Revenues Martin Rogers at Dublin Port with one of the largest ever hauls, branded Excellence, of black market cigarettes recovered by Customs, October 2017. Niall Carson/Press Association. All rights reserved. Tobacco control oftentimes feels like battling Goliath. Even if five
years have passed since the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco (FCTC) Protocol
to Eliminate Illicit Trade on Tobacco was adopted to tackle the illicit tobacco
trade, this tool still needs six more countries to ratify it in order to
come into force. Big Tobacco is intent on keeping it this way.
On the face of it, cracking down on the sale of illegal tobacco should
be a no-brainer. Not only is it a tremendous financial drain costing EU
countries an estimated €10 billion in revenue each year, but it also undermines any policy attempt to discourage
smoking by heavily taxing tobacco products. In the real world, however, logical
arguments often lose out, especially since the tobacco industry itself has
reaped billions from the parallel trade.
The list of countries that have so far ratified
the protocol reveals both surprises and glaring absences. Swaziland, Burkina
Faso, and Turkmenistan, countries not usually renowned for their commitment to
social welfare and public health, have rushed to endorse the report.
At the other end of the spectrum, numerous nations long recognized as
standard bearers in the field, such as Norway, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, the
United Kingdom and Canada have inexplicably not ratified the protocol. Numerous nations long recognized as standard bearers in the field, such
as Norway, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Canada have
inexplicably not ratified the protocol.
While this glaring hesitation may or may not be tied to the tobacco
industry, understanding the perplexing hand wringing over the FCTC only makes
sense if one remembers the saga surrounding the EU’s Tobacco Products Directive
(TPD).
“The most lobbied dossier in the history of EU institutions”
When the TPD was adopted in 2014, it was hailed for having “some of the most ambitious
tobacco control measures in the world”. The directive, however, was the result
of more than five years of difficult negotiations, which included the dramatic
resignation of Malta’s top EU official.
Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner John Dalli was pushed out amidst
allegations that he was aware of a scheme to
extract money from a Swedish tobacco company in exchange for the Maltese
lifting a ban on snus (chewing tobacco), which had been banned for decades in
the EU.
But even this triumph for EU action turned out to be a damp squib. The
final directive was significantly watered down from initial drafts: a ban on
slim cigarettes, which are known to especially appeal to women and young people, was axed.
Other measures were weakened: a requirement that 75% of tobacco
products’ packaging be devoted to health warnings was relaxed to 65%, while
e-cigarettes were regulated for general sale rather than as medicines.
This dilution of the directive’s most important provisions was chalked
up to the tobacco industry’s influence. The TPD was singled out as “the most
lobbied dossier in the history of EU institutions”. One political advisor claimed that the lobbying from the tobacco
industry during the directive’s drafting was cranked up to 11 on a scale of 1
to 10.
According to Reuters, Philip Morris International (PMI) dedicated at least 160 lobbyists and €1.25
million to subverting the directive. The odds were so severely stacked against
health advocates that one MEP compared their struggle against tobacco industry influence to the biblical
battle between David and Goliath.
In this case, there were four formidable Goliaths – the ‘big four’
tobacco companies, PMI, British American Tobacco (BAT), Japan Tobacco International,
and Imperial Tobacco – all of which sought to scrap measures that would have
harmed their bottom line. The companies maintained lists of MEPs they hoped to influence,
including notes on their personal lives. Lobbyists even gave out free cigarettes and slipped sample
e-cigarettes into MEPs’ post-boxes. The companies maintained lists of MEPs they hoped to influence,
including notes on their personal lives.
MEPs were flooded with emails purporting to be from
their constituents, but which revealed a suspiciously detailed understanding of
the complex directive and its various provisions.
Turns out, these solicitations were part of ‘astroturf’ campaigns, false
grass roots initiatives set up by corporate stakeholders. The multinational
tobacco corporations’ use of front groups like retailers’ associations and
farmers’ unions was so severe that the World Health Organization highlighted their involvement on their website.
And this is where the FCTC comes into play. The ongoing war between
regulatory Davids and industry Goliaths now revolves around the implementation
of a track-and-trace (T&T) system, provided for in both the TPD and the
FCTC’s embattled Protocol.
Once implemented, T&T would render tobacco smuggling almost
impossible, as packs would be traceable from factory floor to store
shelf. And the Protocol’s jargon-heavy sections contains one particularly
upsetting provision: T&T must be independent from the tobacco industry – a claim
that Big Tobacco has been doing its utmost to sabotage.
The proposal is now up for a vote in the European Parliament, which
could still overturn the bill and give the EC one more chance to respect its
international obligations.
Indeed, much like the TPD, the EC’s track and trace proposal leaves open
a number of loopholes tailor-made for the tobacco industry. In particular, the
presumption of independence granted to companies which generate less than
10% of their worldwide turnover from the tobacco sector keeps the door open for
Trojan Horse firms like Inexto, a cunning rebranding of Codentify,
a track-and-trace system developed by PMI and heavily promoted by the tobacco industry.
The tobacco industry’s relentless behavior led French MEP Françoise
Grossetête to assert that it cannot be considered a ‘normal’ industry subject
to the same rules as any other.
Any hesitation to take decisive action, such as European nations’ long
delay in ratifying the FCTC’s Protocol, is a shameful blow against the public
health interests those countries are ostensibly so committed to and a victory
for Big Tobacco.