EU tobacco lobby fails to sway Finnish MEPs

An exceptionally intensive lobbying effort has not been successful in persuading Finnish MEPs to oppose tighter regulations on their business. Just one of the thirteen MEPs say they will oppose the new regulations, but Finnish support may not be enough after the EU parliament delayed a crucial vote.

On 5 September, a crucial vote on the new measures was delayed until 8 October. That means time is running out to implement the proposed law before the EU presidency passes from Lithuania to Greece.

Tobacco companies have reportedly funded an intensive lobbying effort in response to the proposed restrictions. The Guardian published a report on Phillip Morris International’s (PMI) lobbying strategy yesterday, detailing the company’s efforts to influence the parliament’s legislative process. The Guardian reported that PMI had employed 161 people to try and sway MEPs, and that they had claimed 1.25 million euros in expenses for meetings with politicians in the first six months of 2012, meeting 233 MEPs by 22 June 2012.

Finnish MEPs were not immune from the lobbying, reporting thousands of emails and intense pressure over the bill. In Finland, cigarette packs contained leaflets asking smokers to email MEPs to ask about the legislation. Some MEPs were largely left alone by the lobbyists themselves, while others were contacted more often. “There has been contact, opinions sent and requests to meet and discuss points of view,” said Eija-Riitta Korhola of the National Coalition party. The different experiences may be explained by the Guardian’s documents: they appear to show a preference for contacting liberal and center-right MEPs. The lobbying of Finnish MEPs was not that effective, with only Sampo Terho of the Finns party saying he believes legislation should remain as it is. The other Finnish MEPs favor tighter restrictions.

“On public health grounds, the benefit of reducing tobacco usage is undeniable,” said Anneli Jäätteenmäki of the Center party. “According to the World Health Organisation five million people die each year from tobacco-related illnesses.” No more pretty fag packets? The proposed regulation would ban menthol and other flavored tobacco products, introduce larger health warnings featuring pictures of patients suffering from tobacco-related diseases, and classify cigarettes as pharmaceutical products.

The idea is to prevent tobacco companies from using strategies that would attract younger smokers, something that Satu Hassi of the Green League is particularly keen on. She wants to eliminate tobacco products aimed at attracting new smokers. “These aromatic ingredients, and small, pretty, for example lipstick-red packaging,” said Hassi. “The tobacco industry knows that their customers die before long, more than half of them from tobacco-related diseases.”

Source: http://yle.fi/uutiset/eu_tobacco_lobby_fails_to_sway_finnish_meps/6825210

Fight for American tobacco access to Asia Pacific nations in Trans-Pacific Trade

Is it right to push American tobacco abroad? Two days ago, Malaysia introduced a proposal to a Trans-Pacific Trade pact being negotiated by Pacific rim nations that would allow complete freedom for participating pact nations to follow tobacco control measures, preventing the tobacco industry and its allies from challenging such measures as a violation of the agreement. The proposal is designed to stop the tobacco industry from challenging tobacco control measures as trade violations, a tactic the industry has used around the world to fight efforts to reduce tobacco use. American tobacco is still a significant industry, and tobacco interests aim to keep it that way as they argue and lobby for free trade access to Asian Pacific countries. In a New York Times op-ed, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York points out that the recent U.S. position on the trade talks regarding tobacco is a retreat from a previous position of allowing tobacco control measures a 'safe harbor,' allowing them to continue without contest from trade partners. Bloomberg charges that the new U.S. proposal is weak, the result of pressure from the tobacco industry and would allow trade partners to challenge a country's tobacco control measures. Data from the Bureau of Labor statistics put employment in the manufacture of tobacco and tobacco products at 13,650. Significant, but to put it in perspective note that total employment in U.S. manufacturing was almost 12 million. But the real clout of U.S. tobacco comes from the profits. The Tobacco Atlas estimate is that in 2010, profits at the six leading tobacco companies totaled $35 billion. Those billions of dollars can bring a lot of influence. Admittedly, a tougher stance on American tobacco and its ability to market product freely abroad can hurt some whose jobs depend on tobacco. This is especially true in the southeastern states of the United States. Tobacco growers in North Carolina and Kentucky, for example, depend on the crop for their livelihood. And it is not only the growers who would be hurt, but it is the suppliers to the famers and their employees that would take a hit. Erica Peterson, the executive vice president of the North Carolina Agribusiness Council, said to Mcclatchydc.com, "There is the fertilizer, the pesticide. There is the dealership that sells the truck to the farmer. ... Any of the employees they hire on the farm to payroll ...all these folks are going to be impacted." But surely, the United States can design a program of direct help to American workers and small businesses that rely on tobacco, while following a policy of expanded trade that would still allow countries to follow sensible public health anti smoking campaigns, including banning advertising and high taxes on the sale of cigarettes. We already have a program that is supposed to help workers affected by expanding free trade called Trade Adjustment Assistance. The program as now constituted should be expanded, made more generous and flexible to provide more help to trade affected workers than it now does. And perhaps it should be more proactive, getting in to help workers in an industry and a state before disaster of a job losses strike, offering retraining and relocation assistance in anticipation. All on the assumption that it is not good and humane policy to promote smoking abroad just for the profits that can be had. The Office of the United States Trade Representative lists the 12 countries currently negotiating the TPT trade pact as Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States, and Vietnam. There has been discussion and debate in Indonesia about becoming a potential partner in the trade pact. However, in January a Jakarta Post news report stated that Indonesia had little interest in joining. Indonesia needs to step up its anti smoking efforts. Remember the smoking baby photos. One report was that in 2010 he was down to one to two packs per day. Another report put it at 15 cigarettes a day. Source: http://www.examiner.com/article/fight-for-american-tobacco-access-to-asia-pacific-nations-trans-pacific-trade

City focusing on education before fines with new outdoor smoking bylaw

Concerned parents and anti-smoking advocates hoping for a swift crackdown on tobacco use in city playgrounds and sports fields will have to wait a little longer.

Almost a month after city hall banned smoking near stomping grounds for children, officials have not fined any violators, though they have received three complaints. City officials say they are still trying to educate the public about the new rules, which came into effect Aug. 1. They expect to have a better idea in September when they will start handing smokers $100 fines for lighting up within five meters of outdoor pools, skate parks and other outdoor play areas. At Riley Park in Hillhurst, Darnell Fortune threw his butt to the ground before walking into the fenced-in park surrounding the wading pool, but not because of the new city rules. He said he didn’t want to smoke around children.

“I have kids of my own, and I don’t smoke in the house and I don’t smoke in my vehicle,” said Fortune, who called the rules a cash grab. Abdul Rafih, acting manager of Animal and Bylaw Services, said city hall’s goal is not to hand out tickets, but to encourage smokers to freely comply with the newly amended bylaw. He said it’s why officials have allowed for a grace period, to give Calgarians time to adjust. For now, the city’s roughly 100 peace officers and bylaw officials will respond to complaints, but instead of handing out fines they will tell whomever is around about the new rules, Rafih said. If they see violators on their regular patrols, they’ll do the same thing. City officials are also working with sports organizations and community groups to get the word out. “The fact that there have only been three complaints may be a strong indicator that people are being respectful in those areas,” Rafih said. There are concerns that city hall will have a hard time enforcing the bylaw, given that smokers may have enough time to butt out their cigarettes by the time officials respond to a complaint. “We just don’t have enough bylaw officers to be able to have them drop everything they’re doing to run and catch someone with a cigarette in their hand,” said Ald. Jim Stevenson, who had voted against the bylaw amendment.

“The jury’s out as to how it’s going to work. I don’t see it being very effective, but they will have to do what they can with it.” Jessica Vanderhoef, a non-smoker who sat near a playground in Riley Park on Monday, said she supported the anti-puffing rules, though she was disappointed to learn officials had not started enforcing them. She said city hall should have workers patrolling parks, if they’re handing out tickets for other violations. “There should be some kind of consequence for smoking around children,” said Vanderhoef, who was with her five-year-old son, Jacob. City hall had taken the cue from other Canadian cities, such as Toronto, Edmonton and Grand Prairie, that ban smoking close to certain outdoor areas. In the United States, authorities had prohibited smoking in almost 850 parks and on 150 beaches by 2011, according to a recent study by Columbia University. Those bans were based on concerns with second-hand smoke, pollution caused by butts and the influence on youngsters watching adults smoke. But the study’s authors concluded there is no concrete evidence to support these claims.

They suggest authorities should instead make the case that the bans “de-normalize” the bad habit and encourage smokers to butt out more often. In Calgary, the ban was first proposed last November by Ald. Andre Chabot, a lifetime smoker who suffers from lung problems. The Canadian Cancer Society, which is among a coalition of health and community groups called Smoke-Free Calgary, backs the ban as a means to reduce children’s exposure to smoking, in the hopes it reduces the likelihood they will pick up the habit. “There is no safe level of second-hand smoke exposure,” said Sarah Hawkins, a public policy analyst with the cancer society. “And while it can be harder to monitor outdoors, we know that it can be a harm.”

Source: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgary/Education+trumps+enforcement+outdoor+smoking+bylaw/8835726/story.html

Research and Regulation Is a Must

Cigarette smoking is a significant public health problem and efforts to reduce its burden are critically needed. Approximately one in five of the adult U.S. population smoke cigarettes and 440,000 Americans will die from a smoking-attributable cause this year. Quitting smoking is difficult and therefore alternatives are worth investigating, but questions must be asked about any new product.

All smokers are not the same and therefore will respond differently to novel smoking cessation aids, including electronic cigarettes. The limited existing data supports that an electronic cigarette is safer than a tobacco cigarette, which is not to say it is absolutely safe. However, there is a paucity of research on how individuals actually use electronic cigarettes. What about those who might have a chance of quitting smoking altogether but instead end up replacing the tar and nicotine from traditional cigarettes with e-cigarettes? What about those who lean on electronic cigarettes to circumvent smoking restrictions at work and in social settings but continue to smoke tobacco products as well; how much are they increasing their nicotine intake?

Nicotine is an addictive drug and therefore electronic cigarettes should be subject to some form of regulation. Production standards must be enforced so that consumers can be properly informed of the amount of nicotine and other constituents present. Regulations to prevent misleading marketing and labeling of electronic cigarettes is also important.

Other considerations include the use of flavorings, which have been banned in tobacco cigarettes, and the perception that electronic cigarettes are less harmful, less addictive, and more attractive than traditional cigarettes, especially when it comes to adolescents who would otherwise not be interested in inhaling nicotine. Until we have a sense of how the public will actually use the product we must carefully and continually monitor this emerging health issue.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/08/20/the-ambiguous-allure-of-the-e-cig/research-and-regulation-of-e-cigarettes-is-a-must