Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

February, 2017:

Business groups, once tobacco friendly, switch sides in fight

The local chamber of commerce is usually a reliable ally in battles against regulation. But when it comes to smoking rules, many business groups have decided they would rather switch than fight.

Even in states where tobacco has played an important role in the economy – including North Carolina, Kentucky and Missouri -chambers have endorsed cigarette tax hikes, raising the smoking age and other efforts to curb tobacco habits.

The shift has accelerated since 2016, driven by a growing awareness that smoking drives up healthcare costs for employers, business groups said.

Smoking restrictions often are part of broader wellness initiatives, such as promoting exercise and nutrition, aimed at improving health – and business.

“Smoking isn’t just killing us, it’s bankrupting us,” said Ashli Watts, a spokeswoman with the Chamber of Commerce for Kentucky, where one in four adults uses tobacco, the lung cancer rate is the nation’s highest and related healthcare and lost productivity costs nearly $5 billion a year.

“Companies do look at the health of a workforce,” Watts said. An unhealthy workforce “is a deterrent.”

In Kansas City, Missouri, the chamber joined the local Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurer in 2015 in launching a smoking cessation effort.

They hoped to persuade five communities to raise the legal tobacco age to 21 by 2018.

Within a month, two of the largest cities in the area had signed on, and now more than 20 communities with 1.4 million people have raised the age.

Pam Whiting, a spokeswoman for the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce with members in Kansas and Missouri, said the group was “happily stunned” by the results.

“It is a real concern for our business members, for their employees and their bottom line,” she said.

In Indiana, where smoking costs an estimated $7 billion in healthcare and lost productivity, the state chamber is pushing for a $1-a-pack increase in the state cigarette tax, to raise the smoking age to 21 and for more spending on cessation.

“It’s not typical for a chamber to advocate for a tax increase,” said Kevin Brinegar, president and chief executive of the Indiana chamber. But, he added, the cost of smoking
“gives us a black eye.”

TOBACCO FIGHTS BACK

Cigarette makers are spending tens of millions to fight the efforts, according to a Reuters review of campaign spending data and interviews, healthcare groups and the
companies.

Brittany Adams, a spokeswoman for Camel cigarette maker Reynolds American Inc, said the local chambers’ efforts go against their core mission and could hurt businesses outside the tobacco industry.

“Chambers of commerce are supposed to protect the interests of businesses in their communities, and supporting these kinds of bills may negatively impact local wholesalers and retailers,” Adams said.

Last fall, the industry spent almost $100 million to fight cigarette tax ballot measures in several states. More than $70 million of that was spent in California, where voters approved Proposition 56, raising state taxes by $2 to $2.87 per pack.

Business groups in San Francisco and Los Angeles supported the measure. Tax increases failed in Colorado and North Dakota.

Although adult smoking rates in California are the second lowest in the country, its large population makes it the single biggest U.S. market with 8.5 percent of cigarette sales.

Marlboro cigarette maker Altria estimated tax hikes enacted in Pennsylvania and California would hurt industry sales volumes by about 1 percent this year.

Wall Street analysts say the bigger risk is that more states follow suit.

At least 215 states and municipalities – including Hawaii and California, as well as New York City, Chicago and Boston – have raised the age to 21, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

A spokesman said Altria wants to see the battle return to Congress, where it believes it has gotten a better hearing. With the Tobacco Control Act of 2009, Congress set a national minimum smoking age of 18.

In 2015, an Institute of Medicine study concluded that raising the national minimum to 21 would prevent about 223,000 premature deaths among people born between 2000 and 2019.

A group of Democratic senators introduced a bill to raise the age nationally to 21, but it never got a vote.

“This is a complex issue, and Congress has established a thoughtful process to better understand it,” Altria spokesman David Sutton said.

Tobacco products already “are very heavily taxed,” Sutton said. He also said sales taxes were a particular burden on the poor and created incentives “for criminals to engage in contrabrand.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has not taken a position on the bill in Congress to raise the smoking age, and, as a rule, it leaves local issues to local chambers, said chamber representative Blair Latoff Holmes.

In Kentucky, a recent survey found more than 90 percent of the state’s chamber members support bans on smoking in the workplace. But the chamber decided against pushing for a statewide ban because it believes the politics are stacked against it.

The industry has spent more than $3.7 million the last five years lobbying Kentucky state legislators, records show. And, in November, Republicans won control of the legislature with the support of many constituents who consider smoking a personal prerogative.

For now, the Kentucky chamber is putting its clout behind a doctor-sponsered bill that would ban tobacco products from schools. Currently, less than 40 percent of Kentucky school districts ban tobacco.

“Generation after generation of people in Kentucky have smoked,” said Watts, the chamber spokeswoman. “There are people who don’t know anyone who has ever quit.”

For graphic on rising taxes on tobacco products, click: bit.ly/2m0MMpr

(Reporting By Jilian Mincer; Editing by Michele Gershberg and Lisa Girion)

Business groups, once tobaccofriendly, switch sides in fight

The local chamber of commerce is usually a reliable ally in battles against regulation. But when it comes to smoking rules, many business groups have decided they would rather switch than fight.

Even in states where tobacco has played an important role in the economy – including North Carolina, Kentucky and Missouri -chambers have endorsed cigarette tax hikes, raising the smoking age and other efforts to curb tobacco habits.

The shift has accelerated since 2016, driven by a growing awareness that smoking drives up healthcare costs for employers, business groups said.

Smoking restrictions often are part of broader wellness initiatives, such as promoting exercise and nutrition, aimed at improving health – and business.

“Smoking isn’t just killing us, it’s bankrupting us,” said Ashli Watts, a spokeswoman with the Chamber of Commerce for Kentucky, where one in four adults uses tobacco, the lung cancer rate is the nation’s highest and related healthcare and lost productivity costs nearly $5 billion a year.

“Companies do look at the health of a workforce,” Watts said. An unhealthy workforce “is a deterrent.”

In Kansas City, Missouri, the chamber joined the local Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurer in 2015 in launching a smoking cessation effort.

They hoped to persuade five communities to raise the legal tobacco age to 21 by 2018.

Within a month, two of the largest cities in the area had signed on, and now more than 20 communities with 1.4 million people have raised the age.

Pam Whiting, a spokeswoman for the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce with members in Kansas and Missouri, said the group was “happily stunned” by the results.

“It is a real concern for our business members, for their employees and their bottom line,” she said.

In Indiana, where smoking costs an estimated $7 billion in healthcare and lost productivity, the state chamber is pushing for a $1-a-pack increase in the state cigarette tax, to raise the smoking age to 21 and for more spending on cessation.

“It’s not typical for a chamber to advocate for a tax increase,” said Kevin Brinegar, president and chief executive of the Indiana chamber. But, he added, the cost of smoking
“gives us a black eye.”

TOBACCO FIGHTS BACK

Cigarette makers are spending tens of millions to fight the efforts, according to a Reuters review of campaign spending data and interviews, healthcare groups and the
companies.

Brittany Adams, a spokeswoman for Camel cigarette maker Reynolds American Inc (RAI.N), said the local chambers’ efforts go against their core mission and could hurt businesses outside the tobacco industry.

“Chambers of commerce are supposed to protect the interests of businesses in their communities, and supporting these kinds of bills may negatively impact local wholesalers and retailers,” Adams said.

Last fall, the industry spent almost $100 million to fight cigarette tax ballot measures in several states. More than $70 million of that was spent in California, where voters approved Proposition 56, raising state taxes by $2 to $2.87 per pack.

Business groups in San Francisco and Los Angeles supported the measure. Tax increases failed in Colorado and North Dakota.

Although adult smoking rates in California are the second lowest in the country, its large population makes it the single biggest U.S. market with 8.5 percent of cigarette sales.

Marlboro cigarette maker Altria (MO.N) estimated tax hikes enacted in Pennsylvania and California would hurt industry sales volumes by about 1 percent this year.

Wall Street analysts say the bigger risk is that more states follow suit.

At least 215 states and municipalities – including Hawaii and California, as well as New York City, Chicago and Boston – have raised the age to 21, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

A spokesman said Altria wants to see the battle return to Congress, where it believes it has gotten a better hearing. With the Tobacco Control Act of 2009, Congress set a national minimum smoking age of 18.

In 2015, an Institute of Medicine study concluded that raising the national minimum to 21 would prevent about 223,000 premature deaths among people born between 2000 and 2019.

A group of Democratic senators introduced a bill to raise the age nationally to 21, but it never got a vote.

“This is a complex issue, and Congress has established a thoughtful process to better understand it,” Altria spokesman David Sutton said.

Tobacco products already “are very heavily taxed,” Sutton said. He also said sales taxes were a particular burden on the poor and created incentives “for criminals to engage in contrabrand.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has not taken a position on the bill in Congress to raise the smoking age, and, as a rule, it leaves local issues to local chambers, said chamber representative Blair Latoff Holmes.

In Kentucky, a recent survey found more than 90 percent of the state’s chamber members support bans on smoking in the workplace. But the chamber decided against pushing for a statewide ban because it believes the politics are stacked against it.

The industry has spent more than $3.7 million the last five years lobbying Kentucky state legislators, records show. And, in November, Republicans won control of the legislature with the support of many constituents who consider smoking a personal prerogative.

For now, the Kentucky chamber is putting its clout behind a doctor-sponsered bill that would ban tobacco products from schools. Currently, less than 40 percent of Kentucky school districts ban tobacco.

“Generation after generation of people in Kentucky have smoked,” said Watts, the chamber spokeswoman. “There are people who don’t know anyone who has ever quit.”

For graphic on rising taxes on tobacco products, click: bit.ly/2m0MMpr

(Reporting By Jilian Mincer; Editing by Michele Gershberg and Lisa Girion)

Tobacco Companies Taking Over the E-Cigarette Industry

For decades, cigarettes cornered the market on nicotine.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tobacco-companies-taking-over-the-e-cigarette-industry_us_58b48e02e4b0658fc20f98d0

People who decided to take up smoking chose the cigarette over any other nicotine delivery system available, including pipes and chewing tobacco.

This trend held true for generations of smokers, but in the past 10 years the cigarette industry has seen a small but significant sea change.

Electronic cigarettes are catching fire with an entirely new generation of smokers.

And tobacco companies have taken notice.

“It’s the most disruptive change in the tobacco market,” Jeff Drope, PhD, vice president of economic and health policy research for the American Cancer Society (ACS), told Healthline. “There is no parallel.”

A smoking hot market

Electronic nicotine delivery systems are not new.

The devices have been around in some form or another for nearly 30 years.

This current iteration of e-cigarettes made its way to the United States market by way of China.

However, the recent explosion of e-cigarette popularity caught the attention of tobacco companies a few years ago.

What was once a market populated by small independent manufacturers has given way to Big Tobacco.

And this move has anti-smoking organizations concerned.

“This is part of an ongoing strategy in the Big Tobacco playbook,” Erika Sward, assistant vice president of national advocacy for the American Lung Association (ALA), told Healthline.

The popular brand VUSE, is owned by R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, a subsidiary of the tobacco giant Reynolds America.

British American Tobacco (BAT), the largest tobacco company in the Europe, launched Vype around four years ago.

Altria (formerly Phillip Morris) owns MarkTen.

Lorillard paid $135 million for Blu, but when R.J. Reynolds bought that tobacco company in 2015, its e-cigarette brand was sold to Imperial Tobacco, a company in the United Kingdom.

Today, global e-cigarette sales amount to around $5 billion a year.

That compares to the $92 million cigarette market, but the e-cigarette industry is expected to grow 24 percent per year through 2018.

“Big Tobacco is now dominating in dollars in sales,” Drope said.

Firms funding e-cigarette research

The tobacco industry appears so confident in the technology that they are now funding research that looks at the health effects of e-cigarettes vs. regular cigarettes.

A recent study, funded by British American Tobacco used 3-D modeling to compare the inflammation in the lungs from e-cigarettes and regular cigarettes.

The study, published in Applied In Vitro Toxicology, showed a dramatic drop in lung inflammation with e-cigarettes.

“Researchers reported changes in the expression levels of 123 genes when reconstituted lung tissue was exposed to cigarette smoke, compared to only two genes that could be confirmed following exposure to e-cigarette aerosols,” according to a press release.

These finding are similar to what initial research has uncovered about e-cigarettes. A small batch of studies do suggest that they pose less of a health threat than regular cigarettes.

“From a cancer perspective, the levels of carcinogens are lower,” Drope said.

BAT did not provide comment for this story. R.J. Reynolds also declined to be interviewed, but did provide a statement:

“We believe that vapor products and other noncombustible tobacco products may present less risk to adult tobacco consumers than smoking cigarettes. Although these products have not been used by consumers for a sufficient period of time to develop definitive scientific conclusions about their level of risk reduction, there is a growing body of scientific evidence that these products may present less risk than smoking. While some studies report that there may be health risks associated with these products, those risks appear to be lower than the risks of smoking cigarettes.”

Health concerns abound

There are many unknowns about the health hazards of e-cigarettes, and that’s what has groups such as the ALA and ACS concerned.

“Being less deadly than regular cigarettes does not make your product less safe to use,” Sward said.

First up is the use of aerosol in e-cigarettes and the impact on the body’s pulmonary and cardiovascular systems.

“We don’t know the long-term effects,” Drope said.

Aside from the health issues, the biggest concern about e-cigarettes are the users themselves.

The U.S. Surgeon General said in a report that, “among young adults 18-24 years of age, e-cigarette use more than doubled from 2013 to 2014. As of 2014, more than one-third of young adults had tried e-cigarettes.”

Sward said the trend is troubling for a number of reasons.

“There is a strong association between e-cigs, cigarettes, and other burned tobacco products by young people,” she said “There is not a safe level of nicotine use for kids until the age of 24.”

In December 2016, the FDA did establish some rules governing the sale and distribution of e-cigarettes. They can’t be sold to anyone under 18. Buyers need to show proof of identification. E-cigarettes also can’t be sold in vending machines (unless in an adult-only facility), and they can’t be distributed for free.

Both the ALA and ACS would like the FDA to impose even stricter rules, such as warning labels and an advertising ban in magazines and billboards.

“Kids are very much reacting to the advertising,” Drope said.

Sward said the flavors are another big draw to kids and the FDA hasn’t done anything to regulate those.

Both say it’s hard to tell what will happen around e-cigarettes, now that there is a new administration in the White House. Drope believes a lot depends on where the e-cigarette market industry expects to be in the next few years.

“I can imagine them being a niche market. I can see them being just another product,” he said. “If tobacco industry decides to throw their might behind it, I could really see them taking off.”

By Carolyn Abate

Tobacco control: saving lives and driving development

Tobacco use poses an unparalleled health and economic burden worldwide. A new study found that the diseases caused by smoking account for US$ 422 billion in health care expenditures annually, representing almost 6% of global spending on health. Smoking causes close to 6 million deaths per year – more than the deaths from HIV/AIDs, TB and Malaria combined. And the total economic cost of smoking after including productivity losses from death and disability amounts to more than US$ 1.4 trillion per year- equivalent in magnitude to 1.8% of the world’s annual GDP.

https://blogs.worldbank.org/health/tobacco-control-saving-lives-and-driving-development

Globally, the public health and economic burden of tobacco is increasingly carried by low and middle income countries rather than high income ones. Within low and middle countries, the burden falls hardest onto the poor and vulnerable populations who can least afford the care. While tobacco use has been declining in most high income countries, it has been stable or rising in many low and middle income countries. Currently, over 80% of global deaths from cancer, diabetes, heart and lung disease occur in low and middle income countries, and this disparity is likely to grow based on current tobacco use patterns. Additionally, coping with tobacco related disease takes attention and resources away from other urgent health priorities, limiting capacity to respond to epidemic diseases, build sustainable health systems, and provide people with basic health services. A community that reduces its tobacco use is a healthier and more prosperous one.

These themes are the focus of a new monograph by the National Cancer Institute of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, in collaboration with the World Health Organization: The Economics of Tobacco and Tobacco Control. The monograph finds that tobacco control measures are highly cost-effective and do not harm economies. Though progress is being made in controlling the global tobacco epidemic, existing measures have not yet been used to their full potential. ‎Applying evidence-based interventions, such as significant tobacco tax and price increases, comprehensive smoke-free policies, and bans on all tobacco product advertising, promotion, and sponsorship would reduce the demand for tobacco products and significantly reduce the prevalence of tobacco use and the resulting death, disease, and economic costs.

Frank Chaloupka, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the lead scientific editor for the monograph concludes, “the evidence is clear – effective tobacco control interventions make sense from an economic as well as a public health standpoint.”

The monograph also highlights the economic opportunities to be found in controlling tobacco. In addition to paying significant dividends for health, tobacco taxes have the potential for domestic resource mobilization. A recent study has shown that if all countries were to raise their cigarette excise taxes by the equivalent of US$ 0.80 per pack, an additional US$ 141 billion in excise revenue from cigarettes would be generated globally. In developing countries, this increase in revenue could help create the fiscal space needed to help achieve their development priorities. Examples from countries such as Egypt, Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam demonstrate how these revenues can be channeled into health initiatives, thereby alleviating some of the funding needs for the health sector. The so-called ‘sin tax’ reforms of the Philippines, for example, provided additional tobacco tax revenues to help finance a significant scale-up of subsidized health insurance for poor families.

The Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development recognizes that “price and tax measures on tobacco can be an effective and important means to reduce tobacco consumption and healthcare costs, and represent a revenue stream for financing for development in many countries”. The implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control is one of the targets under Sustainable Development Goal Three: to promote healthy lives and wellbeing for all people at all ages. These processes under the 2030 Agenda, along with the commitments made at the UN High Level Meetings on Noncommunicable Diseases in 2011 and 2014, provide a governance framework for action on tobacco control in relation to development.

In order for the targets of the 2030 Agenda to be met, consideration of tobacco economics needs to be integrated into broader policy, and tackled with a whole of government approach that recognizes the cross-sectoral impact of tobacco. The economics of tobacco control affects our daily lives, our communities and our economies.

Tobacco control makes good sense not only from economic and public health viewpoints but from a sustainable development perspective as well.

The Economics of Tobacco and Tobacco Control provides the first comprehensive review of the economics of global tobacco control efforts since the 2003 adoption and 2005 entry into the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

Expert warns on dangers of tobacco farming

An expert on tobacco-induced diseases, Akin Adebiyi, has warned tobacco farmers of the harmful effects of cultivating the crop.

Mr. Adebiyi, a medical doctor at the University College Hospital, Ibadan, said tobacco farmers should form a co-operative and engage the government for alternative means of sustenance in farming.

Tobacco cultivation is an intensive process that involves several stages and exposes farmers to tobacco dust.

For example there is the Green Leaf syndrome that is well documented that the tobacco farmer is prone to have, said Mr. Adebiyi.

“But more importantly is when they harvest the tobacco product and they are trying to make it suitable for the tobacco industry to buy from them. During the Curing process, they have to do a lot of work which is highly intensive, and they have to use firewood so they are exposed also to smoke, they are exposed to the tobacco dust that is generated when you are trying to put the products together.

“And they are not the only ones that are exposed, they also bring in their children to make sure that these are packed well. Sometimes it gets mouldy and they are exposed to mould.

“So all these are situations where the farmer can actually be exposed to deleterious effects of tobacco, so it’s not only about smoking,” he said.

Mr. Adebiyi spoke with journalists during a tour of tobacco farms in Iwere-Ile, Oyo State, on Wednesday.

He said the efforts tobacco farmers put into the cultivation of the plant is not commensurate with the financial gains they receive through sales of the finished products.

“I would say is that if you look at the efforts that tobacco farmers put into the farming, in terms of when the product is at the nursery stage and they have to wet morning and night, spend a lot of time in the farm and you look at what they eventually get at the end of the process, you realise that it’s not that profitable,” he said.

“And then along the line they are exposed to some deleterious effects of tobacco dust and of the firewood they use during the curing process.

“Government needs to engage the farmers. They need to know that tobacco farmers have to earn a living. And because they have to earn a living, we must as a matter of necessity look for alternative to tobacco farming.

“Animals shy away from tobacco, they don’t eat tobacco. But man is…it’s so funny that animals that are supposed to be at the lower level than man understand the dangerous effects of tobacco, but man is the one that is cultivating it and eating it. And man is supposed to be at a higher level than animals.

The farmers need to be educated and they need to group themselves into a cooperative to approach the government.”

A tobacco farmer in the community, Michael Falana, said they grow the plant twice a year – between March and June and then July and August.

“I stay at the farm from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. during the planting season,” said Mr. Falana, the head of tobacco growers in the community.

Mr. Falana said they receive loans from tobacco companies at the start of every planting season – about N400,000 – and make a profit of about N150,000 after repaying the loan.

“I plant cassava in between the planting seasons to support my income,” he added.

Akinbode Oluwafemi, an environmental activist, said tobacco farmers do not receive adequate protection from government in terms if policy formulation.

“If my memory serves me right, this is my fifth tour of tobacco farms and, sadly, nothing has changed,” said Mr. Oluwafemi, Director of Corporate Accountability at Environemntal Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria.

“The farms remain a territory for modern slavery. The tobacco farmers are in a cycle of debt with the tobacco companies who treat them like slaves. They farm the crop, they take it to the collection centre and they come and dictate the price. The farmers are still exposed to all manner of risks as a result of chemicals that are used in tobacco farming. There is not enough protection in terms of policy on the side of government.

“Most importantly, you all saw what it took to even locate one tobacco farm. So you begin to ask yourself ‘where are the tobacco farms?’

“The reality on ground is the same question we have been asking the government to unravel. How many acreage of tobacco farms are in Nigeria? How many tobacco farmers are in Nigeria? How much of tobacco leaves do Philip Morris, BAT import into their factories in Ibadan or Ilorin to produce the volumes that we have?

“Because from what you’ve seen today, certainly those leaves are not coming from these farms. What we basically have in Nigeria are farmers that the tobacco companies are using for public relations and for their political agenda. And we are saying that narrative must change. Government must take interest in this, work with civil society, stakeholders, and the farmers to find a way out of this problem.”

Letter: Government must stop brand expropriation

While the federal government moves ahead with the legalization of marijuana, it continues to seek stricter tobacco industry regulation by banning menthol cigarettes and introducing plain packaging. These tobacco regulations are an easy political win meant to generate headlines and appease a vocal, well-funded tobacco control lobby, but do nothing to further reduce smoking rates.

http://www.thetelegram.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor/2017/2/25/letter–government-must-stop-brand-expropriation.html

Meanwhile, millions of Canadians purchase marijuana. In fact, most surveys show marijuana use higher than smoking. According to Health Canada’s own data, the youth usage rate for marijuana is almost six times that of tobacco, which is remarkable since marijuana is presently illegal. This is interesting since as an illegal product, marijuana is already effectively sold in a plain pack.

The federal government’s stated objective with marijuana legalization is to get people to switch over from the illegal and unregulated market to the regulated market. The government’s task force on marijuana legalization recommended plain packaging for that product.

Licensed producers of marijuana are now arguing that branding and marketing are necessary to attract consumers from the black market to the legal industry and cite the liquor sector as an example to follow. Branding justifies why it makes sense for consumers to go through the legal system instead of going to somebody they know in the neighbourhood.

The tobacco industry also needs brands to differentiate its products from illegal traffickers. It makes no sense to allow marijuana producers to display their brands to bring consumers through legal channels while taking away branding from the tobacco industry. The only result is sending consumers to the illegal market.

The unlawful production, distribution and sale of cigarettes in Canada has reached unprecedented levels in recent years, with illicit products making up more than 20 per cent of tobacco products. This is creating challenges for public health officials, law enforcement, tax authorities, policy makers and the public. Governments suffer significant revenue shortfalls in tobacco taxes. Efforts on the part of government and other organizations to protect the health of Canadians of all ages are undermined.

Small business owners are losing sales.

Plain and standardized packaging will lead to an increase in Canada’s already rampant illicit tobacco and thereby actually undermine public health objectives.

Unsurprisingly, evidence from Australia shows plain packaging has not achieved any of its stated objectives. Canada will be no different.

Nobody disagrees with the virtues of regulating tobacco and yes, even the tobacco industry believes young people should not smoke. But there are proven means to ensure that young people do not smoke, such as education programs and interventions targeted at at-risk populations. Yet, the government continues to concede to a small but vocal group of anti-tobacco lobbyists who are more anti-industry than pro-health.

With products already hidden from view in stores and 75 per cent of the pack covered with health warnings, nobody starts smoking because of the pack. Plain packaging will only make it easier for counterfeit tobacco manufacturers to copy legitimate products.

No other industry would accept this requirement, as the lobbying from marijuana producers now makes clear. However, all industries should be fearful of this abuse of government power. In the U.K., which passed tobacco plain packaging legislation in 2015, there is a growing chorus of health groups and academics calling for alcohol to suffer the same fate. While it may be tobacco and marijuana facing plain packaging in Canada today, it will be another industry shortly thereafter.

Companies making a legal product have a right to their brands and those need to be protected to ensure consumers have the confidence in the source and quality of the product.

Eric Gagnon, head of external affairs
Imperial Tobacco Canada
Montreal

HK customs seizes 900,000 suspected illicit cigarettes

HONG Kong Customs on Friday said they have seized about 900,000 suspected illicit cigarettes with an estimated market value of 2.4 million Hong Kong dollars (about US$0.3 million ) and a duty potential of about 1.7 million Hong Kong dollars.

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/nation/HK-customs-seizes-900000-suspected-illicit-cigarettes/shdaily.shtml

During an anti-illicit cigarette operation on Thursday, customs officers intercepted a truck in Kwai Chung. After inspection, customs officers found about 900,000 sticks of suspected illicit cigarettes in 108 carton boxes on board the truck. A 40-year-old man was arrested and the truck was detained. Investigation is ongoing.

Hong Kong customs said, smuggling is a serious offense. Under Hong Kong’s Import and Export Ordinance, any person found guilty of importing or exporting unmanifested cargo is liable to a maximum fine of two million Hong Kong dollars and imprisonment for seven years.

They added that under the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance, anyone involved in dealing with, possession of, selling or buying illicit cigarettes commits an offense. The maximum penalty upon conviction is a fine of one million Hong Kong dollars and imprisonment for two years.

Tobacco Giants Push New ‘Alternative Products’

The heat is on for tobacco and cigarette industry leaders to expand their products outside traditional markets in order to meet the evolving demands of a more health-conscious world. As governments push forward anti-smoking campaigns and a growing number of people in the U.S. and even in developing markets quit smoking, many big players have decided to get creative in order to survive.

http://www.investopedia.com/news/tobacco-giants-push-new-alternative-products/

Working ‘Across the Harm Spectrum’

Cigarette maker British American Tobacco (BTI) plans to quadruple the number of markets in which it offers products such as e-cigarettes and vaping products. The London-based company plans to expand its e-cigarette and vaping offerings from 12 markets to 48 by 2018. After acquiring Reynolds American in a deal worth $49 billion, BAT says the company won’t have the cash to do anything M&A-wise in the upcoming one to three years. Kingsley Wheaton, managing director of BAT’s next-generation products group, says the company is committed to “creating products across the harm spectrum” in order to reduce the public health burden of smoking. Earlier this week, BAT posted stronger-than-expected earnings for full-year 2016, following a previously announced Q4 beat.

Touting ‘No Burn’ Tobacco Products

Philip Morris International Inc. (PM) recently upped its full-year 2017 guidance as it focuses on new IQOS products—heat sticks that “warm” tobacco instead of burning it. The New York City-based international tobacco and cigarette company hopes to leverage pending FDA approval for its “reduced-risk” tobacco products in order to beat out the competition. Philip Morris has touted significant traction in the Japanese market, where its IQOS product now account for over 5% of the market. (See also: Philip Morris Ups FY17 Guidance.)

Earlier this month, the world’s third-largest tobacco company, Japan Tobacco Inc. (JAPAF), raised its dividend despite lowering annual profit forecasts. The company said its new dividend of 140 yen ($1.24) this year, up about 8%, is set to underline a “very strong feeling” on its Ploom Tech tobacco-based e-cigarettes. The product launch, which has been delayed due to supply issues, is set to begin in Tokyo this June, rolling out in other cities in the first half of 2018.

iQOS: A Product Of Innovation Or Necessity For Philip Morris?

Philip Morris aims to garner 10-15% of its sales from its Reduced-Risk Products (RRPs) portfolio within a decade. It is betting on one such product, iQOS, and feels it will become more popular than e-cigarettes sold by other companies.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/4049300-iqos-product-innovation-necessity-philip-morris

Philip Morrris expects its RRPs to approach breakeven Operating Companies Income (OCI) in 2017, and to start contributing positively by 2018. It is targeting 30-50 billion units in incremental volume through RRPs, which would add an additional OCI of $0.7 billion to $1.2 billion by 2020, with an increasing confidence of reaching the upper end of the target range.

Conversion rates of iQOS purchasers who have fully or predominantly moved to the product have grown over time, and stood at approximately 70% at the end of 2016. As of year-end 2016, the company estimates that approximately 1.4 million adult consumers have quit cigarettes and converted to iQOS.

Philip Morris International (NYSE:PM) uses the term Reduced-Risk Products (RRPs) to refer to products with the “potential to reduce individual risk and population harm, in comparison to smoking cigarettes.” The company has a number of products in various stages of development and commercialization, with numerous scientific studies being carried out to determine whether the claims for reduced risks can be substantiated. The firm’s aim is to garner 10-15% of its sales from its RRPs portfolio within a decade.

The company is betting on one such product, iQOS, a black pen-shaped device that heats sticks containing tobacco, and feels it will become more popular than e-cigarettes sold by other companies. Philip Morris has collaborated with Altria (NYSE:MO) for developing its RRP portfolio, which includes joint research, development, and a technology sharing agreement, wherein the e-vapor products developed would be commercialized in the US by Altria and in markets outside the US by PM. The company is also leveraging the popularity of the Marlboro brand by deploying Marlboro heatsticks in iQOS

Vaping Is Less Terrible For You Than Cigarettes (Still Not Great For You, So Don’t Start)

Over time, people who smoke e-cigarettes seem to pile up fewer toxins in their bodies than people who smoke traditional cancer sticks.

https://www.fastcoexist.com/3068010/vaping-is-less-terrible-for-you-than-cigarettes-still-not-great-for-you-so-dont-start

Vaping devotees, you have been vindicated: In the first long-term study comparing e-cigarettes with regular old cigarettes, researchers found that e-cigs aren’t quite as bad for you as the tobacco they replace. In fact, transitioning to vaping may end up being a good way to help people quit smoking altogether.

The study, funded by Cancer Research U.K., found that people who switched from tobacco to e-cigarettes for at least six months “had much lower levels of toxic and cancer-causing substances in their body than people who continued to use conventional cigarettes.” The conclusion: e-cigarettes are less toxic than tobacco.

The study followed 181 participants over a six-month period. The participants were split into five groups: “combustible” cigarettes users, e-cigarette users, users of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) like patches or gum, and people who smoke combustible cigarettes while also using either e-cigarettes or other NRT products.

Most studies up until now, as noted in the report, have examined the toxins in the actual vapor of the e-cigarette and compared that to the toxins in tobacco. But because the actual absorption levels of substances from e-cigarettes are not known, this may not be an accurate way to determine actual toxicity. Also, different vaping devices may deliver differing amounts of chemicals to the body.

This study instead examined the levels of toxins and carcinogens in the body over time, and found that they are lower in users of e-cigs than in regular smokers, and comparable to those found in people using other NRTs.

This is a big deal. While taking up vaping from scratch is still a bad idea, regular smokers who switch to e-cigarettes could do themselves considerably less harm than if they keep smoking tobacco. Ideally, e-cigarettes would be, like nicotine patches, used as an aid to eventually wean yourself off nicotine altogether, but even if you switch permanently to vaping, you’ll be healthier.

Vaping is still a young phenomenon—e-cigarettes were only patented in 2003—and the research is still scant. Even this study only looks at 181 individuals, and is funded by an organization that has a vested interest in reducing cancer. But really, it seems that pretty much anything is better for you than smoking. Apart from sitting down, that is.