British American Tobacco has invested more than $1.5 billion dollars during the past six years to develop and commercialize alternative and potentially less-risky products, according to a press note issued yesterday by Imperial Tobacco Canada (ITCAN).
‘This has been a strategic priority for the group for many years’, the note said.
‘Through the creation of inspiring products, we can drive change.
‘At the heart of this is our commitment and desire to reduce the health impact of smoking.’
The note was issued ahead of a press conference that is due to be held in Vancouver, Canada, on July 6, attended by BAT’s managing director of Next Generation Products, Kingsley Wheaton, who is based in London, UK.
Wheaton will be accompanied by ITCAN’s president and CEO, Jorge Araya, and its head of external and corporate affairs, Eric Gagnon.
According to the note, Araya and Gagnon will be ‘open to discuss Canada’s lack of a cohesive regulatory framework for next generation products and the challenges created by this regulatory environment’.
Canada’s federal Health Minister is said to have demonstrated a ‘disturbing degree of incoherence in her recent approach to regulating tobacco and marijuana’.
Imperial Tobacco Canada yesterday called on the minister, Jane Philpott, to use the opportunity presented by World No Tobacco Day, to explain her approach.
In a press note issued through PRNewswire, the company said that the minister had proposed ‘plain and standardized packaging’ for tobacco products, despite cigarette packages already having a 75 percent health warning and being hidden from public view at point of sale.
At the same time, she had said that all that was required for marijuana was a restriction on packaging or labelling to ensure that product packaging was not appealing to young persons.
“Public explanation is needed as both marijuana and tobacco are substances with known health risks,” said Eric Gagnon, Imperial’s head of corporate and external affairs. “This suggests that marijuana and tobacco should face a similar regulatory framework, but the minister appears to be headed in the opposite direction, giving far more leniency to the marijuana industry.”
The press note said that the youth usage rate for marijuana was higher than that for tobacco. And the minister had acknowledged that Canadian youth had the highest rate of marijuana use in the world at a time when tobacco use and youth smoking were at an all-time low.
“There is clear policy incoherence, which is even more apparent considering the minister claims the goal with both marijuana and tobacco legislation is to protect youth,” said Gagnon. “How can two legislative frameworks, for products that both carry known health risks, have the same stated goal yet vastly different approaches?”
Imperial said that the federal government had gone to great lengths to claim its goal was to eliminate the black market for marijuana and had suggested that taxes on marijuana would be kept low to allow competition with the illegal market. Yet, governments across Canada had and continued to tax cigarettes to an extent that had contributed to the creation of an illegal trade that now accounted for more than 20 percent of the tobacco market.
“If the Minister truly believes her policy approach to marijuana is effective, then surely it can be applied to tobacco,” said Gagnon. “Instead, parliament is about to have the spectacle of the minister arguing on one day that branding on tobacco packaging lures youth to smoking and should be banned, while on the next day suggesting that branding should be allowed for marijuana to help compete against black market [products].”
Imperial said that today, World No Tobacco Day, provided an opportunity for the minister to demonstrate that she was serious about the health of Canadians.
But focusing on excessive and ineffective measures that made it easier for illegal traffickers to counterfeit licit tobacco products was not the way to demonstrate that commitment.
The minister and her department officials needed to acknowledge the importance of alternative products – such as heated tobacco or vaping products – by prioritizing the introduction of clear regulations on these products, and making them known and available to adult consumers, as soon as possible.
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has published an article in the May issue of its Monitor magazine that is said to focus on the ‘ruthless’ and ‘reprehensible’ behavior of some of the tobacco executives responsible for the development and perpetuation of the tobacco epidemic.
“Much has been said about the misconduct of cigarette companies,” said Garfield Mahood, president of the Campaign for Justice on Tobacco Fraud (CJTF) and co-author of the article. “But little if anything has been published that throws a spotlight on the behaviour of the individual executives behind the alleged fraud that has caused or contributed to over a million deaths in Canada.”
Meanwhile, Brian Iler, co-founder of a Toronto law firm and co-author of the article, said that justice required that individuals be held accountable for civil or arguably criminal misbehaviour. “Tobacco industry documents unearthed in Canadian and American litigation reveal the unconscionable behaviour of these men,” he said. “We think that it is important that we bring this misconduct to the attention of Canadians.”
The article, “I foresee serious criminal liability problems”, at https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/monitor/”i-foresee-serious-criminal-liability-problems”, is said to reveal that the provinces are suing the tobacco industry, that the claims to date exceed $120 billion, and that the alleged wrongful behaviour, if proven in court, would be the largest and most destructive fraud in the history of Canadian business or public health. ‘Yet a national poll found that less than one percent of Canadians are aware that these governments are suing tobacco manufacturers for fraud,’ a CJTF press note said. ‘The Monitor article attempts to fill this knowledge void.’
The Campaign for Justice on Tobacco Fraud is a health organization incorporated under the Canada Not-for-profit Incorporations Act to reduce tobacco-caused morbidity and mortality.
The tobacco provisions within Ontario’s 2017 budget have been described by Imperial Tobacco Canada as a reversal of previous policy and a boost for those involved in the country’s biggest illegal tobacco market.
The budget imposes an additional $2 in tax on a carton of cigarettes and makes provision for the addition of another $8 in tax during the next two years.
The Finance Minister was said to have reversed the province’s policy on tobacco taxation a year after putting it in place.
In a statement issued through PRNewswire, Imperial said it was committed to working with government on responsible legislation and fiscal policy, but believed the budget measures would push more people toward the illegal market.
“For a province that has the highest contraband rate in Canada and the second highest in all of the Americas, this increase is both irresponsible and irrational,” said Eric Gagnon, head of Corporate and External Affairs. “The Wynne government is caving to the agenda of radical anti-tobacco lobbyists, an agenda that completely ignores public health and the realities of Ontario’s illegal tobacco trade. Now that these groups have had their way, it’s time to take action because these increases will only exacerbate the significant contraband problem in the province.”
Imperial’s statement said that Ontario was the hub of Canada’s contraband tobacco trade and lost an estimated $1 billion in tax revenue each year because of that trade.
The province was home to more than 20 illegal tobacco factories and hundreds of smoke shacks with ample production capacity.
Illegal cigarettes were produced in facilities that were unlicensed, unregulated and uninspected, and because these products were not taxed, they were purchased illegally for a fraction of the price of legal products.
“If health groups are truly concerned with the health of Ontarians, then we invite them to join in the fight against the illicit trade, which provides cheap cigarettes to youth,” said Gagnon. “It’s time to stop turning a blind eye to the growing criminal trade that’s taking place, not only to help curtail tax evasion, but for the fiscal equity and safety of all Ontarians living in the communities where these criminals operate. This reckless, head-in-the-sand approach to tobacco taxation only benefits organized crime.”
“Ontario has poured gasoline on a fire of its own making and has gone back on a commitment it made in its 2016 budget for scheduled, moderate tobacco tax increases over time. The question now is whether or not Ontario will take decisive action to put that fire out? We have seen none so far,” said Gagnon.
The rate of cardiac arrests in the Canadian city of Calgary fell following the introduction of public-places tobacco smoking bans a decade ago, according to a story in the Calgary Sun citing provincial health care data.
But opinions differ on whether it can be said that this fall was caused by the bans.
A prohibition on smoking in public places went into effect in the city on January 1 2007, and was extended province-wide the following year.
Emergency department visits due to heart attacks in the city of Calgary went from 154.8 per 100,000 people in 2006 to 79 in 2007, a 49 percent drop. And the number of such visits fell to 44.4 by 2015, a total drop of 71 percent in nine years.
In the province of Alberta, the number of heart attacks per 100,000 dropped 11 percent from 222.3 in 2006 to 198.6 the following year, and then to 142.6 in 2015, an overall drop of 36 percent.
Alberta Health and Wellness said it was not clear what could be credited with the fall in emergency department visits due to heart attacks. Exercise and diet patterns might have played a hand, as could the shrinking number of smokers.
According to the Canadian Cancer Society, smoking rates in Alberta fell from 23 percent in 2003 to 18 percent in 2015. “We cannot be sure whether decreases since 2008 are caused by the introduction of smoking bans in public places,” the society said.
But anti-smoking activist Les Hagen, who was said to be with the group Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), said there was little doubt the smoking bans had played a role bigger than that of any other lifestyle changes.
The packaging and product standardization aspects of the Canadian federal government’s proposal to amend certain acts include unlawful and flawed positions, and will be counterproductive in achieving its objectives, Imperial Tobacco Canada said in its submission to the Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
Bill S-5, which would amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-Smokers’ Health Act and would make consequential amendments to other acts, was introduced in the Senate in November. It combines two public policy initiatives in one piece of legislation: the legislative framework for vaping products, and the further regulation of tobacco products through provisions enabling the introduction of packaging and cigarette standardization.
“While we support the government’s public health objectives related to reducing the harm of cigarette consumption, we believe measures such as packaging and product standardization are counterproductive to the government’s stated objectives,” said Eric Gagnon, head of corporate and external affairs. “These measures represent an unprecedented assault on commercial expression and wholesale expropriation of an industry’s brands and trademarks that cannot be justified.”
In a press note, Imperial said there was no reliable evidence that standardized packaging would work and that such measures had failed to deliver any of the anticipated benefits in Australia, the only country that had fully implemented standardized packaging for any substantial length of time.
‘Instead the policy has led to unintended consequences that are adversely impacting the public, businesses and government,’ the note said.
‘There is no reason to believe that the result would be any different in Canada, especially given the nature and magnitude of its existing illicit tobacco product problems.
‘Through the standardization measures, Health Canada will provide a template for organized crime to flood the Canadian market with counterfeit products – and consumers, retailers and law enforcement will have no ability to distinguish legal from illegal products.’
But Imperial said that with respect to vaping products, it supported the framework introduced by the government in Bill S-5, with some notable exceptions related to discouraging their promotion through reference to harm reduction.
It urged prompt enactment of appropriate regulations governing the manufacture of these products.
“Contrary to packaging and product standardization, there is a wealth of evidence suggesting that using e-cigarettes as an alternative to conventional cigarettes can have an impact on public health,” said Gagnon. “The proposed legislation must allow manufacturers and retailers the ability to communicate to consumers reliable substantiated evidence about those new products and their reduced risk and harm reduction potential.”
Imperial said that if the focus was truly on public health, then the government should make the vaping products’ provisions of Bill S-5 the priority. “If the government is committed to improving public health, it would acknowledge the harm reduction potential of vaping products as an alternative to conventional cigarettes, and prioritize the introduction of clear regulations around these products,” said Gagnon.
Meanwhile, the Canadian Vaping Association (CVA) has come out in support of Bill S-5. Representatives of the CVA were said to have underscored the importance of including electronic-cigarette-specific amendments to the bill during a presentation before the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
The CVA quoted Senator Chantal Petitclerc, the sponsor of the bill, as saying that it “strikes a balance between the harms from vaping products if they entice youth to develop a nicotine addiction and the public health benefit if they contribute to reducing tobacco-related death and disease”.
“This is why the government is proposing a flexible regime, one that can be adjusted as the science on vaping products develops,” he said.
The CVA said that it endorsed the government’s science-based approach.
CVA’s sister organization, the Electronic Cigarette Trade Association of Canada, also made a presentation to the Senate committee.
Health Canada announced yesterday a finalized amendment to the Tobacco Act that bans the use of menthol in cigarettes, blunt wraps and most cigars sold on the Canadian market.
The amendment is said to expand flavour restrictions to 95 percent of the tobacco market in Canada.
‘This amendment builds on changes that came into force in 2009 and 2015, which banned the use of certain additives, including flavours like chocolate and bubble gum, in all cigarettes, blunt wraps and most cigars (including little cigars), to make them less attractive to youth,’ Health Canada said in a press note.
‘Menthol masks the irritating effect of tobacco smoke by making it easier to inhale, which facilitates experimentation by youth.
‘Most Canadians who have smoked a cigarette did so by the age of 18 and many go on to become lifetime smokers.
‘Preventing youth from starting to smoke is one of the most effective means of decreasing tobacco use in Canada.
‘By prohibiting menthol in most tobacco products, the government of Canada is taking yet another step to reduce the appeal of smoking to Canadian youth.’
The press note included what Health Canada described as ‘quick Facts’:
‘Research has shown that an important way to curb lifetime smoking is to prevent youth from starting to smoke in the first place.
‘Despite success in reducing smoking rates among youth to a record low, recent data has shown that a significant number of youth smoke menthol cigarettes.
‘Restricting the use of menthol flavouring is only one part of the government of Canada’s overall tobacco control strategy. The government of Canada continues to advance work to implement its commitment to introduce plain and standardized packaging requirements for all tobacco products, to pass new legislation to regulate vaping products, as well as supporting First Nation and Inuit communities in the development and implementation of tobacco control projects that are socially and culturally appropriate.
‘During the 75-day comment period following the Canada Gazette, Part I pre-publication of this amendment, Health Canada received 131 submissions on the menthol ban, the vast majority of which supported this course of action.’
Seventeen-point-seven percent of Canadians smoked daily or occasionally during 2015, down from 18.1 percent during the previous year, according to a story by Yaël Ossowski for the Huffington Post citing the results of a Canadian Community Health Survey released last week.
The release of the survey results coincided with news that the government was looking to raise the excise duty on cigarettes from $21.30 to $21.56 per carton, and wanted drastically to increase tobacco regulation across the board.
But Ossowski pointed out that, looking at the numbers, it seemed that even without a heavy-handed government approach, fewer Canadians were using tobacco every year.
One of the reasons for this trend was to do with electronic cigarettes and the heat-not-burn devices that were presenting smokers with a healthier alternative.
And that was an initiative of the marketplace, not of government. If anything, the government of Canada had been hostile to vaping and electronic cigarettes.
As part of its anti-vaping legislation, Canada’s federal government is attempting to limit public access to scientific data, according to Derek James From writing a guest column on torontosun.com.
Bill S-5, which was introduced in November 2016, would prohibit manufacturers or purveyors of electronic cigarettes from sharing scientific information comparing the health effects of smoking traditional combustible tobacco cigarettes with vaping.
This ban is said to be so broad that merely making Canadians visiting a vape shop aware of a peer-reviewed scientific journal article could result in a fine of up to $500,000 and a two year prison term.
From, who is a lawyer with the Canadian Constitution Foundation in Calgary, said the restriction would almost certainly attract constitutional scrutiny as a violation of the right to freedom of expression.
He said that, in 2015, Public Health England, an agency of the UK Department of Health, had issued a press release announcing the results of an independent expert review that found that vaping electronic cigarettes was 95 percent less harmful than was smoking traditional cigarettes.
‘They also found no evidence that vaping is a “gateway” to smoking,’ From wrote. ‘Finally, they warned that nearly half of the population was not aware of the health benefits of switching from smoking to vaping.
‘Yet, once Bill S-5 becomes law, anyone selling e-cigarettes in Canada would be breaking the law if they even provided this U.K. Department of Health report and its life-saving information to customers.’
The government of Canada has launched a seven-week public consultation on the future of tobacco control in Canada to renew the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy. The proposed strategy will seek to reduce Canada’s rate of tobacco use to less than 5 percent by 2035.
Among other measures, Canada is proposing to require plain packaging for tobacco products, ban the use of menthol in cigarettes, blunt wraps and most cigars and introduce new vaping restrictions.
“Canada’s tobacco strategy proposes to cut rates of tobacco use in half, to 5% by 2035. I am excited to hear what ideas Canadians have about how we can make this a reality,” said Minister of Health Jane Philpott.
“Canada has long been a world leader in reducing tobacco use, and I am confident that we will continue to see fewer Canadians smoking in the years to come.”
The rate of cardiac arrests in the Canadian city of Calgary fell following the introduction of public-places tobacco smoking bans a decade ago, according to a story in the Calgary Sun citing provincial health care data.
