Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

March, 2015:

China needs an all-out fight to curb tobacco consumption

25 March, 2015

Kamilia Lahrichi

China, the planet’s largest tobacco consumer and producer, is the only nation where tobacco consumption does not fall when the government imposes higher taxes on these products, as incomes are rising faster than the tax hikes. This is creating a serious public health issue.

In general, health pundits consider that taxing tobacco products is one of the most effective measures to control consumption. In high-income countries, if the state raises taxes on such products by 10 per cent, there is usually a 4 per cent drop in consumption, according to experts at the recent 16th World Conference on Tobacco or Health in Abu Dhabi, where health professionals and government officials called for tobacco controls.

Worryingly, wages in China are expected to rise further, thereby giving more purchasing power to the 300 million Chinese smokers. In addition, packets of cigarettes are much more affordable in China than in many other places. Some Chinese brands cost as little as HK$3.70, compared with HK$17 in South Korea, HK$41 in Japan and HK$75 in Singapore last year.

Although China has ratified the international treaty on tobacco control, imposing high taxes on cigarettes alone does not make sense, given that the State Tobacco Monopoly Administration and the China National Tobacco Corporation – the largest cigarette producer on the planet – monopolise cigarette production in China.

From the state’s standpoint, decreasing the number of smokers would hit economic growth: state-owned businesses employ hundreds of thousands of Chinese and generate state revenue.

Not surprisingly, Euromonitor International has forecast that the number of cigarettes sold in China will rise at about 14 per cent per year.

As a result, tobacco consumption rates and related diseases are skyrocketing in China. An estimated one million Chinese die every year from tobacco-related diseases; the highest number in the world and one-sixth of the annual global toll.

“It is important that China takes appropriate action to reduce tobacco consumption,” said World Health Organisation director general Margaret Chan Fung Fu-chun in Abu Dhabi. In fact, it is vital, given that the number of smokers has ebbed across the globe.

On the bright side, the Beijing authorities passed a law last year to ban smoking in public places in the capital. It will take effect in June. China is also considering regulations to prohibit indoor smoking, limit it in outdoor public places and curtail the advertising of tobacco products across the country.

The government also needs to implement other policies, such as including graphic warnings of the health risks on cigarette packs, in order to enhance Chinese people’s knowledge of tobacco-related diseases.

A 2009 WHO study found that only 38 per cent of smokers in China knew that smoking can lead to coronary heart disease, while just 27 per cent knew that it can cause a stroke.

Thus, it’s vital for the Chinese government to enforce these policies outside its large cities in order to curb smoking habits.

Kamilia Lahrichi is a foreign correspondent and the recipient of the 2014 United Nations Foundation’s “Global Issues” Journalism Fellowship.

http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1746957/china-needs-all-out-fight-curb-tobacco-consumption

CTA says: someone tell our tobacco company friendly Food and ?Health Minister !

It seems he and his ‘Policy Bureau’ do not get the message.

The way past excise tax increase does not even match inflation and tobacco remains affordable to children.

We deem that Misconduct in Public Office as no preventative health measures are being effectively used to stop children

becoming nicotine addicts.

Onus on licensed premises’ owners to stop smoking indoors?

Plain packaging to remove the glitzy pack colors?

Track and Trace Tax stamps on packets?

Ban the import and use of shisha products?

Fines and jail sentences for tobacco executives who fail to control their supply chain and Duty Free products ?

Licensing of tobacco retailers?

Mandatory prison sentences for buying duty-not-paid products?

Increased Tobacco Control Office staffing so they can actually patrol ?

Control on nicotine and tar content and ban flavorings ?

Ban the sale of flavored tobacco such as ‘Peel’ made by HK Tobacco Company Ltd whose owner remains the Protector of the Bauhinia Research Foundation, an arm of Govt ?

Mandate any structure with a roof as a no-smoking area such as parasols in OSA areas, exit of  airport arrivals areas? –  Smoking is banned

on escalators which have a roof but are not 50% enclosed – what’s the difference ?

Use excise revenue to fund anti tobacco measures instead of pouring more concrete ?

Fire your ‘Policy Bureau’

Do something!

People are freaking out about the Trans Pacific Partnership’s investor dispute settlement system. Why should you care?

Union members and community activists protest outside the Miami Dade College, where the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce and the college were hosting a moderated conversation with Treasury Secretary Jack Lew on March 20, 2015. The protesters are against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a proposed 12-nation pact. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Union members and community activists protest outside the Miami Dade College, where the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce and the college were hosting a moderated conversation with Treasury Secretary Jack Lew on March 20, 2015. The protesters are against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a proposed 12-nation pact. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/03/26/people-are-freaking-out-about-the-trans-pacific-partnerships-investor-dispute-settlement-system-why-should-you-care/

The recent leak of a secret chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s Investor-State Dispute Settlement system (ISDS) is getting many people on both the left and the right upset. Left-wingers don’t like a system in which corporations can push back against government regulations. Right-wingers don’t like a system where U.N.-affiliated tribunals can overturn U.S. law. I asked Rachel Wellhausen, an assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin who works on investor treaties, to explain the basics of ISDS.

HF — What is ISDS?

RW — ISDS, or Investor-State Dispute Settlement, is the international system whereby multinational corporations (MNCs) can sue the governments of countries in which they invest for violating their property rights.

International treaties give MNCs access to ISDS, under which ad hoc international tribunals decide whether or not an MNC deserves compensation. There is no appeals system in place.

For example, an MNC just won $455 million in compensation from Venezuela, because in 2010 Venezuela nationalized and seized the MNC’s two bottling plants in the country. Another MNC is suing India over a retrospective tax bill, which the MNC says unlawfully devalued its property by reducing its share prices. An MNC recently lost a case against Uganda, where the tribunal found that Uganda’s regulation of transactions in the oil and gas industry was legitimate.

HF — How many ISDS arrangements are there, and how many times have governments been sued?

RW — Currently, about 3000 international treaties give MNCs the ability to sue governments. Some 2700 of these are Bilateral Investment Treaties. The rest are trade treaties, including NAFTA. These treaties have spread rapidly around the world since the 1990s.

From 1990 through the present, over 100 different countries have been sued over 550 times. Most of these are developing countries. The U.S. and Canada have been sued under NAFTA, but Western European countries have been sued only a handful of times (and Japan never). Sometimes these cases are brought at the World Bank’s International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Sometimes they are brought under special U.N. rules (UNCITRAL). Because these cases can sometimes be private, we don’t know the full number of cases.

For my research, I have compiled a database of 360 cases in which we know what happened as of 2012. Of these, the state won 34 percent of the time. The MNC won 31 percent of the time. The case settled before reaching a final judgment 34 percent of the time (which lawyers think of as a win for the MNC). In all but a handful of cases, governments appear to have been compliant with the awards rendered.

HF — What is the leaked TPP document, and what does it tell us about ISDS in TPP?

RW — ISDS is already on the table — and under fire — in a different important trade deal: the U.S.-E.U. Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which is also being negotiated right now. The leaked draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement investment chapter spells out what it might look like among signatory countries in the Pacific region.

The TPP draft chapter includes some notable elements. There are clear transparency rules, requiring that all cases brought under the TPP must be public. Governments cannot be sued simply for defaulting on debt, and governments retain some rights to control the flow of capital across their borders. MNCs can sue for “pre-establishment” violations — if they feel their property rights were violated even before investing in the country — but Chile, Canada, Mexico and New Zealand had already included exceptions to this in the draft. And, Australia has said no — in the draft, it is exempted from the whole system. (Australia also refused to agree to ISDS in the recent U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement.)

HF — Why do many people in Europe and the U.S. worry about the consequences of ISDS?

RW — The TPP draft chapter says that the point of investment protection has long been “to encourage and promote the flow of investment…as a means to promote economic growth.” At the same time, the TPP draft chapter specifically highlights “the inherent right to regulate…to protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as public health, safety, the environment, the conservation of living or non-living exhaustible natural resources, and public morals.”

The question is, can the ISDS system properly adjudicate between these economic and social goals? One person’s violation of MNC property rights might be another person’s legitimate government regulation. The European Union is wrestling with this: Hungary and Romania, for example, have been sued by MNCs for actions that they say were necessary for E.U. harmonization. There is broad outcry over Philip Morris’s actions against Uruguay and Australia, in which Philip Morris claims that regulations that make it hard to market cigarettes violate its intellectual property rights. Many countries are reconsidering treaties that arguably get the balance wrong.

The other potentially scary thing about ISDS is that MNCs themselves bring cases against sovereign governments. In the World Trade Organization, firms have to lobby their home governments to bring government-to-government cases over trade violations. But in ISDS, MNCs can use the treaty without their home government ever knowing. Many in the legal community have seen this as a good thing — “depoliticizing” investment disputes. In my research, however, I find that home governments regularly get pulled into disputes anyway.

HF — Are these fears justified, given the history and prospects of ISDS?

RW — The best justification for investment protection and ISDS would be evidence that it helps increase investment flows. The problem is, that evidence that it helps investment is decidedly mixed. We do know that countries that get sued lose out on foreign investment. Because of this, some scholars have recently come out against ISDS in the E.U.-U.S. TTIP negotiations. In a recent paper, I identify a benefit of ISDS — a government that generates revenue through expropriation gets cheaper access to debt, even if an MNC sues it. But this would matter more to a developing country than the U.S. While many oppose today’s ISDS, but most want it repaired, not abolished.

They think that the need for the protection of property rights is too central to the integrated global economy.

Rachel Wellhausen is an assistant professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin. Her recent book, The Shield of Nationality: When Governments Break Contracts with Foreign Firms, deals with issues around ISDS.

Car smoking ban MSP welcomes backing of Scottish government

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-32055226

The Liberal Democrat MSP behind a bill to ban smoking in cars when children are present has welcomed the support of the Scottish government.

South of Scotland MSP Jim Hume launched the members’ bill in December.

The government said it was “very supportive” of the principles of the bill, but changes could be needed to make it “workable”.

Motorists could potentially be fined £100 for breaching the rule if it becomes law.

Mr Hume lodged draft proposals for a bill last May calling for a ban in Scotland on smoking in private vehicles when children under 18 were present.

He said he was “over the moon” at the news the Scottish government would endorse the Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill.

The bill is about guaranteeing that children in Scotland can have the freedom to go on and lead healthy lives if they choose to.Jim Hume, Liberal Democrat MSP

He said: “With cross-party support and the support of many third sector organisations, there is every chance that this could be in place in the next year.

“Eighty-four per cent of the 160 responses to my consultation were positive and people from across Scotland have expressed their support for the move.

“The bill is about guaranteeing that children in Scotland can have the freedom to go on and lead healthy lives if they choose to.

“I look forward to working with MSPs from all parties as the bill progresses.”

Public Health Minister Maureen Watt said the Scottish government had considered including the measure in its Public Health Bill, but instead decided to support Mr Hume’s proposals.

She said: “As with any bill, as it goes through the scrutiny process, there may be amendments and improvements to strengthen the legislation and ensure it is fit for purpose.

“But we believe that the underpinning principles are strong, and that is why I am pleased to support it.”

‘Awareness campaign’

Scottish Labour and a wide range of health organisations have backed his proposals.

It is another public-health initiative that can help Scotland move forward with its ambition to achieve a tobacco-free generation in 20 years’ time.Sheila Duffy, ASH Scotland

But the Scottish Conservatives have reservations about how the bill would work in practice.

The party’s health spokesman Jackson Carlaw said: “While Scottish Conservatives support any moves which would protect young people from hazardous second hand smoke we have concerns as to how this would be enforced.

“It would be a better use of resources to conduct a public awareness campaign similar to that which is being proposed by the government in Wales.

“We will be watching this campaign in order to ascertain what lessons may be learned and what approaches may be adopted in Scotland.”

“Education has to be better than legislation but the government prefers gesture politics and the big stick.”Simon Clark, Forest

‘Tobacco free’

Anti-smoking campaigners welcomed the Scottish government’s backing for Mr Hume’s bill. ASH Scotland’s chief executive Sheila Duffy said: “It is another public health initiative that can help Scotland move forward with its ambition to achieve a tobacco-free generation in 20 years’ time.

“It is popular with the public and will bring Scotland into line with upcoming legislation in England and Wales. “We believe it can be effectively enforced and that having the legislation focus on cars with children bypasses concerns over interference in people’s private lives. “Jim Hume must be congratulated for taking the initiative on this proposal and for all the hard work he and his team have done to bring this important measure forward.” But Simon Clark, director of the smokers’ group Forest, said the bill was “legislation for legislation’s sake”.

He said: “Smoking in cars carrying children is inconsiderate. The overwhelming majority of smokers know that and don’t do it. “The very small number that do will carry on regardless because the law will be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. “Education has to be better than legislation but the government prefers gesture politics and the big stick.”

China needs an all-out fight to curb tobacco consumption

CTA says: someone tell our tobacco company friendly Food and ?Health Minister !

It seems he and his ‘Policy Bureau’ do not get the message.

The way past excise tax increase does not even match inflation and tobacco remains affordable to children.

We deem that Misconduct in Public Office as no preventative health measures are being effectively used to stop children becoming nicotine addicts.

Onus on licensed premises’ owners to stop smoking indoors?

Plain packaging to remove the glitzy pack colors?

Track and Trace Tax stamps on packets?

Ban the import and use of shisha products?

Fines and jail sentences for tobacco executives who fail to control their supply chain and Duty Free products ?

Licensing of tobacco retailers?

Mandatory prison sentences for buying duty-not-paid products?

Increased Tobacco Control Office staffing so they can actually patrol ?

Control on nicotine and tar content and ban flavorings ?

Ban the sale of flavored tobacco such as ‘Peel’ made by HK Tobacco Company Ltd whose owner remains the Protector of the Bauhinia Research Foundation, an arm of Govt ?

Mandate any structure with a roof as a no-smoking area such as parasols in OSA areas, exit of airport arrivals areas? – Smoking is banned

on escalators which have a roof but are not 50% enclosed – what’s the difference ?

Use excise revenue to fund anti tobacco measures instead of pouring more concrete ?

Fire your ‘Policy Bureau’

Do something!

——————————

Kamilia Lahrichi says raising taxes on tobacco alone is not enough if China, with its rising income levels, is serious about stamping out smoking

China, the planet’s largest tobacco consumer and producer, is the only nation where tobacco consumption does not fall when the government imposes higher taxes on these products, as incomes are rising faster than the tax hikes. This is creating a serious public health issue.

In general, health pundits consider that taxing tobacco products is one of the most effective measures to control consumption. In high-income countries, if the state raises taxes on such products by 10 per cent, there is usually a 4 per cent drop in consumption, according to experts at the recent 16th World Conference on Tobacco or Health in Abu Dhabi, where health professionals and government officials called for tobacco controls.

Worryingly, wages in China are expected to rise further, thereby giving more purchasing power to the 300 million Chinese smokers. In addition, packets of cigarettes are much more affordable in China than in many other places. Some Chinese brands cost as little as HK$3.70, compared with HK$17 in South Korea, HK$41 in Japan and HK$75 in Singapore last year.

Although China has ratified the international treaty on tobacco control, imposing high taxes on cigarettes alone does not make sense, given that the State Tobacco Monopoly Administration and the China National Tobacco Corporation – the largest cigarette producer on the planet – monopolise cigarette production in China.

From the state’s standpoint, decreasing the number of smokers would hit economic growth: state-owned businesses employ hundreds of thousands of Chinese and generate state revenue.

Not surprisingly, Euromonitor International has forecast that the number of cigarettes sold in China will rise at about 14 per cent per year.

As a result, tobacco consumption rates and related diseases are skyrocketing in China. An estimated one million Chinese die every year from tobacco-related diseases; the highest number in the world and one-sixth of the annual global toll.

“It is important that China takes appropriate action to reduce tobacco consumption,” said World Health Organisation director general Margaret Chan Fung Fu-chun in Abu Dhabi. In fact, it is vital, given that the number of smokers has ebbed across the globe.

On the bright side, the Beijing authorities passed a law last year to ban smoking in public places in the capital. It will take effect in June. China is also considering regulations to prohibit indoor smoking, limit it in outdoor public places and curtail the advertising of tobacco products across the country.

The government also needs to implement other policies, such as including graphic warnings of the health risks on cigarette packs, in order to enhance Chinese people’s knowledge of tobacco-related diseases.

A 2009 WHO study found that only 38 per cent of smokers in China knew that smoking can lead to coronary heart disease, while just 27 per cent knew that it can cause a stroke.

Thus, it’s vital for the Chinese government to enforce these policies outside its large cities in order to curb smoking habits.

Kamilia Lahrichi is a foreign correspondent and the recipient of the 2014 United Nations Foundation’s “Global Issues” Journalism Fellowship. www.kamilialahrichi.com [1]

Source URL (modified on Mar 25th 2015, 1:09pm): http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1746957/china-needs-all-out-fight-curb-tobacco-consumption

Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) – Investment Chapter

https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/press.html

WikiLeaks releases today the “Investment Chapter” from the secret negotiations of the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) agreement. The document adds to the previous WikiLeaks publications of the chapters for Intellectual Property Rights (November 2013) and the Environment (January 2014).

The TPP Investment Chapter, published today, is dated 20 January 2015. The document is classified and supposed to be kept secret for four years after the entry into force of the TPP agreement or, if no agreement is reached, for four years from the close of the negotiations.

Julian Assange, WikiLeaks editor said: “The TPP has developed in secret an unaccountable supranational court for multinationals to sue states. This system is a challenge to parliamentary and judicial sovereignty. Similar tribunals have already been shown to chill the adoption of sane environmental protection, public health and public transport policies.”

Current TPP negotiation member states are the United States, Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei. The TPP is the largest economic treaty in history, including countries that represent more than 40 per cent of the world´s GDP.

The Investment Chapter highlights the intent of the TPP negotiating parties, led by the United States, to increase the power of global corporations by creating a supra-national court, or tribunal, where foreign firms can “sue” states and obtain taxpayer compensation for “expected future profits”. These investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals are designed to overrule the national court systems. ISDS tribunals introduce a mechanism by which multinational corporations can force governments to pay compensation if the tribunal states that a country’s laws or policies affect the company’s claimed future profits. In return, states hope that multinationals will invest more. Similar mechanisms have already been used. For example, US tobacco company Phillip Morris used one such tribunal to sue Australia (June 2011 – ongoing) for mandating plain packaging of tobacco products on public health grounds; and by the oil giant Chevron against Ecuador in an attempt to evade a multi-billion-dollar compensation ruling for polluting the environment. The threat of future lawsuits chilled environmental and other legislation in Canada after it was sued by pesticide companies in 2008/9. ISDS tribunals are often held in secret, have no appeal mechanism, do not subordinate themselves to human rights laws or the public interest, and have few means by which other affected parties can make representations.

The TPP negotiations have been ongoing in secrecy for five years and are now in their final stages. In the United States the Obama administration plans to “fast-track” the treaty through Congress without the ability of elected officials to discuss or vote on individual measures. This has met growing opposition as a result of increased public scrutiny following WikiLeaks’ earlier releases of documents from the negotiations.

The TPP is set to be the forerunner to an equally secret agreement between the US and EU, the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership).

Negotiations for the TTIP were initiated by the Obama administration in January 2013. Combined, the TPP and TTIP will cover more than 60 per cent of global GDP. The third treaty of the same kind, also negotiated in secrecy is TISA, on trade in services, including the financial and health sectors. It covers 50 countries, including the US and all EU countries. WikiLeaks released the secret draft text of the TISA’s financial annex in June 2014.

All these agreements on so-called “free trade” are negotiated outside the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) framework. Conspicuously absent from the countries involved in these agreements are the BRICs countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China.

Read the Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) – Investment chapter

Government unveils plans to stub out illicit tobacco trade

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-unveils-plans-to-stub-out-illicit-tobacco-trade

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and Border Force have today published a joint strategy for tackling the illicit tobacco market in the UK.

The refreshed strategy sets how they will continue to work together to target, catch and punish those in the evolving illicit tobacco market and includes the following action:

Introduction of a registration scheme with appropriate enforcement sanctions for users and dealers in raw tobacco, with a technical consultation on the design and scope of the scheme.

A targeted consultation on sanctions with other departments, law enforcement agencies, businesses and health groups

Establishment of a cross-government ministerial group to oversee future evolution of the anti-illicit tobacco strategy

HMRC will also commission substantial academic research to provide evidence to galvanise further action in the international arena.

The strategy will build on the considerable progress HMRC and Border Force have made in the fight against tobacco smuggling since the first strategy to tackle illicit tobacco was introduced in 2000.

The size of the illicit cigarette market has been halved and the illicit market for hand-rolling tobacco has been reduced by a third. More than 26 billion cigarettes and 4,300 tonnes of hand-rolling tobacco have been seized and there have been more than 4,000 criminal prosecutions for tobacco offences.

Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury Priti Patel said:

Tobacco excise fraud is a crime which deprives the UK of £2 billion every year – money which could be used to fund essential public services, including tackling the damaging impacts of tobacco itself.

But its impact extends far beyond that. This illicit global trade also damages legitimate business, undermines public health and facilitates the supply of tobacco to young people. The criminality involved, including the use of the proceeds by organised gangs to fund other crimes, has a devastating effect on individuals and communities across the UK and abroad.

This strategy will build on the progress already being made by looking at new ways the UK and its international partners can combat tobacco fraudsters and beat the illicit market

Download (PDF, 277KB)

Raise the smoking age to 21

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/raise-the-smoking-age-to-21/2015/03/23/c9ca2a42-cc1f-11e4-8c54-ffb5ba6f2f69_story.html

FORTY-TWO million Americans still smoke. That is a much smaller proportion of the population than decades ago. But it’s still a public health disaster: Eighteen percent of adults put themselves and their families at risk of major and wholly preventable health problems. Education programs, changing social attitudes and higher tobacco taxes have pushed the smoking rate down, and cigarette bans have made the air a lot less foul in public places. But a new report articulates the logic behind an additional approach to fighting tobacco: Raise the age at which people can legally buy tobacco products to 19, 21 or even 25. Cities, states and even Congress should consider this option seriously.

Most states require tobacco buyers to be at least 18. But four states have moved the age to 19, and New York City and a few others have raised it to 21. Congress didn’t go so far in its overhaul of federal tobacco regulation several years ago. But it did order a report on the impact of such policies. The Institute of Medicine found that increasing the age to 21 would reduce smoking by 12 percent. It found much smaller effects for an age limit of 19 and slightly better results for 25.

These findings make sense. Nicotine’s pleasurable effects are strongest on teenage brains, making continued smoking and eventual addiction much more likely if experimentation begins early. It’s no wonder that 85 percent of daily smokers started before age 21. Underage smokers by and large get their tobacco products, primarily cigarettes, from friends and acquaintances. Part of the rationale for increasing the legal age to buy tobacco is to isolate adolescents from social connections that enable them to light up. Another part is to further adjust social norms and expectations about teenage smoking, particularly in the way parents and schools treat the issue.

The public health benefits of the projected decline in smoking from raising the age to 21 would take years to realize, but they would be significant. There would be 249,000 fewer premature deaths, 45,000 fewer lung cancer deaths and 4.2 million fewer total years of life lost among those born between 2000 and 2019. Not to mention how much healthier people would be in the years they are alive. The benefits wouldn’t end with smokers themselves: Between now and 2100, 286,000 fewer babies would be born prematurely , and the effects of secondhand smoke on children would diminish. The researchers insist that their projections are conservative.

It’s tricky figuring out when to treat young people as adults — mature enough to drink, smoke, vote, fight or engage in other activities. Society hasn’t settled on a single answer, sending a contradictory and undoubtedly frustrating message to those on the cusp of adulthood. But, the report shows, while policymakers aren’t about to clear up that mixed message, 18 isn’t the soundest place to set the smoking age. Cities, states and the federal government should listen.

Four-meter safety belt incorporated into smoking ban

http://www.tobaccojournal.com/Four-meter_safety_belt_incorporated_into_state_smoking_ban.52903.0.html

Smokers lighting up within four meters of a building subject to the Victorian ban on smoking in public places may be fined AUD 147 (EUR 106), the Australian Broadcasting Corporation said.

Initially scheduled to begin in July, the safety belt provision is being brought forward to 13 April to coincide with the start of the school term in the state, ABC said. Smoking will be prohibited within four meters of schools, kindergartens, childcare centres, hospitals, courts and police stations.

As Europe adopts Australia’s plain packaging reforms, big tobacco fights back

http://www.smh.com.au/world/as-europe-adopts-australias-plain-packaging-reforms-big-tobacco-fights-back-20150321-1m3bwk.html

There are winners and losers in the plain packaging for cigarettes battle. Big business is trying valiantly to its protect its ground.

Weed killers: Former attorney-general Nicola Roxon has been meeting European campaigners such as Norwegian Cancer Society's Anne Lise Ryel about the push for plain paper packaging. Photo: Supplied

Weed killers: Former attorney-general Nicola Roxon has been meeting European campaigners such as Norwegian Cancer Society’s Anne Lise Ryel about the push for plain paper packaging. Photo: Supplied

“It’s a bit stunning … dominos falling everywhere.”

Mike Daube, mild-mannered health policy professor from Western Australia, is surveying the virtual battlefield in the war against big tobacco. And he likes what he sees.

“It really is the most dramatic global development in tobacco control that I can remember in more than 40 years.”

A pile of cigarette packets with plain packaging. Photo: Nic Walker

A pile of cigarette packets with plain packaging. Photo: Nic Walker

This month alone saw Ireland and Britain legislate for plain cigarette packets with big ugly health warnings, following Australia’s 2012 lead. Norway and France – and others – are hard on their heels.

These wins have come despite fierce opposition from the tobacco industry. Lawyers have threatened huge lawsuits, piles of specially-commissioned reports have been delivered to key lobbyists, legislators and opinion-makers, and the industry even (Daube’s colleagues claim) played dirty tricks along the way.

“I haven’t seen the industry as ferocious about anything in more than 40 years,” says Prof Daube. “They clearly do see it as a massive threat, especially now that so many dominos are falling.”

Also this week, billionaire philanthropists Michael Bloomberg and Bill Gates dug for small change in the sofa and found $US4 million to help developing countries fight legal threats from tobacco companies.

The fund was launched (and Prof Daube was speaking) from Abu Dhabi, where the 16th World Conference on Tobacco has the air of a war room, mid-campaign.

There were rousing speeches. Talk of tactics and strategies and alliances. War stories were shared and heads put together to try to read the mind of the enemy.

Deterrent packaging

Deterrent packaging

Dr Douglas Bettcher, director of prevention of noncommunicable diseases at the WHO, was there. He agrees tobacco control measures are being adopted at “an extraordinary pace”.

Two and a half weeks ago Ireland passed plain packaging legislation, last week similar legislation passed the UK House of Commons and Singapore announced a public consultation on plain packaging. This week the House of Lords passed it into law in the UK, Norway released a public consultation document proposing it and plain packaging bills are under discussion in Panama and South Africa, Dr Bettcher says.

This is not to mention moves in France, New Zealand, Burkina Faso and Turkey.

“All of this progress is being made despite the industry’s best efforts to thwart it,” he says. “Given that the industry fights hardest against the most effective tobacco control measures, it must be very worried about what the globalisation of plain packaging could do, and it is very busy concocting false evidence and lobbying hard against it.

“This is an important moment in the history of tobacco control. We are witnessing the creation of a global movement.”

A keynote presenter in Abu Dhabi was Dr James Reilly, a mellifluous Irishman with a flair for the dramatic. He sounds like a victorious general back from the front.

This month Ireland became the second country in the world and the first in Europe to enact plain packaging legislation. Reilly shepherded the law through, as Minister for Children.

“This has been a long journey,” he says. He called for a round of applause for Australia for paving the way and inspiring their decision to follow – however, he says, “there were far more twists and turns than we ever anticipated.”

To start with, European law did not permit plain packaging. Ireland had to use its 2013 presidency of the EU to push new laws through.

“But when the directive made its way to the European Parliament we saw the full power and influence of the tobacco industry at work,” Reilly says.

Documents leaked to The Observer newspaper showed 161 lobbyists were hired by just one tobacco company. Philip Morris International strategised to delay the directive until the EU presidency passed to tobacco-friendly Lithuania.

In one year lobbyists claimed almost £1.24 million in expenses for meetings with MEPs, The Observer reported. They held personal meetings with a third of all the huge parliament’s members, some up to five times. They targeted farmers’ organisations, retail bodies and trade and business organisations.

“Members of the EU parliament complained that the scale of lobbying on this directive was unprecedented,” Reilly says. “There was a very real danger that the parliament would vote in favour of reducing the size of warnings.”
The Irish prevailed in Brussels. The focus switched back home – and the tobacco industry followed.

They enlisted members of the EU parliament, US congressmen, Indonesian farmers and Irish retailers to their cause.

“We were lobbied on a scale that Irish politics had never seen before,” Reilly says.

Benson and Hedges owner JTI Ireland (a 55-billion-euro multinational based in Geneva) warned in the last desperate week before the bill went to parliament, that the government had just days to withdraw or face a High Court claim for hefty damages.

“(Their) letter was especially aggressive,” says Reilly. “Not only did they attempt to tell a sovereign government that we did not have the authority … they attempted to tell us how far we could progress it through our parliament and insisted that we provide them with a written undertaking within a matter of days not to progress it any further.”

Imperial Tobacco and Philip Morris echoed the threats.

“But we had built a strong coalition that proved impenetrable,” Reilly says. As a doctor he had seen firsthand the devastation caused by lung cancer. He told his stories to his colleagues. Not one member of parliament voted against the law, he says.

“[Big tobacco’s] only aim is to protect their profits. Our aim and our duty is to protect the health of our people especially that of our children. We have the truth on our side and truth, as an old lady once told me, is not fragile, will not break. Nor will we.”

Cigarette companies including BAT are now “considering their legal options”, Fairfax was told.

Then it was the UK’s turn. Prime minister David Cameron had once been a plain packaging fan but by 2013 the plan sat in the coldest corner of the backburner after his Australian strategist-for-hire Lynton Crosby reportedly told him to “scrape the barnacles off the boat” in preparation for the 2015 election.

Crosby, who also consults for Philip Morris, denied that he had ever discussed plain packaging with the PM. But for whatever reason, it seemed dead.

But then up popped the policy again, suddenly, amid the dying embers of the final legislative sitting. Fairfax understands the government’s hand was forced by a strong push for a private members bill in the House of Lords.

Again, the tobacco companies campaigned strongly. Media were heavily briefed against plain packaging, as were MPs. Opinion columns rehearsed the tobacco lobby’s song sheet (to be fair, by now the anti-tobacco lobby’s arguments were just as well-practised).

The law passed, despite a sizable rebellion among MPs (and many who had to abstain, citing conflicts of interest or revealing previous tobacco lobby gifts such as tickets to the Chelsea Flower Show).

A spokesperson for British American Tobacco told Fairfax there will be legal action. “This legislation is a case of the UK Government taking property from a UK business without paying for it. That is illegal under both UK and European law.”

“The UK Government has left us with no other choice… Any business that has property taken away from it by the state would inevitably want to challenge and seek compensation.”

You could call it The Castle argument. As Darryl Kerrigan might put it, a cigarette packet is more than just a drawing on a box. By removing a company’s right to use their own brand, you are stealing something from them. The tobacco lobby has other arguments but this is the core of their fight: not to lose their identity.

Unlike in The Castle, this line failed in Australia’s High Court. But it is now being fought in two international jurisdictions including the WTO, on the basis that the laws breach Australia’s treaty obligations. And it will be fought again against the UK and possibly Ireland.

And now it is Norway’s turn to enter the fray.

This week, in a restaurant on a scenic hill overlooking Oslo, Norway’s health minister lunched with the local secretary-general of the Norwegian Cancer Society, Anne Lise Ryel, on the day of the launch of a consultation paper on plain packaging – which also proposed new transparency rules on tobacco industry lobbying.

There was another guest at the table: Nicola Roxon, Australia’s former health minister and attorney-general, the politician who used her two key roles in the former Labour government to formulate and then enact the laws that set a precedent for the world.

Roxon is out of politics but finds herself in demand globally for her experience in the fight for plain packaging.

“We were looking to Australia to see what happened and to learn,” Ryel tells Fairfax. “In this consultation paper Australia is mentioned many times.”

They wanted to see, particularly, how the industry would fight. “All the time they become more sophisticated because they need to… they always try to be a step or two ahead,” Ryel says.

They have seen dirty tricks already: in a previous legal fight against Philip Morris the tobacco companies spread their money around Oslo’s law firms, leaving them unable to advise the government.

Bent Hoie, Norway’s health minister, tells Fairfax that Australia should be “commended” for leading the way. “That has been very important for us, we have a complete example to follow. We can use their experience and be better prepared for what kind of resistance we will meet.”

Ms Roxon says she is proud – and Australia should be proud of what it has achieved and what might yet be achieved following Australia’s lead.

“I’m really pleased to be able to share our experience and hope that other countries will be able to avoid some of the problems,” she says.

“You can’t just have the first, you need to have the second, third and fourth for it to become something that people will do as a matter of course.”

She says the Norwegians are “super-organised and super-committed” but have been picking her brains on the tobacco industry’s likely response, especially how they brought employer and business lobbies into the argument.

It may sound like big tobacco is losing an existential battle. But not so fast. Last year the world smoked more than 5.8 trillion cigarettes. The number was comparable to the year before, in which tobacco industry profits were more than $US44 billion according to Tobacco Atlas.

Barely a 10th of the world’s population lives in countries with bans on tobacco advertising. Low- and middle-income countries now account for more than 80 per cent of tobacco users – and tobacco-related deaths.

The reduction in smoking rates in countries such as Britain, Australia and Brazil was more than offset by growing consumption in China alone.

“Developing markets are driving our growth – while developed markets are the source of current profits, developing markets are the drivers of future profits,” a BAT spokesperson tells Fairfax.

So why bother with Norway, when you’ve got China?

Ryel says she believes her country, and others, are setting an example, and providing a template that others can follow.

“That’s why it’s so important that we help the other countries, to see the force we put the other way. What happens in Norway, we think and hope is helpful for other countries that want to go on board, they will feel more secure.”

If this idea catches on, it could snuff out tobacco on a global scale

Hold tobacco industry liable: Turn the cost-benefit ratio upside down

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Hold-tobacco-industry-liab-by-Citizen-News-Servi-Health_Health_Tobacco_Treaty-150321-432.html

(CNS): Despite loads of credible and scientifically robust evidence that tobacco kills and is a common risk factor for major non-communicable diseases (NCDs), public-health programmes have achieved limited success in controlling tobacco epidemic. With over 6 million tobacco-related deaths every year, the world is far from eliminating tobacco deaths. Every tobacco-related death is a tragedy, because it is preventable, had rightly said US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy at the opening of the 16th World Conference on Tobacco or Health (WCTOH 2015).

“One of the major obstacles in implementation of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) is tobacco-industry interference and how it intimidates and harasses governments,” said Matthew Allen, who is the lead author of Article 5.3 Toolkit: Guidance for Governments on Preventing Tobacco Industry Interference,” of the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (The Union).

Conflict of interest

One major game-changer in tobacco control has been the adoption of WHO FCTC Article 5.3 guidelines in November 2008 by countries that have ratified the global tobacco treaty. FCTC Article 5.3 hugely succeeded in putting the spotlight on fundamental and irreconcilable conflict of interest between tobacco industry and public-health policy, thereby denying them seat on the table in tobacco control.

But there is more in WHO FCTC that can further turn the tide of the global tobacco epidemic!

Holding tobacco companies liable

WHO FCTC Article 19 envisions a world where governments hold the power to protect people from harmful products like tobacco, can recover the costs of treating tobacco-related disease from the tobacco industry, and can use their legal systems to ensure their right to do so.

“FCTC Article 19 is one of the least well-implemented articles of the treaty. As a result it provides immense untapped potential to be able to shift the cost-benefit ratio for the way the tobacco industry operates and thereby hold it to account and make it pay the high costs of harms it causes to people around the world,” said Cloe Franko, Chair of Network for Accountability of Tobacco Transnationals (NATT) and Senior International Organizer of Challenge Big Tobacco campaign at Corporate Accountability International.

Franko added: “Right now the tobacco industry uses its political and economic might to overpower the legal systems in, especially, smaller countries of the global South in a way that shifts the balance in its favour.”

Not surprisingly, progress in moving towards implementation of FCTC Article 19 has been slow. At the recently held inter-governmental meeting of the global tobacco treaty (WHO FCTC COP6), a decision was made to extend the mandate of the expert group on FCTC Article 19. When seventh round of inter-governmental negotiations of WHO FCTC will take place in 2016, this expert group will share a final report on approaches that may assist governments to strengthen civil-liability mechanisms for holding tobacco industry accountable across a variety of legal systems.

Cloe Franko informed that in addition to the report, expert group of WHO FCTC Article 19 will also more importantly provide strong and concrete guiding principles that will enable governments to advance implementation of Article 19.

Yul Francisco Dorado, Latin-America Director, Corporate Accountability International, called for governments to ensure that WHO FCTC Article 19 remains central to 7th intergovernmental meeting of the global tobacco treaty in 2016: “We cannot delay full utilization of FCTC Article 19,” said Yul in a session at WCTOH 2015.

It only takes one candle to light the darkness

Franko shared with Citizen News Service (CNS): “It can be intimidating for governments to consider litigating against the tobacco industry. That is why guiding principles and tools on Article 19 become all the more important for governments. Adjusting laws and legal systems, and sharing knowledge and expertise at the international level will help to ensure that the legal process against tobacco industry is not so overwhelming and costly. Recent progress litigating against the industry in Canada, though important, may be difficult to be followed by low- and middle-income countries. The Article 19 expert group has a key role to play ensuring support is available for countries to bring the tobacco industry to account for the harms it causes.” As they often say in Abu Dhabi to reflect hope, “Insha Allah”!