Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

May 1st, 2015:

Finance ministry may be urged to shun meet funded by tobacco companies

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Finance-ministry-may-be-urged-to-shun-meet-funded-by-tobacco-companies/articleshow/47116442.cms

NEW DELHI: Faced with opposition from public health activists, the health ministry is set to intervene and may soon urge the finance ministry to distance itself from an upcoming international conference in New Delhi, being co-organised by a consortium funded by several transnational tobacco companies.

The event – The 12th Annual Asia Pacific Tax Forum – is being organised by Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) and International Tax and Investment Centre (ITIC). The event website highlights that confirmed participants include revenue secretary Shakti Kant Das, Central Board of Direct Taxes chairperson Anita Kapur and Central Board of Excise and Customs chairman Kaushal Srivasatava.

However, health activists, advocating tobacco control measures, have raised concerns over participation of government officials in an event sponsored by tobacco firms. The list of sponsors on the ITIC website includes four tobacco companies – Philip Morris International, Imperial Tobacco Ltd, British American Tobacco and JT International that was formerly Japanese Tobacco.

Institute of Public Health has pointed out that the participation of the government officials in the tax forum co-organized by ITIC would amount to violation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), to which India is a signatory, which acknowledges the influence of tobacco industry and its allies in tobacco control policymaking.

Article 5.3 of FCTC states, “In setting and implementing their public health policies with respect to tobacco control, Parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law.”

Health ministry officials also approve of the concern. “It is true that participation of government officials in such an event would amount to violation of FCTC. India is a signatory to the framework and we must respect it. Since health ministry is the nodal agency and our stand on tobacco is clear, we are considering writing to finance ministry asking them to keep away from participating in any such event,” the official told ToI.

The event’s website till Wednesday also mentioned Jayant Sinha, minister of state for finance, among the guests. However, Sinha’s name was taken off on Thursday.

Meanwhile, IPH has also approached the Delhi High Court seeking directions for the government to refrain from taking any decision or action with regard to the participation of the representatives at the tax event, scheduled to be held from May 5 to 7 in New Delhi.

The development is significant in wake of the several anti-tobacco measures and policy decisions pending in India- the latest being implementation of larger pictorial warnings on packets of tobacco products. The move has been deferred by the government pending a final report by a Parliamentary sub-committee.

Tobacco Still Rules the World and Kills People

http://english.pravda.ru/health/01-05-2015/113583-tobacco-0/

If you are a smoker who wants to get rid of the nasty habit, you can bid farewell to cigarettes on May 31, the World No Tobacco Day. This day appeared in 1988 when the World Health Organization set a goal to the international community to root out the problem of tobacco smoking in the 21st century. Needless to say that the noble initiative has not brought any results: tobacco still rules the world and kills people.

In Russia, smoking remains the most widely-spread ill habit. Up to 65 percent of Russian males and up to 30 percent of females are smokers. The number of smokers in Russia has increased by 440,000 people during the recent two decades. The growth is based on the involvement of new social groups – women and young people. The share of smoking women in the age group of 20-29 is ten times as much as in the group of women over 60.

“This year all those who want to quit smoking will have a wonderful opportunity to quit with thousands of other people who care about their own health. You won’t be alone here – you will quit with thousands of other people,” a message from Russia’s Healthcare Ministry said.

Russia celebrates the World No Tobacco Day on May 31 under the slogan: “May 31st – The Day To Quit Smoking. Forever.”

The results of the “Healthy Russia” campaign launched in 2009 showed that there are a lot of smokers in Russia who want to quit smoking.

“The analysis of hotline phone calls showed that about 95 percent of calls are related to the issue of tobacco smoking. Many of those people who called the hotline inquired about the techniques which they could use to quit smoking,” the ministry said.

Nicotine affects practically every organ of a smoking individual. It starts with the respiratory system and then proceeds to the cardiovascular and other systems of the human body. Smoking may trigger the development of malignant tumors, cause irreparable damage to reproductive and immune functions of the organism.

Addiction to nicotine is one of the most popular epidemics in the history of mankind, which comes very close to alcoholism and narcomania.

There is a saying that “a drop of nicotine kills a horse.” Scientists say that one drop of nicotine can kill not one, but three horses at once. As for human beings, a lethal dose of nicotine for a human measures 50-100 mg. If smoking 20-25 cigarettes a day, the lungs of a smoker filter 150-160 kilos of nicotine in 30 years. Such a smoker does not die only because they intake small doses of nicotine.

Tobacco smoke triggers the development of dangerous diseases and affects practically all organs. When smoking a pack of cigarettes, a person receives a dose of radiation seven times stronger than the norm. A combination of tobacco radiation and other carcinogenic substances is the main reason for developing cancer.

Smoking kills one person every six seconds. Tobacco takes five millions lives on the globe every year. If smoking becomes more and more popular, the death toll will grow to 10 million by 2020. By 2030, smoking can become one of the strongest premature death factors.

Science, harassment and the limits to transparency

http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2015/may/01/science-harassment-and-the-limits-to-transparency

Activists and corporations are increasingly using public information laws to intimidate scientists. Funding disclosures are fair game, argues Michael Halpern. But documents related to the research process should stay off limits.

In 2009, a law firm representing Philip Morris submitted freedom of information requests to the University of Stirling for the work of three scientists – Gerard Hastings, Anne Marie Mackintosh and Linda Bauld – who were studying the impact of tobacco marketing on adolescents. They sought all primary data, questionnaires, handbooks and documents related to the researchers’ work, much of which was confidential.

Although the requests were eventually dropped due to negative publicity, responding to and challenging them cost the scientists and the university’s lawyers many weeks of work. “The stress of all this is considerable,” the scientists involved, wrote afterwards. “We are not lawyers and, like most civilians, find the law abstruse and the overt threat of serious punishment extremely disconcerting.”

This was no isolated incident. Activists and corporations of all political stripes in a growing number of countries are increasingly harassing and intimidating university scientists, using public information laws which were originally designed for citizens to understand the workings of government.

In an editorial in this week’s Science magazine, climate scientist Michael Mann and I explore this problem and ask a pressing question: how do we balance public accountability with the privacy essential for scientific inquiry?

The rise of electronic communication means that the process of science is now recorded more than ever before. Conversations that used to happen in person or over the phone take place via email. This allows scientists to collaborate more easily across time zones and continents. It also means that much of the research process is written down and is therefore easier for outsiders to attempt to scrutinize.

Scientists who helped fix the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster outlined the problem when their email correspondence was subpoenaed by BP. “Our concern is not simply invasion of privacy, but the erosion of the scientific deliberative process,” they wrote. “Deliberation is an integral part of the scientific method that has existed for more than 2,000 years; e-mail is the 21st century medium by which these deliberations now often occur.”

To be sure, transparency is essential to protecting the independence of public institutions, including universities. In 2013, for example, faculty at Florida State University discovered through Florida’s open records law an agreement that inappropriately gave the Charles Koch Foundation control over the hiring of economics professors and curriculum content. University of Kansas students are seeking information about similar alleged Koch influence on their campus.

But scrutiny beyond funding disclosure can be significantly disruptive and discourage scientists from pursuing policy relevant research. In too many places, those who disagree with a professor’s research or line of inquiry are seeking all information in his or her university’s possession (even handwritten notes).

Regardless of your line of work, can you imagine if every email you wrote, every rough draft, every honest criticism of a colleague’s work was placed in the public domain? You’d never get anything done.

Freedom to Bully, a report I wrote earlier this year for the Union of Concerned Scientists, describes this problem in detail, examining cases of environmental chemists and public health scientists and law professors who were at the receiving end of these requests.

Since then, the high-profile requests have kept coming. In February, an anti-GMO group asked four universities for extensive correspondence of fourteen biologists. In March, the West Virginia Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case where a mining company is seeking 216,000 documents related to the work of an occupational health scientist at West Virginia University.

Although some universities and researchers are pushing back against these pressures, levels of privacy protection vary by region, state and nation. This can create competitive advantages for universities in places that protect faculty communication, to the detriment of peers.

Scientists at protected institutions may become hesitant to work with their colleagues at non-protected institutions. The Virginia Supreme Court found in 2014 that excessive disclosure could cause “harm to university-wide research efforts, damage to faculty recruitment and retention, [and] undermining of faculty expectations of privacy and confidentiality.”

So what should be disclosed, and what should be kept secret? As a general rule, scientists should make public their sources of funding, and state whether there are any strings attached to that funding. Spending records are fair game. But documents related to the research process should stay off limits.

Yet where do you draw the line? It is increasingly apparent that we need common disclosure standards that put all scientific institutions – public and private – on a level playing field. Some suggest that national academies of science should take up this charge, working with learned societies, university associations and others. UCLA’s Statement of the Principles of Scholarly Research and Public Records Requests provides a great starting point.

We need to get creative in getting these common disclosure standards adopted. Implementation could become a requirement for university accreditation, for example. The standards could also be embraced by government grant-making bodies, increasing the likelihood that state laws will be modernized to protect faculty correspondence.

In the meantime, scientific institutions should strengthen their resilience to intrusive requests, which means being proactive and prepared. Public universities should articulate their practices for responding to open records requests. They should equip faculty and staff with an understanding of how open records laws can be misused, and advise them on how to use email responsibly. And they should defend their employees from invasive requests.

Otherwise, scientists will waste far too much time and money on litigation that should be spent on science and discovery. Public trust in science will inevitably suffer as a result.

Michael Halpern (@halpsci) is manager of strategy and innovation for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Philip Morris International Uses Copyright Claims To Quiet Marlboro Critics

Earlier this year, John Oliver thrust Philip Morris International — the New York-based cigarette giant that markets Marlboro and other brands in hundreds of countries outside the U.S. — into the spotlight for its questionable legal efforts to delay and block tobacco regulation around the globe. And this morning, the company used copyright claims to have videos posted by critics of Marlboro removed from the Internet.

http://consumerist.com/2015/05/01/philip-morris-international-uses-copyright-claims-to-quiet-marlboro-critics/

The group Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids has been highly critical of the “Be Marlboro” marketing campaign that PMI has been running in various countries since 2012. The ads tell young smokers to “Don’t Be A Maybe” and project a vibrant lifestyle full of partying and extreme sports while leaving out things like cancer, emphysema, and heart disease.

CTFK had compiled several Marlboro marketing videos with footage of Marlboro-sponsored parties that were part of this marketing. These clips were uploaded, without any editing, to video-sharing site Vimeo to show how Marlboro actively markets to the young-adult market.

But after the group sent out a press release notifying the media of its video collection, the clips vanished from Vimeo because of a copyright request from the Philip Morris office in Switzerland

The available takedown details provide nothing more than the names of the videos removed from the site other than the titles of the deleted clips and PMI’s claim to ownership. We’ve reached out to PMI for further explanation but have not yet received a reply from the company.

“We want people to see these videos for the same reason Philip Morris International wants to take them down,” explains a spokesperson for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, “because they make it clear that the Be Marlboro ad campaign is targeting young people around the world. Philip Morris claims they don’t market to kids, but the Be Marlboro advertising and videos show otherwise. They use images and themes like sex, parties and risk that are sure to appeal to teens and entice them to become Marlboro smokers. It’s important for public officials around the world to see this marketing and take action to protect kids by banning the Be Marlboro campaign and others like it.”

While these particular videos are no longer available on Vimeo, we were able to view them in order to present them so that readers can decide whether or not they cross an ethical line.

“In 2012, Marlboro launched a new revolutionary campaign — ‘Don’t Be A Maybe; Be Marlboro!’ — which is aimed to inspire a young adult smoker into decision-making,” explains the voice-over on the clip produced by Philip Morris Slovakia for a pop-up “Red City” festival Marlboro put together there. “Only thanks to courage, it’s possible to make decisions.”

Philip Morris International says the goal of “Don’t Be A Maybe” is to “inspire a young adult smoker into decision-making.” Here we see someone jumping off a 10-meter tower, presumably rather than having to smoke a Marlboro.

Philip Morris International says the goal of “Don’t Be A Maybe” is to “inspire a young adult smoker into decision-making.” Here we see someone jumping off a 10-meter tower, presumably rather than having to smoke a Marlboro.

“We tried to inspire and induce visitors to make a decision to experience something new at the festival,” continues the voice-over. “Ongoing activities through the day were presented in the spirit of the brand campaign and linked to the overall concept through music, dance, graffiti, and lifestyle.”

Marlboro wants to encourage young smokers to dance, which is good because they won’t be able to dance very much later in life if they’re still smoking.

Marlboro wants to encourage young smokers to dance, which is good because they won’t be able to dance very much later in life if they’re still smoking.

There was also a video from a 2012 party in Moldova, complete with DJs wearing furry panda heads and a topless dancer.

Several minutes of the Moldova video feature this topless dancer grinding on the panda-headed DJs. The Marlboro logo in the image above was inserted to cover her bare, pierced nipples.

Several minutes of the Moldova video feature this topless dancer grinding on the panda-headed DJs. The Marlboro logo in the image above was inserted to cover her bare, pierced nipples.

In Indonesia, the partying may have been less explicit, but the Marlboro branding was not.

While this Marlboro poster tells men to boldly go and ask for a woman’s phone number, even though the only women shown attending this party were working there as models or dancers.

While this Marlboro poster tells men to boldly go and ask for a woman’s phone number, even though the only women shown attending this party were working there as models or dancers.

While the Indonesia Marlboro party was noticeably free of non-working female attendees, the one in Saudi Arabia was a strictly male-only event, and even more focused on pushing Marlboro cigarettes:

Interestingly, the Saudi Arabia video tells viewers that “Freedom doesn’t start with a maybe,” but glosses over the lack of freedom for women in Saudi Arabia (like the fact that none of them would be allowed to attend this party).

Interestingly, the Saudi Arabia video tells viewers that “Freedom doesn’t start with a maybe,” but glosses over the lack of freedom for women in Saudi Arabia (like the fact that none of them would be allowed to attend this party).

In all of the videos we watched, this was the first where we saw any kind of visible health warning, though you’d have to squint to see it.

In all of the videos we watched, this was the first where we saw any kind of visible health warning, though you’d have to squint to see it.

marlborobts

The video ends with “behind-the-scenes” footage of a host asking attendees to name the best cigarette brand. You’ll never guess what they say.

One could argue that these parties are not significantly different from events thrown every night in cities all around the world by alcohol, electronics, software, and food companies. The claim could also be made that party attendees don’t actually care about the sponsor or the branding message and just want to enjoy themselves. At the same time, one has to wonder why Marlboro is going through the cost and expense of both throwing these parties and hiring producers to record them, but doesn’t want them to be shared — without any subsequent edits or commentary — by a group critical of Marlboro’s motives.

(All above party photographs are screen-grabs taken from four separate Philip Morris videos provided to Consumerist by Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids)

We leave you with the original Last Week Tonight report that first put the Be Marlboro campaign in the national spotlight:

WHO Urges PM Modi to Implement Increased Warnings on Tobacco Products

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/who-urges-pm-modi-to-implement-increased-warnings-on-tobacco-products-759896

NEW DELHI: World Health Organisation (WHO) today urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to implement the proposed increased pictorial warnings on tobacco products keeping in line with its commitments with WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).

“In India, nearly a million deaths occur every year due to tobacco related diseases. Tobacco is not only a major risk factor contributing to the deaths related to non-communicable diseases (NCDs) it also affects the fiscal and economic health of the country.

“The tobacco industry will undoubtedly raise unfounded concerns about impact on economic trade especially loss of livelihood to farmers and bidi rollers but evidence shows that tobacco producers are trapped in a cycle of exploitation and poverty,” UN World Health Organisation’s Director-General Margaret Chan said in her letter to the Prime Minister.

Also, Dr Nata Menabde, WHO representative to India, issued a statement in which she stated that India, though being a party to the WHO FCTC, has not fully complied with the tobacco pack warnings which currently occupy only 40 per cent of the principal display on one side of the pack.

In line with its commitment to this global treaty, India implemented pictorial health warnings on all tobacco packs in 2009.

Given the heavy public health and economic costs to the country due to tobacco consumption, WHO strongly supports early implementation of the October 2014 notification for increasing the size of tobacco pack warnings, she said.

“We are confident that the government of India will take an early considered decision in this regard as it prepares to host the next meeting of the governing body of the WHO FCTC-the seventh session in 2016, that will bring together all 180 countries that are parties to the convention,” she said.

Mired in controversy, the government has put on hold its decision to increase pictorial warnings on tobacco products to 85 per cent from the present 40 per cent. The rule was to come into effect from April 1 this year.