http://www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)61774-7/fulltext
The EU Tobacco Products Directive must not be derailed
Martin McKee a, Paul Belcher b, Monika Kosinska c
The Lancet, Volume 380, Issue 9852, Pages 1447 - 1448, 27 October 2012
This week, tobacco control activists across Europe were expecting to celebrate a win in a protracted war with the tobacco industry. After an extensive preparatory phase, the European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy was due to present his proposals for a revised Tobacco Products Directive to the other Commission services on Oct 22, 2012, with a view to adopting the text by Dec 19, 2012. This process has been derailed after the resignation of EU Commissioner John Dalli, amidst allegations that he was aware of, but took no action to stop, impropriety.1, 2
The proposed contents of the revised Tobacco Products Directive had been trailed in advance, most notably when an advanced draft was leaked to the German media.3 The revised Directive built on a wealth of research, much of it derived from the tobacco industry's internal documents released under US court orders. This information had provided important new insights into how the industry had manipulated the composition of cigarettes—for example, by adding flavourings that would make their products more attractive to children and by changing the pH to increase the initiation of nicotine addiction.4, 5 The research also revealed the sophistication of industry research on cognition to enhance the appeal of images of its products.6
The revised Directive was expected to tackle the industry's once secret tactics to ensnare future generations of smokers. Specifically, it was expected to maintain the existing ban on all forms of smokeless tobacco (except Sweden, which had secured an opt out during its accession to the European Union to protect its domestic snus market), and extend the ban to e-cigarettes.7 These measures recognised concerns that the industry may seek to circumvent the danger that smokers, faced with indoor smoking bans, might quit.8 These products would help to ensure that consumers remained nicotine dependent. The Directive was also expected to: ban a range of flavourings; standardise the width, length, and colour of cigarettes; limit displays at point of sale; require larger graphic warnings on packs; and possibly propose future reviews, including the option of plain cigarette packaging.
Although many aspects of the tobacco industry's response to the proposed revised Directive are not known, it might have adopted a similar approach to that revealed in a report of how it sought to “block, amend, delay” the existing Directive through direct and indirect lobbying to challenge the legality and the technical aspects of the Directive.9 The EU's health Commissioner at that time, David Byrne, was however wise to such tactics, as were a number of key Members of the European Parliament, and the Directive passed.9
This time, it is different. The progress of the Directive has come to a halt and this delay seems likely to prevent its promulgation within the period of the current European Parliament. Activists now fear that the version of the revised Directive that is eventually presented—if at all—will be much weaker than the text as it stands today. Even if it is eventually enacted, the tobacco industry will have benefited from the delay, not only through probable increased sales in the EU but also in other parts of the world that might have followed the EU lead. So what happened? Although many facts are unclear, some key developments are known.
On Oct 16, 2012, Maltese Commissioner Dalli was summoned to meet the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso. He was told that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), had evidence that a Maltese businessman had approached a Swedish smokeless tobacco manufacturer, trading on Dalli's name and claiming to be able to influence the Directive, and seeking considerable financial advantage for doing so. It also seems that this approach might have been made after the draft Directive had been finalised.10 The OLAF report remains secret and the matter is now under consideration by the judicial authorities, but OLAF issued a press release alleging that there was circumstantial evidence to indicate that the Commissioner was aware of the activities of the businessman but failed to act.2 Dalli strenuously denies this charge; there is no suggestion that he either benefited personally or changed the Directive. The tobacco industry is reported to have invoked Dalli's resignation to call for the Directive to be withdrawn.11
2 days later, a series of break-ins took place in an eight storey building in Brussels.12 The burglars are believed to have abseiled from the roof, disabling sophisticated movement sensors. The only offices targeted were those belonging to anti-tobacco and public health organisations. Laptops and documents were stolen while other valuables were untouched.
In a further twist, it was revealed that a senior OLAF official had previously opposed plain cigarette packaging, on the grounds that it might encourage counterfeiting,13 an argument favoured by the tobacco industry but refuted by anti-tobacco activists who note that plain packs will have the same security markings currently used to distinguish genuine from counterfeit products.14
This combination of events has, inevitably, set alarm bells ringing. While the truth will emerge eventually, it may be too late for the revised Tobacco Products Directive. Yet there is no reason why this should be so. There seems to be no evidence that the drafting of the Directive was influenced by the alleged events and the text has been cleared, legally and administratively, to pass to the next stage. The Directive addresses one of the greatest threats to the health of Europeans, is based solidly on evidence, and should be taken forward as planned. The Government of Malta has spared no time in nominating a replacement Commissioner, Tonio Borg. However, there is no need to wait for his nomination to be approved by the European Parliament because the Directive has already been approved by the existing Commissioners. But will this be too late? The only beneficiaries of delay are the tobacco companies and further delay will raise serious questions about whose interests the EU Commission is promoting.
MK is Secretary General of the European Public Health Alliance, one of the organisations whose premises were burgled. The European Smoke Free Partnership, Royal College of Physicians, and European Respiratory Society are all members of the European Public Health Alliance. We declare that we have no conflicts of interest.
References
1 Press statement on behalf of the European Commission. Reference: MEMO/12/788.
EUROPA - PRESS RELEASES - Press Release - Press statement on behalf of the European Commission. (accessed Oct 22, 2012).
2 OLAF. OLAF Press Release No. 5, 2012. Brussels.
European Commission - OLAF - OLAF press statement. (accessed Oct 22, 2012).
3 Petitjean S. Neutral packaging: pending proposal fires up debate. Europolitics Sept 14, 2012.
14/09/2012 Neutral packaging: Pending proposal fires up debate. (accessed Oct 22, 2012).
4 Wertz MS, Kyriss T, Paranjape S, Glantz SA. The toxic effects of cigarette additives. Philip Morris' project mix reconsidered: an analysis of documents released through litigation. PLoS Med 2011; 8: e1001145. CrossRef | PubMed
5 Rabinoff M, Caskey N, Rissling A, Park C. Pharmacological and chemical effects of cigarette additives. Am J Public Health 2007; 97: 1981-1991. CrossRef | PubMed
6 Anderson SJ, Glantz SA, Ling PM. Emotions for sale: cigarette advertising and women's psychosocial needs. Tob Control 2005; 14: 127-135. CrossRef | PubMed
7 McKee M, Gilmore A. Smokeless tobacco: seeing the whole picture. Int J Epidemiol 2007; 36: 805-808. CrossRef | PubMed
8 Melikian AA, Hoffmann D. Smokeless tobacco: a gateway to smoking or a way away from smoking. Biomarkers 2009; 14 (suppl 1): 85-89. CrossRef | PubMed
9 Mandal S, Gilmore AB, Collin J, Weishaar H, Smith K, McKee M. Block, amend, delay: tobacco industry efforts to influence the European Union's Tobacco Products Directive (2001/37/EC). Brussels: Smoke Free Partnership, 2009.
10 TimesofMalta.com Dalli says Zammit never mentioned e-mail request.
Dalli says Zammit never mentioned e-mail request - timesofmalta.com. (accessed Oct 22, 2012).
11 Keating D. The invisible hand of big tobacco?. European Voice Oct 18, 2012.
12 Boseley S. Anti-smoking campaigners accuse tobacco lobby after office break-in. The Guardian Oct 18, 2012.
13 Sansone K. Updated: Ex-Commissioner warned Silvio Zammit in August against harming his reputation. Times of Malta.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/article...-Commissioner-insists-he-s-not-corrupt.441901. (accessed Oct 22, 2012).
14 Smokefree ACTION. Plain packaging: protecting children from tobacco marketing.
Plain Packaging. (accessed Oct 21 2012).
a Department of Health Services Research and Policy, School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK
b EU Government Affairs, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK
c European Public Health Alliance, Brussels, Belgium
(Thanks to Placebo Effect for obtaining and sending me this full text version).