Ukraine’s parliament had just voted to approve a public smoking ban, and its president had just signed a bill to outlaw tobacco advertising and promotion. These were revolutionary steps in chain-smoking Eastern Europe.

But Skipalskyi, a leading Ukrainian anti-smoking activist, heard little praise for his country from other delegates. As he told FairWarning: “Everyone was talking about Ukraine as the bad actor in the international arena in tobacco control.”

The reason was a bewildering move by Ukraine’s trade ministry. Within hours of the historic steps to curb smoking at home, the ministry, prodded by the tobacco industry, contested a tough anti-smoking law half a world away in Australia.

In a complaint to the World Trade Organization, Ukraine challenged the law, due to take effect December 1, that will ban distinctive logos and colors and require cigarettes to be sold in plain packs. Despite Ukraine having no tobacco exports to Australia—and therefore no clear economic interest—the trade ministry branded the law a violation of intellectual property rights under trade agreements Australia had signed.

Following Ukraine’s lead, Honduras and the Dominican Republic soon joined the attack on Australia, filing similar complaints with the WTO.

The case, which will be decided by an arbitration panel, signals an emerging pattern in the global tobacco wars. As top cigarette makers lose clout with national governments, countries around the world are adopting increasingly stringent rules to combat the public health burdens of smoking. To strike back, tobacco companies are increasingly invoking long-standing trade agreements to try to thwart some of the toughest laws.

The WTO case is only part of a three-pronged legal assault on Australia, aimed both at reversing the plain packaging law and warning other countries of what they might face if they follow its lead.

Public health advocates fear the legal attacks will deter other countries from passing strong anti-smoking measures. The “cost of defending this case, and the risk of being held liable, would intimidate all but the most wealthy, sophisticated countries into inaction,” said Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids in Washington D.C.

The dispute underlines broader concerns about trade provisions that enable foreign companies to challenge health, labor and environmental standards. Once a country ratifies a trade agreement, its terms supersede domestic laws. If a country’s regulations are found to impose unreasonable restrictions on trade, it must amend the rules or compensate the nation or foreign corporation that brought the complaint.

Advocates say countries should be free to decide how best to protect public health, without being second-guessed by unelected trade panels. Moreover, they argue, tobacco products, which kill when used as intended, should not be afforded the trade protections of other goods and services.

Worldwide, nearly 6 million people a year die of smoking-related causes, according to the World Health Organization, which says the toll could top 8 million by 2030. With fewer people lighting up in wealthy nations, nearly 80 percent of the world’s 1 billion smokers live in low-and middle-income countries.

Countries have been emboldened to pass more stringent measures by the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. In effect since 2005, the treaty has committed about 175 nations to pursue such measures as higher cigarette taxes, public smoking bans, prohibitions on tobacco advertising, and graphic warning labels with grisly images such as diseased lungs and rotting teeth. (The U.S. has signed the treaty, but the Senate has not ratified it. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has ordered graphic warnings for cigarette packs, but an  industry court challenge on 1^stAmendment grounds has stalled the rule.)

Read the full article at its original location>

The tobacco industry has always been a major player in congressional campaigns, but a new online map (ash.org/map) shows just how pervasive tobacco money is in politics. The map, produced by Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), allows you to click on your home district and see how much money your Member of Congress and Senators have accepted.

“Given the destruction that tobacco causes in this country, it is outrageous that so many politicians accept tobacco money,” said Dr. Alfred Munzer, Chairman of the Board of ASH and former President of the American Lung Association. Dr. Munzer, a pulmonologist, has campaigned for decades against tobacco use. “Roughly 80% of my patients suffer from tobacco-related diseases. No politician should share in the ill-gotten profits of the tobacco industry or owe favors to big tobacco.”

In the nearly 50 years since the 1964 Surgeon General’s report linking smoking with cancer and other diseases, the prevalence of smoking in the U.S. has plummeted, but tobacco still claims the lives of roughly 500,000 Americans each year. Smoking rates are still extremely high in some areas, and approximately 3,000 children start smoking every day.

Globally, tobacco is considered an epidemic by the World Health Organization. About 100 million people died from tobacco in the 20^th century, a toll higher than both world wars combined. The WHO estimates that without dramatic action, tobacco will claim one billion lives this century.

“The United States has joined with the rest of the world in calling for serious action about tobacco, and part of that is acknowledging that the tobacco industry is the vector of the disease,” said ASH director Laurent Huber. The U.S. signed on to a UN political declaration last year that recognizes the need to tackle the tobacco epidemic and highlights “the fundamental conflict of interest between the tobacco industry and public health,” the reason why big tobacco should stay away from public policy. Huber added, “The public interest and the interests of the tobacco industry are diametrically opposed. It is simply unethical for politicians to take tobacco money.”

In addition to the massive health costs of tobacco use, there are dire economic implications. Tobacco disease costs taxpayers, including nonsmokers, hundreds of billions of dollars a year. One study estimated the cost to society of each pack of cigarettes at $18. Stronger tobacco control measures would go a long way toward reducing the deficit and saving medicare.

The tobacco industry is bi-partisan when it comes to buying political favors. Dozens of Democrats as well as Republicans gladly accept donations from tobacco corporations, and for decades members of both parties have returned the favor by voting for tobacco interests. After years of effort, Congress finally gave FDA limited authority over tobacco in 2009, but only after Philip Morris, the number one tobacco industry donor, said it was OK. Even now the tobacco industry seeks to undermine the effectiveness of FDA regulation.

# # #

Read the original article here

Read the original story here

This Smoke Alarm is quite literal. At least four people have been killed in the Pyrenees as two wildfires blamed on lit cigarettes being tossed from a car burn out of control. The fires have already destroyed tens of thousands of acres and are still spreading, causing widespread evacuations and travel disruptions. The fires moved so fast that some people were forced to abandon their cars and flee on foot, or jump into the Mediterranean to escape the flames.

In the U.S., cigarettes are the number one cause of fire-related deaths, killing nearly 1000 people a year.

During its Presidential primary election, California voters also had the chance to weigh in on a proposed $1/pack tax on cigarettes to fund cancer research. Polling just a few weeks before the vote showed widespread support in a state that is health-conscious, cash strapped and has one of the lowest smoking rates in the country. But on election day, the measure was narrowly defeated. What happened in those few weeks?

$47 million dollars of attack ads on radio and television, funded by Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds. Knowing that arguing against cancer research was a losing strategy, Big Tobacco implied that the money would instead feed a huge new bureaucracy, with little money actually helping cancer victims.