January, 2015:
Smokers fume at call for 100pc rise in tax
Qi Luo and Kevin Cheng
8 Jan 2015
The tobacco tax should be doubled to encourage smokers to quit and discourage young people from picking up the habit, urges the Council on Smoking and Health.
This would increase the price of a pack of cigarettes to HK$93, from HK$55.
COSH chairman Antonio Kwong Cho-shing said the government should raise the tobacco tax by 100 percent in the next fiscal year, beginning April, to drive down the prevalence of smoking currently at 10.7 percent to single digits in one to two years.
Kwong said: “There are 645,000 smokers in Hong Kong, and 6,000 deaths related to smoking annually. So we’re very concerned with the overall figure.”
COSH commissioned the University of Hong Kong to conduct a study of 2,419 smokers and non- smokers between May and September last year.
Overall, respondents thought the retail price of cigarettes should be increased to HK$106 on average to effectively motivate smokers to quit.
But 800 who currently smoke said the price should be increased to HK$171, higher than the price suggested by 800 ex-smokers (HK$123) and 819 who never smoked (HK$98).
The survey also found 73 percent supported raising the tax on tobacco annually, compared with 65 percent in 2013.
More than 65 percent said the 11.8 percent rise in tobacco tax in the last fiscal year, or about 20 HK cents per stick, failed to get smokers to stub it out.
A spokeswoman for the Smoke Alliance said the suggestion angers smokers and citizens who have the right to choose whether to light up or not. It is not like they are on illicit drugs.
Vincent Wong, 25, who has been smoking for nearly 10 years, said any increase in the tobacco tax and price of cigarettes will not deter smokers.
However Wan Kin-man, also 25, said a rise in the cost of cigarettes will discourage him from smoking.
“It will definitely become very expensive to smoke. But this will only increase the number of illegal tobacco vendors and make it more prevalent,” Wan said.
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=153027&sid=43649324&con_type=1
Raising taxes on cigarettes by a THIRD would stop people smoking saving millions of lives
Lizzie Parry
2 Jan 2015
Tripling tax on cigarettes across the world would prevent 200 million premature deaths from lung cancer, experts claim.
The drastic increase in tax would cut the number of smokers by a third as prices double.
The increase would also narrow the price gap between the cheapest and most expensive cigarettes, encouraging people to quit rather than switch to a cheaper brand, a new study has found.
At the United Nations General Assembly and the World Health Organisation’s 2013 Assembly, countries across the world agreed to cut smoking rates by a third, by 2025.
The aim is to reduce the number of premature deaths from cancer and other diseases related to smoking, by a quarter.
Cancer Research UK said 42,000 people were diagnosed with lung cancer in the UK in 2010, and less than 10 per cent survive the disease, for at least five years after diagnosis.
In 2010, 34,900 people died from the disease.
Previous research has shown those people who start smoking when they are young continue to do so throughout adulthood, and have two to three times the mortality rate of non-smokers.
An average of 10 years of life is lost from smoking, with many of those dying still in middle age – meaning on average they lose around 20 years from their life expectancy.
However, the new study has found quitting smoking at a young age could help people regain almost all of the decade they may have otherwise lost.
Professor Sir Richard Peto from University of Oxford said: ‘Worldwide, around a half-billion children and adults under the age of 35 are already – or soon will be – smokers and on current patterns few will quit.
‘So there’s an urgent need for governments to find ways to stop people starting and to help smokers give up.
‘This study demonstrates that tobacco taxes are a hugely powerful lever and potentially a triple win – reducing the numbers of people who smoke and who die from their addiction, reducing premature deaths from smoking and yet, at the same time, increasing government income.
‘All governments can take action by regularly raising tobacco taxes above inflation, and using occasional steep tax hikes starting with their next budget.
‘Young adult smokers will lose about a decade of life if they continue to smoke – they’ve so much to gain by stopping.’
The researchers said controlling tobacco marketing is also important in helping people quit their habits, with the government considering following Australia and switching to plain packaging.
Dr Prabhat Jha, director of the Centre for Global Health Research of St. Michael’s Hospital and a professor in the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto, said: ‘Death and taxes are inevitable, but they don’t need to be in that order.
‘A higher tax on tobacco is the single most effective intervention to lower smoking rates and to deter future smokers.’
Dr Harpal Kumar, Cancer Research UK’s chief executive, said: ‘Worldwide, around half a billion children and adults under the age of 35 are already – or soon will be – smokers, and many will be hooked on tobacco for life.
‘So there’s an urgent need for governments to find ways to stop people starting and to help smokers give up.
‘This immensely important study demonstrates that tobacco taxes are a hugely powerful lever, and potentially a triple win – reducing the numbers of people who smoke and who die from their addiction, reducing the health care burden and costs associated with smoking and yet, at the same time, increasing government income.
‘We urge all governments, not least the UK government, to take action by regularly raising tobacco taxes above inflation, and using occasional steep tax hikes starting with the next budget.
‘Young adult smokers will lose about a decade of life if they continue to smoke – they’ve so much to gain by stopping.’
Deborah Arnott, chief executive of health charity ASH said: ‘Raising the price of tobacco through taxation is the single most effective way of reducing smoking as high prices encourage smokers to cut down and quit, and discourage young people from starting.
‘This important study should be a wake-up call to all governments since raising tobacco taxes increases revenue while also saving lives.
‘While low income countries stand to benefit most from a dramatic increase in tobacco taxes, high income countries such as the UK can also benefit from increasing taxes as part of a range of measures to further drive down smoking rates.’
The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2894624/Raising-taxes-cigarettes-save-millions-lives-stop-people-smoking-prices-double.html
Hong Kong customs seizes about 2.1m illicit cigarettes, 13 arrested
http://customstoday.com.pk/hong-kong-customs-seizes-about-2-1m-illicit-cigarettes-13-arrested/
HONG KONG: Customs officials seized about 2.1 million illicit cigarettes and arrested 13 people in the latest raid on cross-border tobacco smugglers.The seizures, valued at about HK$5.6 million, followed a two-week operation targeting vehicles crossing the border from the mainland. Two cars were seized and five suspected tobacco storage points were smashed.
The tobacco involved would have attracted duties of HK$4.1 million, customs said.
Illicit cigarettes have grown in popularity in recent years as taxes have risen. One British study said as many as a third of cigarettes smoked in Hong Kong in 2012 were illegal, although the claim has been disputed by anti-smoking campaigners. The operation showed the effectiveness of our enforcement strategy, especially the escalated enforcement actions against smuggling activities at source,” a customs spokesman said.
As of last month, customs officers had impounded 31 million illicit cigarettes in 18 significant smuggling cases this year. Each operation involved more than 500,000 cigarettes.Customs operations have also targeted people who supply illicit cigarettes by telephone order. Some 234 people were arrested and cigarettes worth HK$7.45 million were seized in those operations in the first nine months of the year
Evidence supports plain tobacco packaging to improve public health
Policymakers should heed the results of studies into the effect of cigarette packaging on smoking behaviour.
http://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/opinion/comment/evidence-supports-plain-tobacco-packaging-to-improve-public-health/20067505.article
Tobacco companies rely heavily on packaging to create and drive brand image in order to attract new consumers to their products and create brand loyalty. Standardising pack appearance by introducing laws that enforce plain tobacco packaging may contribute to a reduction in smoking rates and improve public health.
Why packaging is important
Since the late 19th century, product packaging has been a valuable communications tool for tobacco companies[1], and it has become increasingly important in recent years for several reasons. Firstly, bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship have left packaging as one of the few remaining ways for a tobacco company to distinguish its brand with consumers and create interest in its products — the ‘last chance marketing saloon’ as it has been referred to by tobacco industry analysts[2]. Secondly, there are now a large variety of tobacco brands on the market, which was not always the case, and a growth in brand families, where a single brand can have more than a dozen variants. This makes packaging crucial for inter- and intra-brand differentiation. Thirdly, technological advancement has allowed greater innovation in pack appearance, especially in terms of pack structure (size, shape, closing mechanism) and non-visual sensory elements intended to create a multisensory appeal (such as textures or coatings to create tactile effects, aroma technology or auditory cues). Packaging innovation can reduce risk perceptions and enhance brand appeal, purchase interest, sales and market share[3],[4].
The public health argument
The issue with fully branded tobacco packaging, from a public health perspective, is that it can increase the appeal of the pack, the product and smoking, mislead consumers about how harmful the product is, and distract from the on-pack government health warnings. It was for these reasons that Australia implemented plain cigarette packaging in 2012 in accordance with the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control[5],[6]. A number of other countries, including New Zealand, France, Finland, India and South Africa, are reported to be considering plain (also referred to as standardised) packaging. While Ireland appears firmly committed to introducing this measure, the UK government has yet to make a similar pledge; the Scottish government maintains that it will proceed independently should the UK government fail to do so.
Despite recent announcements, Australia remains the only country to have implemented plain packaging, which is surprising considering that the idea that all tobacco products come in “plain brown wrappers” was proposed by a group of Canadian doctors in the mid-1980s[7]. This slow progress may be explained, at least in part, by the response of tobacco companies. Since the early 1990s, when the Plain Pack Working Group was established by tobacco companies to develop a global strategy against plain packaging, it has strongly opposed this measure and attempted to shape the debate. Within the UK, for instance, tobacco companies have lobbied the government and manipulated media coverage to claim plain packaging will have an adverse impact on retailers and boost the illicit tobacco trade, and have done so via misrepresentation of findings and use of third-party evidence (without disclosing financial links to this evidence)[8].
A lack of research on the potential impacts of plain packaging, at least until recently, is also a contributory factor. As of March 2014, the vast majority of primary plain packaging studies (53 studies out of a total of 62) have been conducted since 2007[9]. There is now a body of evidence, with new research being published regularly, with findings that are generally consistent, irrespective of study date, location, design and sample. Results suggest that introducing plain packaging would: reduce the attractiveness and appeal of tobacco products; increase the noticeability of health warnings; and, at least for darker coloured plain packs, reduce the ability of packaging to mislead consumers about the harmful effects of smoking[10],[11]. Regarding the potential impact on smoking-related attitudes, beliefs, intentions and behaviour, findings are mixed but tend to support plain packaging having a deterrent effect on smoking, with younger people, non-smokers and less heavy smokers more likely to think that plain packs would discourage smoking initiation, encourage cessation or reduce consumption[10],[11].
Smoking behaviour in Australia
Assessment of the impact of plain packaging on smoking prevalence is reliant upon recent findings from Australia, since it is the only country to have implemented this measure. The latest wave of the triennial National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS), with a nationally representative sample (N=23,855) of the Australian population aged 12 years and older, shows where there have been changes in smoking behaviours in Australia, including prevalence, between 2010 and 2013. The NDSHS found that for those aged 14 years and older — most analyses are conducted with those aged 14 years and older to allow for comparison with earlier surveys — fewer people reported smoking (18.1% to 15.8%) with fewer smoking daily (15.1% to 12.8%), weekly consumption of cigarettes decreased (111 cigarettes to 96 cigarettes), and there was an increase in average age of initiation (15.4 years to 15.9 years) and never smoking (57.8% to 60.1%)[12]. Overall, the key indicators point to tobacco control in Australia being a resounding success.
There are several relevant points to consider when interpreting the NDSHS findings: smoking prevalence and consumption is in long-term decline in Australia; plain packaging was not introduced until late 2012; and, aside from plain packaging, other relevant tobacco control measures introduced from 2010 included a mass-media campaign, which accompanied the initial implementation of plain packaging[13], and a large (25%) increase in sales tax. Although this tax increase was introduced some months before the previous survey wave, in 2010, it may be a relevant factor.
The balance of evidence
Packaging is clearly an important and multipurpose marketing tool, a fact that has not been disputed by tobacco companies in the plain packaging debate. It is perhaps unsurprising, therefore, that the accumulating evidence suggests that plain tobacco packaging may have, and is having, a number of potential public health benefits, particularly because there is evidence that plain packaging is associated with cessation-related behaviours[14],[15],[16],[17],[18]. Between 2010 and 2013, smoking prevalence in Australia experienced the greatest percentage decline as a proportion of the smoking population since the NDSHS began. This will serve to encourage policy interest in plain packaging elsewhere.
The case for plain packaging is now stronger than it has ever been.
References:
[1]Thibodeau M & Martin J. Smoke gets in your eyes: Branding, and design in cigarette packaging. New York: Abbeville Press, 2000.
[2]Hedley D. Smoke and mirrors and the smoking population. Tobacco Journal International 2011;68–69.
[3]Hedley D. The changing future and a new vocabulary for the tobacco industry. Tobacco Journal International 2012;4:89–94.
[4]Kotnowski K & Hammond D. The impact of cigarette pack shape, size and opening: evidence from tobacco company documents. Addiction 2013;108:1658–1668.
[5]World Health Organisation. Elaboration of guidelines for implementation of Article 11 of the Convention. Third session of the Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Durban, South Africa, 17–22 November 2008.
[6]World Health Organisation. Elaboration of guidelines for implementation of Article 13 of the Convention. Third session of the Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Durban, South Africa, 17–22 November 2008.
[7]Lee B. Sell tobacco in no-frills wrappers, urge doctors. The Journal 1986;15:5.
[8]Evans-Reeves K. Plain cigarette packaging: is the government stalling as election approaches? The conversation, 17th December 2014.
[9]Moodie C, Bauld L, Ford A et al. Young women smokers’ response to using plain cigarette packaging: Qualitative findings. BMC Public Health 2014;14:812.
[10]Moodie C, Stead M, Bauld L et al. Plain tobacco packaging: A systematic review. Report prepared for the Department of Health. Stirling: Centre for Tobacco Control Research, University of Stirling, 2012.
[11]Moodie C, Angus K, Bauld L et al. Plain tobacco packaging research: An update. Stirling, Scotland: Centre for Tobacco Control Research, University of Stirling, 2013.
[12]Australian Institute for Health and Welfare. 2013 National Drug Strategy Household Survey detailed report 2013. Drug statistics series No. 28. Cat. No. PHE 183, Canberra: AIHW, 2014.
[13]Thrasher JT, Osman A, Moodie C et al. Promoting cessation resources through cigarette package warning labels: A longitudinal survey with adult smokers in Canada, Australia and Mexico. Tobacco Control (Published online, 22 July 2014).
[14]Moodie C, Hastings GB, Mackintosh AM et al. Young adult smokers’ perceptions of plain packaging: A pilot naturalistic study. Tobacco Control 2011;20:367–373.
[15]Moodie C, Mackintosh AM. Young adult women smokers’ perceptions of using plain cigarette packaging: A naturalistic approach. British Medical Journal Open 2013;3:e002402.
[16]Wakefield MA, Hayes L, Durkin S et al. Introduction effects of the Australian plain packaging policy on adult smokers: A cross-sectional study. British Medical Journal Open 2013;3:e003175.
[17]Young JM, Stacey I, Dobbins TA et al. Association between tobacco plain packaging and Quitline calls: A population-based, interrupted time-series analysis. Medical Journal of Australia 2014;200:29–32.
[18]Gallopel-Morvan K, Moodie C, Eker F et al. Perceptions of plain packaging among young adult roll-your-own smokers in France: A naturalistic approach. Tobacco Control (Published online, 11 June 2014).
Health Risks of E-cigarettes, Smokeless Tobacco, and Waterpipes
http://www.cancer.net/navigating-cancer-care/prevention-and-healthy-living/tobacco-use/health-risks-e-cigarettes-smokeless-tobacco-and-waterpipes
Approved by the Cancer.Net Editorial Board, 01/2015
Key Messages:
Alternatives to smoking, such as e-cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, and waterpipes still contain the addictive chemical nicotine, in addition to other chemicals.
While many of these alternatives may be marketed as being safer alternatives to smoking, they can also cause health risks.
If you smoke or use these products talk with your doctor about ways to quit.
Although cigarette smoking has been steadily—but slowly—declining in the United States, many different alternative tobacco and nicotine delivery products have been gaining popularity. This is partly because many alternative tobacco products—which come in various sizes, flavors, and forms—are marketed and often perceived as being relatively safe.
However, alternative tobacco products, such as e-cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, and waterpipes can cause serious potential health problems, including cancer, because of the chemicals and toxins they contain.
E-cigarettes
Electronic cigarettes, also known as e-cigarettes or vapor cigarettes, are battery-operated devices that resemble traditional cigarettes. However, instead of burning tobacco, they generally contain cartridges filled with nicotine and other chemicals. When the e-cigarette is used, the liquid chemicals in the cartridge are turned into a vapor or steam that is inhaled by the smoker.
Because e-cigarettes have only been readily available in the United States since 2006, there is limited research on their health risks. According to one analysis by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the tobacco solution used in e-cigarettes contains a toxic chemical found in antifreeze and several cancer-causing chemicals, such as nitrosamines. Little more is known about the types or concentrations of chemicals, including nicotine, in e-cigarettes. However, the chemicals in e-cigarettes, the potential harmful effects, and the addictiveness vary based on the brand.
Among all of the alternative tobacco products, e-cigarettes are the least regulated. They have no warning labels and can be sold to people of any age. The FDA has not approved e-cigarettes as a way to quit smoking. People with cancer who want to quit smoking should use the approved methods for quitting smoking.
Learn more about ASCO’s efforts in regulating e-cigarettes.
Smokeless tobacco
Smokeless tobacco products contain tobacco or tobacco blends that are either chewed, sucked, or sniffed. Most smokeless tobacco products are placed between the cheek or lips and gums for a few minutes to hours. They have many names, such as spit tobacco, chew, pinch, or dip, and fall into several categories.
Chewing tobacco.
This is tobacco in the form of loose leaves, leaves pressed together that is commonly known as “plug”, or leaves twisted together to resemble a rope that is commonly known as “twist.” Chewing tobacco is held between the cheek and gum. Usually the tobacco juices are spit out, but long-time users tend to swallow some of the juices.
Snuff.
This is finely ground tobacco that comes in dry or moist forms and is sometimes packaged in ready-to-use pouches. Dry snuff is usually sniffed or swallowed, whereas moist snuff—similar to snus (see below)—is placed between the gum and the lip or cheek and slowly absorbed.
Snus.
This is a tobacco product that originated in Sweden before being introduced to the United States. The moist tobacco powder is usually packaged in a pouch and placed in the mouth, inside the cheek, for absorption. It does not require the user to spit out tobacco juice; however, the pouch must be thrown away after use, not swallowed. Tobacco companies often market snus as a product that cigarette smokers can use in places where smoking is banned. Public health advocates worry that laws banning smoking in certain public places will not effectively encourage people to quit using tobacco products as long as snus is available.
Dissolvable tobacco.
This is powdered tobacco that is compressed to resemble a small, hard candy that dissolves in the mouth. It does not produce any tobacco juice that needs to be spit out or leave behind any substance that the user must throw away.
Prolonged use of smokeless tobacco products can lead to serious health issues, such as cancer and heart disease. Some smokeless tobacco contains greater amounts of nicotine—three to four times more—than cigarettes. These products also contain numerous substances that increase the risk of cancer of the mouth and throat. Chewing tobacco also may lead to white patches, called leukoplakia, on the gums, tongue, or lining of the mouth. Although most of these are noncancerous, some show early signs of cancer, and oral cancer often occurs near patches of leukoplakia. Chewing tobacco and other forms of smokeless tobacco can also cause gum disease and increase tooth decay.
Waterpipes
Another popular alternative tobacco product in the United States is the waterpipe. Waterpipes, also called hookahs, among other names, have been smoked in regions such as the Middle East, Asia, and Africa for more than four centuries.
Modern-day waterpipes, which are relatively inexpensive, are composed of four main parts:
- A small bowl on top of the waterpipe, which holds a special mixture of shredded tobacco and sweetener
- A broad base to hold water
- A pipe connecting the bowl to the base
- A rubber hose attached to a mouthpiece through which smoke is pulled
- Small packets of the tobacco mixture burned in waterpipes are sold in a variety of flavors, such as apple, mint, and cappuccino. People can smoke waterpipes alone, but waterpipes are often used in social settings, with multiple people sharing the same mouthpiece.
Beyond their low cost and appeal as a traditional and communal activity, unfounded assumptions about their relative safety are driving the waterpipe trend, especially among college students and young people. According to one historical account of the waterpipe’s origin, an Indian physician created the device, believing that by having the smoke first pass through a small amount of water, it would be a less harmful method of inhaling tobacco. Even though there is no proof that water can “filter” tobacco smoke and make it less harmful, this misperception still persists today.
Health concerns about smoking waterpipes include the following:
Exposure to the same toxins as cigarettes but in higher quantities. The smoke produced by a waterpipe contains high levels of many of the same toxic compounds found in cigarettes, including carbon monoxide, heavy metals, and chemicals linked to cancer. These toxins and chemicals are associated with lung, stomach, bladder, and esophageal cancers and have been known to clog arteries and cause heart disease and respiratory diseases, such a lung disease called emphysema that causes difficulty breathing.
In most cases, waterpipe smoking sessions, which typically last up to one hour, expose smokers to much higher levels of these toxins than cigarettes. For example, a smoker may inhale 100% to 200% more smoke during a waterpipe session, compared with a single cigarette.
Potential to spread infectious disease. Sharing a waterpipe with other people can increase the risk of contracting or transmitting diseases, such as tuberculosis, and viruses, such as herpes and hepatitis, especially if the mouthpieces are not cleaned properly.
Nicotine addiction.
The tobacco used in waterpipes contains about the same amount of nicotine as cigarettes, which often leads to addiction.
Exclusive: American Red Cross Pressured to Rid Itself of Tobacco Money
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2015/01/07/business/07reuters-usa-redcross-tobacco-exclusive.html?ref=international&_r=1
New York (Reuters) – The American Red Cross risks damaging the reputation of the global Red Cross brand because of its refusal to stop accepting donations from tobacco companies, a top official with the humanitarian network said.
These concerns are prompting the International Red Cross and public health organizations to press the U.S. group to end its longtime policy of taking tobacco money, Reuters has learned.
The International Red Cross, which recently rolled out a global disease prevention program with a strong anti-smoking component, hasn’t accepted tobacco donations since 2008. Most of the group’s 189 national affiliates don’t accept money either, but the powerful U.S. member does, as do about half a dozen other countries, including Germany, Russia and Vietnam.
While precise figures are not available, the American Red Cross and its U.S. affiliates have received at least $12 million from tobacco companies such as Altria Group, Reynolds American and Philip Morris International since 2001, according to Red Cross tax records and tobacco company press releases and annual reports.
An American Red Cross spokeswoman, Laura Howe, declined to comment on the dispute with its parent body – whose guidelines are not binding on its affiliates – but said it was happy to accept any funds that support its efforts to assist disaster victims. She also declined to say how much it received from each company.
International Red Cross officials say that by accepting the donations, the U.S. group risks damaging not only its own reputation but that of the entire global humanitarian network. Some public health advocates agree, saying there is a contradiction between the Red Cross’s mandate to aid the vulnerable and its acceptance of money from an industry whose product may cause death.
Matthias Schmale, under secretary general for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, said officials have talked with American Red Cross officials and asked them to drop the tobacco funding.
“We have been very clear about the potential reputational damage not just for them but for all of us,” Schmale said in a telephone interview from Geneva. “So far we have not taken the route of public condemnation. We want to respect that they are an important supporter of ours.”
He said the parent body would continue “to put pressure” on the American Red Cross to change its policy, although he would not say what form that pressure would take.
Despite the controversy, there has been little public debate about the donations. And the dispute between the American Red Cross and its parent body has not been reported until now.
How the dispute is resolved could be felt beyond the American Red Cross. Anti-tobacco activists hope that if the U.S. group bows to pressure, it could influence other nonprofits to reject millions of dollars in donations.
John Stewart of Corporate Accountability International, a watchdog group, said if the American Red Cross stopped accepting tobacco money it would undercut the tobacco industry’s global public relations strategy to gloss over its “tarnished image.”
Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story
PUBLIC RELATIONS BOOST?
Critics argue that by accepting donations from tobacco interests, the organization, one of the largest charities in the United States with 2013 revenue of $3.4 billion, is muddying its public health mission while providing the tobacco industry with a public-relations boost.
Major U.S. and European tobacco companies including Reynolds American, Altria and Lorillard as well as Philip Morris International and British American Tobacco Plc acknowledged the donations and said they were among some of the millions of dollars they give away.
“When there are important disasters, and people have significant needs, that is the right thing for corporations to do,” said Altria spokesman David Sylvia.
Howe, the American Red Cross spokeswoman, said in an email that all donations “are important to the American Red Cross and the disaster victims they assist.” “Collectively, donations of all amounts allow us to provide disaster victims with food, shelter and emotional support.”
Asked about any pressure from the international body to stop taking money from tobacco interests, Howe said: “As a matter of practice, we don’t share the details of private conversations between Red Cross officials.”
GROUPS SEND LETTER
The International Red Cross has been encouraging its U.S member to drop the funding since 2008, but it stepped up the pressure in 2014 after implementing a new healthy living program that includes smoking cessation.
Pressure on the American Red Cross is coming on other fronts as well. On Dec. 19, some of the largest U.S. public health advocacy organizations, including the Public Health Law Center and Action on Smoking & Health, wrote to American Red Cross President Gail McGovern, urging the organization to stop taking tobacco donations.
“The Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement is respected around the world for protecting life, health and human dignity,” the letter said. “To lend its enormous credibility, connection and influence to an industry that sells and promotes a product that kills 6 million people a year is a serious violation of the most basic principles of public health.”
The American Red Cross would not comment on the letter, which has not been made public before.
WHY TAKE THE MONEY?
The tobacco money represents a steady but small percentage of the American Red Cross’s annual contributions – it took in more than $1 billion in donations in fiscal 2013.
Tobacco companies have been donating to the American Red Cross in some instances as far back as the 1960s, but confirming the size and dates of donations made before 2001 is difficult because historical documents are not easily obtainable.
The Red Cross may take the money from tobacco companies because like most nonprofits it is under pressure to raise money each year for its general fund whether or not there is a disaster that brings in donations, said Ken Berger, president and CEO of Charity Navigator, which rates charities for donors.
“One reality is no matter what size a nonprofit is, they are usually strapped for cash,” he said. “To have money that is unrestricted and could be used for general operations are the most precious (donations).”
Altria’s Sylvia said it has donated to the organization for decades and now contributes $500,000 annually to the American Red Cross Annual Disaster Giving Program. It also has provided many one-time donations after specific disasters.
Reynolds American, its foundation and subsidiaries have given more than $1 million to the American Red Cross during the last five years, according to the company. Philip Morris International has given $123,000 since 2008.
(Reporting By Jilian Mincer in New York; Additional reporting by Ece Toksabay in Turkey and Thomas Wilson in Japan; Editing by Eric Effron and Ross Colvin)
Double tobacco tax, Council on Smoking and Health urges Hong Kong government
Clear the Air says:
YES this request shown in SCMP below was one year ago in 2015, and what did the Almighty do (aka John Tsang, Financial Secretary) ?
– well, absolutely nothing! He must prefer gathering the profits tax from the tobacco companies instead and thereby knowingly ignoring a binding
WHO International Instrument lodged with the UN Treaties office.
So here we are in 2016 and COSH, the Government Council on Smoking OR Health funded body of experts with a deputy director of the Health Department on their Panel, again recommended an increase in tobacco tax to Almighty Tsang, and what did Almighty Tsang do?
– well he said in his budget he was going to provide more hospital beds and no mention of the required preventative measure excise tax increase.
COSH are clear on what they were repeatedly asking of the Almighty: obey the WHO FCTC Treaty requirements binding Hong Kong!
Here is the COSH overpolite response to the nondescript 2016 Almighty’s Budget, on non- preventative healthcare:
http://smokefree.hk/en/content/web.do?page=news20160224
http://smokefree.hk/en/content/web.do?page=PR20150225
So much for the Almighty’s Duty of Care to the people of Hong Kong and the smokers and the inquisitive youth, one of every two of these smokers will DIE, slowly and painfully from their inexpensive habit.
But the Amighty’s arrogance cuts far deeper; COSH is a Government funded body and the Financial Secretary has repeatedly ignored their expert advice and openly failed to follow the FCTC Treaty requirements.
Is this COSH, a Value-for-Money Organisation then if the Almighty can just repeatedly ignore their expertise?
Is it better to Prevent youth starting smoking, or to have to treat the effects of tobacco: nicotine addiction, cancer, emphysema and COPD, loss of productivity, increased health care, just build more hospital beds for them?
Is it Value-for-Money to use tax-payer money to subvent the tobacco companies, which Almighty Tsang repeatedly does, just pay for more hospital beds to treat the ravages caused by the tobacco companies and more doctors, nurses and medicines; instead of prevention of addiction by following WHO FCTC directives (increase tax annually, also increase tax in excess of the inflation rate) as a supposed ratified party to the FCTC Treaty ?
And why is Hong Kong not suing the tobacco companies for the costs of healthcare caused by the use of their consumer product?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
An anti-smoking body has told the government it should double tobacco tax in a bid to reduce the habit among Hongkongers.
The Council on Smoking and Health (COSH) proposes that a 100 per cent tax increase should to be implemented in the next fiscal year, in the hope of cutting the smoking rate from 10.7 per cent, to a single digit figure, between 9.5 and 9.9 per cent, in one to two years.
“At least now we have a preliminary goal and hope the smoking rate will have a further drop in the future,” said the council’s chairman, Antonio Kwong Cho-shing.
The proposal was supported by a survey on tobacco control policy, jointly conducted by COSH and the University of Hong Kong from May to September last year. Some 2,419 people were surveyed, including 800 current smokers, 800 former smokers and 819 people who had never smoked.
More than 65 per cent of the respondents replied that the 11.8 per-cent increase in tobacco tax last year was not effective in bringing smokers to quit, while 72.9 per cent supported increasing tobacco tax annually.
The retail price of a pack of cigarettes should be increased from the current HK$55 to HK$106, the respondents suggested as a mean average. The smokers went even further, suggesting on average that the price should be raised to HK$171.
COSH’s executive director, Vienna Lai Wai-yin, said that increasing tobacco tax is effective in encouraging smokers to quit. “This is more influential among youngsters and the elderly who are more price responsive,” she said.
She added that the World Health Organisation suggested tobacco tax as an “effective and important means” to reduce tobacco consumption.
Tobacco tax in the city was raised 300 per cent in 1983, which lead to a 4.6 per cent decline in the smoking rate over two years. However, tobacco tax has been frozen 12 times since 1999 with only two significant increases – a 50 per cent hike in 2009 and 41.5 per cent rise in 2011.
According to government thematic household survey reports, the smoking prevalence of people aged 15 or above dropped from 11.8 per cent in 2008 to 10.7 per cent in 2012. Secondary school pupils showed a more significant drop from 6.9 per cent to 3 per cent.
“If tax can increase 300 per cent, we will totally support it. It is indeed more effective than television advertisements,” said Professor Lam Tai-hing from the HKU School of Public Health.
COSH urged the government to allocate more resources towards smoking cessation and education, as tax revenue from tobacco products increased to HK$5.8 billion in 2013.
The current tax rate on a price of cigarettes is 69 per cent.
Source URL (modified on Jan 7th 2015, 5:43pm): http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1675992/double-tobacco-tax-council-smoking-and-health-urges-hong-kong
Call for doubling of tobacco tax
http://rthk.hk/rthk/news/englishnews/news.htm?main&20150107&56&1066962
The Hong Kong Council on Smoking and Health on Wednesday called for tobacco tax to be doubled to encourage smokers to quit and prevent youngsters from smoking.
In a survey conducted by the Council, 73 percent of respondents, including smokers and those who have never smoked, supported raising tobacco tax annually.
More than 2,400 people were polled from May and September last year.
Sixty-five percent of them felt the 11.8 percent tobacco tax hike that was introduced in the current fiscal year had failed to encourage smokers to quit.
The majority of them also felt the price of cigarettes should be raised from HK$55 dollars a pack to HK$106, although said some smokers even supported raising the price to HK$171 dollars.
TOBACCO BRANDING WARNING FROM BHF
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/health/tobacco-branding-warning-from-bhf.115629157
SMOKERS are almost twice as likely to notice health warnings on tobacco products that have packaging free of advertising, according to a report.
The British Heart Foundation (BHF) said its study of almost 3,000 smokers and ex-smokers in Australia and the UK found that the number of those in Australia who took notice of health warnings almost doubled after tobacco packets were stripped of branding there in December 2012.
The BHF’s Standardised Packaging for Tobacco Products report said just a third (34 per cent) of smokers and ex-smokers noticed the health warnings before any other information in 2010, compared with two thirds (66 per cent) after the legislation was implemented.
In the UK, where branded packaging still exists, just 24 per cent of people noticed the health warnings before other messages such as advertising.
The report also found 82 per cent of Australians did not like the look of tobacco products after standardised packaging was introduced.
The BHF said support for the new legislation in Australia among smokers and ex-smokers had almost doubled from 28 per cent in 2010 to 51 per cent in 2013, noting that just over a third (37 per cent) of smokers and ex-smokers in the UK backed standardised packaging being enforced here.
The Scottish Government supports plain packaging for tobacco and ministers at Westminster said in April last year that they expected to proceed “as swiftly as possible” with the measure.
BHF chief executive Simon Gillespie said: “The evidence couldn’t be clearer.
“Stripping tobacco products of their branded packaging means important health warnings have more impact. These are toxic products so it’s vital these messages are communicated clearly.
“Standardised packaging is an effective and important public health measure which is already having a significant impact in Australia.
“There can be no more delay and the UK Government must act now to make sure standardised packaging is law before the election.”