Tag: European Union

  • EU ticked off on trade talks

    EU ticked off on trade talks

    The EU has been asked to exclude tobacco lobbyists from influencing policy positions on international trade during talks with countries of South and Central America.
    In a note posted on its website, the European Public Health Alliance (EPHA) said that it, along with Latin American and global partners, had written on Thursday to the EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström and First Vice-President Frans Timmermans asking them to put health ahead of the interests of the tobacco industry in the EU’s trade negotiations with Mexico, Chile and the Mercosur trade bloc of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.
    ‘Together with the global Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Healthy Latin America Coalition (CLAS), InterAmerican Heart Foundation and NCD Alliance we call on the EU to publicly change its stance, drop tobacco as an EU “Offensive Interest” in its negotiations with Mercosur and commit to exclude tobacco lobbyists from influencing policy positions on international trade,’ according to the note, written by George Thurley, policy officer healthy trade and food, drink and agriculture.
    ‘This scandal is highlighted in EPHA’s new report, Unhealthy Trades, along with eight other areas of trade with potentially crucial impacts on public health. The risk to public health is high, both for Europeans and for partner countries, particularly from lowered tariffs and standards and increased foreign direct investment in tobacco but also foods high in fat, salt and sugar, processed meat and alcohol, weak wording on food labelling, over-stringent intellectual property rights, weak support for the precautionary principle and inadequate and side-lined (sustainability) impact assessment processes.’
    Nina Renshaw, EPHA secretary general, said that by pushing tobacco interests in negotiations with Mercosur, the European Commission was betraying its own commitments and those of EU governments to the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. “This approach will burden our trading partners with chronic diseases, such as respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and cancers, and undermine their sustainable development,” she was quoted as saying. “We have to call out Commissioner Malmström for damaging public health and sustainable development by prioritising the interests of the tobacco lobby.”
    The note said that the signatories to the open letter called for the Commission, by May, 31, World No Tobacco Day, to:

    • ‘Publicly commit to kick tobacco lobbyists’ influence out of all current and future EU trade negotiations;
    • ‘Drop tobacco as an Offensive Interest in EU-Mercosur and never again identify it as such;
    • ‘Strengthen the timely impact assessment of EU Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) by introducing a binding health impact assessment (HIA) and ensure all deals are amended on the basis of the findings of binding sustainability impact assessments (SIAs)’.

    ‘We expect a positive response from the Commission in line with their longstanding international commitments to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and the Sustainable Development Goals – which the EU has championed,’ the note said. ‘These steps are a necessary minimum to ensure that EU trade policy does no harm to public health at home or around the world.’

  • Looking beyond TPD2

    Looking beyond TPD2

    There is no evidence that, one year after its full implementation in EU member states, the revised Tobacco Products Directive (TPD2) has reduced smoking rates, according to the smokers’ campaign group Forest EU.
    TPD2 measures were said to have included an immediate ban on packs containing fewer than 20 cigarettes, a ban on flavored cigarettes (except menthol, which will be banned in 2020) and severe restrictions on the ability of smokers to access e-cigarettes.
    TPD2 also increased the size of health warnings to 65 per cent of the front and back of every pack of cigarettes, with additional warnings on the top of the pack.
    “The regulations are excessive, even by the European Commission’s standards,” said
    Guillaume Périgois, director of Forest EU. “Smokers are being treated as second class citizens in a disgraceful attempt to denormalize both the product and their habit.
    “Larger pictorial warnings are problematic since the Commission itself is now on record having called into question the proportionality of larger health warnings in delivering public health gains. If they are clearly visible, smaller warnings are just as effective as larger warnings in the eyes of the consumer.”
    Calling for the Commission to explore alternative models of achieving public health gains that didn’t ostracize smokers, Périgois said the Commission needed to look at new approaches, for instance supporting member states in the provision of education programs or in providing a proper framework in which smokers could explore the growing vaping sector.

  • A plain failure of policy

    A plain failure of policy

    Campaigners have called for an independent ‘root and branch’ review of the impact of all tobacco regulations introduced in the UK since 2010, including that requiring standardized tobacco packaging and a tobacco-products display ban at retail outlets.
    The call came after evidence emerged that smoking levels had gone up since the introduction this time last year of standardized packaging and other measures.
    ‘According to independent research, recent statistics suggest that smoking rates in England were higher than for the same time last year before plain packaging was fully implemented on 20th May 2017,’ a Forest press note said.
    ‘The figures, published this week by the Tobacco Manufacturers Association, follows evidence that plain packaging has also failed to reduce smoking rates in Australia and France.’
    ‘In 2012 Australia became the first country in the world to impose standardized packaging on tobacco products. Five years after its implementation, data published by the Australian government showed that the measure had made no significant difference to the daily smoking rate.
    ‘Instead low-priced cigarettes doubled their market share between 2011 and 2016 (from 29 percent to 60 percent) at the expense of medium- and high-priced cigarettes (from 19 percent to 10 percent) as people switched to cheaper brands.
    ‘France introduced plain packaging of tobacco products in January 2017. One year later data published by the public authority OFDT showed that the number of cigarettes shipped to retailers remained largely unchanged, with a decrease of just 0.7 percent in 2017.
    ‘The failure of plain packaging to reduce smoking prevalence in France was acknowledged by health minister Agnès Buzyn during a parliamentary debate. According to the minister, plain packaging “does not lead smokers to quit smoking”. She added that she didn’t know if the introduction of plain packaging in France “has been effective in preventing youth from starting smoking”.
    As well as standardized packaging, May 2017 saw the introduction of other tobacco control measures. The European Commission’s revised Tobacco Products Directive forced all EU member states to adopt larger health warnings and prohibit the sale of smaller packs of cigarettes and rolling tobacco. A ban on menthol cigarettes will follow in 2020.
    “The experience of Australia, France and Britain suggests that plain packaging doesn’t lead to a decline in smoking rates,” said Simon Clark (pictured), director of Forest, the consumer group.
    “Governments blunder on from one tobacco control measure to another, regardless of their impact.
    “It’s time for an independent root and branch review of all the tobacco control measures introduced since 2010, including plain packaging and the behind-the-counter display ban.”
    The failure of standardized packaging was said to be an indictment of the haste with which the policy was pushed through parliament before the 2015 general election.
    “Plain packaging has nothing to do with health,” Clark said. “The decision to introduce it in the UK was based not on evidence that it would reduce smoking rates but on party politics.
    “It wasn’t right then and it isn’t right now.”

  • Vaping policies criticized

    Vaping policies criticized

    A new report by the Nanny State Index, a project set up to monitor intrusive, anti-consumer legislation, has strongly criticised the punitive approach to safer nicotine products that is increasingly being adopted across the EU, according to a story by Fergus Mason for vapingpost.com.
    The Index, which is published by the Epicenter think tank group, is compiled by the Institute of Economic Affairs director Christopher Snowdon (pictured).
    As well producing an annual scorecard ranking EU countries by consumer freedom, it publishes also reports on issues of special concern, and the suppression of reduced-harm nicotine products has now reached that threshold.
    In the latest, 72-page report, Snowdon acknowledges that there has been progress in some areas; so, for example, nicotine e-liquid is now legal in all EU member states and all other European countries except Switzerland.
    He identifies also two countries with a positive approach to harm reduction – Sweden with snus, and the UK with vapor products.
    However, Snowdon criticises the EU’s Tobacco Products Directive, which imposes restrictions on what vapor products can be sold and how they can be advertised.
    Now, national governments were increasingly gold-plating the TPD rules and imposing extra taxes on vapers. Twelve of the 28 EU members had already done so, and the EU was pushing for ‘harmonisation’ of e-cigarette and tobacco taxation.

  • Call for e-cig standards

    Call for e-cig standards

    The EU should rethink its ban on tobacco-products advertising because consumers need more information about how electronic cigarettes are much less harmful than are combustible cigarettes, and how the former could help them quit the latter, according to an opinion piece in the Parliament Magazine by the MEP Laima Andrikienė, who is a member of the EU Parliament’s international trade committee.
    The Parliament Magazine has run a series of opinion pieces written by people advocating the imposition of e-cigarette standards, and much of Andrikienė’s piece was about the need for such standards.
    She said that thousands of counterfeit products entered the EU market without any safety checks and in violation of the EU’s trade rules. These included all kinds of products, from toys, electrical devices, medicines, to cosmetics and tobacco.
    Tobacco producers, she said, faced significant problems regarding the illegal trade. Novel tobacco products and e-cigarettes differed from conventional tobacco products in many ways, and there were many new products available on the market.
    ‘In general, a large variety of similar products is a good thing for consumers, but it is important to know if regulators are prepared for this level of complexity,’ she said. ‘What we know for sure is that there is no compliance structure in place at EU level.’
    Andrikienė said that protecting consumers and ensuring products were safe – particularly those brought in from third countries – remained problematic and required urgent attention at EU level.
    Safety started with standards, she said, and the European committee for standardisation was working on the issue. However, the process of standardisation was slow and further efforts by all EU member states were needed.

  • Promoting innovation

    Promoting innovation

    The European Union needs to promote and protect innovation, research and development, according to MEP Fulvio Martusciello, who is a member of Parliament’s economic and monetary affairs committee.
    Writing an opinion piece in the Parliament Magazine, Martusciello said that such a policy would not only send the appropriate positive signals to investors and provide the business community with a dependable space to develop successfully, it would also have a positive impact on high quality employment creation and on consumers’ satisfaction.
    ‘Vaping products embed significant research and development,’ he said. ‘These are highly innovative products and represent a potentially safer category for consumer use.
    ‘Relying on the voice of science, regulators should adapt to new developments, respect scientific advice and regulate such innovative products in an appropriate way.’
    Martusciello said he was in favour of holding a parliamentary debate on how best to regulate these products in the EU and on how to ensure that appropriate EU standards were in place.

  • Improving the TPD

    Improving the TPD

    Enforcing basic safety and quality standards within the EU was critical in order to protect consumers and create a level playing field for vaping products, according to Yasuhiro Nakajima, vice president, reduced-risk products at Japan Tobacco International.
    Wring a Thought Leader in the Parliament Magazine yesterday, Nakajima said the EU’s revised Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) had created a common framework that had provided the flexibility for vaping to flourish in those member states that were comfortable with it while maintaining safeguards demanded by other countries.
    Yet the TPD was not perfect, he said. For instance, relying just on the TPD’s self-notification system was a high-risk approach to ensuring quality.
    ‘Enforcing basic safety and quality standards is critical in order to protect consumers and create a level playing field for vaping products,’ he said. ‘To not do so would only benefit the unscrupulous.’
    The notification problem, Nakajima said, had been compounded by another unintended consequence of TPD rules on e-cigarettes: the fast-growing short-fill e-liquid market. Consumers wanted bigger refill bottles than the TPD allowed. ‘The result is them topping up unregulated non-nicotine bottles with regulated nicotine shots,’ he said. ‘Do health officials know what is in those non-nicotine liquids? No – and this needs to change.’
    A final challenge was consumer ignorance on the scientific consensus on vaping’s reduced-risk potential, he said. Public health officials were concerned about the growing gap between what scientists say and what the public believes.
    ‘The easy solution would be for the European Commission to pass the problem onto manufacturers,’ he said. ‘We could help close the gap if we were allowed to communicate science-based messages to adult consumers.
    ‘Amendments to the EU rule book should be built on the expert view that vaping products are very different to combustible ones and therefore warrant an entirely different, and more liberal, consumer communication framework.’

  • Keeping track

    Keeping track

    Information on data storage and technical standards relating to the EU’s tobacco-products tracking and tracing system has been published in the Official Journal of the EU L 96, dated April 16.
    The Journal includes:
    1) The EU Commission’s Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/573 of December 15 2017 on key elements of data storage contracts to be concluded as part of a traceability system for tobacco products;
    2) The Commission’s Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/574 of December 15 2017 on technical standards for the establishment and operation of a traceability system for tobacco products; and
    3) The Commission’s Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/576 of December 15 2017 on technical standards for security features applied to tobacco products.
    The Journal is at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2018:096:FULL&from=EN.

  • Snus ban ‘valid’

    Snus ban ‘valid’

    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.

  • Still waiting for Godot

    Still waiting for Godot

    The EU Commission said last week that the fight against the illegal tobacco trade is a ‘cross-border phenomenon that requires a global approach and international co-operation’.
    In answer to a number of questions by a member of the EU Parliament, it said also that the measures enshrined in the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, introduced through the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which the EU had signed and concluded, aimed to address this problem.
    ‘Once entered into force, the FCTC Protocol will be the main tool to prevent illicit tobacco trade at the international level,’ it said.
    In a preamble to her questions, posed in December, the Lithuanian MEP, Laima Liucija Andrikienė, said the government of Belarus had recently announced that a private investor would increase the manufacturing capabilities of the Grodno Tobacco factory.
    According to the announcement, the increase in production was due to start in January 2018, in response to a growing demand for Belarusian cigarette brands.
    The EU was among the target markets.
    The MEP alleged that Belarusian cigarette brands manufactured at the Grodno factory were smuggled into more than 20 member states where they could not be legally sold.
    They already represented around EUR1 billion in yearly tax losses.
    Andrikienė asked:

    1. Will the European External Action Service (EEAS) address this issue with the government of Belarus?
    2. Will the EEAS request information about the member state markets on which Belarusian cigarette brands can legally be sold and how the exports will be tracked to avoid ruptures in the supply chain?
    3. Will the EEAS point out that low taxes applied in Belarus on cigarettes are the incentive for smuggling into the EU?

    In its reply, the Commission said that during the meeting of the EU-Belarus Co-ordination Group held in Brussels on December 19 and 20, the Commission services and the EEAS had raised the issue of the increased inflow of illicit cigarettes from Belarus to the EU and the decision by the Belarusian government to increase the production of cigarettes.
    ‘The Commission services and the EEAS have further invited Belarus to enhance the fight against illicit trade in tobacco products, strengthen the co-operation with the Commission and in particular with the European Anti-Fraud Office, sign and ratify the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products to the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (“FCTC Protocol”) and approximate its excise duty rates to the EU excise duty rates on manufactured tobacco,’ it said. ‘This issue will be followed up in bilateral dialogues with Belarus and in the EU-Belarus Co-ordination Group, which is the platform for political dialogue between the EU and Belarus.
    ‘In close co-operation with member states’ customs authorities, the Commission services monitor the illicit trade of tobacco products in the EU, including with respect to tobacco products originating in Belarus.
    ‘However, the fight against illicit tobacco trade is a cross-border phenomenon that requires a global approach and international co-operation.
    ‘The measures enshrined in the FCTC Protocol, which the EU signed and concluded, aim to address this problem.
    ‘Once entered into force, the FCTC Protocol will be the main tool to prevent illicit tobacco trade at the international level.’