The smokers’ lobby group Forest has criticized the opinion of a leading advisor to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) after he deemed the EU ban on the sale of snus to be “valid”.
According to the ECJ’s Advocate General, Saugmandsgaard Øe, the EU legislature “did not exceed the limits of its discretion in concluding that lifting the prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco for oral use could result in an overall increase in the harmful effects of tobacco within the EU”.
Simon Clark, director of the smokers’ group Forest, said that maintaining an EU-wide ban on snus discriminated against adults who were looking for a safer means of consuming nicotine.
“Tobacco is legal and adults should have the right to purchase a range of products, some of which are less harmful than others,” he said.
“The evidence suggests that snus is not risk free but it’s significantly safer than combustible cigarettes.
“To deny consumers the choice of switching to an alternative, reduced-risk product defies logic or common sense.”
Snus is banned in all EU member states except Sweden, and, according to a report in The Local, snus producer Swedish Match failed in a 2004 attempt to challenge the rules restricting sales and exports of the product. It had since launched a challenge against UK laws preventing the sale of tobacco for oral use, which are in line with the EU’s 2014 Tobacco Products Directive, arguing that the EU legislature had failed since the earlier ruling to ‘take into account development in scientific knowledge’. The High Court of Justice for England and Wales subsequently asked the ECJ to judge whether the prohibition of the product was valid.
In a note posted on its website, Swedish Match said that though the Advocate General had found that the use of snus was less hazardous than smoking cigarettes, he did not recommend the ECJ to find the EU snus ban invalid.
‘In the opinion, the Advocate General gives the EU legislature a very broad discretion in areas which involve political, economic and social choices,’ the note said. ‘He states that in his opinion it is not the task of the Court to assess the scientific evidence submitted in the case but rather recommends that the Court leave such assessments to the EU legislature.’
“We are disappointed with the opinion and hope that the Court will come to a different conclusion in its final ruling,” Marie-Louise Heiman, general counsel at Swedish Match, was quoted as saying. “The reasoning behind the Advocate General’s opinion would severely limit the Court’s assessment of EU legislation. With this reasoning, almost any product could be banned in the EU without a meaningful judicial review.”
The final ruling is expected toward the end of the second quarter or in the third quarter of this year.
Category: Litigation
Snus ban ‘valid’
NZ indecisive on e-cigs
New Zealand’s government-funded stop smoking services will keep losing customers if they refuse to help people who want to try vaping, according to a press note issued by Massey University and published by Scoop.
The services are said to be in a bind, however, because the legality of selling nicotine vaping products in New Zealand remains in doubt.
The previous National-led government claimed nicotine-vaping products could not be legally imported into and sold in New Zealand, but last year promised new regulations to allow the sale of nicotine e-cigarettes and e-liquids.
Last week National MP Nicky Wagner, who championed the promised law change, introduced a private member’s bill to try to get vaping back on the Labour-led government’s agenda.
Vaping researcher, Professor Marewa Glover, of Massey University’s School of Health Sciences, said that six months into the new Labour-led government’s term, all Associate Minister of Health Jenny Salesa had said on the matter was that she didn’t know what the government’s position on e-cigarettes was going to be.
“Two weeks ago, Judge Patrick Butler dismissed a Ministry of Health case against tobacco giant Philip Morris on the grounds that the IQOS Heets product could not be considered a ‘chewing’ tobacco product, which would be banned under the Smoke-Free Environments Act [SFEA],” Glover said. “His ruling could equally apply to nicotine vaping products, meaning they can be legally imported and sold in New Zealand.
“Of greater significance, he concluded that the Ministry of Health’s prosecution, which sought to restrict smokers’ access to an alternative less harmful product was the ‘opposite of what parliament sought to achieve when passing the SFEA’.”
Judge Butler’s questioning of the health authority’s attempt to undermine people’s chance to stop smoking by switching to the use of a reduced-harm product mirrors the perceptions of vapers reported in a new research paper by Trish Fraser of Global Public Health, and Glover and Dr. Penelope Truman of Massey University’s College of Health.
The full story is at: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE1804/S00011/stop-smoking-services-called-upon-to-support-vaping.htmHarassment alleged
A second woman has filed a lawsuit in the US against the UC San Francisco professor and prominent tobacco control activist Dr. Stanton Glantz, who last year was accused of sexual harassment by a former female researcher at the school, according to a story by Laura Waxmann for the San Francisco Examiner.
Former research associate Juliette Jackson is seeking unspecified damages for claims that Glantz, who heads UCSF’s Center for Tobacco Research and Education, created a ‘sexually-charged’ and hostile work environment in which he allegedly ‘repeatedly leered at Jackson’s and other females’ breasts,’ according to the complaint.
The lawsuit, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, comes after a sexual harassment lawsuit filed in December by Eunice Neeley, a former doctoral researcher whom Glantz mentored for about two years.
A spokesperson for UCSF said the school “cannot comment on litigation”.
In an email to the San Francisco Examiner, Glantz pointed to a blog post he authored in December, in which he denied both Neeley and Jackson’s claims. He also alleged that Neeley and Jackson had been ‘collaborating in their efforts’ against him ‘for over a year’.HEETS-ban case dismissed
A Ministry of Health claim that a heated-tobacco product was banned under New Zealand law has been dismissed by a judge sitting alone in the District Court of Wellington.
The case, brought against Philip Morris New Zealand (PMNZ) in respect of HEETS, the consumable item of PM’s IQOS system, claimed that the product was banned under the Smoke-Free Environment Act, which bans tobacco products used for chewing or any other oral use (other than smoking).
But Judge Patrick Butler found that HEETS were not caught within the ambit of s 29 (2) of the Act and dismissed the charge.
While welcoming the decision, PMNZ’s general manager Jason Erickson said the case highlighted the need for urgent reform of regulations surrounding e-cigarettes and other smokeless tobacco products.
“To achieve the Smokefree 2025 goal, men and women who smoke in New Zealand need freely available information and access to a range of better alternatives to cigarettes, including nicotine-containing electronic cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products such as HEETS,” he said.Vapor lumped with smoke
Greece’s Council of State has ruled that vaping and electronic cigarettes are covered by the laws that restrict smoking and traditional cigarettes.
The ruling by the country’s Supreme Administrative Court means that e-cigarettes cannot be used in public places or on public transport, and cannot be promoted in advertisements.
In reaching its decision, the Court rejected a petition by the Association of Greek E-cigarette Businesses.
But the court added that the Association, which claimed it had been financially harmed by the law, imposed in 2017, may file a lawsuit for compensation.Pyrrhic victory
The Israeli Knesset’s Finance Committee has approved a measure to tax heated-tobacco products such as Philip Morris International’s IQOS at 65 percent of the retail price, in line with the tax on cigarettes, according to a story by Chana Roberts for Arutz Sheva, relayed by the TMA.
Anti-smoking groups Avir Naki and Smoke Free Israel, and bipartisan members of the Knesset (MK), had been lobbying the Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon and the Finance Committee head Moshe Gafni to tax these products.
The groups and the Likud MK Yehuda Glick had asked the Supreme Court to force Kahlon to tax IQOS as cigarettes “until there is substantial, and substantiated, proof that IQOS are not as harmful as regular cigarettes.”
The new tax is expected to generate NIS120 million (US$34. million) annually.
Meanwhile, PMI was said to have emphasized that the company would concentrate on ‘rolling tobacco’ instead of products claimed to be a ‘better alternative’ to regular cigarettes.The law is a butt
The New Zealand government has been criticised for going ahead with the prosecution of a tobacco company while acknowledging that the law on which the case is based needs to be updated.
In a press note, the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union (NZTU) said that the 1990 legislation, written for chewing tobacco, might inadvertently ban new heat-not-burn products – a matter that was currently before the courts.
Citing a Stuff report, the NZTU quoted the Ministry of Health’s prosecutor as saying that the legislation needed to be brought up to date and that these changes were “in train”.
“The current law is cruel – smokers are taxed into poverty, and then told that alternatives, such as e-cigarettes and heat-not-burns, are illegal,” said the NZTU’s executive director Jordan Williams. “The Ministry acknowledges the law is outdated, so why proceed with court action?
“Every e-cigarette retailer and consumer has reason to worry when the Ministry of Health is taking criminal prosecutions while even acknowledging that the law is an arse.
“With the Ministry making this acknowledgement, the only reason the Government has left to not change the law is its addiction to tobacco taxes.”
A New Zealand Herald story reported on here yesterday, said that the court case involved Philip Morris defending two charges over the sale of its HEETS tobacco sticks that are used in its IQOS electronic heated-tobacco device.
If the ministry proved that this product was for oral use, but not smoking, that would make its sale illegal under current New Zealand law.
Health ministry prosecutor Sally Carter was said to have told the Wellington District Court that the issue came down to legal fine print.
“It’s the heat sticks that contain tobacco, and there’s no problem that this product contains tobacco,” she said. “The real problem is whether this product falls within the Smokefree [Environments] Act 1990.
“Significantly, because of the way the Act is structured there are issues whether in fact the product is a smoking issue, and a smoking product.
“The definition of ‘to smoke’ means that the product needs to be ignited.”
Philip Morris was said to be defending the charges, arguing that HEETS comprise a smoking product, even though the tobacco in them is heated, not burned.Yes, but is it legal?
A tobacco company and New Zealand’s Ministry of Health are locking horns in court for a week-long battle over the sale of a tobacco device, according to a story by Frances Cook for nzherald.co.nz.
Philip Morris is defending two charges over the sale of its HEETS tobacco sticks that are used in its IQOS electronic heated-tobacco device.
If the ministry proves that the product is for oral use, but not smoking, that would make it illegal under current New Zealand law.
Health ministry prosecutor Sally Carter told the Wellington District Court that the issue came down to legal fine print.
“It’s the heat sticks that contain tobacco, and there’s no problem that this product contains tobacco.
“The real problem is whether this product falls within the Smokefree [Environments] Act 1990,” she said.
“Significantly, because of the way the Act is structured there are issues whether in fact the product is a smoking issue, and a smoking product.
“The definition of ‘to smoke’ means that the product needs to be ignited.”
Philip Morris is said to be defending the charges, arguing that HEETS comprise a smoking product, even though the tobacco in them is heated, not burned.
The two charges the company faces carry a maximum penalty of NZ$10,000.Smoking deadly but lawful
The Netherlands’ Public Prosecutor has rejected calls for an investigation into allegations of murder or manslaughter against four multinational tobacco companies, according to a number of media reports.
An Associated Press story described the decision as a blow to what Dutch anti-smoking organizations had hoped would be a new legal front in their battle against the tobacco industry.
Benedicte Ficq, the lawyer who filed the criminal complaint against the tobacco companies, said she would petition an appeals court to order prosecutors to investigate.
And Anne Marie van Veen, a lung cancer patient who is one of the complainants was quoted as saying, “We won’t give up the fight”.
Ficq filed what she called a world’s-first criminal complaint in 2016 seeking a prosecution on behalf of Van Veen, another ex-smoker and a youth smoking prevention organization. Hospitals, doctors and other groups later joined the call.
Ficq had called for the prosecution of Philip Morris, British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International and Imperial Tobacco Benelux.
The complaint alleged that the tobacco companies were liable because of ‘the large-scale, decades-long and ongoing production and sale of addictive tobacco products in the Netherlands’. It alleged also that tobacco companies had acted in such a way as to render misleading the results of laboratory tests aimed at determining tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide deliveries.
But the Dutch Public Prosecution Service (DPPS) said in a written statement that it saw no prospect within current laws of a conviction.
‘Smoking is deadly and the design of cigarettes does add to this but according to the DPPS, the tobacco manufacturers have not acted in violation of either the law or the current regulatory framework,’ the DPPS said in an English-language statement.
Prosecutors added that tobacco companies could not be held criminally liable for the deaths or ill health of smokers because smokers knowingly exposed themselves to health risks.
‘Not everyone starts to smoke and there are people who do manage to stop,’ the DPPS said. ‘This element of freedom of choice in the chain of cause and effect means that the negative consequences of smoking cannot be attributed to the tobacco manufacturers under criminal law.’Dutch reinforce ban
A Dutch court yesterday upheld an appeal by anti-cigarette campaigners by disallowing a tobacco-smoking-ban exemption that had allowed separate smoking areas to be set up in cafés and bars, according to a MedicalXpress story.
A general ban on smoking in restaurants, pubs and bars was introduced in the Netherlands in 2008, but, under the exemption, cafes smaller than 70 square metres (753 square feet) were allowed to set aside areas for smokers behind floor-to-ceiling glass partitions.
These areas had to be less-attractively decorated than the rest of the café, and no food or drink could be served inside.
Even so, more than 25 percent of small cafés in the Netherlands include such spaces.
But the court in The Hague found that such spaces were ‘in conflict’ with the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which the Netherlands signed and which entered into force in 2005.
‘The tobacco laws banning smoking also cover smoking rooms, the court ruled, adding therefore the exception to the legislation was ‘invalid’.
Clean Air Netherlands (CAN), which had appealed after losing an earlier case in 2016, said it was ‘happy and satisfied’ with yesterday’s ruling.
It said its mission was to strive for a smoke-free society by discouraging tobacco use. ‘Smoking-rooms do not belong with this; therefore this is a small step in the right direction,’ it said in a note on its website.
It was not clear when or if the smoking-rooms would be closed, because there could be a further appeal, Dutch media was reported as saying.
The court threw out CAN’s claim that the ban covered all indoor public smoking spaces, saying it had not provided sufficient evidence.
