A French member of the EU Parliament has asked the Commission why it has taken so long for it to take concrete action on breaches of EU rules on air quality.
In a preamble to his questions, which are due to be answered in writing, Guillaume Balas said that, for a number of years, France and several other EU countries had been in breach of the EU rules on air quality (Directive 2008/50/EC).
In these countries, the concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10) in the air had exceeded significantly the maximum levels permitted under the directive and the levels recommended by the World Health Organization.
However, despite the breaches of the rules being blatant, and despite thousands of deaths every year, all the Commission had done was to issue formal notices at regular intervals – to France in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017 – while waiting until 2018 to impose penalties on Poland and bring an action against France before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
Balas said that these proceedings could take another year to reach a conclusion and that similar proceedings had rarely led to penalties being imposed.
He asked:
‘How can the Commission justify having waited 10 years to haul France before the CJEU, despite repeated warnings from the WHO about the dangers to public health?
‘How can the Commission reconcile the 10-year delay with its role as a guardian of public health in Europe?’
Tag: European Union
Something is in the air
Filters proposal unworkable
British American Tobacco says that an EU proposal to ban certain single-use plastics amounts to a laudable goal but one that is not entirely workable in its present form, according to a story by Martin Banks for The Parliament Magazine.
Banks reported that a parliamentary committee last week adopted a report by Belgian MEP Frederique Ries that aims to curb litter comprising the single-use plastics most commonly found on Europe’s beaches.
Under the draft rules backed by the environment committee, single-use plastic items such as plates, cutlery and cotton buds, which make up more than 70 percent of marine litter, would be banned.
Giovanni Carucci, vice president of EU Affairs with BAT, was said to have told the Magazine that reducing the environmental impact of single use plastics was a laudable goal.
“We are committed to reducing our environmental impact across our supply chain,” he said. “While we need time to analyse the full impact of the proposal, what I can say is that in its current form, it is not entirely workable.
“As the Commission acknowledges in its own impact assessment, today an alternative for cigarette filters that is as effective as cellulose acetate does not exist.
“We’ve researched alternatives for years, including collaborating with sustainable filter start-ups and other external companies, however none of the alternatives match the performance of cellulose acetate and will likely be in breach of the requirements of the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD).
“This makes the Parliament’s proposed consumption reduction targets a de facto ban on cigarettes, which is not in the scope of the Single Use Plastics Directive.”
Carucci said also that labeling aspects of the proposal would conflict with existing tobacco-labeling requirements, and that the proposals could involve the tobacco industry and member states in disproportionate costs and complexity.
Meanwhile, a commission spokesman was quoted as saying that more than 80 percent of marine litter comprised plastics. “Plastic residue is found in marine species – such as sea turtles, seals, whales and birds, but also in fish and shellfish, and therefore in the human food chain,” he said.
“While plastics are a convenient, adaptable, useful and economically valuable material, they need to be better used, re-used and recycled.”
Banks said that the Ries’ report would be put to a vote by the ‘full plenary’ in its 22-25 October session in Strasbourg.Warning: changes ahead
Graphic warnings on UK cigarette packs are expected to be replaced by Australian versions in the event of the country’s making a no-deal exit from the EU, according to a story at bbc.com.
Tobacco manufacturers have had to print images highlighting the dangers of smoking on all their products sold in the UK since 2009.
However, the government said in August that the images would have to change because the European Commission owned the copyright to those currently in use.
Now it says the Australian government has agreed to supply alternatives.
The change is one of many small ways in which a no-deal ‘Brexit’ could affect British life, and which are being flagged up by government departments via ‘technical notices’.Vaping to get public airing
A public debate on EU vaping regulations is to be held in Brussels from 08.00 to 09.30 on November 6, according to the organizer, The Parliament Magazine.
The debate will aim to gain insight into the demands of smokers and vapers, and what role regulators should play in enabling innovation while ensuring quality and product safety.
The debate, which is being hosted by the UK member of the European Parliament, David Campbell Bannerman, and supported by Japan Tobacco International, is due to address novel tobacco products and electronic cigarettes as alternatives to traditional cigarettes for nicotine delivery.
The Magazine said the increase in popularity of such alternative products had become the subject of a political debate about their regulation: whether they should be accepted as alternatives to traditional tobacco products or banned. ‘Even in the European Union, where the TPD2 [the revised Tobacco Products Directive] provides a clear regulatory framework for these products, the attitude towards vaping varies from member state to member state,’ the Magazine said.
‘Unanimously, the public debate is centred around the potential and evidenced benefits for consumer and public health. But one should not look at their risk reduction potential in isolation. For society and public health, in particular, to tap into the full potential of this new category consumers not only need to accept novel nicotine delivery systems but also their broad spectrum of benefits.
‘Do we really know what users are looking for? What are the drivers behind this fiercely consumer-led category?
‘Reduced-risk potential is an important, if not the most important aspect, however, consumers are increasingly interested in products that address a broadening spectrum of personal and social needs.
‘This panel discussion between high profile experts will explore and investigate a broad array of consumer motivators currently less considered and therefore underrepresented by policy making.’
Speakers are due to be announced soon.
To register interest, potential participants should contact: EUevents@dodsgroup.com; 0044 207 593 5560; 0044 207 593 5672.Questions over e-liquids
A Spanish member of the EU Parliament has asked the Commission if it intends to change the requirements for e-liquids labeling, and to run campaigns to educate people about the ‘toxicity of liquids and flavoring substances’.
In a preamble to three questions the Commission is due to answer in writing, José Blanco López said the use of refillable e-cigarettes and the potential exposure to liquids from e-cigarettes that contained high concentrations of nicotine posed risks to public health.
Twenty percent of people aged between 14 and 18 had tried this ‘new system’.
‘The majority of them do not know that it contains nicotine and many others take another type of drug due to the different way that they use e-cigarettes, according to the latest data from the Spanish National Committee for Preventing Tobacco Addiction,’ he said.
‘In accordance with European regulations in this area, namely Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, Directive 2014/40/EU and Report COM (2016) 269 final, can the Commission say:
1) ‘Is it considering the possibility of carrying out a greater number of investigations on certain aspects of e-cigarettes which apply to refillable models, such as emissions checks and studies on the safety level of the flavouring substances and their blends?
2) ‘Does it intend to raise standards for labeling?
3) ‘Does it intend to launch informative and educational awareness-raising campaigns on the toxicity of liquids and flavouring substances?’Dis-precautionary principle
The European Commission remains “cautious” toward novel tobacco and nicotine products while continuing to collect evidence about their impact on public health, according to a story by Sarantis Michalopoulos for EurActiv quoting a European Commission official.
Speaking on the side-lines of the European Health Forum in Gastein, Austria, Martin Seychell, deputy director-general for health and food safety, said the executive’s public health objective remained the same: the promotion of the idea that people should not become addicted in the first place – the prevention of addiction.
“Tobacco consumption still causes a lot of deaths, which would be easily preventable,” he was quoted as saying. “On novel tobacco products specifically, the legislation is very clear. We have adopted a cautious approach about these products.”
Michalopoulos said that electronic cigarettes and other novel tobacco products had emerged as alternatives to traditional smoking, which was responsible for nearly 700,000 deaths every year in the EU. The World Health Organization was in favor of stricter regulation of vaping, while the EU had adopted the precautionary approach in its Tobacco Products Directive.
EU Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis reportedly told EURACTIV that e-cigarettes were currently known for being “less damaging” than traditional smoking but that they still caused harm and people should not use them to cut smoking.EU has fakes problem
Cigarettes made up nine percent of the products ‘detained’ by EU customs authorities on their external borders last year, according to figures contained in a report published by the EU Commission on Thursday.
The Commission reports annually on the detention of ‘articles suspected of infringing intellectual property rights (IPR), such as trademarks, copyrights and patents’.
A press note accompanying the report said that customs authorities in the EU had detained more than 31 million ‘fake and counterfeit’ products.
Foodstuffs, which accounted for 24 percent of the detained articles, headed the list, toys (11 percent) came next, then cigarettes (nine percent), other goods (nine percent) and clothing (seven percent).
China was said to have remained the main source for IPR-infringing goods arriving in the EU. But other countries were the main providers of certain articles. Moldova was the lead country in the supply of alcoholic beverages; the US was the lead country for other beverages; Turkey was the lead country for clothing; and India was the lead country for medicines.
‘Although the total figures have declined since 2016, fake, potentially-dangerous goods for day-to-day use like healthcare products, medicines, toys and electrical goods now make up a much higher proportion of all seizures – 43 percent of all detained goods came from this category,’ the Commission said.
“The EU’s Customs Union is on the front line when it comes to protecting citizens from fake, counterfeit and sometimes highly dangerous goods,” Pierre Moscovici, commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation and Customs, was quoted as saying.
“Stopping imports of counterfeits into the EU also supports jobs and the wider economy as a whole.
“The European Union stands in support of intellectual property and will continue our campaign to protect consumer health as well as protecting businesses from criminal infringement of their rights.”Informing, not advertising
The EU Commission has reiterated that, within the Union, tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship without cross-border implications are regulated at member state level.
The Commission was replying in writing to a question by the French member of the EU Parliament, Sophie Montel.
‘The EU says that it is committed to tobacco control, bearing in mind that, every year, nicotine addiction takes a toll of 700,000 victims in Europe and causes seven million deaths worldwide,’ Montel said in a preamble to her question.
‘That is why the EU Tobacco Products Directive prohibits manufacturers from claiming that one of their products is less harmful than another: tobacco consumption in any form is dangerous.
‘Philip Morris is now marketing an electronic device (IQOS) for smoking “heated tobacco”, as opposed to the tobacco that gets burned when it is smoked in conventional cigarettes.
‘Although it is legal to market this device, the company’s advertising seeking to publicise it is illegal in some countries, including France, and its claims that its product entails a lower risk of harm are at odds with the EU Tobacco Products Directive.’
Montel asked: ‘Does not the Commission think that every form of advertising of tobacco products or the like (e-cigarettes) should be completely banned in all member states and that manufacturers ought to be penalised when they dream up ways to circumvent the rules?’
In reply, the Commission said that the EU regulatory framework for advertising, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco products – including novel tobacco products – had been set up by Directive 2003/33/EC (Tobacco Advertising Directive) and Directive 2010/13/EU (Audio-visual Media Services Directive). ‘The Tobacco Advertising Directive prohibits cross-border tobacco advertising and sponsorship in the media other than television,’ it said. ‘The ban covers print media, radio, internet and sponsorship of events involving several member states. Member states are responsible for enforcement including laying down and implementing the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the national provisions that are put in place pursuant to the Directive.
‘Article 9(d) of the Audio-visual Media Services Directive prohibits all forms of audio-visual commercial communications for tobacco products, including product placement and sponsorship, on television and on-demand audio-visual media services.
‘The scope of the Tobacco Advertising Directive results from the Court’s finding that the EU could legitimately only introduce a ban on certain types of tobacco advertising and sponsorship with cross-border implications on the basis of Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU – approximation of laws). Therefore, tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship without cross-border implications are regulated at member state level.
‘Meanwhile, Directive 2014/40/EU (Tobacco Products Directive) regulates the labelling and packaging of tobacco products including heated tobacco.
‘More specifically, Article 13 bans the display of any element or feature on packaging suggesting that a particular tobacco product is less harmful than another.’Going it alone
The EU Commission has said that figures showing a high level of illicit cigarettes entering France from Algeria are principally a matter for the French authorities.
The Commission was responding to questions from the Czech member of the EU Parliament, Tomáš Zdechovský.
Zdechovský had said that France was the EU member state that recorded the highest volumes of illegal cigarettes each year.
‘Algeria is the country of origin of 3.19 billion cigarettes, i.e. over 35 percent of the total, according to a study of the illicit cigarette market commissioned by the Royal United Services Institute,’ he said, before asking.- ‘Is OLAF supporting France in investigating the routes from Algeria?
- ‘Has OLAF considered that those routes may include other member states (e.g. Spain)?’
In reply, the Commission said that the figures quoted did not come from a Report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). ‘They are principally a matter for the French authorities to consider,’ it said. ‘France has so far not requested OLAF’s assistance in this regard.’
The Commission went on to say that, in general, OLAF had a unique investigative mandate to fight tobacco smuggling into the EU. ‘In complex cross-border cases in particular, OLAF can bring significant added value by helping co-ordinate anti-smuggling operations carried out by law-enforcement agencies across Europe,’ it said. ‘OLAF works to ensure that evaded duties are recovered, criminal smuggling networks are dismantled and perpetrators brought to justice. In such cases, OLAF always considers implications on other member states and countries outside the European Union.’
In recent years, the Commission added, EU member states had seized between 3.1 and 3.8 billion cigarettes each year. ‘OLAF contributed to the seizure of more than 1.5 billion cigarettes over the last three years,’ it said. ‘Detailed information and examples about joint customs operations (JCOs) co-ordinated by OLAF which have led to the seizure of tobacco products can be found in the OLAF reports for 2017 and 2016.’Identifying a problem
A Danish member of the EU Parliament has asked the Commission whether the requirement for unique, tobacco-product identifiers will be waived in the case of products manufactured in the EU but intended for export to countries that do not allow such markings.
In a preamble to his questions, Bendt Bendtsen said the rules of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/574 of December 15, 2017, on technical standards for the establishment and operation of a traceability system for tobacco products required in Article 6(1) that manufacturers marked each pack produced in the Union with a unique identifier.
‘What does the Commission intend to do in order to ensure that no tobacco products produced in the EU are prevented from being imported into non-EU countries as a result of the new Track and Trace rules, which require all EU-manufactured products to show a mandatory unique identifier?’ he asked.
‘Does the Commission intend to take steps to suspend said requirement for products manufactured for import into countries which, as of 20 May 2019, do not allow imports of tobacco products produced in the Union as a result of the EU requirement of a unique EU identifier?’
The Commission is due to answer in writing.
