Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

August 26th, 2015:

E-cigarettes: no indoor smoking ban planned in England despite WHO call

Aug 26th, 2015
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/26/e-cigarettes-no-indoor-smoking-ban-england

Department of Health rules out outlawing e-cigs in enclosed spaces in England, although Wales’s government is considering doing so.

Denis Campbell, health correspondent

Tuesday 26 August 2014 20.03 BST

Ministers will not ban e-cigarettes indoors in England, despite the World Health Organisation urging governments to do so to combat the threat posed by the growing popularity of vaping.

The Department of Health (DH) made clear that it does not plan to outlaw the use of the increasingly popular gadgets in enclosed public spaces in England, although Wales’s Labour government is considering doing so.

The DH ruled out making e-cigarettes subject to the same “smoke-free” controls that have applied to normal cigarettes since 2007. Smoking is currently banned in pubs, restaurants and workplaces across the UK.

The department did so despite the United Nations’ health agency recommending such prohibition as part of tougher regulation of products it said were dangerous to children.

Lobbyists and official watchdogs are divided on how to respond. The British Medical Association, which represents most of Britain’s doctors, said it backed a ban.

But the anti-smoking group Action on Smoking and Health has opposed such a move. E-cigarettes could help smokers quit, it said.

The WHO said that e-cigarettes should be subject to much tighter restrictions on their use, sale, content and promotion, in a major statement that again highlighted key differences of opinion among medical groups as to whether they will ultimately increase or reduce the number of people addicted to nicotine.

The global health watchdog accepted that e-cigarettes are less harmful than conventional ones. But it argued that the risk they pose to people passively inhaling their vapours means they should not be allowed to be used indoors.

The organisation’s long-awaited report on the public health issue also noted with concern that much of the fast-growing electronic cigarettes industry is in the hands of established global manufacturers of conventional cigarettes.

The DH said it was already tightening regulation, just as the WHO wanted. For example, it is outlawing the sale of e-cigarettes to under-18s by 2016 and introducing the European tobacco products directive in the same year. It will set a legal limit on the amount of nicotine such products can contain, except for those which are classified as medicines that might help smokers who want to quit the habit. These are already regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

The new European rules will cover lower strength products, ban most advertising, as well as setting standards for their ingredients, labelling and packaging, a DH spokeswoman said.

Regulation of e-cigarettes, still in its infancy in the UK, is done mostly on the basis that they are consumer products. “More and more people are using e-cigarettes and we want to make sure they are properly regulated so we can be sure of their safety and quality,” she added.

The WHO also recommended that vending machines stocking e-cigarettes be removed from “almost all locations” and that such products should be controlled in order to “minimise content and emissions of toxicants”. It also wants a ban on e-cigarettes which contain fruit, sweet or alcoholic drinks flavours, in order to reduce consumption.

The WHO wants governments to prevent e-cigarette manufacturers from making claims about their products’ capacity to improve people’s health by helping them quit unless and until they provided “convincing supporting scientific evidence and obtain regulatory approval.”

There is still only limited evidence that e-cigarettes do help people quit, which “does not allow conclusions to be reached” on that point, it added.

The BMA and other groups fear that e-cigarettes may prove a gateway to people – especially under-18s – trying, and starting to use, normal cigarettes.

Dr Ram Moorthy, deputy chair of the BMA’s board of science, said: “Tighter controls are needed to ensure their use does not undermine current tobacco control measures and reinforces the normalcy of smoking behaviour.”

That same concern has prompted ministers in Wales to have a public consultation on how to tackle e-cigarettes, including the possible first ban in the UK on their use indoors.

In its report on what it called electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), the WHO said: “The fact that ENDS exhaled aerosol contains on average lower levels of toxicants than the emissions from combusted tobacco does not mean that these levels are acceptable to involuntarily exposed bystanders.

“In fact, exhaled aerosol is likely to increase above background levels the risk of disease to bystanders, especially in the case of some ENDS that produce toxicant levels in the range of that produced by some cigarettes.”

Why Big Tobacco is after our children

Aug 26th, 2015
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/no-smoke-without-fire-in-big-tobaccos-pr-storm-20150824-gj6v53.html

Mike Daube

There are signs the tobacco industry will fight to the bitter end to make sure nothing gets in the way of their goal of profiting from death and disease.

There are three possible explanations for British American Tobacco’s attempts to use Freedom of Information legislation to access Cancer Council research on children’s attitudes to smoking, as reported in The Age last week.

The first is that nobody in the company realised that this would be a PR disaster, confirming yet again Big Tobacco’s reputation as both the world’s most lethal industry and its most ruthless. As such it gives the lie to industry rhetoric about not being interested in children, justifies comment about tobacco companies sinking to new lows, has led politicians to consider amending FOI legislation, and generated a magisterial rebuke from Federal Assistant Health Minister Senator Fiona Nash. PR myopia is always possible in a global tobacco company that claims to be “applying exemplary corporate conduct in our markets” despite selling and promoting a product that kills when used precisely as intended.

The second is that tobacco companies are terrified that Australia’s world-leading plain packaging legislation will spread to other countries. Thus they will go to any lengths in their efforts to undermine it.

If ever a measure passed the tobacco “Scream Test” (the louder the industry scream, the more impact you know a measure will have) it is plain packaging. Plain packaging deprives tobacco companies of their last opportunity to promote cigarettes in ways that children may find attractive. Always intended as a long-term part of the comprehensive approach to reducing smoking, peer-reviewed research is already encouraging about its impacts on both children and adults. Perhaps crucially, it sends out a signal to the entire community that this product is so uniquely harmful that it may only be sold in packaging designed to be repellent.

Small wonder that this has sent Big Tobacco into a tailspin. It has led to litigation here and internationally and triggered advertising and public relations programs, lobbying, and commissioned reports from tobacco-funded groups, industry-friendly think-tanks and bloggers. Tobacco industry lawyers have also generated media speculation that pictures of cirrhotic livers on beer bottles could be the next target. So it is possible that trying to get hold of Cancer Council research on children is further evidence of the industry’s desperation.

But there is a third, darker possibility. The tobacco industry has known for 65 years that its product is lethal. Smoking kills some 6 million people each year, and has been identified by the McKinsey Global Institute as the top global social burden generated by human beings, ahead even of armed violence, war and terrorism. But despite the overwhelming evidence about the galaxy of diseases caused by cigarettes, and despite innumerable exposes about their tactics, tobacco companies have survived and continue to promote their products wherever they can, notably in developing countries.

And yet the tide is turning – too slowly to prevent hundreds of millions of deaths, but it is turning nonetheless. The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control has been signed by 168 countries. Around the world, governments are increasingly taking action that will over time reduce smoking and with it the massive profits that come to the merchants of death. It will all take far too long, but it will happen, and Australia is often held up as an example of the art of the possible.

So it may be that this always ruthless industry has decided to step up yet further its campaigns to oppose and undermine tobacco control and its advocates.

After more than 40 years in tobacco control, here and internationally, my sense is that in recent years the global tobacco industry has become even tougher and more aggressive. The companies are unashamedly taking legal action against governments in developed and developing countries. They have already used FOI against the Federal Health Department. Public relations and lobbying efforts are being ramped up (to tackle one measure recently proposed for the European Union, one tobacco company employed 161 people), and, with stunning effrontery, the industry is trying to improve its image by presenting itself as health conscious. Tobacco companies have reportedly funded lawyers to help remote countries oppose plain packaging in international trade forums. Tobacco control advocates find themselves increasingly under attack from shadowy think-tanks and other internet activists.

Now we have British American Tobacco trying to use FOI legislation to get research on children from the Cancer Council, with the added bonus that this will be a huge distraction for the Council, which must also incur significant legal costs in fighting them off.

It may be a PR blunder and it may be desperation about plain packaging. But it may also be a signal from Big Tobacco that they are in this business for the long haul, the war is about to get even tougher, and nothing and nobody will be allowed to get in the way of profiting from death and disease.

Mike Daube is Professor of Health Policy at Curtin University and president of the Australian Council on Smoking and Health.

Tobacco key facts and figures

Aug 26th, 2015
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/tobacco-kff

Key facts and figures on tobacco sales, consumption and prevalence

Each year, smoking kills an estimated 15,000 Australians1 and costs Australia $31.5 billion2 in social (including health) and economic costs.

Tobacco sales

Recent figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) show that total consumption of tobacco and cigarettes in the March quarter 2014 is the lowest ever recorded, as measured by estimated expenditure on tobacco products:

$5.135 billion in September 1959;
$3.508 billion in December 2012; and
$3.405 billion in March 2014.3

Tobacco consumption

Treasury has advised that tobacco clearances (including excise and customs duty) fell by 3.4% in 2013 relative to 2012 and fell a further 7.9% in 2014. Tobacco clearances have fallen a total of 11.0% since 2012 when tobacco plain packaging was introduced.

These growth rates do not take into account refunds of excise equivalent customs duty made under Customs’ plain packaging related Tobacco Refund Scheme between December 2012 and May 2013. These refunds cannot be related to annual net clearances on a comparable basis to other data used to derive these growth rates.

The tobacco excise rate was indexed to average weekly ordinary time earnings (AWOTE) from 1 March 2014 and there were two separate 12.5% increases in the tobacco excise rate (1 December 2013 and 1 September 2014).

Clearances are an indicator of tobacco volumes in the Australian market.

Smoking prevalence rates

In relation to smoking rates, the Australian Government relies on data from national surveys conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW).

National Drug Strategy Household Survey detailed report 2013

On 17 July 2014, the AIHW released the 2013 National Drug Strategy Household Survey: key findings, which outlines the topline data for tobacco, alcohol and licit and illicit drugs.

On 25 November 2014, AIHW’s National Drug Strategy Household Survey detailed report 20134 was released showing that there has been a significant decrease in daily smokers aged 14 years or older in Australia, falling from 16.6% in 2007, 15.1% in 2010 to 12.8% in 2013.

shjfhfhf

Other tobacco related findings from the NDSHS detailed report 2013 are:

Young people are delaying commencing smoking – the age at which 14 to 24 year olds smoked their first full cigarette increased from 15.4 years of age in 2010 to 15.9 years of age in 2013.

The proportion of 12-17 years olds who had never smoked in 2013 remained high at 95%.

The proportion of 18 to 24 year olds who have never smoked increased significantly between 2010 and 2013, from 72% to 77% respectively.

People aged 18 to 49 years of age were far less likely to smoke daily than they were 12 years ago.

The average number of cigarettes smoked per week has decreased from 111 cigarettes in 2010 to 96 cigarettes in 2013.

16.5% of smokers (14 years or older) reported using unbranded tobacco in their lifetime with 3.6% using unbranded tobacco (half the time or more) in 2013, declining from 4.9% in 2010.

Dependent children are far less likely to be exposed to tobacco smoke inside the home, (2013, 3.7% compared to 1995 at 31%).

These results do not reflect any impact from the Australian Government’s change to bi-annual indexation of tobacco excise or the first of four 12.5% excise increases on tobacco products which took effect on 1 December 2013.

Specific population groups

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians aged 14 years or older were two and a half times as likely as non-Indigenous Australians to smoke daily in 2013: 32% (Indigenous compared to 12.4% (non-Indigenous).

The proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians aged 14 years or older smoking daily declined from 35% in 2010 to 32% in 2013, and the number of cigarettes smoked per week declined significantly, from 154 in 2010 to 115 in 2013.

Remoteness

People aged 14 years or older, living in remote and very remote areas, were twice as likely to have smoked daily in the previous 12 months as those in major cities: 22% compared with 11.0%.

The proportion of people aged 14 years or older smoking daily rose with increasing remoteness: 11.0% in major cities; 15.4% in inner regional; 19.4% in outer regional; and 22% in remote and very remote areas.

Socioeconomic and employment status

People (14 years or older) living in areas with the lowest socioeconomic status (SES) were 3 times more likely to smoke daily than people with the highest SES, 19.9% compared with 6.7%, but there were significant declines in daily smoking in both these groups between 2010 and 2013.

The declines in daily smoking seen nationally were also seen among employed people but there were no significant changes in the smoking behaviour of unemployed people who were unable to work between 2010 and 2013.

People aged 14 years or older, who were unemployed were 1.7 times more likely to smoke daily and those who were unable to work were 2.4 times more likely to smoke daily.

Compared to 2010, employed people aged 14 years or older were less likely to smoke daily in 2013, down from 16.1% to 13.5% respectively.

Table 3: Comparison of 2010 and 2013 State and Territory tobacco smoking status, people aged 14 years or older, by sex and jurisdiction (age-standardised)7

ffff

Figure 1: Smoking prevalence rates for 14 years or older and key tobacco control measures implemented in Australia since 19905

0

Australian Health Survey: Updated Results, 2011-12

The ABS Australian Health Survey: Updated Results, 2011-12 were released on 30 July 2013 and reported that in 2011-12, 16.3% of Australians aged 18 years and older smoked daily (age standardised).

ddd

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations9

The ABS Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey: Updated Results, 2012-13 (AATSIHS) were released in June 2014. The final results of the survey were based on the full Indigenous sample of around 12,900.

The Report shows that 42% of Indigenous Australians aged 15 years and over smoked daily.

Between 2002 and 2012-13, current daily smoking rates for Indigenous Australians aged 15 years and over declined significantly by 7 percentage points.

Males had higher daily smoking rates than females:

15 years and over, the rates were 42.9% and 38.7%, and
18 years and over, the rates were 44.2% and 40.2%, respectively 10

The combined middle age group, 25 to 34 year olds, had the highest daily smoking rate, 51.5%.

In 2012-13, the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 15 years and over who were daily smokers was higher in remote areas than in non-remote areas, 50% compared with 39%. This pattern is evident for all age groups.

There have been significant decreases in the daily smoking rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 15 years and over, in non-remote areas, between 2002 and
2012-13, 48% to 39% respectively.

This has not been mirrored in remote areas. The daily smoking rate of Indigenous Australians aged 15 years and over remained stagnant at 50% between 2002 and 2011-13.

Consistent with the decreases in current daily smoking rates between 2002 and 2012-13, the proportion of ex-smokers, aged 15 years and over, increased from 15% to 20%.

The proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, aged 15 years and over, who said they had never smoked increased from 33% to 36%.

For young people aged 15-17 years, the proportion who had never smoked increased from 61% in 2002 to 77% in 2012-13.

For those aged 18-24 years, the proportion who had never smoked increased from 34% to 42% over the same period.

Tobacco control in Australia

Australia’s low smoking rate is the result of sustained, concerted and comprehensive public policy efforts from all levels of government and action from public health organisations.

1973 – health warnings first mandated on all cigarette packs in Australia;
1976 – bans on all cigarette advertising on radio and television in Australia;
1986 to 2006 – phased in bans on smoking in workplaces and public places;
1990 – bans on advertising of tobacco products in newspapers and magazines published in Australia;
1992 – increase in the tobacco excise;
1993 – Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 prohibited broadcasting and publication of tobacco advertisements;
from 1994 to 2003 – bans on smoking in restaurants;
1995 – nationally consistent text-only health warnings required;
1998 to 2006 – bans on point-of-sale tobacco advertising across Australia;
2006 – graphic health warnings required on packaging of most tobacco products;
2010 – 25% increase in the tobacco excise;
2011 – first complete State or Territory ban on point-of-sale tobacco product displays
2012 – introduction of tobacco plain packaging, and updated and expanded graphic health warnings;
2013 – changes to the bi-annual indexation of tobacco excise and a further 12.5% excise increase on 1 December;
2014 – second of four 12.5% excise increases on 1 September 2013; and
2015 and 2016 – remaining 12.5% excise increases on 1 September each year.

Tobacco plain packaging

The objectives of the tobacco plain packaging measure, as summarised in the Explanatory Memorandum for the legislation, are to:

reduce the attractiveness and appeal of tobacco products to consumers, particularly young people;
increase the noticeability and effectiveness of mandated health warnings;
reduce the ability of the retail packaging of tobacco products to mislead consumers about the harms of smoking; and
through the achievement of these aims in the long term, as part of a comprehensive range of tobacco control measures, contribute to efforts to reduce smoking rates.

Tobacco plain packaging operates as part of a comprehensive set of tobacco control measures. It is an investment in the long term health of Australians and its full effects will be seen over the long term.

Questions and Answers

Question: Have tobacco sales increased since the introduction of tobacco plain packaging on 1 December 2012?

Answer:
Tobacco sales data are not publicly available.

Recent figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that total consumption of tobacco and cigarettes in the March quarter 2014 is the lowest ever recorded, as measured by estimated expenditure on tobacco products i.e. $5.135 billion in September 1959, $3.508 billion in December 2012 and $3.405 billion in March 2014. See Table 8 at 5206.0 – Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product, Mar 2014

Treasury has advised that tobacco clearances (including excise and customs duty) fell by 3.4% in 2013 relative to 2012 and fell a further 7.9% in 2014. Tobacco clearances have fallen a total of 11.0% since 2012 when tobacco plain packaging was introduced.

These growth rates do not take into account refunds of excise equivalent customs duty made under Customs’ plain packaging related Tobacco Refund Scheme between December 2012 and May 2013. These refunds cannot be related to annual net clearances on a comparable basis to other data used to derive these growth rates.

The tobacco excise rate was indexed to average weekly ordinary time earnings (AWOTE) from 1 March 2014 and there were two separate 12.5% increases in the tobacco excise rate (1 December 2013 and 1 September 2014).

Clearances are an indicator of tobacco volumes in the Australian market.

In April 2013, the CEO of a major tobacco company noted a decline in tobacco product sales:

“As I’m looking at Asia Pacific, I should also mention Australia, we’ve had the first six months of the plain pack environment in Australia. We’ve seen the market decline roughly 2% to 3%, so maybe not as bad as we might have anticipated.” Transcript of Imperial Tobacco half-year 2013 results – Interview with Alison Cooper, CEO, and Bob Dyrbus, FD

Question: Are Australia’s tobacco plain packaging laws having an impact on smoking rates in Australia?

Answer:

Over the past 40 years, Australian Governments have implemented an increasingly progressive range of tobacco control measures including advertising and promotion restrictions, education campaigns, bans on smoking in enclosed and public spaces, excise increases, quitlines, graphic health warnings and tobacco plain packaging, which together have worked to cut smoking rates in half.

In relation to smoking rates, the Australian Government relies on data from national surveys conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

The results of the Australian Health Survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, show that the national adult (18 years and over) daily smoking rate has continued to fall, from 22.3% in 2001 to 16.3% in 2011-12. This is the most recent national data available on smoking prevalence. 4364.0.55.001 – Australian Health Survey: First Results, 2011-12 – Tobacco smoking

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s, National Drug Strategy Household Survey detailed report 2013 released on 25 November 2014, shows smoking rates have significantly fallen for people aged 14 years or older from 15.1% in 2010 to 12.8% in 2013 and for people aged 18 years or older from 15.9% in 2010 to 13.3% in 2013. The report and online tables are available from the AIHW website.

Question: What is the evidence for the introduction of tobacco plain packaging?

Answer:
Tobacco plain packaging is based on a broad range of studies and reports, and supported by leading Australian and international public health experts.

Extensive research evidence to June 2009 in support of tobacco plain packaging is set out in the reports of the National Preventative Health Taskforce, a group of Australia’s leading public health experts. The report of the Taskforce is available on the Preventative Health Taskforce website.

The research shows that industry branding and packaging design can mislead about the harmful effects of the product, reduce the effectiveness of graphic health warnings on tobacco products, and increase the appeal of tobacco to young people.

Since 2009 the evidence base has continued to grow. Some additional studies were referenced in the government’s consultation paper on the plain packaging legislation released in April 2011. A review of the evidence prepared by the Cancer Council Victoria – which cited 24 studies in the peer-reviewed literature – was tabled in the House of Representatives on 25 May 2011. The Cancer Council Victoria evidence review was updated in August 2011. Evidence – Plain packaging of cigarettes: a review of the evidence

Question: Have any early impacts of tobacco plain packaging been identified?

Answer:
Research undertaken during the roll-out phase of the tobacco plain packaging legislation, when both plain and branded packs were available found that plain packaged cigarettes with larger health warnings increased smokers’ urgency to quit and lowered the appeal of smoking. Introduction effects of the Australian plain packaging policy on adult smokers: a cross-sectional study

A recent observational study of the prevalence of cigarette pack display and smoking in outdoor venues before and after the introduction of tobacco plain packaging and larger graphic health warnings, indicate a decline in apparent active smoking rates and personal pack display (packs clearly visible on tables) among patrons.
Personal tobacco pack display before and after the introduction of plain packaging with larger pictorial health warnings in Australia: an observational study of outdoor café strips

Research has also found a significant increase in the number of calls to the smoking cessation helpline, Quitline, in NSW and the ACT. The research showed a 78% increase in the number of calls to the Quitline associated with the introduction of plain packaging. This peak occurred four weeks after the initial appearance of plain packaging. This research also found the increase in calls was sustained and was not attributable to anti-tobacco advertising activity, cigarette price increases, nor other identifiable causes.
Association between tobacco plain packaging and Quitline calls: a population-based, interrupted time-series analysis

The effect of tobacco plain packaging, as part of Australia’s comprehensive package of tobacco control measures, will be seen over the longer term.

In particular, by reducing the appeal of tobacco products and preventing consumers being misled about the harms of tobacco products, it is anticipated that tobacco plain packaging will have an impact on uptake of smoking by youth, and will encourage existing smokers to quit and stay quit.

Question: Figures quoted in the press suggest that smoking rates have increased in New South Wales and South Australia.

Answer:
New South Wales

A major Australian daily newspaper reported that ‘Last year’s NSW population health survey, released last month, showed 16.4 per cent of all adults in the state smoke, up from 14.7 per cent in 2011′.

While these figures are accurate, they are incomplete in that they do not report the 2012 smoking rate of 17.1% i.e. the 2013 smoking rate of 16.4% was less than the 2012 smoking rate of 17.1%.

The increase in smoking rates between 2011 (14.7%) and 2012 (17.1%) is likely to have been due to a change in the methodology of the survey, in which mobile phones were included in the survey methods for the first time. This would have captured more young people, especially young men, who typically have higher current smoking rates.

Current smoking in adults by sex, NSW 2002 to 2013
Snapshot May 2014 – Tobacco Strategy 2012-2017

From 2002 to 2011, when the methodology changed, the long-term trend in smoking in NSW had been downwards.

As outlined in Table 3, smoking rates in NSW have fallen from 14.2% in 2007 to 11.8% in 2013.

South Australia

A major Australian daily newspaper reported that ‘ in South Australia (smoking) rates were up from 16.7 per cent to 19.4 per cent over the past year’.

These statistics, which were released by the South Australian Minister for Health, are to be understood in the context that the state government ceased all expenditure on social marketing in June 2013 after a period of strong investment.

Media release – Alfresco dining areas out of puff

There is a solid research evidence base about quality social marketing as part of a comprehensive approach to tobacco control. In recognition of this fact, and following the release of the latest smoking data, the South Australian Health Minister, Jack Snelling MP, stated in May 2014 that the State Government will re-instate $1.1 million a year in anti-tobacco mass media campaigns.

Question: Will funding continue for anti-smoking social marketing activity in 2013-14?

Answer:
The Department of Health is well placed to undertake social marketing activities and is responsible for delivering the National Tobacco Campaign – More Targeted Approach, which targets hard to reach audiences and high prevalence smoking groups, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

On 31 May 2014, World No Tobacco Day, the Government announced an injection of $4.6 million to the More Targeted Approach Campaign in 2013-14.

As outlines in Table 3, smoking rates in South Australia have fallen 15.0% in 2007 to 13.0% in 2013.

Question: Will funding for Quitline services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples continue?

Answer:
All Quitline services targeting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples continue – there have been no cuts.

1. Begg S., Vos T., Barker B., Stevenson C., Stanley L., and Lopez AD., (2007) The Burden of Disease and Injury in Australia 2003, PHE 82 Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, p76.
2. Collins D., and Lapsley H., (2008) The Cost of Tobacco, Alcohol and Illicit Drug Abuse to Australian Society in 2004/05, Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Health and Ageing, Monograph Series No.64, p65.
3. ABS website – 5206.0 – Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product, Mar 2014
4. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2014. National Drug Strategy Household Survey detailed report 2013. Drug statistics series no. 28. Cat. No. PHE 183. Canberra: AIHW. Available from the AIHW website
5. National Drug Strategy Household Survey 1991, 1993, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010 and 2013.
6. Figures for 1991, 1993, and 1995 are from AIHW unpublished data. 1998 to 2010 data is from the 2010 NDSHS report, Supplementary table, released on the AIHW website, 5 November 2010. 2013 data available at the AIHW website
7. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2014). 2013 National Drug Strategy Household Survey detailed report. Online Table A7.1, Tobacco smoking status, people aged 14 years or older, by sex and state/territory, 2013 (age-standardised per cent)
8. For 2001, 2004-05 and 2007-08 – ABS, 4125.0 – Gender Indicators, Australia, July 2012.
8. ABS Australian Health Survey: Updated Results, 2011-12 (AHS), released 30 July 2013, Table 13.3, Selected health characteristics with age standardised proportions – 2001 to 2011-12.
9. ABS, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey: Updated Results, 2012-13 – Australia, released 6 June 2014. Table 10.3 Smoker status by age.
10. Data age standardised to the 2001 Australian Estimated Resident Population.

 

TTIP controversy: The European Commission and Big Tobacco accused of cover-up after heavily redacted documents released

Aug 26th, 2015
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ttip-controversy-the-european-commission-and-big-tobacco-accused-of-coverup-after-heavily-redacted-documents-released-10473601.html

image001 (3)

Paul Gallagher

Wednesday 26 August 2015

The European Commission has been accused of a cover-up after refusing to release details of talks between its officials and the tobacco industry during negotiations over the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) treaty.

Corporate lobbying campaigners published documents that revealed the EU’s executive body had met and corresponded with lobbyists from British American Tobacco and Philip Morris.

But the documents, as released, revealed little else.

Almost all the content, including the names of officials and tobacco lobbyists involved, the issues discussed and even the dates some meetings took place, had been redacted.

The documents relate to ongoing talks between the EU and the United States over the proposed TTIP free trade deal, as well as separate talks between the EU and Japan.

Critics of the trade talks, which centre on reducing the regulatory barriers to international trade for big business, said the documents back up fears that TTIP will allow tobacco giants to take legal action against the UK and other European governments who attempt to tighten smoking legislation.

Responding to a Freedom of Information request from an EU watchdog regarding contacts between officials and the tobacco industry, the European Commission released a set of documents that had been so heavily redacted as to be meaningless. In this 14-page letter from British American Tobacco from its London HQ, outlining its “serious concerns with the consistency of [redacted]”, only five per cent of the text was visible.

So-called “Big Tobacco” firms have already used similar legislation to sue countries around the world: Philip Morris used a comparable trade treaty to take legal action against Australia over mandatory plain cigarette packaging and is also suing Uruguay in a $25m lawsuit over its attempts to enlarge health warnings on cigarette packets.

The heavily redacted documents were released by Catherine Day, Secretary-General of the European Commission, in reply to a freedom of information transparency request by the research and campaign group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO).

They include a 14-page letter from British American Tobacco, written on 15 May last year from the company’s London office, which sets out its “serious concerns with the consistency of [redacted]”.

The remaining 13 pages are blacked-out entirely with the exception of some perfunctory closing remarks. A previous letter from Commission officials to the tobacco company is also almost entirely redacted with the exception of a reference to “allegations” made by BAT, presumably over the trade talks.

In another document – a one-page summary of a meeting between Commission officials and the US cigarette firm Philip Morris – even the date of the meeting is removed.

CEO had argued for full disclosure of the documents citing the EU’s freedom of information law and the World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The latter’s guidelines oblige governments to limit interactions with the tobacco industry to a minimum and to ensure full transparency of those interactions that occur.

Ms Day refused the request allowing only “partial access” stating that the documents “contain elements that relate to the Commission’s negotiating position with regards to tobacco in the ongoing bilateral negotiations for a free trade agreement with the USA and Japan.”

She said: “Whilst I fully recognise the importance of transparency in enabling citizens to follow trade negotiations, I take the view that this public interest does neither outweigh the public interest in protecting the Commission’s international relations and decision-making process, nor the commercial interests of the companies in question in this case.”

The Secretary General said disclosure of the discussions with BAT would reveal the Commission’s negotiating positions and tactical considerations which, in turn, would weaken the EU’s position in the ongoing trade talks.

The CEO campaign group has said it was “deeply concerned about the Commission’s secrecy around its relations with tobacco industry lobbyists” and is preparing a complaint to the European Ombudsman.

Campaigners fear that a system of international-state dispute settlements (ISDS) created by TTIP will allow multinational firms including tobacco companies to sue European governments in tribunals ruled upon by lawyers.

Reacting to the publication of the redacted documents, TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady said: “Trade agreements must be negotiated in the public interest not for private profit. The agreements currently being negotiated allow foreign investors, such as tobacco companies, privileged access to huge compensation payments for democratically-made decisions that might threaten their future profits.

“The TUC believes there is no place for such ISDS provisions in any trade agreement. A level playing field means the same arrangements for foreign investors as for workers, consumers and other stakeholders. EU trade negotiators must operate on the principle that their negotiations should be public unless there is a good reason for confidentiality. Sadly, they seem more wedded to keeping this secret unless they are forced into the open.”

Labour leadership hopeful Andy Burnham described the lack of transparency as ‘alarming’ and ‘damaging’ (Reuters)

Labour leadership candidate Andy Burnham told The Independent he would give “no guarantee of support” for the TTIP deal if he was elected.

He said: “The alarming lack of transparency in the TTIP negotiations has damaged public confidence in the entire process. In particular, the involvement of big tobacco in those discussions raises serious concerns and appears to go against commitments under the World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control not to include tobacco companies in policy discussions. There must be a full and open public debate about its merits and challenges before any decision is made.”

The European Union claims a number of “myths and false claims” have been made about TTIP including one that “big business is calling the shots on TTIP”.

In a briefing document on “the top 10 myths of TTIP: separating fact from fiction” the European Commission says: “The TTIP talks are the most open ever for a trade deal and our negotiators are consulting widely.”

That claim was dismissed as “laughable” by campaigners last night. Blanche Jones, Campaigns Director at political activist group 38 Degrees, said: “These redacted documents prove that the officials behind TTIP, a deal that will affect millions of people, are laughing in the face of democracy. What use is a document with almost all of the words blacked out? It must be suspicious to keep it so secret.

“Leaks to the TTIP text so far have revealed huge dangers for our rights, our public services and our environmental protections. 38 Degrees members are calling on the European Commission to end this nonsense now – the public has a right to know what powers big businesses are lined up to get.”

Labour MEP and European health spokesperson Glenis Willmott said: “I’m deeply concerned that the Commission is not prepared to give further details on its dealings with the tobacco industry.

The Commission’s reply states that the public interest in transparency does not outweigh the commercial interests of the companies in question. Yet there is a fundamental conflict between the public interest and commercial interests of the tobacco industry, which rely on the promotion of a product that is the leading cause of preventable death and disease in Europe.

“Given the importance of strong tobacco control policies in protecting public health, I think it’s entirely reasonable for the public to have an interest in tobacco industry lobbying on TTIP.”

Although MEPs cannot start or stop trade talks the European Parliament can approve or reject TTIP once negotiations, set to continue beyond 2016, are concluded.

A spokesperson for British American Tobacco said: “The letters that were shared do not relate to any tobacco control measures nor do they attempt to influence tobacco control regulations; but rather contain commercially-sensitive information relevant to the Commission’s various negotiations regarding free trade agreements.

“Commission officials have the right to hear all views that impact the whole of the EU business community when formulating new trade agreements. We advocate transparency in all of our communications where it does not conflict with commercial confidentiality and sensitivities, and believe that all sides should adopt this approach