Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

Canada

Supreme Court refuses to hear appeal by cigarette manufacturer

May 5th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-appeal-by-cigarette-manufacturer

A Quebec law that was adopted to facilitate the recovery of the costs of medical treatment to smokers has stood up to a cigarette manufacturer’s attempts to invalidate it.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear an appeal by JTI-MacDonald, which was the company’s last recourse to invalidate the law. As is usual in such cases, the top court did not provide grounds for its refusal.

The Tobacco-related Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act was sanctioned in June 2009 and its purpose is to establish special rules for the recovery of tobacco-related health care costs that are attributable to a wrong committed by one or more tobacco product manufacturers and for the recovery of damages for a tobacco-related injury.

Quebec Superior Court declared the law constitutional in 2014, and its decision was upheld by the Quebec Court of Appeal in 2015

JTI-MacDonald claims the law infringes the protection that is conferred by Section 23 of the Quebec charter of human rights and freedoms, which provides for the right to a full and equal, public and fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

The company argues the law has the effect of placing tobacco product manufacturers at a substantial disadvantage compared to government and private litigants because of the “cumulative effect” of the special rules foreseen in the law.

The manufacturers claim they are “handcuffed” and not in a situation to fully defend themselves.

The justices of the Court of Appeal didn’t agree with the manufacturers’ arguments.

However, Justice Geneviève Marcotte, speaking in her name and of those of her colleagues on the bench, called the law “particularly severe” towards cigarette manufacturers and said it “significantly reduces” the government’s burden of proof. The judge also talks in the ruling about “hefty” means in terms of civil responsibility.

Despite the finding, Marcotte declared it’s not for the Court of Appeal to question the choices made by the legislator nor the opportunity for a law.

In June 2012, with the help of the law, Quebec filed a C$60-million claim for damages and interest against JTI-MacDonald and other tobacco manufacturers.

Other provinces in Canada have adopted similar laws to recover health care costs

Feds look to ban menthol tobacco products

Apr 29th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

Les Hagen fully supports Ottawa’s plan to end the sale of menthol cigarettes across Canada. He’s the Executive Director of Action on Smoking and Health, and says that menthol and flavored tobacco products are popular among young smokers.

“This is a very very significant measure to keep tobacco companies from targeting youth in this manner. So it’s a very significant step. Obviously Alberta and a number of provinces have already moved on this issue, but we’re delighted to see new national standards.”

Hagen says that smokers are very “brand loyal” and therefore he doesn’t foresee a spike in cross border movement of illegal menthol cigarettes coming up from the U-S.

“Well, some people, if they try hard enough will still be able to get menthol cigarettes, yes, but the experience here in Alberta shows that’s very much the exception to the rule.”

Hagan adds that this move will reposition Canada as a leader in the fight to eliminate tobacco use by being the first nation to ban menthol flavored tobacco.

Health Canada looks at forcing tobacco companies to make cigarettes less addictive

Apr 20th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/health-canada-looks-at-forcing-tobacco-companies-to-make-cigarettes-less-addictive

Health Canada is studying the possibility of forcing companies to make their cigarettes less addictive, a controversial anti-smoking strategy that no other country has implemented.

The department issued a tender recently calling for an outside researcher to add to the government’s own extensive analysis of the idea and how it would affect public health.

Though not mentioned specifically in the document, reducing the nicotine level of cigarettes is the most-discussed means of lessening their addictiveness. But experts are divided on whether that makes any sense.

Proponents say early evidence indicates that a cut in the chemical could help wean smokers off the habit.

Critics argue that a mandated nicotine reduction would only prompt people to smoke more to get their desired hit of the drug — and suck in more of tobacco’s carcinogens in the process.

“It’s so wrong-headed,” said David Sweanor, an Ottawa lawyer and long-time anti-smoking advocate. “The unintended consequences are screaming out on this. … People adjust the way they smoke to get the nicotine they need or want.”

While other components of smoke account for cigarettes being the single-biggest cause of cancer, nicotine is what makes them addictive. No rule currently dictates how much of the drug they may contain.

Regulating changes to the chemical make-up of tobacco is one of the ideas being debated as part of the so-called smoking “endgame” – tactics to push smoking rates below the stubborn 15-20% they’ve hovered around for years.

Health Canada’s request for proposals asks for independent experts to expand and validate a model created by the department to assess the health benefits of an “addictiveness-reduction standard” for tobacco.

Officials have already considered how a cut in addictiveness would affect the rate of people starting and quitting smoking, as well as such possible consequences as a jump in the sales of contraband tobacco and rates of “compensatory” smoking — consuming more cigarettes or inhaling more intensely.

Sean Upton, a spokesman for Health Canada, said the project is not necessarily about reducing nicotine levels but “will help guide policy and be used to test different things and potential benefits.”

“It’s a policy development tool,” he said.

However, the document discusses exclusively addictiveness-reduction.

And in academic circles recently, cutting nicotine levels has garnered most of the attention as a way to make tobacco less addictive.

It’s so wrong-headed. The unintended consequences are screaming out on this.

The idea had earned a bad name because of what one anti-smoking campaigner calls the “disaster” of light cigarettes, an industry-led concept that aimed to lessen levels of tar and nicotine through special filters. The filters are perforated to vent off some of the chemicals before they are inhaled.

Studies have shown, however, that smokers essentially override the feature by covering the holes with their mouth or fingers, or smoking more cigarettes.

Some tobacco-control experts say there is more promise in tobacco that has been specially treated or genetically modified to lower nicotine content before the smoker even lights up.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine last fall found that smokers in a trial who were given experimental, reduced-nicotine cigarettes were smoking about 25% fewer of them per day by the end of the six-week study — and without “compensating” to get more of the drug.

But not everyone is convinced by the research, with one critic pointing to evidence that some participants may have augmented the low-nicotine cigarettes with regular ones outside the study.

Regardless, for the idea to really work, there needs to be another, safer nicotine-delivery tool readily available as a fallback for smokers, like electronic cigarettes or “snus,” smokeless tobacco, says Lynn Kozlowski, a health-behaviour professor at the University of Buffalo.

Addictiveness-reduction is a more dramatic step than it might sound, he argues.

“If you diminish the nicotine levels to such a point that it’s not addictive, that seems to me very much like prohibition of traditional cigarettes,” said Kozlowski, “a little bit like alcohol prohibition.”

It’s good that Health Canada is trying to learn more about tobacco and its effects, given industry is always way ahead of regulators in its knowledge level, said Rob Cunningham, a policy analyst with the Canadian Cancer Society.

But he suggested there are higher priorities for government, such as addressing the manufacturers’ new methods of promoting cigarettes, and bringing back anti-smoking ad campaigns that once were ubiquitous.

Liability: untapped potential in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

Apr 11th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/2016/04/11/liability-untapped-potential-in-the-framework-convention-on-tobacco-control/?q=w_tc_blog_sidetab

The history of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) is filled with one unprecedented victory after another (see page 21). The next milestone for the treaty can—and should— tap the potential of Article 19 to hold the industry liable. Though the implementation of measures in line with Articles 5.3 and 13 has dramatically shifted the way the tobacco industry can operate globally, Article 19 has similar—if not greater—potential to curb the operations of the industry, and therefore the tobacco epidemic. As we look to the next Conference of the Parties (COP) in November, Parties should be looking to make sure that Article 19 achieves its potential.

For many who participated in the drafting of the FCTC, Article 5.3 (protecting public health policies from the tobacco industry) and Article 13 (banning tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship) seemed too visionary. Many thought these articles would be politically and technically impossible to implement. But a decade later, Parties are prioritizing these articles— and the effects are startling. Today, tobacco industry marketing is being rolled back across the globe. And dozens of countries have barred the industry from the policymaking table, creating space for effective policies to take hold.

But still the industry continues to be enormously profitable, with the top six corporations raking in $44 billion of profits in 2013. This, in part, because it breaks national laws and is not held accountable for what its products cost society. Governments pay billions of dollars in healthcare costs due to the tobacco epidemic. And evidence continues to mount of the tobacco industry’s illegal activities, which it currently appears to engage in with relative impunity—from illicit trade to widespread and systematic bribery.

To take the next big step in reducing the industry-driven tobacco epidemic, we must be able to hold the industry civilly and criminally liable. We must appreciate the visionary potential in Article 19. And we must take bold, courageous action to realize the world that Article 19 can make possible.

A vast ocean of possibility

Successful civil liability litigation in the U.S. and Canada has proven this tactic has great, global potential. It can provide an avenue for governments to hold the industry accountable for breaking laws, whether it be illegal marketing practices or illicit trade. Financially, it can shift the cost of the tobacco epidemic to the industry, where it belongs, raise the price of tobacco products (which reduces consumption), and provide funds for tobacco control campaigns. And finally, civil liability suits can expose internal industry documents, which provide invaluable insight into the industry’s tactics and help pave the way for even more effective legislation and litigation.

Holding the tobacco industry criminally liable, on the other hand, is admittedly venturing into less tested waters. But the ocean of possibility is vast.

Research on criminal liability provides cause for hope. A successful criminal prosecution would dramatically change the landscape for the tobacco industry. Tobacco executives could face potential prison time for violating tobacco control laws or for misleading people about the lethality of their products. The negative publicity generated with such charges would go far in denormalizing the tobacco industry and would chill the recruitment of talent.

Moral and financial imperative

To be sure, successful implementation of liability measures will prove to be challenging. And it will look different in each country given the range of legal systems across Parties. But the moral and financial imperatives are clear. Parties in the Global South, such as those recently targeted by British American Tobacco’s bribery, are now calling for tools to advance Article 19. These are some of the same Parties who championed Articles 5.3 and 13 during the FCTC negotiations.

We can and must follow these Parties’ visionary lead once again. During COP7, Parties should adopt strong guiding principles to advance implementation of Article 19. These include principles for developing and reforming legislation, and best practices for litigating in civil and criminal liability regimes in both civil and common law jurisdictions and systems.

Without a doubt, litigating against the tobacco industry is costly and intimidating. But many governments are already locked in defensive legal battles with the industry as it turns to litigation more and more to undermine strong tobacco control policies around the world. If governments are going to be in court with the industry, they should be doing it on their terms, proactively holding the industry liable for its myriad of abuses. And to do so, they need tools and guidance for implementation of Article 19 from the treaty, the Secretariat, and the COP. We have the ability to bring the untapped potential of Article 19 into fruition and to rein in the tobacco industry as we have never seen before. We have no time to lose. We must act, as a global community, now.

Chris Bostic is Deputy Director for Policy at Action on Smoking and Health (Twitter: @AshOrg). Richard Daynard is University Distinguished Professor of Law at Northeastern University and President of the Public Health Advocacy Institute . Tamar Lawrence-Samuel is Associate Research Director at Corporate Accountability International. (Twitter: @StopCorpAbuse)

Download (PDF, 467KB)

We’re unsure if e-cigarettes are harmful, but it still makes sense to restrict them

Mar 5th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

https://theconversation.com/were-unsure-if-e-cigarettes-are-harmful-but-it-still-makes-sense-to-restrict-them-55777

E-cigarettes have rapidly risen in popularity in recent years and are now the subject of heated debate as to whether they are effective in helping smokers quit tobacco or whether they are actually making smoking attractive to young people. Are they a way for Big Tobacco to protect its profits in markets where smoking is declining and lure people back into nicotine addiction or are they just a fashion that will quickly lose its appeal?

Given that vaping has been around for barely a decade and studies into the long-term effects take time, we cannot answer these questions with certainty yet. The benefits of e-cigarettes’ continue to be debated – and the potential risks to non-smokers and young people remain under-explored.

This makes it difficult to make recommendations, but politicians across the world are nonetheless having to decide what to do. The latest country to confront this question is Scotland, where the parliament has just voted to ban under-18s from using e-cigarettes. One of a raft of restrictions, this imposes the same age limit as for traditional cigarettes, bringing Scotland broadly into line with England and Wales. Was it the right thing to do?

Different countries have taken different approaches to vaping. Canada has technically made sales illegal, though regulation remains largely unenforced. While regulation across the US is mixed, San Francisco has just raised the minimum buying age from 18 to 21 years.

In some European countries, – among them Bulgaria, Ireland and Poland – sales and advertising are unregulated. In May, however, new EU regulations will impose standardised quality control on liquids and vaporisers across the union as well as requiring disclosure of ingredients in vaping liquids and child-proofing and tamper-proofing for liquid packaging. They will also restrict cross-border advertising. Wales meanwhile looks likely to extend its restrictions by introducing a ban on e-cigarettes in public places.

The ayes and the noes

In the run up to the vote on the new Scottish Health Bill, opponents and supporters of e-cigarette regulations fiercely debated which approach was the most sensible. Opponents usually argue that vaping is less harmful than traditional cigarettes and effective in helping smokers to quit. They want minimal restrictions on availability and complete freedom for advertising, promotion and the use of e-cigarettes in public. Restrictions, they argue, might prevent smokers from switching to safer alternatives and reduce the chances of curbing tobacco consumption.

Supporters of regulation say that children and young people need to be protected from using products which imitate smoking and from developing nicotine addiction. They also favour regulation to ensure product safety and quality. They advocate a precautionary approach until there is evidence that e-cigarettes do not undermine our recent successes at controlling tobacco.

As well as banning sales to under-18s, the new Scottish laws require retailers to ask for proof of age when selling to someone that looks under 25 (similar to alcohol). They ban the sale of e-cigarettes from vending machines, make it an offence to buy on behalf of someone under 18, and require retailers to put their names on a product register. Scottish ministers will also have the power to further restrict or prohibit advertising and promotions in future.

Tighter shackles, please

While the evidence about the risks of e-cigarettes is likely to remain unclear for several years, the Scottish parliament can at least say it is doing what the country wants. A large majority of respondents backed regulation in the consultation of 2014, including representatives of health bodies, local authorities, charities, academics and members of the public. As well as supporting a ban on sales to under-18s or adults buying e-cigarettes on their behalf and preventing young people from seeing advertising and promotions, respondents also widely endorsed restricting the use of e-cigarettes in public places.

‘Save me from myself’ Milles Studio

The Scottish public’s desire for these kinds of rules is also reflected in research I co-published that looked at debates about e-cigarettes in the UK media and found that supporters of regulation greatly outnumbered opponents. I have also been involved in a new study, about to be published, which investigates the views of UK adolescents on regulation. We found they have a very sophisticated understanding of the advantages and disadvantages. While aware of the potential benefits of e-cigarettes to smokers – including those teenage smokers who want to quit – young people overwhelmingly support strong e-cigarette regulation. This includes restrictions on sales to minors, marketing and the use of e-cigarettes in public places.

The reality is that, until the jury returns, it makes sense to trust the public to reach a view from the best information on e-cigarettes that is available. Even if current regulations were to end up looking disproportionate in years to come, no one will be able to accuse the Scottish government of ignoring people’s concerns and taking public health issues lightly. In a situation where no one really knows what to do for the best, regulation which restricts access and promotion to young people looks like the best policy.

Imperial Tobacco files legal challenge against tobacco control bill

Mar 1st, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/imperial-tobacco-files-legal-challenge-against-tobacco-control-bill

Anti-smoking groups say they are not at all surprised that Imperial Tobacco is challenging the provisions of Quebec’s Bill 44 that ban the sale of flavoured cigarettes and sleeker packaging that appeal to youth.

On Friday, Imperial Tobacco Canada filed legal proceedings against the Quebec government claiming Bill 44 infringes on the company’s constitutional rights.

The company said in a statement released on Tuesday that the government committee that reviewed the bill adopted a number of additional provisions “without due consideration given to ensuring that the constitutional rights of those affected by the measures were infringed to the least extent possible.”

Mélanie Champagne, Director of Public Issues with the Canadian Cancer Society’s Quebec Division, said the company’s legal action is predictable.

“All it shows is that the measures (Quebec is taking) would be effective,” she said.

Tobacco companies, she said “would not spend so much money on legal proceedings if they didn’t realize this will affect their revenues substantially. But that is exactly what we want: lower revenues for tobacco companies means less smoking, and fewer cancer deaths.”

Anti-smoking groups rejoiced last November when Quebec’s National Assembly adopted Bill 44, “An Act to Bolster Tobacco Control”, unanimously. They said the new legislation made Quebec a world leader in the struggle against smoking, because Bill 44 bans all flavoured tobacco products, including menthol, and imposes a minimal size for health warnings on packages.

Current federal legislation requires health warnings to take up 75 per cent of the packages, but as packages were getting smaller, anti-smoking advocates those warnings were less effective. Quebec has countered this with its regulation, which requires the health warnings to be at least 4.6 square centimetres.

That means tobacco companies here cannot sell cigarettes in the tall, thin packages, sometimes called “purse packs” or “lipstick packs” that anti-smoking groups claim are designed to appeal to young people. An estimated 250 teenagers in Quebec begin smoking every week, and an estimated one third of all cancer deaths are related to smoking.

Flavoured cigarettes and cigars, including menthol, are also very popular with Quebec teens. Studies have shown that more than 50 per cent of Quebec youth who smoke use flavoured tobacco products.

Although menthol flavours are thought to appeal mainly to adults, new smokers do use them because they reduce irritation of the throat, said Flory Doucas, co-director of the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control, said menthol cigarettes are particularly appealing to youth.

“Menthol has analgesic properties so it masks the irritation caused by smoking. Menthol cigarettes are like training wheels for smoking.”

She added that legal challenges by tobacco companies are designed to have a chilling effect on other jurisdictions in Canada or elsewhere that might be considering legislation.

But Eric Gagnon, head of Corporate and Regulatory Affiars for Imperial Tobacco Canada, said the ban on flavoured tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes, will result in the growth of an already significant illegal cigarette market in Quebec.

“There is an incredible amount of hypocrisy around the sale of tobacco in Quebec,” he said. “The government of Quebec will generate over $1 billion in tobacco taxes in 2016. There is already comprehensive legislation … 75 per cent of the package is a health warning, they are hidden from view, and very highly taxed. There is nobody in Quebec who could say they don’t know the risk of smoking but an important part of the adult population will still continue to smoke. At the end of the day we are still a legal company and we believe we have the right to sell our products.”

The company is not challenging other provisions of the bill, such as the ban on smoking in motor vehicles when children under 16 are present and the prohibition on smoking on patios adjoining businesses and restaurants.

But it is challenging the bill’s restrictions on how tobacco companies communicate with retailers. The bill will not allow the companies to advertise to retailers, which Gagnon said unfairly prohibits retailers from passing on information to customers.

Exploding e-cigs claim two more vaping victims

Jan 28th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/278766/exploding-e-cigs-vaping-vaper/

Vaping has claimed two more victims.

On Saturday, a 20-year-old vapist in Cologne, Germany, was taking a pull off of a new e-cigarette at his local vape shop when the device exploded in his mouth. He reportedly sustained burns and wounds to his face and mouth, and a number of his teeth were knocked out of their sockets.

vapist-640x400

The vapist was rushed to the hospital, and while his current condition is unknown, he’s probably dead.

Meanwhile, in Alberta, Canada, 16-year-old vapist Ty Greer (pictured above) is facing a long and arduous recovery from a similar vaping accident. He and his friend were sharing an e-cigarette when it blew up, resulting in second- and third-degree burns to Greer’s face and fractured teeth.

“There was a fireball about two feet and it started his gym bag on fire,” Perry Greer, the vapist’s father explained. “It was horrible. No father should have to witness that.”

Vapists may think that vaping “looks cool,” but ask yourself this: How “cool” do you think you will you look when you don’t have a face?

DITCH THE VAPE. Before it’s too late.

Exploding e-cigarettes? Here’s what Canadians need to know

Jan 27th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://globalnews.ca/news/2481734/exploding-e-cigarettes-heres-what-canadians-need-to-know/

The case of an Alberta teen who claims an e-cigarette exploded in his face is raising new questions surrounding regulations on a product that’s grown from a niche market to the mainstream.

The father of the 16-year-old Lethbridge teen told Global News his son suffered first and second-degree burns as a result of the explosion.

While explosions or fires from e-cigarettes are extremely rare they are not unheard of.

A report from the U.S. fire administration (USFA) found 25 separate incidents of explosion and fire involving e-cigarettes between 2009 and 2014, injuring nine people. Of those injuries two people suffered serious burns.

In Canada, the issue of who is in charge of regulating the growing use of e-cigarettes has been a challenge for the federal government, says David Hammond, a professor in the school of public health at the University of Waterloo.

“There is no specific federal legislation for e-cigarettes in Canada,” said Hammond. “Let’s be clear: it’s a very small number of devices [exploding/causing fire], but it is a dramatic example of the need for product standards…having some basic rules about how those are designed.”

Kate Ackerman, with the Electronic Cigarette Trade Association of Canada, said in an email to Global News that that e-cigarettes are “not a single product, but a category of thousands of products.”

“Some are not compatible with others,” Ackerman said. “Using non-compatible parts together, as with any electronic or electrical / mechanical device, dependent on battery power, can cause shorts, explosions, fires, or simply not work or work for a short time then develop an issue.”

The USFA report also found that many e-cigarettes come with USB ports for connecting the device to a power adapter provided by the e-cigarette manufacturer.

“Plugging an e-cigarette into a USB port or power adapter not supplied by the manufacturer may subject the battery to higher current than is safe, leading to thermal runaway that results in an explosion and/or fire,” the report read.

E-cigarettes have been touted as a less dangerous alternative for regular smokers trying to kick the habit. The battery-powered devices use a liquid to produce vapour, which is then inhaled. Some of the liquids are infused with nicotine, some aren’t.

Health Canada says on its website that e-cigarettes that are sold with e-juice containing nicotine, or which make health claims, fall under the Food and Drug Act, a law that requires Health Canada’s approval to import, advertise or sell the products.

“No electronic smoking product has yet been authorized for sale in Canada,” according to Health Canada.

But Hammond says there’s a caveat to that.

“If products don’t contain nicotine and they don’t make any sort of health claim about quitting then they can just be sold,” he said.

Instead the responsibility of regulating e-cigarettes has fallen to provincial governments, which means differences from province-to-province.

In Alberta, while there is currently no provincial legislation regarding the sale of e-cigarettes, several city councils, including Edmonton and Calgary, have passed bylaws to ban smoking e-cigarettes, or vaping, anywhere cigarette smoke is not allowed.

Last May, Nova Scotia became the first province to pass legislation treating e-cigarettes the same way as regular cigarettes including banning electronic cigarettes in indoor public spaces, barring anyone under the age of 19 from purchasing e-cigarettes, and prohibiting the display of e-cigarettes visible to minors.

British Columbia, New Brunswick, and Quebec have all passed similar legislation and other municipalities have limited e-cigarette use in public spaces (Vancouver) or municipal offices (Toronto). Ontario has passed legislation banning the sale cigarettes to minors under the age of 19 that went into effect Jan. 1. The Liberal government, however, delayed plans to ban vaping and the use of electronic cigarettes in public places.

The products have not only posed a challenge in terms of regulation but are also divisive amongst anti-tobacco advocates as some believe e-cigarettes perpetuate nicotine addiction, lead to smoking among teens and undermine smoking bans.

David Sweanor, an adjunct professor of law at the University of Ottawa, has spent 30 years as a public health advocate and sees e-cigs as an alternative to cigarettes.

“We’ve ended up with an industry that is largely self-regulated,” Sweanor said. “But it’s becoming a more controlled market over time. If anything the products have become much better.”

Sweanor says there is “no question” that e-cigarettes can be a helpful smoking aide.

“The reality is 37,000 Canadians are going to die this year as a direct result of cigarette smoking, most of them are saying, ‘I wish I didn’t smoke,’ but they are dependent on nicotine,” said Sweanor. “The whole idea of alternatives to cigarettes as a way of getting rid of cigarettes has absolutely enormous public health potential.”

Hammond says the issues with e-cigarette regulation will continue to be contentious.

“E-cigarettes almost certainly have some health risk, but that risk will be substantially lower than smoking cigarettes,” he said. “In terms of the overall health it will be determined by who uses them and for what.”

A statement to Global News from a Health Canada official pointed out the organization is currently investigating the issue.

“Health Canada is committed to moving forward with an evidence-based approach to vaping products that is tailored to the Canadian context. The Department is actively reviewing health and safety data and scientific studies.”

After twelve years of success, ASH passes FCA baton to HealthBridge

Jan 20th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-global-anti-tobacco-leadership-300207170.html

After more than a decade of successful leadership and myriad public health victories, Laurent Huber of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) in the U.S. passed the leadership of the Framework Convention Alliance on Tobacco Control (FCA) to Francis Thompson of HealthBridge Canada. The change was effective January 1, 2016.

The FCA was formed during negotiations of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) to be the voice of the global public health community, and it has been lauded for its role in achieving a strong international treaty to combat the tobacco epidemic. Huber was the first director of the FCA, and he shepherded the FCA through negotiations and implementation of the first global public health treaty. Thompson has served as FCA policy director for several years.

“I regard the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control as vitally important for global health and, without a doubt, the role of the FCA in motivating, organizing and coordinating the input of civil society into the treaty-making process was crucial to its success,” stated Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Director-General, World Health Organization, 1998-2003.

The FCTC was conceived at a time when multinational tobacco companies were moving into low income countries in earnest, seeing potential profits from populations who, unlike in the high income counties, had not been educated on the dangers of smoking. The World Health Organization estimates that, without dramatic changes, tobacco will claim one billion lives in the 21st century. The FCTC is meant to be that dramatic change.

Early in the FCTC negotiations, ASH made the decision to commit itself to go beyond domestic US tobacco control and confront Big Tobacco on the world stage. At the time, there was no global civil society movement to combat tobacco. The FCA was formed to combine the voices of dozens (later hundreds) of public health groups to demand strong global action. ASH played a critical role in forming the informal coalition. FCA was later incorporated in Geneva, Switzerland in 2003, with Mr. Huber as its director. Today, FCA includes over 500 organizations from over 100 countries.

The FCA became a broad civil society coalition widely recognized by governments, non-governmental organizations, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations for its vital role in shaping the FCTC, the first global public health treaty negotiated under the auspices of the WHO.

During the past 15 years, the global tobacco control community experienced several successes.

• The FCTC entered into force on February 27, 2005 in near record time for a UN treaty. The FCTC now has 180 Parties and 168 Signatories.
• Guidelines for implementation of 8 Articles of the FCTC were developed and adopted: Article 5.3 (Industry Interference), Article 6 (Tax and Price Measures), Article 8 (Protection from Exposure to Tobacco Smoke), Article 9/10 (Tobacco Regulation and Disclosure), Article 11 (Packaging and Labelling), Article 12 (Communication), Article 13 (Advertising/sponsorship), and Article 14 (Cessation).
• The Protocol to Combat the Illicit Trade of Tobacco Products was negotiated and adopted.
• Many countries have effectively implemented FCTC measures, resulting in millions of humans being protected from tobacco smoke, tobacco advertising, and their associated harms.
• Tobacco was a central aspect of the UN High Level Meeting on the Treatment and Prevention of NCDs, ensuring that addressing the tobacco epidemic was a central element of the Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) Strategy.
• ASH and FCA worked together to influence the development of the new UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that have replaced the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), resulting in the integration of the FCTC and tobacco control in the Post-2015 Development Agenda.

“I had the privilege to work closely with the FCA through the development of the FCTC and to witness firsthand the expertise they bring to the process of negotiating and adopting complex policy. The importance of having non-government and government agencies work together cannot be underestimated, and FCA understands very well how to influence governments to create the best possible policies,” said President Tábare Vázquez, the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, 2005 to 2010 and 2015 to present.

ASH will continue to work with the FCA and its incoming director with the aim of accelerating the implementation of the life-saving measures of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).

ACTION ON SMOKING AND HEALTH

Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) is the nation’s oldest anti-tobacco organization dedicated to health for all. ASH was formed in 1967 in response to the U.S. Surgeon General Report in order to use legal action to fight tobacco and protect nonsmokers. Today, because tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death worldwide, ASH uses global tools to counter the global tobacco epidemic. Learn more about our programs at www.ash.org.

It’s Been A Bad Year For Big Tobacco

Dec 18th, 2015
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/big-tobacco-losses_5673f7e0e4b06fa6887cebe2

Cigarette companies found themselves the targets of tighter regulations and lawsuits.

Anti-smoking activists have for years targeted the global behemoths that control the tobacco industry — and this year they made headway. Some of the largest tobacco companies suffered financial and PR setbacks in a series of lawsuits, and anti-smoking initiatives worldwide are further curbing their power.

Here are the losses big tobacco suffered this year:

Packs of Philip Morris International Inc. Marlboro Menthol cigarettes in the new packaging are arranged for a photograph at a tobacco store in Melbourne, Australia, on Monday, Oct. 1, 2012. Tobacco products complying with the world?s first plain-packaging laws have started arriving in stores, as an Oct. 1 manufacturing ban on the country's A$10 billion ($10 billion) tobacco industry comes into force. Photographer: Carla Gottgens/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Packs of Philip Morris International Inc. Marlboro Menthol cigarettes in the new packaging are arranged for a photograph at a tobacco store in Melbourne, Australia, on Monday, Oct. 1, 2012. Tobacco products complying with the world?s first plain-packaging laws have started arriving in stores, as an Oct. 1 manufacturing ban on the country’s A$10 billion ($10 billion) tobacco industry comes into force. Photographer: Carla Gottgens/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Australia Can Keep Its Plain Cigarette Packaging

The Australian government won a major lawsuit against Philip Morris this week. It can continue using plain packaging — logo-less packaging that is the same for all tobacco brands — on cigarette packs sold across the country.

Australia introduced “the world’s toughest laws on tobacco promotion” in 2011, according to then-health minister Nicola Roxon. That year the government voted to implement packaging that, instead of logos, displays the frightening illnesses associated with smoking.

Philip Morris Asia unsuccessfully sued the Australian government in 2011, claiming that the law violated a trade agreement between Australia and Hong Kong.

The UK, France and Ireland Will Use Standardized Packaging, Too

Several countries have followed suit on Australia’s anti-smoking measures. Britain and Ireland approved plain packaging laws in March.

France’s parliament also approved a law Thursday that will place plain packaging on all cigarettes sold in the country starting in May 2016. The products’ brand name will only appear in small type.

The country has made several attempts to diminish its large number of smokers. In 2008, it prohibited smoking in enclosed public spaces like restaurants and bars. In October, the city of Paris also raised the fine for dropping a cigarette butt into the street to 68 euros.

Boston Raises Age For Buying Tobacco To 21

Boston’s board of health voted last week to raise the tobacco purchasing age from 18 to 21 in an effort to prevent teen smoking.

Boston followed the lead of many other cities and towns across Massachusetts that had already increased the age limit. “These changes send a strong message that Boston takes the issue of preventing tobacco addiction seriously,” Boston mayor Marty Walsh said.

New International Trade Laws Block Tobacco Companies From Suing Countries

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement between the U.S. and 11 countries in the Pacific Rim, ruled in October that tobacco is exempt from Investor-State Dispute Settlement rules. In other words, tobacco companies will no longer be able to challenge TPP member countries’ anti-smoking measures the way that Philip Morris did in Australia in 2011.

Anti-tobacco lobbyists and a few senators helped make it happen. “It was time to take action to get trade agreements to stop treating tobacco like it’s just another product and the tobacco industry like any other business,” said Gregg Haifley, federal relations director of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

The FDA Forced One Tobacco Company To Stop Selling Several Products

The Food and Drug Administration banned R.J. Reynolds from selling four different types of cigarettes in September — Camel Crush Bold, Pall Mall Deep Set Recessed Filter, Pall Mall Deep Set Recessed Filter Menthol and Vantage Tech 13 cigarettes.

The company changed the product ingredients so that they no longer complied with a 2007 federal health law, The Hill reported. The products “fail[ed] to meet the public health bar set forth under law,” explained Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products.

A Jury Imposed $35 Million In Damages On That Same Tobacco Company

R.J. Reynolds was also at the center of a lawsuit in Florida after Garry O’Hara, a U.S. Air Force sergeant who earned the Bronze Star, died of lung cancer in 1996, at the age of 50. O’Hara’s family’s lawyers argued that the company masked the risks associated with smoking for years.

A Florida jury awarded the family $34.7 million in damages in September.

The company tried to argue that the executives responsible for decisions at the time are no longer around. “The R.J. Reynolds leadership that you heard about, they’re gone. … Those people who stood up before Congress and raised their hand, they’re gone,” David Monde, a lawyer for R.J. Reynolds, said in court.

Shady Activity Uncovered Within A Big UK Tobacco Company

The BBC conducted an investigation into British American Tobacco and found that the company bribed politicians and civil servants in East African countries in an effort to “undermine anti-smoking legislation.”

One BAT employee, the BBC said, illegally paid a civil servant in Burundi in exchange for a copy of the country’s Tobacco Control Bill.

The BAT said it was the target of false accusations.

“Our accusers in this programme left us in acrimonious circumstances and have a vendetta against us, clearly demonstrated by the false picture they present of how we do business,” it said in a statement.

The company could face prosecution in the U.K. and the U.S.

Three Cigarette Companies Ordered To Pay CA $15 Billion To Canadian Smokers

Two separate lawsuits, filed by Canadians sickened from smoking and Canadians unable to quit smoking, culminated in the country’s biggest class-action lawsuit to date.

Three tobacco companies — Imperial Tobacco; Rothmans, Benson & Hedges and JTI-Macdonald — were accused of lying to consumers about the health risks associated with their products. They were ordered earlier this year to pay $15 billion (about $10.8 billion USD) to the plaintiffs.

All three companies said they planned to appeal the decision, claiming that Canadians are well-versed in the risks of smoking.

← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →