oct 15th, 2014
by Editor.
No comments yet

Tobacco Products Directive, Davidoff London has made the unexpected decision to remove several brands of cigarettes, in preference for high-tech electronic vaping hardware and compatible gourmet liquids from Vapelux

https://www.journalism.co.uk/press-releases/davidoff-london-removes-tobacco-brands-in-favour-of-vapelux-electronic-cigarettes/s66/a562823/

In a move certain to gain attention from both supporters and opponents of the Tobacco Products Directive, Davidoff London has made the unexpected decision to remove several brands of cigarettes, in preference for high-tech electronic vaping hardware and compatible gourmet liquids from Vapelux.

Eddie Sahakian, Managing Director of the flagship Davidoff store commented, “We have been advised and work closely with Nick Roman from Vapelux Ltd to ensure we have a complete range of high quality and genuine products suitable for the novice to intermediate user. Our customers are impressed by the selection which includes the popular Vapelux disposables, starter kits and the premium e-liquids, together with genuine hardware and accessories from various international brands”.

Ahead of EU regulations to be imposed on tobacco products, retailers are beginning to acknowledge the rise in popularity of electronic cigarettes, where industry experts predict this category to overtake conventional tobacco products revenue within the next decade.

“This looks like a very interesting move,” said Clive Bates, Public Health blogger at The Counterfactual and Former Director, Action on Smoking and Health, “to the extent that tobacco vendors replace their cigarette brands with vapour products, they are shifting into a better, more credible business model. The customers are looking for a new value proposition – from vapour products they can find much of what they like about smoking, but without the serious health risks and other downsides of smoking.”

The Davidoff London supply agreement puts London-based Vapelux in a commanding position amongst the pantheon of electronic cigarette brands. David Taylor, CEO of Vapelux Ltd, says: “It is very encouraging to see that such a classical and timeless retailer has decided to stock our entire product range. Davidoff London has been established for many years predominantly in tobacco and smoking accessories with many famous clients including Hollywood superstar Arnold Schwarzenegger and others, but they have made a very wise decision in dedicating display space to this exciting new category. Our ethos is to educate the general smoking public that there is something inherently different and elegant available and I am very happy that Davidoff London also shares this vision.”

A London based company, Vapelux Ltd was launched in 2012 as it saw a gap in the market for superior and well-designed e-cigarettes, which not only tasted good, but were also attractively packaged. The strategy to invigorate the e-cigarette sector worked quickly and effectively for Vapelux.

Davidoff aside, Vapelux has a range of notable clients, ranging from stockists such as Harrods, Selfridges and Partridges of Sloane Square to reputable clubs like Annabelle’s and Cirque du Soir, as well as boutique hotels and prominent casinos amongst other exclusive outlets.

The e-cigarette company has also made quite a name for itself by being the brand of choice for a host of celebrities across the spectrum of music, TV, films and sport. Just some of the well-known names enjoying more than a puff or two of Vapelux e-cigarettes include, JLS, Cheryl Cole, Chipmunk, DJ Tiesto, Joleon Lescott, Ryan Babbel, Rob Kardashian, as well as top models including, Thammy Caldeira and Stefanie Raschke. Arg and Mark Wright – both of The Only Way is Essex fame, have also been spotted relishing the cool and flavoursome aromas of Vapelux.

“We were the first to make e-cigarettes fashionable in the industry,” says Adam Taylor, Creative Director for Vapelux Ltd, “and we pride ourselves on extreme quality. We’ve been able to give smokers the choice of an alternative to tobacco with stimulating flavours.”

“A report by Public Health England, part of the Dept of Health, earlier this year, stipulates that there are an estimated 1.3 million e-cigarette users in the UK with the e-cigarette market expected to be worth £340 million by 2015. That’s quite a significant number and Vapelux is proud to be part of that industry.”

CEO David Taylor adds:

“There has definitely been a change in the e-cig world and as people are becoming more educated in vaping they are shifting to more sophisticated equipment and e liquids. Vapelux saw this trend at a very early stage and have produced and manufactured e-liquids in the UK. We also have starter kits that are specifically made for ease of use. As a company Vapelux are making massive strides and the reason is the company maintain their ethos of producing the highest quality products, materials and service. We are market leaders because we care about the customer and give them the ultimate solutions and where better to have them than at Davidoff.”

Philip Morris’ allies in the European Parliament

May 16th, 2014
by Editor.
No comments yet

Looking back at the tobacco lobbying battle: Philip Morris’ allies in the European Parliament

http://corporateeurope.org/power-lobbies/2014/05/looking-back-tobacco-lobbying-battle-philip-morris-allies-european-parliament

The final version of the Tobacco Product Directive (TPD), a new law that strengthens the rules on how tobacco products are manufactured, produced and marketed in the EU, has just come into force. With the European Parliament elections approaching we look back at the lobbying battle around the TPD and provide, for the first time, online access to (parts of) tobacco giant Philip Morris’ leaked lobby strategy documents. We also offer a list of the ten MEPs from the current Parliament who have – according to the leaked documents – the strongest relations to Philip Morris.

By the summer of 2013, many Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) were getting fed up with the aggressive lobbying by the tobacco industry. MEPs complained about “unsolicited tobacco lobbyists turning up in their offices; numerous invitations to drinks, dinners and cocktail events; targeted social media and email campaigns coordinated by tobacco companies; indirect lobbying through small retailers, anti-counterfeiting firms and farmers’ groups; and, allegations of industry-sourced amendments.”

The unease among MEPs further increased in September last year when internal documents of the tobacco giant Philip Morris leaked. The Guardian newspaper was the first to report on the leak, which showed that the company had (undisclosed) lobby meetings with no less than 233 MEPs. At least 161 of the company’s staff were involved in this lobbying offensive, the newspaper reported. The European media including Der Spiegel and Le Parisien reported extensively about the leaked documents which outline the lobbying strategies and activities of tobacco giant Philip Morris International to attempt to influence the European Parliament’s decision-making on the TPD.

The revelations sparked angry reactions from MEPs, such Karl-Heinz Florenz, a Christian Democrat MEP, who condemned the lobbying methods as “leprosy for democracy”. Many MEPs who supported strong tobacco regulation criticised colleagues for their meetings with Philip Morris’ lobbyists and for being too close to big tobacco. Showing what they were up against, the leak stiffened the resolve among pro-regulation MEPs to protect the TPD from being sabotaged by tobacco industry lobbyists.

The leak (which consists of hundreds of pages of documents, compiled in two large pdf files) gives a unique insight into the lobbying strategy of a large multinational company. Some of the files outline PMI’s lobbying strategy towards the European Commission (see TobaccoTactics for a summary of these efforts). The tobacco giant maintained lists of every single Member of European Parliament (MEP) and their views on tobacco regulation, featuring explanatory comments by MEP’s names such as: “Very supportive – receptive to nanny state arguments”, or, “wishes not to meet PMB [Philip Morris Benelux] but is supportive of PM views”. This allows Philip Morris International (PMI) to build up a comprehensive picture of the political support they enjoy, as well as to target MEPs to apply tactical pressure.

The lists also track the status of communications between the tobacco giant’s lobbyists and politicians, noting for example, “Continuous informal Updates”, “ongoing contacts”, or open support as in the case of the Austrian MEP Othmar Karas: “Mr Karas plans to initiate a common breakfast with his Austrian MEP colleagues, PMG [Philip Morris Germany] & JTI [Japan Tobacco International] representatives, as well as Trierenberg [a cigarette tipping paper manufacturer] representatives on the topic of TPD [Tobacco Product Directive].” Mr Karas’ press officer commented that such a meeting never took place. The member of the European Peoples’ Party (EPP) group in the Parliament, the files show, maintains particularly close contacts with tobacco industry representatives. Mr Karas appears generally amenable to the lobbyists’ world, and is also a member of the think tank the ‘Kangaroo Group’,which is focused on the exchange between MEPs and lobbyists. Mr Karas holds a different view of this: “I talk with everybody, but I don’t let anybody impose anything on me.”

The leaked files also document how Philip Morris monitors not just friendly allies but potential enemies, for instance saying of one MEP: “Fervent opponent to tobacco industry – Necessity to monitor closely her potential anti-tobacco initiatives – do not want to meet the industry.” Though mostly focused on tobacco issues, many comments also focus on personal information about MEPs that might be useful when lobbying. One MEP is mentioned as being “keen on motorcycling”, another MEP, the files state, “is becoming rather impredictable [sic]”. It also mentions examples of MEPs who are said to have unfriendly relations.

Crucially, the files show just how comprehensive Philip Morris’ access to MEPs is.

Two large leaked documents

We are providing excel versions of a relevant sample of the leaked documents. This involved processing the PDFs with a special program. Therefore, in some cases characters could not be recognized, and these are marked with [Ill.] or [Illegible] within the spreadsheet cells.

You can download three Excel files, which represent the essence of the ‘MEPs Influenced’ document. The central file is ‘Friday List June 22nd’, which features all MEPs and their opinions on tobacco issues and if they have met Philipp Morris representatives. ‘ENVI MEPs’ is a list on most of the Full members of the ENVI committee including details on them. The ‘Country Documents’ file is a compiled version of all existing single country lists footnotes on the respective countries, in alphabetical order.

Note that these leaked documents do not contain lists of MEPs for all EU countries, nor are they up-to-date – most of the documents date from June 2012, some are from the end of 2011. Yet they are singular in the insights they lend us into the Brussels lobbying activities of Philip Morris. The leaks featured here consist of two big documents. The ‘MEPs Influenced’ document summarises the activities of the lobbyists and the opinions of the Members of the European (MEPs) Parliament on different tobacco regulation issues. It also includes more detailed reports on the MEPs of most of the European countries, including footnotes on each member. The other part of the leak is the ‘Strategy Document”, which we quote from further down. Altogether the documents seen by the author make up more than 400 pages.

The tobacco lobbyists use a colour scheme to show the opinions of all MEPs on six key issues. Green means positive for the tobacco industry, red means negative. The key issues are Generic Packaging [GP], Expanded Health Warnings [EHW], Ingredients Ban [IB], Point of Sales Display Ban [POSDB], New Generation Products [NGP] and Snus. The latter refers to tobacco taken directly into the mouth in small pouches, which is only legal in Sweden. Snus was the central issue in the Dalligate scandal, where Health Commissioner John Dalli was forced to resign over yet-to-be-clarified tobacco lobbyists’ contacts.

Full Data here: http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/attachments/friday_sheet_june_22nd_b.xls

Full Data here: http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/attachments/friday_sheet_june_22nd_b.xls

The Commission’s TPD proposal

In February 2009 the European Commission announced that it wanted to revise the original Tobacco Product Directive of 2001. The Commission explained this revision saying there were new products not covered by the original Directive. Also, new scientific evidence suggested consumers might be misled by the tar and nicotine levels on cigarette packages. The main goal of the new rules was to reduce the number of young people who start smoking and develop a deadly addiction. The Commission faced heavy pressure from Philip Morris and other tobacco companies, which may have contributed to a weakening of the proposal for a revised Directive presented by the Commission in December 2012. The European Commission did not propose plain packaging, but argued for health warnings making up at least 75 per cent of the back and front of boxes (EHW), a ban on strong flavours such as Menthol (IB), banning cigarettes from the displays in shops (POSDB) and regulating e-cigarettes and other new products (NGP)1.

Pro-tobacco MEPs

A synopsis of the different lists created for this article shows that Philip Morris International identified almost 130 MEPs that supported the company’s position on not expanding health warnings on the packaging. In contrast, slightly more than 40 MEPs were against the tobacco industry’s plans. Please keep in mind that this represents the state of play in mid 2012 – a lot of lobbying on both sides occurred thereafter – and that this is Philip Morris’ interpretation of the views of MEPs.

Capture

Philip Morris lists 160 MEPs as being opposed to plain packaging and 33 in favour of it. On the topic of banning certain ingredients, Philip Morris found 119 MEPs opposed, whereas 32 MEPs wanted stronger regulation.

According to the lists, just over 170 MEPs had an opinion on making tobacco products “under the counter” items (POSDB). This would mean showing tobacco products only if customers asked for them. The majority of the MEPs – 135 – opposed such a measure.

Beyond mapping the opinions of and gathering information on as many MEPs as possible, Philip Morris had a strong focus on addressing members in influential positions. These members sat on the two main committees which dealt with the Tobacco Directive. The core committee was the one on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI). The committees on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) and Legal Affairs (JURI) were also assessed and mapped in great detail.

Philip Morris documents its contact with all members of the ENVI committee in a separate file [ENVI MEPs], targeting the key players who could be amenable to their arguments. They also looked at which positions the committee members might have taken in the past. The members are prioritised into the groups “High”, “Medium” and “Low”. High usually means that a MEP is in a relevant committee or in another key position such as being the country delegation leader or strong player within the parliamentary group. Secondly, the label “High” means the MEP is open to the tobacco industry’s arguments. This tends to be the case more among members of EPP, ALDE and conservative groups. In some cases MEPs are also targeted as high if they take a dedicated anti-tobacco position. Members of Parliament which are in relevant committees but are not in key positions receive a “Medium”. At the time of the making of these documents (mid 2012), the lobbyists had met more than 30 of the 65 members of this committee.

We have compiled a list of the ten MEPs with the strongest relations to Philip Morris according to these lists. These parliamentarians are labelled as having “ongoing”, “regular” or “continuous” contact in the list or a history of several meetings with Philip Morris lobbyists. They are marked as “High” priority. All take pro-tobacco positions; seven of them are also marked blue for being targetable with industry arguments. PM’s further notes explain their role.

Top ten MEPs with the strongest relations to Philip Morris

Capture1

Capture2

The MEPs only responded to our queries in part. Interestingly, two mentioned that former employees of theirs were now working for Philip Morris. Othmar Karas replied that one of his former staff members was a Philip Morris employee, which might explain why the contact is labeled “regular”. Jens Rohde explained that he has “on-going contact with Anne Katrine Melvig due to the fact that she is a very good friend of mine and a former employee, who worked for me during the time I was a Member of the Danish Parliament”.

As a point of clarification Indrek Tarand answered that he was not a friend of Philip Morris even though being a smoker: “I am against big tobacco companies,” he said. In his case it is especially unclear how Philip Morris came to a conclusion about his positions on tobacco. It is possible that Philip Morris’ employees used the term “ongoing contact” in different ways depending on the country.

None of the MEPs were aware that Philip Morris was collecting information on them. It is unclear how PMI gathered information on the positions all the parliamentarians on the list held. In some cases no direct contact is mentioned, yet the MEP appears to be marked as positive on several issues. In some cases meetings might not have been necessary because the relationship was already very good, in others it still had to be strengthened.

One explanation could be that Philip Morris’ employees were keen on demonstrating their efforts and claimed having had a meeting when they might have just had a short encounter. After all, these lists may also function as an internal competition to show which division is doing the best lobbying job.

Third-party lobbyists

The lists also demonstrate an approach lobbyists choose if they cannot access politicians directly: they delegate the task to a third party. This is the case with the Swedish Green Party MEP Carl Schlyter, where Philip Morris comments: “Very interested in tobacco policy in general, not in technical details. So far not very open to meet with industry.” They then go on to say: “3rd party engagement planned” – meaning they will seek to approach this MEP through other means. This can be for example via a growers’ association, a trade unionist, a cornershop owner or the American Chamber of Commerce, as noted in several other cases: “AmCham to send position paper by IP [Intellectual Property] expert; IP expert to contact and directly engage with MEP.”

Many of the contacts are specified as “informal” in the spreadsheets. Such undisclosed meetings are clearly against Article 5.3 of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control which calls for contacts between industry and lawmakers to be limited to the strictly necessary and these to be conducted in a completely transparent manner. The records of such interactions must be publicly available. As the overwhelming majority of MEPs do not presently adhere these requirements, Corporate Europe Observatory and a dozen other NGOs wrote to the President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz in October 2013 to insist that transparency rules for contacts between MEPs and tobacco lobbyists should be established. Schulz argued that the WHO rules were not binding and that it was sufficient to rely on the “self-responsibility which comes with a free parliamentary mandate”. The Greens as well as individual MEPs from different political groups follow these guidelines in an exemplary way, but most MEPs’ relations with the tobacco lobby completely remain opaque.

Watering down through other committees

The ‘Strategy Document’ concerns the strategic and tactical considerations of Philip Morris. For example, the company tried to delay the revision process of the Tobacco Product Directive as much as possible. Philip Morris also tried to delegate the responsibility from the ENVI committee to other committees as well. They chose this option after reaching the following analysis:

We would be in a close situation within the ENVI committee but the Rapporteur and Shadows have pointed towards a hostile amendment situation where deep political posturing will occur. We are very heavily reliant on the EPP but with a breakdown looking only at Full members would be in a losing situation due to the alliance of the left of the House which combined to outweigh the EPP dominance.2

Philip Morris used delegating to other committees partly as a delaying tactic and partly in the hope other committees would be more sympathetic to the company’s point of view. The approach showed some success: Klaus-Heiner Lehne (EPP) became the rapporteur for the legal affairs committee (JURI) and appears to have been a high-priority target of Philip Morris, with regular contacts dating back until 2008. Lehne was well suited for this as a long-time member of the European Parliament with a wide contact network and was a partner in a law firm which happens to represent Japan Tobacco International. Lehne did not see a conflict of interest in this. In April 2013, Lehne delivered JURI’s opinion on the Tobacco Directive, suggesting a watered-down version with just 50 per cent of the package’s back and front containing warnings and cancelling the option of member states to introduce plain packaging. However, the final version of the Tobacco Product Directive still contains the member state option and reserves 65 per cent of the package’s back and front for warnings. Lehne has since left the European Parliament and become part of the EU’s Court of Auditors.

One more conclusion that appears from the documents is the strong imbalance in terms of human resources: just one tobacco company, Philip Morris, operated with a large number of staff – the list of consultants (‘New Transparency Register’) in the leaked document contains more than 160 persons, another one features almost 40 key staff members in charge of lobbying one or more countries. These activities are in strong contrast to Philip Morris’s officially declared number of lobbyists in the EU Transparency Register, which lists just seven names of PMI lobbyists. PMI, in its entry in the register, claims that the amount of time spent on lobbying by PMI employees equals nine full-time lobbyists. Corporate Europe Observatory last October filed a complaint against Philip Morris for under-reporting on its lobbying expenses and the number of lobbyists employed, but – disappointingly – the Transparency Register failed to seriously investigate the obvious mismatch between the information in the leaked documents and PMI’s entry in the register.3 This also highlights another failing of the Transparency Register, in that one cannot consult records for previous years.

Lessons from the TPD lobbying battle

The Tobacco Products Directive is now in force. Given that at some stages health professionals were afraid the Directive might not be passed before the EU elections or might even get killed off totally, this is good news. It demonstrates that even powerful lobbyists like the tobacco industry are not able to get all they want. Although the leak of the Philip Morris lobby strategy helped reinforce the resolve of MEPs opposed to big tobacco, we do not know how its lobbying may also have influenced the European Parliament to weaken the proposal drafted by the European Commission on several key points. The size of health warnings on the packaging was reduced; the proposed ban on misleading ‘slim’ cigarettes was cancelled, to mention just two examples. The final outcome is an improvement compared to the existing rules, but considering the deadly impacts of smoking much more could and should have been achieved.

Examining these documents clearly shows that the European Parliament needs to evaluate how to protect itself better from undue influence from the tobacco industry. The absence of rules or guidelines for MEPs made it very easy for Philip Morris and other tobacco companies to covertly lobby and influence MEPs. The UN rules state very clearly that contacts with lobbyists should be limited to a minimum and all meetings that happen must be documented and published. However the European Parliament has failed to take any collective measures towards implementing this. Presently, big companies such as Philip Morris can play out their lobbying power in terms of money and staff without citizens being able to find out. The leaked files also reveal that far too many MEPs are too close and too friendly with the tobacco industry. The lesson for the European Parliament elections is that Europe needs MEPs who can stand-up for the public interest, against the lobbying of the tobacco industry.

You can contact the author of this report here: Michael Hörz

1.http://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/docs/com_2012_788_en.pdf
2.Tobacco Products Directive by Philip Morris, p. 14
3. CEO filed a complaint with a detailed argumentation on October 8th 2013. We suggested the Transparency Register secretariat ask Philip Morris to show them the leaked files and offered to help the secretariat get access to the leaked documents in case PMI refused to do so, an offer that was not taken up. The secretariat met with PMI, but appears to have taken a very soft approach towards the tobacco giant. On 20 December PMI updated its entry in the Transparency Register without changing anything about the numbers of lobbyists or lobby expenses. Only the list of issues lobbied on was expanded.

Provisions Contained in the EU Tobacco Products Directive

Feb 6th, 2014
by Editor.
No comments yet

Download (PDF, 519KB)

Newer Posts →