Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

July, 2015:

How big tobacco gifted campaigns of misdirection and misinformation to the gun lobby

http://theconversation.com/how-big-tobacco-gifted-campaigns-of-misdirection-and-misinformation-to-the-gun-lobby-45108

George Rennie – PhD Candidate at University of Melbourne

Disclosure statement

George Rennie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Partners

The University of Melbourne provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

The tobacco industry used advertising to sell – rather than convey – its message in its lobbying tactics. AAP/Joe Castro

In the late 1970s, the US tobacco industry was faced with a problem: it was no longer able to convincingly propagate the idea that cigarettes were good for you. It rightly supposed that this might lead to calls for anti-smoking legislation and, in anticipation, created an explicit doctrine: where a debate is unwinnable, change it.

The tobacco industry also recognised that if legislation led to even a 1% drop in annual revenues – self-calculated to be worth US$35 million in 1979 – then a “public information” campaign worth an unprecedented US$18 million was warranted if it might convince Congress not to legislate.

Such economics gave rise to a new wave of lobbying efforts. Corporations realised that traditional lobbying – useful as it was – was ineffective when governments proved stubborn, or even contrarian. The new lobbying no longer just targeted government, but was expanded to include the voting public.

Other industries took notice of tobacco’s efforts. These tactics still exist in lobbying today.

What the tobacco industry did

Tobacco industry groups began a series of “public information” campaigns. These took the form of paid “expert” testimony and opinion, sponsorship of “think-tanks”, the paradoxical “corporate social responsibility” (one of Milton Friedman’s greatest bugbears), and a little-understood phenomenon called “advocacy advertising”.

What made the late 1970s and 1980s different to previous decades was the shift in tone. Businesses once engaged in such campaigns in surprising ways – we would even consider them naïve today. Companies such as AT&T, Mobil Oil and General Motors ran earnest, overly long, paid op-eds in newspapers around the US that explained who they were, what was at issue (fairly accurately) and what their position was. To the general public, they were unreadable.

The tobacco industry – more than any other – changed this dramatically. It decided that it was far better to use advertising to sell, rather than convey, its message.

The tobacco industry’s campaigns were surprisingly successful. Despite a torrent of complaints about the dangers of smoking from the medical community, the public lobbying had shifted the grounds of the debate where typical, business-to-government lobbying could not.

No longer a health issue, smoking had become an individual rights one. The quickly building consensus against cigarette use was frustrated. It took a tremendous effort by anti-smoking groups to bring about gradual change, and even when the landmark Master Settlement Agreement of 1998 was signed, many critics saw the legislation as favouring the industry, and protecting it from future liability

Shifting focus on gun control

In the 1970s, the National Rifle Association (NRA) also shifted its strategic focus. Advertisements became decidedly more political.

In part, this shift was due to the increased influence of the gun industry, as distinct from individual members of the public. The industry had begun to significantly contribute to the NRA and exercised disproportionate say in who filled key leadership positions.

The rhetoric of the NRA’s ads changed. It had always been a “sportsman’s organisation”, but was once devoted more to information and training. Its tone changed in 1970, slightly at first, telling readers that hunters’ rights were under threat by:

… possibly well-intentioned, but ill-informed forces.

By the 1980s, having seen the success of campaigns that sought to distort rather than engage debates, the NRA further hardened its position. It decided that any attempt to limit gun rights was unacceptable. It has never again afforded gun-control advocates the dignity of being referred to as “well intentioned”. Post-1980 advertisements would portray such advocates as unpatriotic cowards who, if they succeeded in de-arming America, would lead to its demise.

Enter into the mix the NRA’s latest attempt to control the debate. In the wake of the Charleston church shootings, NRA magazine America’s 1st Freedom featured a story, Australia: There Will Be Blood.

The article rails against Australia’s gun laws, the most prominent of which were introduced following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. Such articles play an important role in the wider misinformation campaign against gun control. In this case, it forms the basis for claims – often made in NRA ads – that stringent gun laws lead to a worsening of crime.

Referring to US President Barack Obama’s recent comments on Australia’s laws, the NRA magazine concludes:

[Australia’s] is the gun-control regime that our president applauds for its decisive resolve. It robbed Australians of their right to self-defence and empowered criminals, all without delivering the promised reduction in violent crime. Australia’s gun confiscation is indeed a lesson to America: it is a sign of what is to come if we hold our rights lightly.

There’s a lot to disagree with in this quote (and the article). But the article’s importance is in what it does not engage with – why Australia actually introduced the laws.

A recent NRA ad.
Muddying the waters

It is clear, in viewing the NRA’s public information strategy, that fear is a key tool. The other tool – one even more powerful – is misdirection. The lessons from big tobacco have been well heeded: alter the nature of the debate until it is winnable, or at least not loseable. In some instances stalemate will do. If new information arises that shows an existing position to be wrong, move on to another.

Similar “grassroots” organisations also use this tool for other issues like climate change. But the NRA does it particularly well, much to Obama’s obvious frustration.

The NRA refuses to substantively engage with Australia having changed its laws in response to a massacre. The laws were designed to ensure that angry, disillusioned or depressed people could not easily access a gun and kill, en masse, innocents.

The NRA lobbies in the hope that we forget that mass shootings are the work of disturbed individuals. They take place in schools and colleges, cinemas, tourist attractions, churches and workplaces. They can even take place in secure navy and army bases, illustrating the hollowness of the NRA adage that:

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.

The victims, lest we forget them, include an unbearable number of children, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers and friends.

While there continues to be an endless bombardment of advertisements extolling how virtuous guns are, the absence of an equally well-resourced organisation in opposition to the NRA ensures that the message of victims dies at the end of a press cycle.

Who can name a single child from Sandy Hook Elementary? Who can recall their faces? Who knows what they’d say? They get lost, forgotten even, in a debate where money buys the carry of your voice.

Effects over time of tobacco tax increases in New Zealand

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-07/p-eot072415.php

Ongoing tobacco tax increases predicted to improve health, reduce health system costs, and reduce health inequalities, but take years to have their maximum health impacts.

Annual 10% tobacco tax increases in New Zealand over the next 20 years should lead to health gains, net health system cost savings and modest reductions of about 2% to 3% in health inequalities between indigenous (Māori) and non-indigenous people, according to a study published by Tony Blakely and colleagues from the University of Otago, New Zealand, in this week’s PLOS Medicine.

The researchers estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; a measure of disease burden that includes both duration and quality of life) gained and net health system costs over the remaining life of New Zealand’s 2011 population exposed to annual 10% tobacco tax increases for 20 years. The model included 16 tobacco-related diseases in parallel using national data on all-cause mortality and morbidity (illness). In 2011 the smoking prevalence was 35% for Māori and 14% for non-Māori. Compared to the 2011 population simulated into the future with no tax increases, the researchers estimated that 260,000 QALYs would be gained if the population were exposed to the annual tax increases, with net health system cost savings of US$2550 million (due to prevention of tobacco-related diseases).

“This health gain of 260,000 QALYs is 17% of all health gain that we estimated would occur if all smokers in 2011 quit that year, and we followed or simulated the population into the future,” says Professor Blakely, lead-researcher.

The QALY gains per capita associated with annual tobacco tax increases were 3.7 fold higher for Māori (indigenous population) than for non-Māori because of higher smoking levels and likely greater price sensitivity among Māori.

Notably, the health gains and cost savings are not predicted to peak for several decades. This is because smoking is more common among younger age groups and the tobacco tax effect is greater among young people (who have limited disposable income). These young people do not benefit maximally from reduced rates of tobacco-related diseases for many decades to come, due to the long delay between smoking onset and the incidence of tobacco-related disease in individuals.

As with all modeling studies, the accuracy of these findings depends on the assumptions built into the model and the data fed into it.

Professor Blakely says: “This modeling work has suggested that ongoing tobacco tax increases deliver sizeable health gains and health sector cost savings, and are likely to reduce health inequalities. However, if policy makers are to also achieve more rapid reductions in the non-communicable diseases (NCD) burden and health inequalities, they need to complement tobacco tax increases with additional tobacco control interventions focused on cessation.”

###

Research Article

Funding: The authors are supported by the BODE3 Programme, which is studying the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of various tobacco control strategies and receives funding support from the Health Research Council of New Zealand (Project number 10/248). The second author (LJC) was also supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Sidney Sax Public Health Fellowship (#1036771). No funding bodies had any role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Citation: Blakely T, Cobiac LJ, Cleghorn CL, Pearson AL, van der Deen FS, Kvizhinadze G, et al. (2015) Health, Health Inequality, and Cost Impacts of Annual Increases in Tobacco Tax: Multistate Life Table Modeling in New Zealand. PLoS Med 12(7): e1001856. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001856

Author Affiliations:

Burden of Disease Epidemiology, Equity and Cost Effectiveness Programme, Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand British Heart Foundation Centre on Population Approaches to NCD Prevention, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

Toughest issues left in Trans-Pacific trade talks

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/money/article/toughest-issues-left-in-trans-pacific-trade-talks

WASHINGTON, July 27 — Trade ministers from 12 Pacific Rim nations head to Hawaii this week to tackle the tough decisions needed to finalise a trade deal that will free up global commerce and set common standards for nearly half of the world’s economy.

The trickiest issues, requiring high-level political buy-in and painful compromises, have been left until the end of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations and range from market access to monopoly periods for medicines.

Canadian dairy

The United States, New Zealand and Australia are pushing hard for Canada to open up its protected dairy market and allow more imports, complaining that the country has not given its trade partners a sign it is ready to talk and even mulling a TPP without Canada.

With a national election scheduled for October, Canada’s Conservative government is wary of angering farmers by altering the supply management system, which keeps dairy and poultry prices artificially high by restricting supply. Canada’s dairy industry says it supports 215,000 jobs and contributes C$18.9 billion (RM55.2 billion) to the local economy.

Australian sugar

Australia, which exports more than 80 per cent of its sugar, is determined to win more access to the US sugar market, with the support of some US refiners and sugar users who say US protections for local canegrowers artificially inflate prices.

Sugar refiner Imperial Sugar Co, part of Louis Dreyfus Commodities , says Australia should be allowed to ship up to half the amount allocated to Mexico under a recent deal allowing the United States’ southern neighbour to make up the bulk of any US supply shortfall.

But US sugar growers are opposed, noting Australia already is America’s fifth largest foreign sugar supplier. Australia can ship 87,402 metric tons of raw sugar to the United States next fiscal year, eight per cent of total reduced-tariff imports.

Intellectual property

The United States wants TPP countries to agree to protect the data used to develop next-generation biologic drugs for 12 years, in a boon for companies like Pfizer Inc and Japan’s Takeda Pharmaceutical Co.

Although such a move would push up the cost of state-subsidised medical programmes in Australia and New Zealand, the pharmaceutical industry argues it would accelerate the introduction of cheaper, generic drugs by giving developers more certainty.

The United States has said it will balance the needs of developing countries to access affordable medicines. Countries also have to agree on the length of copyright periods for published works.

State-owned enterprises

State-owned enterprises or controlled businesses play a significant role in the economies of Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore, which are under pressure to cut back on their support for such firms and offer foreign competitors equal levels of access to secure government contracts, for example. The definition of a SOE, exceptions for specific industries or firms, and transition periods are not yet settled.

Textiles

US textile firms such as synthetic yarn maker Unifi are insisting on strict rules to stop Vietnam from flooding the US market with cheap clothing made from Chinese fabric once tariffs are removed under the TPP.

A list of fabrics allowed to be sourced from outside the region is largely complete, according to one textile industry official, but there are still intense discussions over the timeline for cutting tariffs on sensitive clothing items.

US clothing companies and retailers want a minimum 50 per cent duty cut for sensitive products and for at least 75 per cent of garments to be duty-free immediately.

Malaysia’s government procurement

Malaysia offers preferential treatment in business, housing and education, including greater access to government contracts, to ethnic Malays and other indigenous people, known as bumiputra. The TPP would seek to put foreign suppliers on an equal footing in terms of government procurement.

The country also is under pressure over human trafficking, with some US lawmakers pressing to prevent the TPP from benefiting from a fast track through Congress if the country remains on the State Department’s black list in a report due out today.

US-Japan

A bilateral agreement between the United States and Japan on agricultural and auto trade, long a sticking point in the broader TPP talks, is largely complete.

But the partners still have to get buy-in from other countries on a formula for how to decide a vehicle has enough local content to qualify for duty-free access, which Japan wants to be on more liberal terms than the current North American standard, for example.

Investor-state dispute settlement

A draft text released by whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks in March showed countries were seeking exceptions from proposed investment protection rules, which would allow companies to sue foreign governments. Australia, whose plain cigarette packaging law is being challenged by Marlboro maker Philip Morris’ Asian arm, was ready to opt out completely, the draft showed.

The United States has floated an exception to the rules for tobacco, sources briefed on the talks said.

More broadly, TPP countries have not yet determined how to address tobacco public health issues in the agreement. Malaysia and anti-smoking groups want to completely exclude tobacco from the deal and keep tariffs on US tobacco products.

— Reuters

Critics fear Pacific trade deal favours big business over states

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/critics-fear-pacific-trade-deal-favours-big-business-012455285.html#NcdZDX5

By Glenda Kwek | AFP

With the end game in sight to what could be the world’s most ambitious trade deal, critics fear a controversial mechanism to protect investors will strengthen the hand of big business while eroding national sovereignty.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) — a wide-ranging accord that would encompass 40 percent of the world’s trade — could be sealed in Hawaii this week after more than five years of talks.

The United States, the chief architect of the ambitious pact which takes in 11 other Pacific Rim countries, says it would loosen trade restrictions, drive jobs growth and encourage investment by strengthening legal protection for companies.

But critics say it favours multinational corporations over state interests and individual consumers, pointing in particular to a proposed investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism that would allow foreign companies to sue governments, likely through international tribunals.

They warn ISDS cases might expose states to potentially huge liability claims — a bigger risk for developing countries that do not have deep pockets — and may also threaten their ability to introduce health and environmental laws.

That is a particular issue because there are several developing countries among the prospective members, which are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the US and Vietnam.

“There are risks for all governments involved in the TPP in relation to the investor-state dispute settlement,” Matthew Rimmer, an intellectual property expert at the Queensland University of Technology, told AFP.

“Under the regime, investors — particularly multinational companies — can bring actions against governments, but governments cannot bring actions against corporations.

“So it’s a very one-sided regime and it can provide special rights to foreign investors that are not present for domestic investors.”

– Cases on the rise –

The issue has become a particularly hot topic in Australia, which was sued by tobacco giant Philip Morris after it became the first country to introduce plain packaging laws for cigarettes in 2012.

Canberra refused to reveal its legal bill for defending the claim from Philip Morris, which argued the legislation breached a bilateral investment treaty.

The case, and broader concerns about ISDS processes, saw Australia’s top judge Chief Justice Robert French warn last year that claims tribunals could undermine domestic legal jurisdictions.

Philip Morris’ suing of Uruguay after the country ordered that the health warnings be larger on cigarette packets helped prompt billionaires Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg to launch a fund to support developing states in their legal battles with tobacco giants.

On a global scale, the number of cases brought by companies against governments has been on the rise in recent years, according to figures from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

Out of 608 known cases brought between 1987 and 2014, more than a quarter of them were over the past three years, UNCTAD said, adding that confidentiality agreements meant there were likely more.

Of particular concern to ISDS opponents, less developed economies have faced a larger proportion of such suits, although the relative share of cases against developed countries is on the rise.

Meanwhile, most litigation was started by investors from developed countries — particularly from the US, Canada and several European Union nations — accounting for more than 80 percent of all claims.

– ‘Blunt instrument’ –

Tim Harcourt, former chief economist at Australia’s trade promotion body Austrade, said the ISDS was a “blunt instrument” to protect companies’ interests.

“Giving international companies the right to sue countries left, right and centre is probably not the way to build those (free trade) institutions,” he told AFP.

“The way to protect investors is by building local institutions so they’re transparent, and ultimately countries that don’t have transparent institutions like Venezuela, people won’t invest there.”

Concerns have also been raised in the United States, including by influential Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren.

“ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge US laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a US court,” she said.

But Alan Oxley, the first Australian to chair the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the World Trade Organization’s predecessor, said fears that the ISDS favours international business over governments were overblown.

He said an international arbitration tribunal would be an effective way to settle claims as it gave foreign investors an automatic right to appeal without government approval.

Australia’s foreign affairs department has released a “myth versus realities” TPP document that stresses an ISDS tribunal “could not overturn domestic court decisions nor force Australia to change its laws”.

“If you talk to anybody in business, they’ll say that’s a good idea, whereas the opposition is coming from quite a small fringe group,” Oxley, who heads up the Australian APEC Study Centre at RMIT University, told AFP.

Unexpected nicotine in Do-it-Yourself electronic cigarette flavourings

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2015/07/26/tobaccocontrol-2015-052468.extract

Electronic cigarette (EC) users often create their own refill fluids by blending bottled nicotine/propylene glycol/glycerol mixtures with Do-it-Yourself (DIY) flavourings.1 Although a complete refill fluid usually contains nicotine, the flavouring solutions themselves are an additive and are presumed to be free of nicotine, which is a known addictive chemical and toxicant.2 To determine if DIY flavourings are nicotine free, we evaluated 30 products from one vendor, using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) (figure 1B–D), and confirmed the presence of nicotine via gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (GC-MS) (figure 1E, F). HPLC analysis was performed as previously described in detail.3 Nicotine was extracted from DIY flavorings4 and GC-MS analysis of the extracts was performed using a Hewlett-Packard 5890 Series II gas chromatograph equipped with a Restek Rtx-1MS, 30 m, 0.25 mm column and a Hewlett-Packard 5971A mass selective detector

Health minister’s ‘surrender’ surprises, tobacco control advocates

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=269027

Zubair Qureshi

Sunday, July 26, 2015 – Islamabad—At a time the world is becoming increasingly conscious of the hazards of tobacco use and World Health Organization (WHO) is calling upon the governments worldwide to take tobacco control steps, Pakistan’s health minister’s surrender before tobacco lobby has surprised everyone. Saira Afzal Tarar Minister for National Health Services, in February this year had made headlines when she announced that the government as per its international obligations was going to increase size of the graphical health warnings (GHWs) on cigarette packs from existing 40pc to 85pc.

Later, the health ministry issued a notification too, giving two-month grace period to the cigarette companies to adapt new enlarged dreadful picture on cigarette packs. However, the influential tobacco industry was not ready to accept the decision. The powerful tobacco lobby exhausting all its resources and using various channels—the British High Commissioner in Islamabad, officials of the Pakistan Tobacco Board (PTB), Commerce Ministry, Finance Ministry and FBR— first succeeded in extending the time period for two more months i.e. From May 31 to July 31 and then on July 24, punctured the entire much-trumpeted and widely acclaimed resolve of the health ministry. On the said date, the tobacco industry’s representatives in a high-level meeting not only got extended the deadline for one more month i.e. from July 31 to Aug 31, they ‘convinced’ the well-intentioned health minister that the GHWs would only reduce the government revenues and lead to increase in smuggled cigarettes, a usual tactic of the industry against tobacco control measure worldwide. The health minister not only agreed to withdraw the notification but also accepted their demand to launch a survey whether GHWs would serve the desired purpose or not.

Talking to Pakistan Observer a number of parliamentarians and tobacco control advocates expressed their deep surprise and disappointment at what they called 180 degree U-turn by Mrs Saira Afzal Tarar. “I can still remember her speech in the National Assembly on March 26, 2015 in which she had said the health ministry was under tremendous pressure from tobacco lobby but at the same time she had assured the honourable Speaker and the members of the house that she would not budge an inch.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership issues in-depth

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trans-pacific-partnership-issues-120603.html

M.Scott Mahaskey/POLITICO

By Doug Palmer

There are hundreds if not thousands of issues to resolve within the nearly 30 chapters of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership pact, which would cover more than 40 percent of world economic output. Here are some that have received the most attention:

Autos — The United States has a 2.5 percent tariff on cars and 25 percent tariff on trucks; Japan has no tariffs on vehicles. However, the American Automobile Policy Council, which represents Ford, General Motors and Fiat Chrysler, says regulatory and tax hurdles effectively make Japan the most protected and closed automotive market in the world. U.S. negotiators have secured a commitment to phase out the 25 percent tariff on trucks over the longest period allowed for any product in the TPP — a way to counter any move by Japan to put long phase-outs of import tariffs on sensitive agricultural products. But for the past two years they have also been engaged in a negotiation aimed at dismantling “non-tariff barriers” that Japan has erected to U.S. auto exports. Japanese automakers produce all of the trucks and 71 percent of the vehicles they sell in the United States at their plants in North America. They argue Detroit-based automakers only have themselves to blame for their lack of success in Japan by offering cars larger than most Japanese consumers prefer. Meanwhile, both U.S. and Japanese automakers have interests in Malaysia, a booming auto market with significant restrictions on imports.

Currency — The White House beat back an effort in Congress to put a provision to require enforceable rules against currency manipulation in a bill to fast-track the passage of trade agreements. Still, the legislation makes addressing the concern a principal U.S. negotiating objective — the first time that has been done. If the TPP fails to include a meaningful currency provision, the pact could be subject to a disapproval resolution stripping away its “fast track” protections, making it open for amendment and subject to filibuster in the Senate. Ohio Sens. Rob Portman, a Republican, and Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, have been out front in calling for enforceable currency rules, as have Democratic lawmakers from Michigan such as Rep. Sander Levin and Sen. Debbie Stabenow.

Dairy — A complicated four-way dance is going on in the dairy negotiations, and right now everyone is waiting for Canada to make its move. U.S. dairy producers were opposed to the agreement when it only included New Zealand, the world’s largest dairy producer, but came around when Canada and Japan, two substantial dairy markets, joined the negotiations. Now, as trade officials head to Maui, it looks like Japan is prepared to strike a deal on dairy products, although some concerns over access to its butter market remain. But so far, Canada has not put a meaningful dairy market offer on the table, leaving U.S. producers to fear they could lose more from the final agreement than they gain. That’s a problem for congressional approval because, as one lobbyist observed, “every senator has a cow in their state.”

Geographical Indications — Many common names for cheese, such as parmesan and asiago, originated in Europe, and in recent free trade agreements, the European Union has tried to lock up rights to use the names for its own producers. The U.S. dairy industry fears that could hurt its exports and wants safeguards against that practice in the TPP. However, some countries such as Canada, which is currently part of the TPP talks, and South Korea, which could join in a second tranche, have already signed free trade pacts with the EU that contain protections for geographic indications.

Government Procurement — Many countries restrict access to their public works contracts, reasoning that domestic firms should be the main beneficiaries of taxpayer-funded projects. The United States allows some “Buy American” preferences for its own companies but generally has an open market and has pushed for more access to foreign government procurement through its free trade agreements. The issue is a sensitive one for Malaysia, which has had government procurement preferences to help ethnic Malays since 1969 and previously walked away from free trade talks with the United States over the issue. Many members of Congress from steel-producing states do not want to see any weakening of Buy American provisions under TPP, while Canada has sought more access to U.S. state and municipal projects funded by federal dollars.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement — Opponents of free trade agreements often point to the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism as one of their concerns. The provisions allows companies to sue host governments for actions that damage their investment. Critics say it undermines the right of governments to regulate in the public interest, while proponents say it is a necessary protection against discriminatory and arbitrary government action. Australia refused to include an ISDS provision its 2005 free trade pact with the United States, possibly because the United States refused to provide more access for Australian sugar. Australia more recently said it would consider the issue on a case-by-case basis and included ISDS in its free trade pact with South Korea but not with Japan, both of which it concluded in 2014. The United State has ISDS in all of its free trade pacts except the one with Australia.

Labor and Environment — Labor groups have been some of the harshest critics of free trade agreements, arguing they keep wages low in the United States by encouraging companies to move production overseas in search of a cheaper workforce. Environmental advocates worry about damage to critical natural resources as result of increased trade. Neither group has been assuaged by the administration’s promises that the TPP will be the “most progressive” trade agreement in history. While final details are still secret, the pact is expected to contain enforceable labor and environmental provisions. However, some lawmakers have urged that countries such as Vietnam be required to comply with labor and environmental provisions of the pact before receiving any of its market access benefits.

Pharmaceuticals — This issue pits Washington’s desire to provide profit incentives for American pharmaceutical companies to develop new drugs against critics who say overly restrictive patent and clinical test data protections drive up the price of generic medicines and potentially limit the ability of countries to define their own national intellectual property standards. Recent U.S. free trade agreements with Colombia, Peru, Panama and South Korea have provided five years of “data exclusivity” for patent holders. Another protection, known as patent linkage, was made voluntary for the three Latin American countries but mandatory for South Korea. It requires regulators to check for potential patent violations before approving a new generic drug for manufacturing. The United States has been pushing for 12 years of data protection for “biologic” drugs, the same as contained in the 2010 Affordable Care Act, but is alone on that position. Both Canada and Japan provide eight years of data protection for biologics in their own laws while five years is the norm for many other countries. The advocacy group Médecins Sans Frontières has warned 12 years of data exclusivity for biologics would “limit access to medicines for at least half a billion people,” but Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch has pushed hard for the lengthy term.

Pork — When Japan sought to exclude a long list of “sacrosanct” agricultural commodities from complete tariff elimination under the pact, no one screamed their opposition louder than the National Pork Producers Council. A year later, the group’s efforts seem to have to worked, and the pork industry appears largely satisfied with the Japanese market access package as final negotiations near, although officials have some remaining concerns that they say need to be addressed in Maui. U.S. pork producers are also excited about the deal with Vietnam, a fast-growing country of 90 million people where rising incomes are expected to boost meat consumption in future years. Iowa and North Carolina are the top pork-producing states, but production is spread throughout the Midwest and reaches as far south as Texas.

Rice — Japanese consumers eat more than 130 pounds of rice each year, about four times U.S. levels, but very little comes from outside the country. Because rice cultivation is so closely associated with the national identity, the government uses a combination of strict quotas and high tariffs to ensure picturesque rice paddies remain in the Japanese landscape. U.S. rice producers still hope for expanded export opportunities, but if the United States is stingy with Australia on sugar it’s harder to press Japan on rice. Arkansas is the biggest rice producing state, with sizeable production in Louisiana, Texas and California.

State-owned enterprises — Companies directly or indirectly owned by governments play an increasingly large role in international trade and often are dominant players in their own markets. Japan Post, a state-owned conglomerate that operates a wide variety of businesses, including post offices, banks and an insurance division, ranks 23rd on Fortune magazine’s list of the 500 largest companies in the world. SOEs are responsible for an estimated 40 percent of Vietnam’s economic output and also play major roles in Malaysia and Singapore’s economies. TPP countries appeared to have largely agreed on a set of rules to “level the playing field” between state-owned and private firms, but a debate continues over which SOEs would be excluded from the disciplines.

Sugar — The U.S. government supports domestic sugar prices by restricting imports but typically has given free-trade partners some additional access to the United States. Not so with Australia, which got nothing on sugar in the free trade deal it struck in 2004. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman has hinted the U.S. would provide some additional access this time around but in a way that would not jeopardize the sugar program, which benefits sugarcane farmers in Florida and Louisiana and sugarbeet growers in Michigan, Wisconsin, North Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and Washington.

Tobacco — With U.S. cigarette consumption continuing to fall, American tobacco companies are eager for new markets to sell their cancer sticks, coffin nails or lung busters, as they are known on the street. Many anti-smoking groups argue tobacco should not even be included in free trade agreements, while farm and business groups counter that excluding any legal product sets a bad precedent. The issue gained prominence after Philip Morris used a bilateral investment treaty between Hong Kong and Australia to sue for damages stemming from Australia’s “plain packaging” law, which replaced familiar cigarette trademarks with graphic images of cancer victims. U.S. trade officials proposed to address the issue within the TPP by agreeing that measures taken to protect human, animal or plant life or health would not violate the agreement as long as they not disguised trade barriers. Washington also proposed requiring any TPP country to first consult with its TPP partners before challenging any tobacco control measure as a violation of the trade pact. Neither anti-smoking nor business groups were happy with the compromise. Malaysia countered with a proposal that would exempt tobacco-control measures from being challenged under TPP.

Textiles and Footwear — The United States imported $82 billion worth of apparel in 2014, including about $30 billion from China. Vietnam was second with more than $9 billion in sales to the United States and would be in a good position to grab market share from China under TPP pact because of tariff elimination. However, strict “rules-of-origin” are expected to limit Vietnam’s gains by requiring that any clothing be wholly assembled within the TPP countries to qualify for duty-free treatment under that pact. That means Vietnam could not import fabric from a third country, such as China, and use it to make clothing that qualifies for duty-free treatment. Some exceptions to that rule, in terms of a list of apparel products that are in “short supply” in the United States, are expected. Still, a significant loosening of the so-called “yarn forward” rule of origin poses problems for clothing manufacturers in TPP countries Peru and Mexico, who have adapted to the standard. Meanwhile, Boston-based shoe manufacturer New Balance also is worried about increased imports from Vietnam under the pact and has fought to maintain duties on a number of products lines it assembles at its facilities in Maine.

Irish study to find best way to quit smoking for good

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/irish-study-to-find-best-way-to-quit-smoking-for-good-31404214.html

Allison Bray

One is a global empire with testimonials from Anjelica Houston, Anthony Hopkins and Richard Branson. These stars claim to be among the millions of smokers around the world who have kicked the habit thanks to the advice of a former 100-a-day smoker who ultimately died of lung cancer.

The other is a programme run by the HSE that uses hard-hitting media ads and an online and telephone support system to encourage smokers to quit for good.

And now, the Tobacco Free Research Institute (TFRI) at the Dublin Institute of Technology is using a controlled sample of 300 smokers as guinea pigs to test the success rates of Allen Carr’s Easyway smoking cessation programme versus the HSE’s Quit.ie initiative.

The 12-month Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT), which is free for participants and funded through the Department of Health’s Lottery Fund, is intended to show which programme – if not both – is the most likely to help smokers quit for good.

The Allen Carr method was founded by the British accountant-turned-anti-smoking crusader who devised his ‘Easyway’ method of smoking cessation after trying unsuccessfully for years to quit his 100-a-day habit.

When he finally did quit after 33 years of smoking at the age of 48, he established his now world-wide chain of clinics and self-help books promoting his concept, which kept him smoke-free until his death from lung cancer at the age 72 in 2006.

The Quit.ie programme was launched by the HSE in 2011, resulting in 600,000 “quit attempts” since then.

Along with online and telephone support – including the National Smoker’s Quit Line manned six days a week – it has run a number of hard-hitting media campaigns, including the stark message that “one in every two smokers will die of a tobacco-related disease.”

The campaigns also include a series of TV ads using the late Gerry Collins, the father-of-three from Greystones, Co Wicklow, who candidly spoke of how his addiction to cigarettes was literally killing him before he died of lung cancer due to smoking in January, 2014.

“Unusually, we have recruited publicly because we want to compare these two treatment modalities,” said TFRI founder and consultant respiratory physician Professor Luke Clancy. “The Allen Carr method is well known all over the world but the efficacy has never been established,” he told the Sunday Independent.

While the number of smokers in Ireland is at its lowest ever level, at approximately 20pc of the adult population, Prof Clancy, who was instrumental in bringing in the 2004 smoking ban, said Ireland still has a way to go if we are to achieve the health department’s goal of being virtually smoke-free, with just 5pc of the population smoking by 2025. “We worried that no matter what we do, we won’t reach this target,” he said. “So we’re looking to see can we improve things.”

Already hundreds of smokers have signed up to the free controlled trial that will take place over the next 12 months in Dublin. After completing an online survey, participants are selected based on various criteria, such as age and number of cigarettes smoked a day.

Those selected can bail out any time after being randomly selected to take part in either the Allen Carr group or Quit.ie group. They will be monitored at one, three, six and 12-month intervals after signing a consent form and being assessed by a nurse who monitors weight and carbon monoxide levels in exhaled breath.

Those who stick it out for the whole year will be rewarded with the chance to enter a draw for a trips to Paris and the Caribbean.

Sunday Independent

10 Most Expensive Countries to Buy Cigarettes in the World

Download (PDF, 782KB)

Cancer victims’ group blasts AmCham’s ‘meddling’ in PH legislation

http://www.interaksyon.com/article/114774/cancer-victims-group-blasts-amchams-meddling-in-ph-legislation

MANILA, Philippines — A cancer victims’ group lashed out Friday at what it called the US Chamber of Commerce’s attempts on behalf of the American tobacco industry to influence legislation in the country.

Emer Rojas, president of the New Vois Association of the Philippines, said the newly-released report, “US Chamber of Commerce, Blowing Smoke for Big Tobacco,” published by a consortium of anti-tobacco groups, “confirms what we in the health community have been seeing for years — how big tobacco uses multi-pronged approaches to lobby its interests to the point of undermining government’s independence to chart their own affairs.”

The report documents how AmCham affiliates in the Philippines, Uruguay, Burkina Faso, Moldova and the European Union have lobbied to oppose health measures specifically tobacco taxes, graphic health warnings, and standardized packaging.

In the Philippines, the report said, the business group “aggressively fought an effort by legislators to reduce tobacco consumption by raising taxes on cigarettes,” albeit unsuccessfully.

Among others, the AmCham argued that raising tobacco taxes would undermine revenue growth targets and pose threats to national security by triggering a flood of smuggling, claims the report said “mirrored those made directly by tobacco companies.”

“None of those threats had happened. Today revenues from the sin tax fund universal health care for poor Filipinos and increased the health budget at a level we’ve never seen before,” Rojas said.

Despite this, Rojas said “the tobacco industry’s influence in Philippine politics is so strong that while government had passed three national tobacco control laws they were not without some form of compromise to please the industry.”

“Republic Act 9211 or the tobacco regulation law allowed the industry to sit in the interagency committee that monitors compliance of the law. We lobbied Congress for unitary tax for cigarettes but this won’t happen until 2017. We proposed bigger graphic health warnings and shorter compliance period but legislators settled for 50 percent coverage and gave the industry almost two years to comply. We would have better versions of these laws but unfortunately some compromise had to be reached,” he said.