The US government spends about $8 billion on global health annually, but only about $7 million on tobacco-control efforts overseas, according to Thomas Bollyky of the Council on Foreign Relations. That’s a tiny amount, given the gravity of the problem and the cost-effectiveness of anti-smoking campaigns.

The United States has also failed to ratify the Framework Convention On Tobacco Control, an international treaty aimed at encouraging countries to implement anti-smoking initiatives that were pioneered in the United States, such as warning labels, bans on smoking in public places, and taxes.

Since the United States has already done most of what is required by this treaty, there is little to lose by ratifying it. Doing so would allow the United States to take its rightful place as a global leader on this issue. Instead, US officials had to sit on the sidelines of a recent meeting in South Korea, because the United States is not a party to the pact.

In the 1980s, US officials forced countries that wanted to trade freely with the United States to put out a welcome mat for the Marlboro Man. Thankfully, Congress ended such blatant shilling on behalf of the US tobacco industry in 1998. But US trade negotiators still fight on the side of cigarette companies, under the guise of demanding an even playing field. To join the World Trade Organization, China had to lower tariffs on imported cigarettes from 200 percent to 25 percent.

Despite the enmity between global anti-smoking activists and tobacco companies, there is one area where they might find common cause: combating cigarette smuggling and counterfeiting, which cost governments around the world billions of dollars in lost tax revenues. New efforts to require tobacco companies to put tracking numbers on packages to prevent illicit trade make a lot of sense.

See this article at its original location>

Most significantly, tobacco smoking, the leading risk factor for NCDs has been recognized  as the 2^nd leading cause of death globally. The report states that tobacco smoking causes 6.3 million deaths annually.

While people are living longer, the report suggests that populations are not necessarily enjoying more years of health. Disability is taking a greater toll on our lives than they were two decades ago and increasingly people are living with chronic illnesses and multiple comorbidities. Tobacco is a major contributor to this problem.

Tobacco use is responsible for nearly 6 million deaths per year, and is on track to kill one billion people this century. Governments responded in 2004 by adopting the world’s first public health treaty, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The FCTC has been rapidly embraced, and includes 175 countries, including all but one of the TPP negotiating countries. Tobacco plain packaging and graphic warnings, point of sale bans and bans on flavored cigarettes, interventions found in the FCTC and its guidelines, have been subject to several high profile trade disputes initiated by tobacco industry interests in the past 3 years, causing serious concern in the public health community.

According to Mary Assunta, Senior Policy Advisor of the Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance (SEATCA): “Although ten of the eleven countries negotiating the TPP are Parties to the international tobacco treaty, most trade negotiators at the 15^th Round of the TPPA in Auckland have little awareness of their obligations under the FCTC nor of the tobacco industry’s tactics to undermine public health. It is almost like they are running on parallel tracks with opposite destinations – one to reduce tobacco and the other to increase trade of tobacco products.”

The FCTC Conference of the Parties was held a few weeks ago in Seoul, and Parties at that meeting voted to exclude the tobacco industry from attending the negotiations relating to the FCTC. Governments at that meeting rejected Interpol’s application for observer status to the COP on the ground that it had received funding from a tobacco company (Philip Morris). This same policy has driven many governments to reject so-called Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) from tobacco companies, and disallow it from interfering in policy development and implementation.

“In contrast to the FCTC policy to exclude the tobacco industry, the TPP seeks the input of the tobacco industry to promote free trade. This is not compatible with FCTC obligations,” according to Chris Bostic Deputy Director of Policy for Action on Smoking and Health, a U.S.-based anti-tobacco group.

Bostic, citing extensive legal research from the Harrison Institute, adds: “Trade negotiators have yet to officially recognise tobacco as a hazardous product. Tobacco is unlike any other consumer product. When used exactly as intended, it kills.”

Now into its 15^th Round, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam have been negotiating the proposed TPP agreement since March 2010. Canada and Mexico recently joined the talks, and other countries are expected to follow.

# # #

]]> http://ash.org/free-trade-agreement-ignores-global-tobacco-epidemic/feed/ 0 http://ash.org/are-we-being-duped-by-our-government-on-trade-negotiations/ http://ash.org/are-we-being-duped-by-our-government-on-trade-negotiations/#comments Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:37:25 +0000 ash http://ash.org/?p=1917 ... Read the full article >]]> The 15^th negotiating round of the ongoing TransPacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement will end tomorrow in Auckland, New Zealand. This marks the fourth round that U.S. negotiators have failed to “table” (formally propose) a special exception protecting governments’ right to legislate on tobacco, which they promised back in May.

The public health community has not seen the text of the exception, because only big corporations are allowed to see the draft TPP text. But we’ve had it described to us at length. It was the result of painful negotiations among the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the White House, Health and Human Services, Congress, and Big Tobacco. As far as our experts can tell (not having seen it), it’s not great, but it would at least get the conversation about tobacco going amongst the TPP negotiators. There was a tacit agreement between the U.S. government and health groups that the latter would lay off criticizing (and even extolling the virtues of) the exception or the TPP in general in order to give the administration political cover to actually table the exception. So we waited. And waited. There were some hints that once the election was over, the political balancing would change and it would be tabled. It’s over, and it wasn’t.

Will it be tabled next time? USTR won’t say. When asked for a reason for the delay, they answer “We are still consulting on the text.” Which is a strange answer for two reasons. First, back in May USTR made a point of telling us that it was extremely difficult to agree on the text, and that a lot of political give and take was necessary. It took months. So how are revisions politically feasible? Second, who are they consulting with? They certainly haven’t been asking us for any input.

There are TPP negotiators from other countries who are keen to see the exception, and to see their tobacco regulations protected under the agreement. But in general, the U.S. holds most of the power in trade negotiations – smaller countries are reluctant to rock the boat, and so rather than propose something themselves, they would prefer to wait for the U.S. to start the conversation. We’ve been prepping them for 18 months on the tobacco issue, and they are ready to talk.

A trade expert pointed out recently that the U.S. tobacco proposal (as far as they could tell from not reading it) sounded a lot more like a reservation than an exception. Reservations are taken at the very end of negotiations, when most chapters have been closed. Is the U.S. simply going to protect its own tobacco measures at the last moment, and leave the other countries open to endless lawsuits from the tobacco industry? If so, was this the plan all along, or has the plan changed due to industry pressure? Either way, if the exception is never tabled, public health groups should be outraged at being lied to. And the administration should be ashamed. Their failure to act – and duplicitous treatment of constituents who largely supported it in the last election – will directly lead to millions of additional deaths.

President Obama, please do the right thing. There is no grey area here – the interests of Big Tobacco are directly opposed to the interests of public health. They are not a stakeholder, they are the vector of a disease that will kill one billion people this century.

Del. Joe Morrissey, D-Highland Springs, filed a bill for the General Assembly session next month that would prohibit smoking in any vehicle with a passenger under the age of 13. The violation would carry a $100 fine.

“Children are captives in a car,” Morrissey said. “They’re not free to leave a car that’s smoke-filled, and we have other legislation that protects children in automobiles.”

Extending the smoking prohibition to cars with children in them could be a tough sell in the GOP-controlled House, where many Republicans were criticized in 2009 for backing a statewide smoking ban that conservatives saw as an infringement on private businesses, like restaurants. Private clubs, prisons and tobacco stores are exempt from the law.

“I’m not a smoker. I don’t like being around it. But I just don’t think it’s the state’s place to ban the use of a legal product on your own property,” said Del. Mark Cole, R-Fredericksburg.

The smoking ban, Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine’s signature legislative achievement in office, marked its three-year anniversary on Dec. 1 and there’s no indication it will be lifted anytime soon.

Cole questioned whether Morrissey’s bill is an indication that Democrats will eventually try to expand the smoking ban’s reach. Some states have gone much further than Virginia in banning smoking, including prohibiting the use of tobacco products in public parks.

“That’s the way liberals are. They try to micromanage people’s lives,” Cole said. “We can’t afford a big, intrusive government to enforce all these things.”

Morrissey also introduce legislation that would fine anyone caught throwing a cigarette butt on the street $100 and allow a judge to require the smoker to do community service.

Money collected from the fines would go to the Litter Control and Recycling Fund.

“One of my and many others’ pet peeves are when we drive along and see someone flick a cigarette out of their car,” Morrissey said. “It’s like they’re saying, ‘I want to keep my car clean but I don’t care about the environment.’ ”

Including cigarettes as litter would go a long way toward helping restore the Chesapeake Bay, Morrissey said. The burned-out butts that make their way into the watershed each year could fill 12 Olympic-size swimming pools, he said.

“I don’t think people are aware of the volume of cigarette butts that are put out into the environment,” Morrissey said.

See this article at its original location>

Several studies have already suggested a link between passive smoking and meningococcal disease.

To investigate the association, scientists at the UK Centre for Tobacco Studies carried out a systematic review of 18 studies and pooled their results.

Their study, published in the online journal BMC Public Health , shows that exposure to second-hand smoke both in the home and womb significantly increases the risk of meningococcal disease.

Passive smoking in the home doubled the risk in children and raised it even further in the under-fives.

For children whose mothers smoked during pregnancy, the risk was three times higher than for children born into non-smoking households.

Study leader Dr Rachael Murray, from the UK Centre for Tobacco Studies at the University of Nottingham, said: “We estimate that an extra 630 cases of childhood invasive meningococcal disease every year are directly attributable to second-hand smoke in the UK alone.

“While we cannot be sure exactly how tobacco smoke is affecting these children, the findings from this study highlight consistent evidence of the further harms of smoking around children and during pregnancy, and thus parents and family members should be encouraged to not smoke in the home or around children.”

Scientists estimated that each year in the UK exposure to second-hand smoke led to several hundred extra children being affected by invasive meningococcal disease.

Meningococcal bacteria are responsible for the most dangerous form of meningitis and can also invade the blood, lungs or joints.

One in 20 of those struck by invasive meningococcal disease will die despite medical attention and one in six will be left severely disabled.

See this article at its original location>

For smokers, it may seem only natural to light up while imbibing at this month’s holiday parties. But a new report published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs suggests that those who smoke cigarettes on the same day they drink heavily suffer worse hangovers than those who stick to booze alone. Brown University researchers analyzed a group of 113 college students at a Midwestern university who tracked their drinking and smoking habits, as well as their hangover symptoms over an eight-week period, reports TIME. Students who drank about six cans of beer per hour and also smoked were most likely to feel the consequences in the morning and suffered the worst hangovers. “This is another reason for people who drink heavily to quit smoking,” Damaris Rohsenow, study author and professor of behavioral and social sciences, told TIME. “It’s not just that the smoking will increase their discomfort the next day, but it may be increasing brain problems in the long run. The fact that smoking aggravates hangover may be a warning sign that people should heed.”

See this article at its original location>

New Zealand notified its intention to introduce the legislation in documentG/TBT/N/NZL/62, which includes a link to its health ministry for further information. The proposal was agreed in principle by the Cabinet in April 2012, New Zealand said, and was open for consultation from July to October. Information and comments are being compiled and no draft legislation has been issued so far, it said.

The delegation said smoking is the most serious preventable cause of death in New Zealand, and is most serious among the Maori population. The government aims to make the country essentially smoke-free by 2025, it said.

Expressing concern were the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Mexico, Zambia, Cuba and Zimbabwe. They said the measure would hurt their tobacco producers and would restrict trade more than is necessary to meet the health objectives.

Supporting New Zealand were Australia, Norway and Canada, and the World Health Organization (an observer in the committee). They said the measure is justifiable in view of how serious are the problems caused by smoking.

See this article at its original location>

Examples of the new plain cigarette packaging in Australia Photo: Rex Features

But first, the government has to decide whether it wants to defend the labels it developed or go back to the drawing board.

The Department of Justice has 90 days to appeal the case to the high court. A spokesman declined to comment on whether it would.

Calls from some anti-tobacco groups to do so came quickly.

Wednesday’s decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit “was wrong on the science and wrong on the law, and we urge the government to appeal this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said in a statement.

In August, a three-member panel of the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of five tobacco companies, which argued the labels violate the First Amendment rights of corporations. The labels are supposed to take up half of each cigarette package.

That case directly challenged the nine labels FDA developed to implement the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009. They include graphic images meant to illustrate the consequences of smoking, including an autopsied cadaver and a man smoking through a tracheotomy, a hole in his neck.

The majority argued that the government showed no evidence that the labels would effectively reduce smoking — the science is a matter of debate — and that the government, therefore, could not force the industry to foot the bill for advertising an anti-tobacco message.

In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld the underlying provisions in the law before the labels were created. The tobacco industry has already appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court but asked it not to take action on it before the case was resolved in the D.C. court.

“Now, it’s up to the government to decide if these particular warning labels are actually defensible to the Supreme Court,” said Mary Rouvelas, senior counsel for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, who supports the labels.

Other countries have introduced similar labels. Anti-smoking advocates expect to see mounting evidence that the labels are effective, but the FDA produced limited data to suggest that its labels would work.

One option the FDA could consider, Rouvelas said, would be to adopt labels that are basically the same as labels in other countries. Then the agency could use evidence of their effectiveness to make its case.

“It’s pretty clear that the [D.C. court] had a problem with the scientific studies,” Rouvelas said, adding that First Amendment cases often rise or fall with scientific data that shows any infringement on free speech is narrowly tailored to accomplish a legitimate government goal.

In any event, the labels will not go on cigarette packs anytime soon.

If the government appeals the case and Supreme Court agrees to hear it, the case most likely will be argued next fall and decided spring or winter 2014. Under the law, the labels were supposed to go on packages in October.

The graphic warnings aren’t the only labeling issues the industry is grappling with.

Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler ruled that tobacco companies will have to publish “corrective statements” about the health effects of cigarettes in package inserts, on corporate websites and in national print and broadcast advertisements — to make amends for decades of misleading the public.

The statements include that tobacco kills an average 1,200 people a day. The industry has not yet said whether it will appeal the ruling.

See this article at its original location>