facebook twitter rss

Swiss Reject Full Ban on Smoking in Public Spaces

Voters in Switzerland have rejected a total ban on smoking in enclosed public places at a referendum.

Although Geneva voted slightly in favour, results from the country’s other 25 cantons showed a majority of voters rejected a full ban.

Hotels, restaurants and bars are allowed rooms for smokers but critics say workers’ health is at risk.

Restrictions introduced two years ago were watered down after lobbying from the catering trade and tobacco firms.

In some cantons, more than 70% of voters rejected the ban, according to Geneva newspaper La Tribune de Geneve. Geneva itself bucked the trend by supporting the ban by 52% to 48%.

Geneva and seven other cantons have already imposed their own comprehensive bans on indoor smoking in places of employment while the remaining, smaller cantons have been less restrictive.

The result was welcomed by the Swiss Business Federation which called it “heartening”.

“The initiative would have imposed more costs on restaurateurs who have already made considerable investments to protect non-smokers,” it said in a statement.

Result ‘deplored’

Swiss hotel association Hotelleriesuisse said it was relieved by the outcome. It said a “yes” vote would have made “some investments obsolete”.

The Swiss Socialist party “deplored” the result, saying that better protection against passive smoking would have “incontestably been a major step in the improvement of (workers’) conditions”.

Speaking before the vote, Jean-Charles Rielle, a doctor and member of the committee behind the proposal, told AFP news agency that they wanted to clear up confusion created by the existing regulations.

“In the cantons where these laws [banning smoking rooms] are already in effect, we saw immediately… a 20% drop in hospitalisation due to cardiovascular incidents, heart attacks and these kinds of problems,” he said.

La Tribune de Geneve suggests voters rejected a full ban because they did not want to force the smaller cantons into changing their local laws, and because of resentment at perceived state interference in people’s lives.

See this article in it’s original location>

Posted in Related News | Tagged | Leave a comment

Holy Smokes! Some People Spend 25% of Their Income on What?!

As far as money-draining (and life-shortening) habits go, smoking is a popular example of one to give up. Now there’s a new report that makes an even more dramatic financial case for quitting: In New York State, which levies some hefty taxes on tobacco, low-income smokers are spending roughly one-quarter of their income on cigarettes.

If you’re feeling relieved that you live in one of America’s 49 other states, don’t rest so easy. The national average is about 14% of smokers’ incomes spent on cigarettes — that’s about one-seventh of total income, and still a whopping percentage.

Even if you don’t smoke, keep reading — because these shocking statistics can help all of us rethink and improve our spending habits.

How Much We Shell Out for Smokes

Let’s get a little more precise now. In New York State, the average cost of a pack of cigarettes recently was $10.14, the highest in the nation. The lowest average price per pack was $4.02, in Missouri. Nineteen states — plus the District of Columbia — sported average prices above $6.

New York is certainly not alone in taxing cigarettes heavily. The total taxes per pack in New York average about $4.74, and 17 states (including D.C.) levy taxes of $2 or more. (Remember that these are average numbers. In some spots in New York, cigarettes can cost more than $12 a pack!)

A little simple math shows us that a one-pack-a-day habit in New York can cost $3,701 a year. Those who smoke two packs a day are coughing up more than $7,000 annually. Even if you only pay $6 per pack, that amounts to more than $2,000 per year for a daily pack.

Here’s the biggest problem with these numbers: Taxes and the price of tobacco have clearly been rising in recent years — yet the typical household’s income has not. In fact, according to a recent report from the U.S. Census Bureau, the median household income slipped 1.5% between 2010 and 2011, and remained lower than (inflation-adjusted) 1989 levels. Thus, the cost of cigarettes has been taking up a bigger and bigger slice of the typical household’s budgetary pie in recent years. Ouch.

How Much Should Smokers Spend?

It can be helpful to look at the big picture, to see how much average Americans spend on major budgetary categories — and how much they’re advised to spend on them.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics can help with that. Here are some interesting stats, revealing the percentage of after-tax income the average household in America spends on various categories, as of 2010:

27% Housing (including mortgage, rent, utilities, furnishings, and upkeep)
13% Transportation
10% Food
5% Health care
4% Entertainment
3% Clothing
1% Alcohol
1% Tobacco

(The tobacco percentage is low because it’s averaged across smokers and nonsmokers alike.)

It’s very valuable for us to keep tabs on our own spending, to see how much of our hard-earned assets we’re devoting to various items. It’s also good to compare that data to an ideal — to how we should be spending our money.

Spending Guidelines From the Experts

The 50-30-20 Rule: This has been advocated by, among others, Elizabeth Warren, Harvard professor, creator of the new and vital Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Senate candidate in Massachusetts. It suggests that you take your after-tax income and devote no more than 50% of it to your “needs” — such as food, housing, transportation, medications, insurance, and so on. Then spend no more than 30% on your “wants” — which would include items such as most clothing, cable television, entertainment, eating at restaurants, travel, etc. Finally, devote at least 20% of your after-tax income to your financial security, by paying off debts, maintaining an emergency fund, and contributing aggressively to retirement savings.

Read the rest of this article at it’s original location>

Posted in Related News | Tagged | Leave a comment

FC Barcelona and the European Commission Join Forces to Help Millions of Europeans to Give up Smoking

FC Barcelona have reached an agreement with the European Commission to launch a campaign aimed at helping Europe’s 28 million smokers to give up tobacco

“With this joint action, we aim to help football fans all over Europe to retake control over their health and their lives, encouraging them to be as passionate and committed to their own health as they are to good football” explained Rosell

The European Commission (EC) and FC Barcelona today announce an unprecedented partnership. ‘Quit Smoking with Barça’ (quitsmokingwithbarca.eu) will harness the success of the European Commission’s “Ex-Smokers are Unstoppable” campaign and the support of Barça’s millions of fans to help 28 million European smokers* kick the habit forever.

Partnering one of the world’s most prestigious sports clubs and a European institution is an ambitious project never before tried on such a scale. ‘Quit Smoking with Barça’ is the latest and most audacious initiative of the award-winning “Ex-Smokers are Unstoppable” campaign, this is the first time that the European Commission has collaborated with a sporting partner that reaches the hearts of millions of people. The programme aims not to judge smokers, but instead underlines the many benefits of quitting smoking, combining these positive messages with the evidence-based tools of the “Ex-Smokers are Unstoppable” campaign. ‘Quit Smoking with Barça’ offers supporters of Barça, football and sport in general, a personalised health training programme with daily quit smoking tips and encouragement direct from the hearts and mouths of the club itself.

The campaign will be powered by iCoach (www.exsmokers.eu), a free, proven digital health tool already helping almost a quarter of a million people across Europe (equivalent to 1 in every 500 smokers) in their quest to give up smoking for good. iCoach is available from today as an app for both for iPhone and Android (www.exsmokers.eu/mobile).

“Through this collaboration we will seek to help football supporters across Europe to take back control of their health and their lives, encouraging them to be as passionate about their health as they are about the “beautiful game”,” said FC Barcelona President, Sandro Rosell speaking at the launch announcement at the European Commission Headquarters in Brussels.

Rosell continued, “We feel proud to be here today and to work side by side with the European Commission to improve the health of our supporters and all fans of football. At Barça we firmly believe in our slogan ‘more than a club’ and we promote values of respect, health and social commitment. Our fans and members have given us their unconditional support and dedication for 113 years, and it is our duty to look after their most important asset of all – their health. Barça understands how important teamwork is in overcoming challenges, so through the ‘Quit Smoking with Barça’ campaign we are going to be their teammate in helping them win their battle against cigarettes. We will offer them guidance, encouragement and practical help. I’m calling on all smokers to join this campaign.”

Speaking about the new alliance, John Dalli, European Commissioner for Health and Consumers says “I am delighted to work together with FC Barcelona to help Europeans keep away from smoking. The European Commission has a solid track record in raising awareness about smoking and in delivering successful tobacco control measures across the EU. Our “Ex-Smokers are Unstoppable” campaign is helping hundreds of thousands of men and women on their journey towards a smoke-free life, and this collaboration should help amplify our message. Using the universal language of football, we can support more Europeans in their efforts to quit smoking and becoming unstoppable ex-smokers for life.”

Dr. Jordi Monés, the director responsible for Barça’s medical area, and pioneer of the club’s previous smoking cessation initiative, ‘Barça Sense Fum’ (Smoke-Free Barça), which saw a smoking ban across all Barça facilities said “Barça feels very proud to collaborate with an institution like the European Commission. We wanted to join forces with the biggest public body in Europe to convince people to take the first step towards smoke-free living. Just as our fans support and cheer us to victory, through ‘Quit Smoking with Barça’ we will now support them through their toughest challenge -to quit smoking for good.”

See this article at its original location>

Posted in Related News | Tagged , | Leave a comment

More Resources Needed to Decrease Tobacco Dependence Prevalence

In the decade since the adoption of the FCTC, we have seen significant progress in the area of tobacco control policies that have helped decrease smoking prevalence.

We have also seen increased demand in cessation support, in the form of a short intervention by a health care provider, counselling, or other treatment modality.

However, medical practitioners and tobacco cessation specialists express the concern:  “It is so difficult for a smoker in my country to have access to quitting support once they make the move to quit.” This is typically followed by “so they often give up and keep on smoking because it is cheaper for them in the short term.”

A number of global health governance tools and global advocacy opportunities can help secure resources for tobacco treatment at the local level.

The medical community can help advocate at the national and global levels.

This advocacy can create a global mechanism that will help secure resources for treatment and reach the objectives set by the UN Summit on Non Communicable Diseases.

Following the UN Summit in Sept 2011, the World Health Assembly adopted a global target calling for a 25% reduction in preventable deaths from NCDs by 2025.

Given tobacco is a leading risk factor for NCDs, this target can be achieved only if we address the tobacco epidemic through a number of interventions such as a ban on tobacco product advertising, tax and price measures to reduce smoking prevalence, smoke free policies and ensuring that smokers have access to treatment.

We expect that in September, a target will be approved demanding a 30% reduction in global smoking prevalence by 2015.

We need to use these targets in all of our advocacy efforts as we hold our governments accountable to these commitments.

The upcoming 5th Conference of the Parties (COP5) of the FCTC (November 2012) in Seoul, Korea, provides a unique opportunity to address the lack of resources for tobacco control, including resources for the treatment of tobacco dependence.

The meeting will provide more than 170 governments a platform to discuss and explore solutions to address the lack of resources for implementation of tobacco control measures.

It is crucial that governments agree at COP5 to set up a process that reviews the barriers countries face and develop solutions to address them.

The FCA proposes that governments move forward with the development of a working group that will review the implementation of the treaty, review mechanisms of assistance for implementation of the treaty, and identify implementation challenges as well as provide assistance to overcome them.

Another problem we face is that Non Communicable Diseases  (NCDs ) — which include Cardiovascular, Cancer and Chronic Lung Diseases, for which tobacco is the leading risk factor — are absent from the development agenda and global development goals such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

This has led to a lack of resources for treatment of tobacco addiction from the major development agencies such as USAID, CIDA, DFID and other major development donors.

The MDGs are up for review as they expire in 2015, and this process, along with the outcomes of the UN Summit on NCDs, provides a unique opportunity to address the lack of treatment resources.

Our strategy should be to move from a current over- dependence on philanthropic funding to development aid in countries that need it, followed by fiscal independence at the national level for tobacco control programs through taxation of tobacco products.

There are examples from other fields that could be applied to tobacco in the area of development and prevention of NCDs.

There is an interesting example from Sweden, where they are attempting to move from only addressing pathogenesis to addressing salutogenesis.

Sweden found it to be cost effective to implement interventions through the medical community that encourages sedentary individuals to change their behaviour and exercise.

When a patient visits a doctor, they are asked if they exercise, frequency, intensity etc…

If the patient says they do not exercise, then a referral is made to a motivational therapist, a personal trainer, etc…

Based on the success of these interventions, they developed a pilot program through the Swedish Development Agency, and funds were made available to start a similar project in Vietnam.

These types of programs could be developed for tobacco control by integrating cessation measures along with other tobacco control measures in the development agenda of donor agencies.

For this to happen, the medical community will need to advocate in both donor countries as well as low and middle countries.

The medical community can engage in these processes by staying attuned to the development of the FCTC COP campaigns.

You can do this by visiting the Framework Convention Alliance web site and by following the FCTC Action Now! campaign.

Posted in Blog | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Plain Cigarette Packaging: Australia’s Victory

“We have taken on big tobacco… and we have won”, said Australia’s Attorney-General Nicola Roxon, hailing the judgement from Australia’s High Court that the country’s tobacco companies had failed in their challenge to the Australian Government’s plans to introduce plain packaging for all cigarettes from Dec 1, 2012.

From this date forward, all cigarettes will be sold in drab, olive-green packaging with enormous health warnings, with the brand only visible in a small, standard font. The government hopes to make smoking less appealing to children and reduce smoking levels population-wide. “This is good news for every Australian parent who worries about their child picking up an addictive and deadly habit”, said Roxon, who, as Australia’s former Minister for Health and Ageing, introduced this pioneering legislation. Big tobacco has not yet given up, with two other cases ongoing. Philip Morris Asia is suing Australia for breach of an investment treaty with Hong Kong, while Ukraine, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic have fi led a complaint with the World Trade Organization, claiming the legislation breaches Australia’s commitment under global trade rules. Both cases are likely to take years and will not prevent Australia actually introducing plain packaging. However, should the tobacco companies succeed, the government would likely have to fi nancially compensate them for their loss of brand (but not withdraw the plain packaging).

WHO Director-General Margaret Chan said she hoped that this decision would start a domino-eff ect of similar legislation in other countries, helping prevent some of the 6 million deaths estimated to be caused by smoking every year. The UK has just fi nished a consultation on plain packaging and another is ongoing in New Zealand.

The European Union has announced it will probably revise its tobacco products directive during 2012, which could include plain packaging measures. “This decision will embolden governments, especially in low- and middle-income countries, that have been hesitant to implement the
measures in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control [FCTC], fearing some sort of ‘backlash’ from the tobacco industry, such as a lawsuit”, said Laurent Huber, Director of the
Framework Convention Alliance, a group of more than 350 organisations in more than 100 countries that support the FCTC. “India, South Africa, Indonesia, and China are said to be
considering plain packaging”, he added.

By Tony Kirby of the Lancet

Posted in Related News | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

FCAP Protests Tobacco Industry-Backed Party-List Group

A NETWORK of anti-tobacco advocates is asking the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to disqualify a party-list organization, accusing it of being a front group for the powerful tobacco industry

In a letter addressed to Elections Chairman Sixto Brillantes, the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Alliance Philippines (FCAP), an umbrella organization of groups and individuals from medical and professional organizations, faith-based youth and environmental groups involved in upholding tobacco control laws, opposed the candidacy of the Agrarian Development Association (ADA) whose nominees are closely identified with the tobacco industry.

ADA, a party-list group representing farmers, was accredited by the Comelec but lost during the last sectoral election, is again vying to get a seat in the 2013 elections. The party-list law requires that 20 percent of the seats in the House of Representatives should comprise of marginalized groups.

A check on the Comelec web site reveals the following ADA nominees: Eric Singson, Eric Singson Jr., Rodolfo Salanga, Blake Clinton Dy, Grace Kristine Singson Meehan and Victor Manuel Jr.

“The four nominees of ADA belong to the affluent, the influential and the powerful by reason of their individual or familial wealth or the political and economic ties they have honed and developed through the years. They are neither marginalized nor underrepresented. They are rich people who use the poor, marginalized sector, in the hope of gaining a seat in Congress,” said FCAP in its letter to the poll body.

Eric Singson was the former representative of Ilocos Sur’s Second District, while his son, Eric Singson Jr., is the incumbent representative of the same district. Salanga is a longtime president of the Philippine Tobacco Institute (PTI), while Dy operates the Anglo-American Tobacco Corp.

FCAP reminded the Comelec that Section 2 of Republic 7941, or the Party-List System Act, requires nominees of sectoral parties to “belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties.”

See this article at its original location>

Posted in Related News | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Big Tobacco Warning at Free-Trade Talks

Delegates attending trans-Pacific free-trade negotiations in the United States are being warned their countries could end up like Australia if they agree to allow corporations to sue governments in international courts.

Australia is fending off a challenge to its plain cigarette packets legislation from Philip Morris International under the terms of an obscure Hong Kong investment treaty even though Philip Morris has lost its case against Australia in the High Court.

“The Philip Morris company’s persistence with the investor state dispute settlement case shows such procedures are a threat to democratically enacted legislation and national judicial decisions,” Australia’s Patricia Ranald told stakeholders forum at the negotiations in Leesburg, Virginia.

The United States is insisting on so-called investor state dispute settlement (SDS) provisions in the Trans Pacific Partnership even though it does not have them in its existing free-trade agreement with Australia and even though Australia has said it will not sign a deal that includes them.

The Trans Pacific Partnership will encompass Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam, many of whom already have in their agreements with the United States clauses that allow corporations to sue governments in supra-national forums.

Philip Morris International moved the head office of its Australian subsidiary to Hong Kong shortly before it launched action against Australia under the terms of Hong Kong treaty in what Dr Ranald said was jurisdiction shopping.

“Philip Morris International described itself as a US-based company when it made a submission in 2010 to the US trade representative supporting an investor state dispute settlement process in the trans-Pacific partnership.”

“However, it claimed to be a Swiss-based company when it used an investor state dispute settlement process to sue the Uruguayan government for damages under a Uruguay-Swiss investment agreement when Uruguay introduced legislation restricting tobacco advertising.

“Philip Morris can also claim to be a Hong Kong company because Philip Morris Asia, incorporated in Hong Kong, invested in Australia by becoming the sole shareholder of Philip Morris (Australia) after the Australian government announcement of its intention to legislate for plain packaging of tobacco.”

Speaking as convener of the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network the Sydney University academic told the forum Australia’s problems showed none of the eleven nations negotiating the treaty should agree to provisions that would allow corporations to sue them extra-nationally.

Sean Donnelly from the US Council for International Business told the forum investor state dispute settlements procedures did no more than give international investors access to the rule of law.

He said business would like more protections, but believed what the US was proposing struct the right balance.

Posted in Related News | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tobacco A Big Issue Among TPP Negotiators

At yesterday’s TransPacific Partnership stakeholder event – a bit of political theater set up by the United States Trade Representative to demonstrate the “transparency” of the highly-secretive negotiations – negotiators from other countries eagerly sought us out to hear about how tobacco regulation is threatened by trade law. ASH’s Chris Bostic and Georgetown University law professor Robert Stumberg spoke to a standing-room-only audience about the risks and the opportunity to carve tobacco out from the historic free trade agreement.

The 14th round of TPP negotiations started on the 6th and will continue through the 15th in Leesburg, VA. The negotiations are closed-door and the draft text is kept secret, largely even from members of Congress. ASH has helped form a loose coalition of experts and advocates from the nine negotiating countries which has talked to negotiators over the past 14 months to press for the unique treatment of tobacco in the TPP.

Posted in Blog | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Does Cigarette Marketing Count as Free Speech?

Historians of free expression will one day write that early 21st century America was a place where the Supreme Court held that schools could punish kids who make a dumb joke that some humorless prig might think advocated drug use, but that tobacco companies could not be stopped from marketing their products near schools, and where a federal court decided that the federal government could not require cigarette companies to give “inflammatory” warnings that cigarettes kill.

In other words, free speech has taken on a strange shape in recent years.

These reflections are sparked by the decision of the District of Columbia Circuit Court in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Food and Drug Administration. By a vote of 2-1, the Court invalidated an FDA regulation requiring color photographs and text warnings on each pack of cigarettes sold in the U.S. The regulations were issued at the direction of Congress, which, in the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, directed the agency to “require color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking” to accompany text warnings such as TOBACCO SMOKING CAN HARM YOUR CHILDREN and SMOKING IS ADDICTIVE. The FDA complied, promulgating a series of images that companies must display prominently on each pack.

The cigarette companies rushed to court, claiming a gross violation of their First Amendment rights. They concede that the government can require some kind of warning; but not these, because — well — they might be effective. “FDA is communicating an ideological message, a point of view on how people should live their lives: that the risks from smoking outweigh the pleasure that smokers derive from it, and that smokers make bad personal decisions, and should stop smoking,” the companies’ brief complained. In the new world of the First Amendment, the claim that smoking is good is an “ideology,” and government attempts to combat this public-health scourge are a kind of politically correct liberal propaganda.

Two judges of the court bought the argument. They treated the government’s “subjective — and perhaps even ideological — view that consumers should reject this otherwise legal, but disfavored, product” as if it were a federal mandate to preach about politics or religion. Examining the legislation carefully, they rejected it because, in essence, the government could not prove that it would work. This level of inquiry is called, in constitutional law, “strict scrutiny,” and is reserved for the most intrusive restrictions on speech, such as laws forbidding speakers to discuss politics or advocate one point of view.

The majority denies they are doing this. They claim that their holding is well within the Court’s precedents on commercial speech, which mandate a less demanding test. But the dissent, by Judge Judith W. Rogers, points out that the proper level of scrutiny allows the government to rely on experience and common sense. Other countries require such warnings, and some have seen declines in smoking; but no study can show exactly how much the warnings reduce smoking, because those requirements are usually teamed with other anti-smoking measures like higher taxes.

The majority claims to be rejecting only these specific images — of a man smoking a cigarette through a tracheotomy tube, or a baby wreathed in smoke — but their hostility to the entire anti-smoking enterprise is ill concealed: “We are skeptical that the government can assert a substantial interest in discouraging consumers from purchasing a lawful product, even one that  has been conclusively linked to adverse health consequences,” they sniff. If there is no such “substantial interest,” of course, then no government warnings can be required.

What is terrifying is not just the radical nature of the statement: that government can do nothing to combat the single greatest public health threat of our time. The hidden message of the opinion — a message correctly deduced from much of the Roberts Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence — is that the Constitution requires us to live in a make-believe world, where, for example, gross imbalances of wealth have no effect on political campaigns, and “smoking isn’t addictive” is as protected as “I pledge allegiance to the flag.”

I yield to no one in my devotion to free speech. But a legal system that can’t differentiate between political opinion and the sale of cigarettes has forfeited any claim to relevance to the nation it supposedly serves.

by Garrett Epps

See this article at its original location>

Posted in Related News | Leave a comment

Business Representatives Working on TPP Issues Start New Jobs This Fall

A handful of business representatives that are closely following the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations have taken new jobs over the last few months.

Linda Menghetti, an expert on investment issues who formerly served as vice president of the Emergency Committee for American Trade, left that position at the end of August and has moved over to the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), where she is taking the position vacated by Frank Vargo, sources said.

Vargo retired last June after serving for years as NAM’s vice president for international affairs. In her new role, Menghetti will likely have a hand in hiring a replacement for Steve Jacobs, who left his job as senior director for international business policy at NAM earlier this year in order to work for Philip Morris International.

Philip Morris is vehemently opposing U.S. efforts to craft tobacco-specific provisions in a TPP deal, and is working with other business groups and members of Congress to gin up opposition.

In another big move, the biotechnology company known as Amgen this summer hired Paul Neureiter to serve as executive director for international government affairs. Neureiter previously served as senior director for international trade at Pfizer Inc., and before that covered trade-related insurance issues for The ACE Group.

Amgen is pushing hard to convince the Obama administration to demand stringent intellectual property protections for biologic drugs in the TPP talks. At Amgen, Neureiter now works alongside Catherine Robinson, who joined the international corporate affairs team at Amgen last year after covering high-tech trade issues at NAM for years.

In his previous role at Pfizer, Neureiter worked with Doug Goudie, who served as NAM’s director of international trade policy for five years before joining Pfizer last January as its director of international government affairs.

Kathryn Dickey Karol is joining Caterpillar Inc. next week in the newly created position of vice president with responsibility for global government and corporate affairs. Karol previously served as vice president of global government and corporate affairs for Amgen, a position she had held since 2006.

Prior to her work at Amgen, Karol served as executive director of government affairs for Eli Lilly & Company, according to a Caterpillar press release.

Rounding out the job swaps, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) announced on Aug. 28 that Scott Miller, the former director of global trade policy at Procter & Gamble, has joined CSIS as the new William M. Scholl Chair in International Business.

Miller takes the place of Meredith Broadbent, who has been appointed to the International Trade Commission.

###

Posted in Related News | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

FIFTH SESSION of the CONFERENCE of THE PARTIES to the WHO FCTC (COP5) – NOV 12-17, 2012

(Nov. 12-17, 2012 / Seoul, Korea) The Conference of the Parties (COP) is the governing body of the WHO FCTC and is comprised of all Parties to the Convention. It keeps under regular review the implementation of the Convention and takes the decisions necessary to promote its effective implementation, and may also adopt protocols, annexes and amendments to the Convention.  ASH is proud to support the FCTC and the COP by serving as the secretariat to the Framework Convention Alliance. For more information on the COP please visit FCA and the WHO FCTC. To learn about ASH’s role and how you can help please contact ASH at info@ash.org

Posted in Events, Featured News & Events | Tagged | 1 Comment

Plain Package Cigarettes Reduce Smoking Appeal: Study

A new study has discredited the tobacco industry’s assertion that there is no proof plain packaging on cigarette packs reduces the appeal of smoking.

Scientists from Canada, the United States and Brazil conducted a study of 640 young Brazilian women to determine if cigarettes had the same appeal when presented in plain packaging.

“The women in this study rated branded packs as more appealing, more stylish and sophisticated than the plain packs,” said study leader David Hammond of the University of Waterloo, Canada.

“They also thought that cigarettes in branded packs would be better tasting and smoother. Removal of all description from the packs, leaving only the brand, further reduced their appeal. In the pack offer test, participants were three times more likely to choose the branded pack as a free gift.”

British American Tobacco New Zealand (BATNZ) last month launched a print, television and radio campaign costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in response to the New Zealand Government’s plan to strip all branding from cigarette packs to make them less attractive to smokers.

BATNZ’s general manager Steve Rush said plain packaging created a “disturbing precedent” for other industries, adding that the British Government was considering a similar proposal for alcohol.

He said New Zealand should not “blindly follow Australia’s lead” with policy he said was unproven in helping to curb smoking.

But the latest study adds to mounting criticism of such claims.

Professor Alistair Woodward, head of the University of Auckland’s School of Population Health, said the findings fitted in with what had been observed elsewhere – that tobacco packaging affects the opinions and behaviours of smokers.

“The tobacco industry knows very well the value of brand packaging. This is why they have invested so heavily in design and illustration in the past, and why the industry now opposes plain packaging so vehemently,” he said.

Janet Hoek of the University of Otago’s Department of Marketing said the paper added to the growing evidence base supporting the plain-packaging measure.

“Overall, this study reinforces earlier work showing how plain packaging will reduce perceptions of smoking and diminish the benefits smoking is perceived to deliver.

“In addition, New Zealand research has found that plain packaging not only affects smokers’ perceptions, but influences their choice behaviours – significantly fewer select ‘plain’ packages – and likelihood of making a quit attempt.” Health Minister Tony Ryall said last month that BATNZ was “wasting its money” on its campaign.

He believed New Zealanders were turning against tobacco companies and their marketing strategies.

“New Zealanders have moved on from being influenced in this way. There is a lot of support for what the Government is doing in tobacco.”

The Ministry of Health has put out a consultation paper on plain packaging and expects to report back on the findings on October. The Government has agreed to support the policy change in principle.

By Matthew Theunissen

See this article at its original location>

 

Posted in Related News | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

What is ISDS and What Does it Mean for Tobacco Control

ISDS stands for Investor State Dispute Settlement. I know, spelling it out doesn’t help comprehension much. It is a term of art for trade law policy wonks. Unlike most unnecessarily long bits of lingo, this one is dangerous, especially for tobacco control. The United States is insisting that it be included in the TransPacific Partnership Agreement, a massive free trade agreement currently under negotiation with ten other countries. What does ISDS do? Let me give some context first.

You may recall earlier this year when the U.S. lost a legal appeal over its ban on candy flavorings for cigarettes, flavorings clearly meant to attract children to start smoking. The plaintiff in that case was the nation of Indonesia, which exports a lot of clove-flavored “bidis” to the U.S. The court was an international trade tribunal formed by the World Trade Organization. Under WTO rules, a country may drag another country to court over any laws that it feels violate trade rules. The decisions are binding, and the trade tribunals’ final decisions cannot be overruled, even by the U.S. Supreme Court.

ISDS creates a similar right to sue over any law that impacts trade, except that it allows any corporation to sue a country in an international trade tribunal. In the example above, the Indonesian tobacco industry would not have needed to convince the government to sue on its behalf. It could do so on its own. And the suits need not be against federal laws. They could go after state and local tobacco laws and regulations as well.

The reason this is particularly problematic for tobacco is that the tobacco industry has publicly stated that its strategy is to sue even when they don’t have a good case, just to impose an economic punishment on governments who try to reduce smoking. Trade cases cost millions of dollars each, win or lose. The federal government may be able to afford a vigorous defense, but states, counties and cities already facing historic deficits are a different story. Industry’s goal is to “chill” governments from passing tobacco control laws in the first place, just to avoid costly court cases.

For a real life example of what ISDS can mean in the face of a cynical, rich industry, read about Australia’s experience>

Posted in Blog | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Unleashing the Campaign Contributions of Corporations

Way back in February of this year, more than two-thirds of Californians believed raising more money from tobacco companies to finance cancer research was a good idea. That was before industry money kicked in.

Don Blankenship, former chief of Massey Energy, supported Brent Benjamin.

In just over three months, opponents spent $41 million to defeat the initiative — a proposition to levy an extra $1 on the sale of a pack of cigarettes — five times what its supporters spent. On June 5, it was defeated by 50.2 percent to 49.8 percent.

Similar forces in the next couple of months could shape the November elections. All the funds raised for the presidential and Congressional races so far pale in comparison to the money expected to rush in after the party conventions this week and next.

This is the first presidential election since the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case removed the last barriers to campaign spending by corporations and other groups. Analysts are bracing for a tidal wave of money from rich individuals, companies and labor unions that could alter the political landscape and transform American democracy.

Voters have always worried about the role of corporate money in election campaigns. Surprisingly perhaps, there hasn’t really been that much.

Gordon Tullock, one of the first social scientists to study the effects of corporate money in politics, remarked 40 years ago that it was a mystery that companies didn’t spend much more given the huge potential return of swaying legislators’ votes.

Ten years ago, Stephen Ansolabehere, John M. de Figueiredo, and James M. Snyder from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology picked up the theme with a study called “Why Is There So Little Money in U.S. Politics?” They noted that campaign spending over the last 100 years had remained stagnant and perhaps even declined as a share of the nation’s gross domestic product.

In 2000, the average contribution to a legislator by political action committees associated with unions, companies or industry groups was only $1,700, they found. This was way below the $10,000 legal ceiling and a trivial amount considering the goodies at stake. In 2000 the military procurement budget was $134 billion. Yet military contractors and their employees contributed less than $25 million to the campaigns of 1998 and 2000.

“The discrepancy between the value of policy and the amounts contributed strains basic economic intuitions,” Mr. Ansolabehere and his colleagues wrote. “Given the value of policy at stake, firms and other interest groups should give more.”

Even the nearly $4 billion in campaign spending in 2010 pales against the government’s $1 trillion in discretionary spending. And corporate money made only a small percentage of the total.

It may seem unbelievable that there has been “too little” corporate money in politics. But it makes some sense. Corporations don’t give more money because most of the time it isn’t really that effective in producing the outcomes they desire.

Some elections — for example, the mayoral race in New York — seem to have been decided by a magnate’s or a corporation’s overwhelming campaign spending. Pressure from Wall Street lobby groups almost certainly contributed to the demise of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had barred banks from engaging in some businesses.

But, over all, there is little evidence that money is effective at swaying legislation or improving the corporate bottom line. One study found that changes in campaign contribution laws from 1971 through 2002 had no impact on the stock price of companies that were heavily engaged in campaign spending.

On the other hand, playing politics can hurt a company’s brand. The chief executive of Target had to apologize two years ago when the company’s contribution to the campaign of Tom Emmer, the Republican candidate in Minnesota’s race for governor and a staunch opponent of gay marriage, led to threats of a boycott of its stores.

Campaign contributions can affect the priorities of elected officials, opening the door for interest group lobbyists. Studies have found that companies that lobby intensely are more profitable, on average, than those that don’t. Still, the evidence suggests most companies do not get any return from their lobbying expenditures. And though businesses have historically spent much more lobbying legislators than on campaign contributions, lobbying expenditures also are small compared with the benefits they could reap.

Richard Hall of the University of Michigan notes that interest groups dedicate most of their campaign contributions and lobbying efforts to legislators they already agree with, helping them make their case, and spend little time trying to persuade opponents. And big donors don’t have exclusive access to legislators, Mr. Hall found. Legislators also grant access to like-minded interest groups with little money to give.

In a way, this narrative may make more sense than the persistent fear that interest groups are shaping policy by getting their allies elected and telling them what to do.

See the rest of this article at it’s original location>

Posted in Related News | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Smoke Signals: Plans of Big Tobacco Plain to See

IT’S easy to laugh at Big Tobacco. Fresh from defeat in Australia’s High Court, it has taken its fight against plain cigarette packets to New Zealand where British American Tobacco warns such legislation could expose the nation to legal challenges (no kidding), and to Hong Kong where Philip Morris moved the shares of its Australian subsidiary – presumably to take advantage of an obscure 1993 Hong Kong-Australia investment treaty.

Philip Morris Australia, now known as Philip Morris Asia, will argue the treaty prevents Australia from depriving a Hong Kong entity of its investments or subjecting it to ”measures having effect equivalent to such deprivation”. Which it does, with a caveat. As a party to the treaty, Australia is permitted to deprive a Hong Kong company of its investments so long as it does so ”under due process of law for a public purpose related to the internal needs of that party on a non-discriminatory basis”. So Australia ought to be in the clear.

But the almost comic attempt to get mileage out of the treaty (moving from Australia to Hong Kong in order to complain that it was being discriminated against because it was from Hong Kong) masks a broader, more serious attempt to turn trade treaties into instruments that allow corporations to sue governments.

The World Trade Organisation allows no such thing. Its disputes settlement procedure allows a nation to haul another nation before a disputes settlements panel, but not corporations to do so.

That could be why on Friday it will be Ukraine that will ask the WTO to set up a panel to hear its plain-packaging dispute with Australia rather than a tobacco company. There’s a suspicion that Ukraine is acting on behalf of a tobacco company, perhaps fuelled by its ranking on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (at the corrupt end of the scale, sandwiched between Russia and Zimbabwe) and by the fact that it has next to no tobacco trade with Australia.

The dispute will take four months to hear. With appeals, it could take up to 14 months. But it won’t unduly trouble Australia. A member of the WTO rather than a corporation will be taking action, it will have to show clearly how Australia’s plain packs law offends against WTO rules (which allow non-discriminatory measures that benefit health) and because Ukraine’s national interests are not at stake it is likely to run out of enthusiasm before Australia does.

Big Tobacco, and fellow travellers in surprising places, want much more. They want what is known as an Investor State Dispute Settlement Mechanism. They want it in order to allow them to drag Australia and other sovereign governments before specially constituted international courts.

They don’t usually put it that bluntly. Here’s how Philip Morris International put it in a briefing note for the US trade representative negotiating the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership with 11 nations including Australia: ”Philip Morris International considers the availability of an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism – including the right for investors to submit disputes to independent international tribunals – a vital aspect of protecting its foreign investments.”

It is clear what Philip Morris is getting at. Four of the 30 paragraphs in the briefing note seen by BusinessDay complain about Australia’s plain-packaging law. As it happens, the US trade representative is unable to do the bidding of Philip Morris. US law prevents federal agencies from promoting the sale of tobacco overseas. But the trade representative is willing to do the bidding of other corporations that would like to sue foreign governments in supranational courts.

In fact in all but one of the 13 free trade agreements negotiated by the US, its representatives have managed to insert such a clause. The exception is the free trade agreement with Australia. Although criticised at the time for giving too much away to the United States in return for very little, on the question of an outside Investor State Dispute Settlement Mechanism the Howard government stood firm.

The Gillard government is standing firm, too. The multinational nature of large Australian corporations means it would effectively be giving them (but not our citizens) an international right of appeal against laws approved by the High Court.

The US is unlikely to give up. It already has such a clause in its agreements with Canada, Chile, Mexico, Singapore and Peru – five of the nations that would form part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Its best hope would be that a new Abbott government saw things differently. It would, if it succumbed to lobbying from Australia’s own Chamber of Commerce and Industry. ACCI is lobbying hard, putting out a statement this month headed crudely: ”Australian Foreign Investment Requires Right to Sue Foreign Governments”.

It says its ”campaign” is backed by the International Chamber of Commerce, which is hardly surprising but also hardly a sign the backers have Australia’s interests at heart.

Julia Gillard and Trade Minister Craig Emerson are standing up to them. Will Tony Abbott?

By Peter Martin

See this article at its original location >

 

 

Posted in Related News | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Two Silver Linings to Graphic Warnings Decision

As anyone who follows tobacco-related news now knows, last Friday an appeals court upheld a lower court ruling striking down the FDA’s proposed graphic warnings for cigarette packages. In a 2-1 decision, the court found that the warnings violated “corporate speech” rights. The finding places the rights of tobacco companies to market an addictive and deadly product over the rights of people to be fully informed of the consequences. If the decision stands, there can be no doubt that lives will be lost because of it.

Those of us who place life higher than corporate profit can find some solace. First, a different appeals court in Cincinnati came to the opposite conclusion in March, which means that the Supreme Court is very likely to hear the case (assuming the FDA appeals). We can’t be sure how the highest court will rule, of course, but a number of legal scholars have opined that the case against the warnings is flawed.

Second, there was an excellent opinion from the dissenting judge:

“The government has an interest of paramount importance in effectively conveying information about the health risks of smoking to adolescent would-be smokers and other consumers.”

Given that the tobacco industry has already been found guilty of criminal racketeering in their efforts to hide the health impacts of their products, this opinion makes a lot more sense than protecting criminals’ rights to free speech.

Posted in Blog | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Reynolds Adds Aids to Stop Smoking

Reynolds American Inc. is taking a bold — perhaps audacious — approach to entering the nicotine-replacement therapy marketplace, analysts say.

With the Zonnic gum of its Niconovum pharmaceutical subsidiary, Reynolds is asking consumers, particularly smokers, to trust the company that got smokers hooked on nicotine to have the expertise to produce the right cessation product for them.

Until four years ago, Reynolds’ evolution into a “total tobacco company” was met with steep skepticism, if not derision, by anti-tobacco advocates.

However, the launch of Zonnic in retail outlets in Des Moines, Iowa, on Sept. 3 represents just the latest innovation for Reynolds, following up on Camel Snus and three Camel dissolvable products.

Also on tap is Reynolds’ version of an electronic cigarette (Vuse), smokeless pouches and pellets (Viceroy) and nicotine extract products such as lozenges. Vuse and Viceroy are being test-marketed in the Triad at select Tarheel Tobacco outlets.

“We hope the focus of Zonnic is on the message of the product, and not the messenger, because we believe Zonnic takes the smoker’s perspective into cessation,” said Tommy Payne, president of Niconovum USA Inc., based in Winston-Salem.

The gum represents Niconovum’s first product introduction in the United States. Reynolds bought Niconovum AB, based in Sweden, in 2009 for $44 million. Its products, which also include pouches and spray forms, are sold in Denmark and Sweden.

Payne said Zonnic already has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Zonnic is the latest entrant into a nicotine-replacement therapy marketplace occupied by well-hyped products that have yielded mixed results at best in helping smokers quit.

The long-term effectiveness of NRT products was called into doubt in January by a study released by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health and the University of Massachusetts at Boston.

The study of 787 adult smokers in Massachusetts found that the products, specifically nicotine patches and gum, “are no more effective in helping people stop smoking cigarettes in the long term than trying to quit on one’s own,” said Hillel Alpert, a research scientist with the Harvard group and the study’s lead author.

Gregory Connolly, director of the Center for Global Tobacco Control at Harvard, said the study “showed clearly that while the NRT products can help with quitting and withdrawal over two weeks to six months, they are not really designed to help with relapsing.”

Payne said that although about 70 percent of smokers annually express a desire to quit smoking, only 10 percent are successful. Of that 10 percent, about 6 percent are successful through the use of NRT products, he said.

Stop-smoking aid

Read the rest of this article at its original location >

Posted in Related News | Tagged , | Leave a comment

States Urge USTR To Seek Tobacco Carve Out from TPP

Two state governments have called on the USTR to carve tobacco out of the TransPacific Partnership Agreement over well-grounded concerns that their own state and local tobacco control initiatives will be threatened by international trade tribunals. Maine and Vermont, both leaders among U.S. states in protecting their people’s health, sent letters to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk last week, calling for a carve-out and asking for consultations.

Read the Maine Letter

Read the Vermont Letter

For analysis of the trade threats to tobacco control, click here >

Posted in Blog | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

U.S. Court Strikes Down Graphic Warnings on Cigarettes

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court on Friday struck down a law that requires tobacco companies to use graphic health warnings, such as of a man exhaling smoke through a hole in his throat.

The 2-1 decision by the court in Washington, D.C., contradicts another appeals court’s ruling in a similar case earlier this year, setting up the possibility the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in on the dispute.

The court’s majority in the latest ruling found the label requirement from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration violated corporate speech rights.

“This case raises novel questions about the scope of the government’s authority to force the manufacturer of a product to go beyond making purely factual and accurate commercial disclosures and undermine its own economic interest — in this case, by making ‘every single pack of cigarettes in the country mini billboard’ for the government’s anti-smoking message,” wrote Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The FDA “has not provided a shred of evidence” showing that the graphic labels would reduce smoking, Brown added.

Five tobacco companies representing most of the major cigarette makers in the United States challenged the FDA rules: Reynolds American Inc, Lorillard Inc; Commonwealth Brands Inc, which is owned by Britain’s Imperial Tobacco Group Plc; Liggett Group LLC and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co Inc.

The FDA has argued the images of rotting teeth and diseased lungs are accurate and necessary to warn consumers — especially teenagers — about the risks of smoking.

The health agency said on Friday that it does not comment on possible, pending or ongoing litigation. The U.S. Department of Justice, which argued the case for the FDA, said it needs to review the ruling before deciding on next steps.

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which has vigorously supported stricter cigarette laws, urged the government to appeal.

“Today’s ruling is wrong on the science and law, and it is by no means the final word on the new cigarette warnings,” said Matthew Myers, the group’s president, in a statement.

YOUTH EPIDEMIC

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates some 45 million U.S. adults smoke cigarettes, which are the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. And the World Health Organization predicts smoking could kill 8 million people each year by 2030 if governments do not do more to help people quit.

The U.S. Surgeon General warned in March that youth smoking has reached epidemic proportions, as one in four U.S. high school seniors is a regular cigarette smoker, paving the way to a lifetime of addiction.

Judge Judith Rogers, who wrote the dissenting opinion, said the FDA warnings were factual, and necessary to counter tobacco companies’ history of deceptive advertising.

“The government has an interest of paramount importance in effectively conveying information about the health risks of smoking to adolescent would-be smokers and other consumers,” she wrote.

Congress passed a law in 2009 that gave the FDA broad powers to regulate the tobacco industry, including imposing the label regulation. The law requires color warning labels big enough to cover the top 50 percent of a cigarette pack’s front and back panels, and the top 20 percent of print advertisements.

The FDA released nine new warnings in June 2011 that were meant to go into effect this September, the first change in U.S. cigarette warning labels in 25 years. Cigarette packs already carry text warnings from the U.S. Surgeon General.

The ruling against the FDA means tobacco companies will likely not have to comply with the requirements for now, given divergent court rulings.

The U.S. Appeals Court for the 6th Circuit, based in Cincinnati, upheld the bulk of the FDA’s new tobacco regulations in March, including the requirement for warning images on cigarette packs.

The difference in the two cases is that the FDA had not introduced the specific images when the companies filed the 6th Circuit suit. While the Washington suit focused on the images, the appeals court in Cincinnati addressed the larger issue of the FDA’s regulatory power.

Most countries in the European Union already carry graphic images to illustrate the health risks of smoking. Earlier this month, Australia took a further step to limit smoking advertising by banning company logos on cigarette packs, and the EU said it was considering a similar ban.

By David Ingram and Anna Yukhananov

See the article at its original location >

 

 

Posted in Related News | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Tobacco Boss Says Some Regulation OK

New Zealand’s tobacco industry is already heavily regulated and the Government’s plain packaging proposals for cigarette packets is a step too far, the country’s biggest cigarette manufacturer has said.

In a rare media interview, Steve Rush, general manager of British American Tobacco New Zealand, agreed smoking was harmful and that it should be regulated.

But he said just because a regulation is anti-tobacco, doesn’t make it good policy.

The powerful tobacco company has launched a campaign to persuade the government against plain cigarette packaging, a move already underway in Australia.

New Zealand already had “a very comprehensive” tobacco control policy in place, Rush said, and the Government had to examine the efficacy of the new proposals before “blindly copying” Australia.

The industry had felt the brunt of regulation for more than 20 years, he said, including banning tobacco advertising, sponsorship and office workplace smoking in 1990.

Then in 1997, packs of fewer than 20 cigarettes and loose tobacco pouches were banned, followed by a full ban on smoking in restaurants, pubs, clubs, factories, schools and the like in 2003. Graphic health warnings were introduced in 2008 and a programme of three 10 per cent excise increases above the CPI over three years came in 2010.

A new law banning the display of tobacco came into force last month.

The High Court in Australia last week ruled that plain packaging legislation did not contravene the Australian constitution. Its plain packaging policy is due to take effect in October. A consultation document on a similar proposal for New Zealand was released last month but the policy is under a cloud of probable legal action.

British American Tobacco is preparing submissions to put to Government in October.

Rush said plain packaging diminished intellectual property rights at the expense of New Zealand brands and his company will highlight the impact this proposal may have on international trade and the “troubling precedent” its sets for the wider economy.

There were real dangers, too, he claimed that the proposal could foster illegal trade and make tobacco more affordable, counter to the Government’s objectives.

“Removing the rights of a legal business to use their own branding would have repercussions far wider than tobacco,” he said.

The listed London-based British American Tobacco Group is currently ranked eighth on the FTSE-100. British American Tobacco New Zealand is the country’s largest tobacco company, with a 72 per cent market share.

Its brands include Dunhill, Lucky Strike, Benson and Hedges, Rothmans, Pall Mall and Holiday and roll-your-own tobacco Port Royal and Park Drive.

Last year BATNZ paid $875.1 million in excise and GST along with company taxes of $47.1m  – some 1.8 per cent of all government tax revenues, it claimed.

By Nick Krause

See this article at its original location >

 

Posted in Related News | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

14th Round of TPP Negotiations – SEP 6-15, 2012

(Sept. 6-15, 2012/Leesburg, VA)

The next negotiating round of the Trans- Pacific Partnership will take place in Leesburg, Virginia from September 6-15, 2012. USTR will be hosting a Direct Stakeholder Engagement event on Sunday, September 9, 2012. ASH urges the United States Trade Representative to submit its draft tobacco exception when negotiators meet in Leesburg Virginia to discuss the TPP, a giant free trade agreement among 11 countries.  USTR announced the exception in May, but two negotiating rounds have now come and gone and our negotiation partners have yet to see it.

For additional information visit USTR >

Posted in Events, Featured News & Events | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Hidden Hand of Big Tobacco Leads to WTO Challenge

BIG tobacco has opened a new front in its war against Australia’s plain packaging law.

The World Trade Organisation has revealed that within hours of the government’s victory in the High Court, Ukraine upgraded to formal a complaint against Australia’s law and demanded the establishment of a disputes panel.

Australia will have to argue its case before the WTO in a hearing and appeals process that could take up to 14 months.

“It’s a remarkable coincidence,” the Trade Minister, Craig Emerson, said. “Ukraine was engaged in informal talks with us up until the High Court win, and then went formal.”

Asked if he thought the big tobacco companies were behind Ukraine’s decision, Dr Emerson said that he was “not aware of tobacco being a big industry in Ukraine, so one would wonder why it would have a big interest in this”.

Ukraine, once a substantial tobacco grower, now imports tobacco to manufacture cigarettes for export, mainly to Europe.

An adverse finding would put Australia in breach of WTO rules requiring compensation or a backdown.

A recent finding on quarantine rules led to this country opening its market to apples from New Zealand for the first time in 89 years.

“Members usually abide by the umpire’s decision,” Dr Emerson told the Herald, “but we do not expect to lose. The WTO rules allow us to regulate for health.”

The hearing will not prevent Australia withdrawing branded cigarette packets from sale on December 1 as planned and allowing only the sale of cigarettes in plain olive-green packets until the dispute is resolved.

The government is battling big tobacco on a second front in negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) encompassing Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam.

At the behest of tobacco companies, including Philip Morris International, the US is demanding that the agreement includes a so-called investor state dispute settlement mechanism, which would allow firms such as Philip Morris to appeal to an outside body about sovereign decisions it did not like. The provision goes further than anything in the existing Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement.

”This is being pushed by US representatives. Australia is saying ‘no’,” Dr Emerson said.

Labor and the Coalition combined in the Senate on Thursday to vote down a Greens resolution that would have required Australia to make public its negotiating position in the TPP.

”The negotiations are being conducted in secret,” the Greens spokesman on trade, Peter Whish-Wilson, said. “While draft texts of the agreement were provided to AT&T, Verizon, Cisco, the Motion Picture Association and other industry lobbyists, advocacy organisations and other citizens are denied access.”

Dr Emerson said there was no point in publishing draft negotiating positions because they “shifted around”.

By Peter Martin

See the article at its original location >

Posted in Related News | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Philip Morris International Expands its Portfolio

Dips toe into alternative tobacco products worldwide

NEW YORK – Philip Morris International, the largest tobacco company in the world recently announced yet another stream of revenue growth. With more regulation threats being imposed on tobacco companies and smokers, Philip Morris is looking to explore alternatives, according to a contributed column on Seeking Alpha.

Governments globally have been attempting to regulate how and if cigarette companies can advertise. In addition, governments have hiked tax rates on cigarettes in an attempt to break people’s addictions by robbing their wallets. Philip Morris has responded by beginning to seek revenue through electronic cigarettes, chewing tobacco and snuff.

Though Philip Morris’ smokeless effort is minimal right now compared to the tobacco industry, the company does have revenue coming from their joint venture with Swedish Match AB in 2009. The smokeless products from this joint venture are currently being marketed and sold in Russia and Canada. Revenues are expected to grow significantly too, as this is only the beginning of their marketing campaign, the column states.

Philip Morris is also looking to follow in the footsteps of competitor British American Tobacco and begin marketing electronic cigarettes. Electronic cigarettes offer a somewhat healthier alternative to traditional cigarettes because when you smoke them, you inhale water vapor mixed with nicotine rather than harmful smoke. This is easier on your lungs, although the nicotine still has its normal effects. With consumers becoming more aware of the consequences of smoking, some have looked to electronic cigarettes as an alternative to help preserve their lung function.

Long-term Philip Morris believes that electronic cigarettes will expand its revenue opportunities worldwide, the writer states. Philip Morris has the highest EPS growth rate among the tobacco sector for the next fiscal year; it’s estimated to be 11.2%, ahead of Lorillard, Altria Group and Reynolds American. Its revenue growth for next year is also expected to triumph in its sector by growing by a projected 5.51%. Philip Morris yields 3.3% at its current price.

CSP Daily News

See this article at its original location >

Posted in Related News | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Global Tobacco Epidemic is Far from Over

The global tobacco epidemic is far from being over. A recent study published in the Lancet suggests that the number of tobacco users remains very high in many parts of the world, particularly low and middle income countries.  Over 60% of Russian men and over 28% of Bangladeshi women use tobacco.  No wonder tobacco stocks are doing so well during these tough economic times.

While we have seen the passage of some public health policies, clearly much more needs to be done. All of these countries, which are Parties to the tobacco control treaty, the FCTC, must increase the allocation of resources needed to adequately implement and enforce the measures in the treaty. They can do this by working with development partners and by implementing fiscal policies that will decrease tobacco consumption and generate new revenues for health.

All branches of government must cooperate with each other in order to reverse these embarrassingly high rates of tobacco use.  If they don’t, we will be judged as the global generation that allowed a billion totally preventable deaths to take place this century.

To read the abstract of the Lancet report please click here >

Posted in Blog | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

World Cancer Leaders’ Summit – AUG 27-30, 2012

UICC and partners will be hosting the 2012 World Cancer Leaders’ Summit in Montreal Canada.  The 2012 summit provides education and training opportunities throughout the program linked to one or more of the World Cancer Declaration targets.  For more information please visit the UICC website >

Posted in Events | Leave a comment

Recent Tweets