Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

August 22nd, 2016:

Protecting plain tobacco packaging against industry influence

Summary: Canada’s public consultation on plain packaging for tobacco requires strict guidelines to protect against interference by the tobacco industry, and media must also be wary, according to a new report.

Canada’s public consultation on plain packaging for tobacco requires strict guidelines to protect against interference by the tobacco industry, and media must also be wary, according to a commentary in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal).

The Canadian government’s public consultation on plain packaging of tobacco products, as a public health measure, will close Aug. 31, 2016. In the past, the tobacco industry has tried to thwart plain packaging initiatives using threats of legal action and by influencing public opinion through biased research — for example, in Australia in 2011, when its government introduced this type of packaging. Troubling tactics are now being deployed in Canada, with individuals and organizations linked to the tobacco industry speaking against plain packaging in the media.

Plain packaging requires the removal of all branding (colours, imagery, corporate logos and trademarks) on tobacco products, so that all packaging is standardized.

Manufacturers may only include the brand name in a mandated size, font and location on the package. According to the Australian government, which was the first to implement plain packaging, this move has contributed to a decrease in smoking.

The authors of the commentary call for vigilance by several sectors.

“The Canadian media should remember their important role in challenging industry-affiliated sources regarding their conflicts of interest, and should guard against simply becoming vehicles for industry misinformation,” write Drs. Julia Smith and Kelley Lee, Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia.

“The [Canadian] government must require any individual or organization making a submission to the federal consultation to declare potential conflicts of interests, including funding sources, and must require that any claims made in submissions be substantiated by peer-reviewed evidence, with transparent methodologies, non-industry-linked data sources and clear funding declarations.”

Protecting plain tobacco packaging against industry influence

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160822140526.htm

Source:
Canadian Medical Association Journal

Summary:

Canada’s public consultation on plain packaging for tobacco requires strict guidelines to protect against interference by the tobacco industry, and media must also be wary, according to a new report.

Canada’s public consultation on plain packaging for tobacco requires strict guidelines to protect against interference by the tobacco industry, and media must also be wary, according to a commentary in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal).

The Canadian government’s public consultation on plain packaging of tobacco products, as a public health measure, will close Aug. 31, 2016. In the past, the tobacco industry has tried to thwart plain packaging initiatives using threats of legal action and by influencing public opinion through biased research — for example, in Australia in 2011, when its government introduced this type of packaging. Troubling tactics are now being deployed in Canada, with individuals and organizations linked to the tobacco industry speaking against plain packaging in the media.

Plain packaging requires the removal of all branding (colours, imagery, corporate logos and trademarks) on tobacco products, so that all packaging is standardized.

Manufacturers may only include the brand name in a mandated size, font and location on the package. According to the Australian government, which was the first to implement plain packaging, this move has contributed to a decrease in smoking.

The authors of the commentary call for vigilance by several sectors.

“The Canadian media should remember their important role in challenging industry-affiliated sources regarding their conflicts of interest, and should guard against simply becoming vehicles for industry misinformation,” write Drs. Julia Smith and Kelley Lee, Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia.

“The [Canadian] government must require any individual or organization making a submission to the federal consultation to declare potential conflicts of interests, including funding sources, and must require that any claims made in submissions be substantiated by peer-reviewed evidence, with transparent methodologies, non-industry-linked data sources and clear funding declarations.”

Ombudsman Raises Concern Over Plan to Increase Tobacco Excise

http://en.tempo.co/read/news/2016/08/22/056797790/Ombudsman-Raises-Concern-Over-Plan-to-Increase-Tobacco-Excise

TEMPO.CO, Jakarta – The Indonesia Ombudsman delivered several notions related to the planned tobacco excise increase. The increase is predicted to boost cigarette prices to Rp 50,000. Some of the notions include the Ombudsman’s concern that higher excise rate would not be effective to suppress cigarette consumption.

Although the total amount of tobacco excise in 2015 had reached Rp 139.5 trillion, the Ombudsman was not certain that it goes in line with cigarette consumption rate. “If demands are elastic, it is predicted that excise will reduce revenue, but at the same time suppress cigarette consumption rate,” according to Ombudsman Commissioner Alamsyah Saragih in a press release on Sunday, August 21, 2016.

However, if tobacco excise is to be increased and state revenue increases, Alamsyah said that it means cigarette consumption is not declining. “And household financial pressure will increase,” Alamsyah said.

The Ombudsman also questioned the production sharing fund for tobacco producer region, which is considered to be ineffective. According to Alamsyah, the Tobacco Farmers Association argued that there are regions who still use the fund to purchase operational vehicles.

In addition to the lack of direct benefits, the Ombudsman argued that the percentage of production sharing for tobacco producer region, which is currently set at two percent, is too small. Alamsyah added that the government had only planned to issue a supervision guideline for tobacco production sharing fund in 2016. “As a result to bad management, local tobacco prices are sold cheaper compared to imported tobacco,” Alamsyah said.

The Ombudsman also highlighted the government’s strategy in spending revenues gained from tobacco excise. Alamsyah said that if the government is planning to shift from producing tobacco to other commodities, trillions of funds originated from tobacco excise should be used for research and development activities to discover new high productivity commodity.

The arguments against making cigarettes Rp 50k are ridiculous, but the gov’t will probably listen to them anyways

http://jakarta.coconuts.co/2016/08/22/arguments-against-making-cigarettes-rp-50k-are-ridiculous-govt-will-probably-listen-them

If you follow the Indonesian media whatsoever, you’ll know that they are totally freaking out right now about the possibility that the government could raise the taxes on cigarettes to make them cost Rp 50,000 per pack (even as netizens are making memes claiming they will are not panicking about it).

The notion that the price of cigarettes in Indonesia will more than double didn’t start with the government actually saying they would do so, or that it was even a possibility. Rather, it began with a survey of 1,000 Indonesian smokers, conducted by Universitas Indonesia’s Public Health Faculty. Among the more incredible results of the survey were that 72% said they’d quit smoking if a pack of cigarettes costs Rp 50,000 or more and that 76% agree that a tobacco tax hike and overall increase in the price of cigarettes would be a good thing.

However, there are still no actual signs the government is doing anything other than considering it as an idea that has been “communicated,” as Customs and Excise Director General Heru Prambudi put it. A few government officials have also expressed some tentative support for a tax hike, but there is certainly no concrete evidence that the government is studying it as a real possibility.

That has not stopped some pro-tobacco industry advocates from denouncing the unlikely Rp 50k cigarette scenario, with the Chairman of the Indonesian Cigarette Manufacturers Association (GAPPRI) Ismanu Soemiran even going so far as to call the rumor a deliberate hoax “made to cause commotion and economic chaos”.

While Ismanu thinks the idea would cause chaos, advocates of the tax hike say it would bring plenty of huge benefits to the country. Besides the most obvious one of getting a large percentage of smokers to quit the incredibly addictive and health hazardous habit (which is estimated to kill 217,400 Indonesians per year), the Indonesian Consumers Foundation (YLKI) notes that the steep price increase would put cigarettes out of the reach of Indonesia’s poorest, not to mention young children.

However, opponents to the idea have already issued several dire warning about the disastrous effects such a cigarette tax hike would have on Indonesia, most of them having to do with the economy. These are their arguments (and why they’re ridiculous):

It will cause a decrease in tax money overall

Opponents of the tax hike argue Indonesia is highly dependent on the huge amount of taxes they collect from cigarettes currently – in 2015, the government collected about Rp 144.6 trillion in excise taxes, of which tobacco taxation made up about 96 percent. They say that even with the increase in the tax, the resulting drop in demand will lead to a huge overall drop in tax revenue, at a time when the government desperately needs money to cover budgetary shortfalls.

If they were talking about almost any other product they might be right, but because of its addictive properties, the demand for tobacco would likely not drop proportionately with the increase in price. And because it would be such a large increase in the tax rate specifically, even if demand was decreased by about ⅔ as suggested by the survey results, tax revenue would remain about the same.

Also, consider for a moment how much money the government currently spends on healthcare for tobacco related illnesses. One study estimated that amount to be around Rp 2.9 trillion per year just for smokers, without calculating the costs of healthcare for people affected by secondhand smoke. There’s also the enormous loss in national productivity caused by smoking related diseases. It may be a longer term investment, but reducing smoking rates always ends up saving countries more money eventually.

Lastly, if you agree with the logic that the government should allow people easy access to an extremely dangerous and addictive substance because it helps them make money, congratulations, you’ve just justified the legalization and taxation of all sorts of drugs.

It will hurt poor tobacco farmersThis is the argument used not just against the the Rp 50k price but also any tobacco control measure proposed in Indonesia. It’s easily the tobacco industry’s most effective argument since it frames the issue as one of employment – a recent Tempo article mentions that 30-35 million people are employed by the tobacco industry in Indonesia (although that number comes from the National Commission to Save Kretek (KNPK) so it might not be totally accurate).

As YLKI head Tulus Abadi argued, increasing tobacco regulations have not led to corresponding layoffs in other countries. Also, if Indonesia is ever going to get serious about fighting cigarette addiction, it is going to have to start transitioning tobacco farmers into cultivating other types of crops.

In truth it may not be easy for some of those poor tobacco farmers. But let’s not forget, that many of the richest people in Indonesia are tobacco tycoons. Perhaps they can use parts of their enormous fortunes to help the farmers they rely on to find new trades.

It will increase the number of illegal cigarettes

This is probably true, but that’s a matter that government law enforcement should have to deal with, just as they deal with the spread of illegally produced alcohol. And unlike illegal alcohol, which is often toxic and lethal, illegal cigarettes probably wouldn’t contain the harmful additives that are used by large manufacturers to make their products more addictive.

At any rate, the chance of seeing such a steep excise tax increase is probably next to nil (we hope to be pleasantly surprised). However, the government is currently studying how much the next increase in cigarette taxes will be, and we hope that all of the talk currently taking place in the media makes them consider at least pushing it at least a bit farther than they would have previously.