Presentation by Layla Theiner (Head of Public Affairs and Campaigning, Cancer Research UK) on the occasion of the EESC hearing on Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products (Brussels, 19 Feb 2013).
1. SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF
THE PROPOSAL
FEBRUARY 2013
LAYLA THEINER
SEVERAL SLIDES PROVIDED BY DEBORAH ARNOTT, ASH
2. Who we are
• Cancer Research UK is the world’s leading cancer charity
dedicated to saving lives through research
• Our groundbreaking work includes research into prevention,
diagnosis and treatment of cancer
• Our research, entirely funded by the public, is critical to ensuring
more people beat cancer
• Fund, and work with, Smoke Free Partnership (SFP) and Action
on Smoking and Health (ASH) on tobacco issues
3. Making smoking attractive and
addictive
• Tobacco companies target
children – 8/10 of UK smokers
started while under 19
• Product design key
• Ingredients in the form of
flavourings and additives are
used to make cigarettes more
attractive to children and
young people, easier to smoke
and more addictive
4. 4 Wednesday, February 20, 2013
View <Headers and Footers> to alter this text
5. Labelling
• A need for improved consumer information
• Strong evidence that picture warnings encourage smokers to
think about quitting and are more salient than text warnings
6. Provision in current directive on additives and
ingredients
“Member States may provide for the prohibition of the use of ingredients which
have the effect of increasing the addictive properties of tobacco products, since
the use of such ingredients may undermine the limits on nicotine levels laid down
in this Directive.”
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0037:EN:NOT
7. Draft directive
• Mandatory graphic warnings
• Graphic warnings covering both sides of the pack
• Graphic warnings positioned at the top of the pack
• Annual rotation and equal exposure of health warnings
• General provision on the shape of packs and opening method
• Ban on misleading elements
• Restriction on diameter of cigarettes
• Ban on slims and super slims
• Cessation services included in health warnings
• Misleading TNCO label replaced with general warning on
toxicity
8. Draft directive - concerns
• Graphic warnings covering only 75% of the main surfaces of the pack (80%
would be preferable)
• No plain packaging but scope for member states
• Member states cannot increase the size of warnings
• Border included in total area of warning – in current TPD it is in addition to
it
• Smaller size and text-only warnings for products other than cigarettes and
RYO
• Limited standardisation of pack size and shape
• The right of MS to adopt stricter measures should be clearer
• Smaller size and text-only warnings for products other than cigarettes and
RYO
8
9. Flavoured cigarettes
• Flavourings make cigarettes
easier to smoke – more
‘palatable’ particularly to new
smokers = children and young
people
• How can it be acceptable for
cigarettes to have ice cream,
candy and fruit flavours like
caramel, vanilla, mint
strawberry, cherry and grape.
• Examples in Europe include
pink elephant (vanilla) and
black devil
10. Tobacco industry tactics
• The tobacco industry is funding and fuelling lobbying to
prevent a ban on flavourings in the EU
• Using the tobacco growers to fight on their behalf
• Key argument that banning flavours = banning the growing of
Burley tobacco
• Burley tobacco is the most common tobacco in Europe
11. Why will prohibiting ingredients
discriminate against growers?
Myth : Banning • Unitab – international
union of tobacco farmers
flavours = banning
• ITGA - International
tobacco growing in
tobacco growers
Europe association
“Burley and Oriental tobacco
varieties which represent 55%
of Europe’s tobacco production
are used in traditional blend
cigarettes, a product that
requires the addition of
ingredients.”
12. Why will it discriminate against
growers?
Myth Reality
“Burley and Oriental Burley tobacco can and is
tobacco varieties which used without additives in
represent 55% of the form of flavours, in
Europe’s tobacco Canada, Thailand and
production are used in France.
traditional blend
cigarettes, a product that
requires the addition of
ingredients.”
13. US-style cigarettes with burley still sold
in Canada with flavours ban
Note: All packages purchased November 10-12, 2010. Marlboro special Performance
Edition pack purchased in Oct. 2010.
14. WHO Framework Convention on
Tobacco Control
• One of most rapidly and widely embraced Treaties in UN
history with 176 Parties
• Including the European Community and all Member States
• Guidelines on ingredient regulation adopted November 2010 at
the 4th Conference of the Parties
• Guidelines while not legally binding set international standards
• Also Article 5.3
15. WHO FCTC – Article 9 and 10
guidelines
Recommend that:
• Parties should regulate, by prohibiting or restricting, ingredients
that may be used to increase palatability in tobacco products.
• Ingredients indispensable for the manufacturing of tobacco
products and not linked to attractiveness should be subject to
regulation according to national law.
• Parties should prohibit or restrict ingredients that have colouring
properties in tobacco products.
• Parties should prohibit ingredients in tobacco products that may
create the impression that they have a health benefit.
• Parties should prohibit ingredients associated with energy and
vitality, such as stimulant compounds, in tobacco products.
16. Our views on other myths that need to be
countered
• Ingredient regulation will NOT destroy tobacco
growing and jobs in the EU, but also
• Tobacco growing is NOT essential for the EU’s Roma
inclusion strategy
• Mafia and organised crime will NOT benefit as
contraband will grow
• This is NOT going to significantly threaten livelihoods
in Africa
• Regulating ingredients is NOT political correctness
17. Tobacco growing in the EU
• 12/27 MS grow tobacco Leading EU producers
• EU = 4.1% of world • Italy 8th
production but in decline • Bulgaria 15th
• CAP reform has reduced • Poland
subsidies 2004-2010 EU
• Spain
15 production -50%
• Also Greece, France,
• New MS producers mean
Germany, Portugal,
total production still
Belgium, Slovakia,
similar to 2004
Hungary, Romania
• In 2013 when subsidies
end production expected
to fall significantly
18. Draft directive – Additives and flavourings
We support:
• Ban on flavourings in tobacco products including smokeless
• Ban on misleading additives e.g. vitamins
• Ban on features that allow modification of smoke taste or
intensity
We are considering the impact of the following proposals:
• Exemption for products other than cigarettes, RYO and
smokeless
• Ban on addictive ingredients left to Member States
19. Draft directive – other aspects
• No regulation of the display of tobacco products at the point of sale
• Introduction of unique tracking and tracing features on tobacco packets
• Tobacco industry control over the implementation of the tracking and
tracing system is against the provisions of the International Protocol on
Illicit Trade
• Member States allowed to introduce stronger regulations if justified by
health objectives.
• In the absence of plain packaging at EU level (which preferable), this is not
sufficiently clear with regards to Member States’ possibility to introduce
plain packaging.
• Some controls on Internet sales
• No ban on cross-border distance sales to consumers
20. Summary of key points
• Labelling is a marketing tool that needs to be controlled
• This is an opportunity for the EU to combat a killer product
• Banning flavours does not mean banning the growing of Burley
tobacco
• WHO FCTC guidelines support Parties banning flavourings
• The revised EU TPD should include the ban on flavourings to
prevent tobacco companies from using flavours to make
tobacco more attractive to children and young people
s tobacco causes more than a quarter (29%) of all deaths from cancer in Europe, Half of all long term users
75% / 80% We believe there is a need for improved consumer information and generic/plain packaging, including mandatory picture warnings; tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide (CO) levels replaced; further information on harmful substances inside pack; and health warnings on water pipes. There is strong evidence that picture warnings encourage smokers to think about quitting and are more salient than text warnings. We support the recommendation that there should be mandatory picture warnings on both the front and back of the pack covering at least 80% of the surface. As well as enhancing the health message this prevents the pack being used as a marketing tool. Standardised packaging can benefit health in three main ways: making health warnings more prominent; decreasing the promotional power of the pack; and preventing use of labels and creative devices that may deceive consumers. The Australian federal government has recently announced its intention to introduce plain packaging in 2012, setting a standard that the EU should follow.
“ Ingredients” include tobacco, components (e.g. paper, filter), including materials used to manufacture those components, additives , processing aids, residual substances found in tobacco (following storage and processing), and substances that migrate from the packaging material into the product (contaminants are not part of the ingredients). Examples include substances that are used as adhesives, binders, combustion modifiers, addictiveness enhancers, flavours , humectants, plasticizers, casings, smoke enhancers and colourings. “ Attractiveness” refers to factors such as taste, smell and other sensory attributes, ease of use, flexibility of the dosing system, cost, reputation or image, assumed risks and benefits, and other characteristics of a product designed to stimulate use. Reference from WHO. The scientific basis of tobacco product regulation: Report of a WHO Study Group. WHO Technical Report Series 945. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2007. SCENIHR opinion concluded that “Attractiveness can.. be improved in a number of ways, such as by adding flavours.”
Tobacco Products Directive publication welcome, but provisions need strengthening. Cancer Research UK welcomes the release finally of the proposed revisions to the EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) as agreed by the European Commission. These will now go to the European Parliament and Council for further consideration. We welcome the introduction of mandatory picture warnings on tobacco products. The evidence is strong such large graphic warnings are effective in reducing the appeal of tobacco products particularly to women and young people. The 2012 Eurobarometer on tobacco shows that a large majority of people across the EU support such measures and the UK introduced picture warnings on one side only of the pack in 2008. The Commission’s proposal to cover 75% of the main surfaces of packs is similar to provisions in Canada which helped to reduce consumption to one of the lowest levels in the world. We also welcome the removal of additives from tobacco products that have a distinguishable flavour, aroma or taste other than tobacco. However, we note the lack of clarity on how this will be determined and would prefer to see a full ban on all ingredients and additives that may be used to increase the attractiveness of tobacco products , such as sugars, sweeteners , spices and herbs. Finally, Cancer Research UK welcomes the introduction of tracking and tracing features on tobacco packs .although we have concerns about the level of control by the tobacco industry over the data gathering and data keeping process. It is essential that tracking and tracing features are in line with the provisions of the newly-adopted International Protocol on Illicit Trade in tobacco Products. The future TPD risks falling short of the EU’s obligations under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) illicit protocol which provides the gold standard in evidence-based tobacco control policies. In this context, it is crucial that Member States, all of which have ratified the FCTC, are free under this directive to ‘go further’ in every policy area, especially in seeking to fulfil FCTC obligations. Otherwise EU countries may be disadvantaged compared to other parts of the world. The repeated delays and controversy surrounding the development of the revised TPD suggest that interference by opponents of the proposal was widespread. Tobacco industry lobbying tactics during the adoption of the 2001 TPD are well documented .
Commissioner Dalli, July 20111 “We are talking about aggressive marketing to induce more people to smoke when it is a proven health risk. You talk about trade-offs but I’m being asked to trade human lives for about 20,000 part-time jobs?”