KEY ELEMENTS OF THE FCTC

Purpose of Exercise

1. Be able to articulate concise arguments in favor of ratifying the FCTC and the policy measures it contains to policymakers, the media and other potential allies.

2. Enable you to anticipate and counteract common tobacco industry arguments against the FCTC and its policies.

Task

1. Develop three key arguments in favor of the policy and be able to present them in a concise and convincing manner

2. Anticipate main industry arguments against the policy and develop responses

3. Develop three main industry arguments for the next group

Advertising Bans

FCTC: Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship (Article 13)

Requires a comprehensive ban within five years, including cross-border advertising originating within a Party's territory.

Includes indirect as well as direct forms of advertising.

Allows for constitutional constraints. The Parties also agree to consider a protocol to

elaborate on cross-border advertising.

Advertising Bans and Consumption

Scientific and economic rationale for bans:

Research shows that comprehensive tobacco advertising and promotion bans can decrease consumption.

Partial bans have been found to be ineffective, since substitution to other non-banned media occurs.

Common Arguments Against Ad Bans and Useful Responses

“Tobacco advertising doesn’t affect tobacco consumption”

Dozens of studies show that increased tobacco promotion is linked to increased tobacco use in the general population. Promotion is also linked to smoking initiation among specific groups – such as women and children – as a result of campaigns targeted at them. Studies have also shown that the elimination or near-elimination of tobacco promotion decreases tobacco use. Partial restrictions on promotion have little or no impact on consumption, usually because the tobacco companies simply invest more money in promotional avenues still available to them.

“We should prohibit advertising aimed at kids”

It is impossible to draw a clear line defining what advertising is targeted at kids. Cigarette promotion has been successful in reaching youth in large part because it portrays smoking as an “adult” behavior: something that every adolescent aspires to. And studies have shown that partial restrictions on promotion do not reduce tobacco use. Bans or near-total bans on promotion do reduce tobacco use.

“Arts and sporting events would disappear without tobacco industry support”

Many jurisdictions have banned tobacco sponsorships and, despite dire predictions, most groups have found alternative sponsors. Other jurisdictions have used revenue from tobacco taxes to buy out tobacco sponsorships and fund events. This way, people are exposed to messages about health rather than unhealthy products when they watch sports events or musical concerts.

“We don’t need to regulate tobacco advertising – the tobacco companies have a

voluntary code and are behaving responsibly”

Tobacco company codes, by their own admission in internal documents, are designed solely as public relations strategies to forestall meaningful regulation of promotion. The codes are extremely weak, and in most countries the companies routinely violate their own codes. Rather than allowing the fox to guard the chicken coop, the best solution is a legislated ban on all tobacco advertising and promotion.

TAXATION

FCTC: Taxation & Duty Free Sales (Article 6)

Tobacco tax increases are encouraged. Recognition that raising tobacco prices

"is an effective and important means of reducing tobacco consumption“

Duty-free sales are discouraged. Parties may prohibit or restrict duty-free sales of tobacco products.

Tobacco Taxes and Consumption

Scientific and economic rationale for taxes:

Price increases through taxation on tobacco products are among the most effective interventions in reducing demand, especially among youth and persons with low incomes.

At the same time, tobacco taxes are very efficient at raising government revenues.

Common Arguments

Against Tax Hikes & Useful

Responses

“Tobacco taxes hurt the poor and punish smokers”

Tobacco taxes are extremely effective in reducing tobacco use. For every 10% increase in the real price of tobacco products, consumption in middle-income countries will drop by about 8%. The decrease will be greatest among youth and the poor, exactly those groups that government policy hopes to benefit the most and that can least afford to bear the burden of tobacco-caused disease. Money from taxes can be used to pay for programs that help smokers quit smoking, and for programs that benefit the poor.

“Tobacco taxes are just a money grab by governments”

It is true that some governments raise tobacco taxes primarily to increase government revenue. But this does not detract from the fact that tobacco taxes are healthy public policy.

“Government will lose revenue if they increase

tobacco taxes”

There has not been a single instance in which an increase in tobacco taxes has resulted in decreased government revenue. On the contrary, data from dozens of countries shows that when tobacco taxes increase, revenue from tobacco taxes increases. Although tobacco consumption falls in response to higher prices, because tobacco is addictive the decline is small in proportion to the tax increase, guaranteeing stable government revenue at least in the medium term.

“Higher tobacco taxes will increase tobacco smuggling”

The level of corruption in a country as measured by the “transparency index” is a far better predictor of tobacco smuggling than the level of tax. In most countries, the benefits of higher tobacco taxes in terms of health and revenue have been significant even in countries where the level of consumption of smuggled tobacco is high. And governments can use increased tax revenue to strengthen anti-smuggling efforts.

Secondhand Smoke

FCTC: Secondhand Smoke (Article 8)

Obliges parties to adopt “effective” laws to protect citizens from tobacco smoke.

Guiding Principle calls on governments to contemplate measures to protect all persons from exposure to tobacco smoke.

Clean Indoor Air Laws, Consumption & Public Health

Scientific Rationale

The scientific evidence unequivocally establishes that tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death to those exposed, both smokers and non smokers. Tobacco smoke contains more than 60 known or suspected cancer-causing compounds, as well as other toxins. For many of these compounds, there is no safe level of exposure

Definitive reports by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the U.K. Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, among others, have concluded that tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen.

Prohibiting Smoking in Public Places

Policy Rationales:

Protecting Non-Smokers Influencing Smoking Consumption Changing Social Norms

Common Arguments Against

Clean Indoor Air Laws & Useful

Responses

“There is no proven link between secondhand smoke

and disease”

Every credible medical and scientific organization in the world – including the World Health Organization, the US Surgeon General, national environmental protection agencies, colleges of physicians and surgeons – agrees that secondhand smoke exposure causes serious illness and death in nonsmokers. There are no more important sources of air pollution.

“Shared smoking and nonsmoking areas will solve

the problem”

This is like having a urinating and non-urinating section in a swimming pool. Would you jump in? If the air is shared, the smoke pollution is shared. Smoke in the smoking section causes disease in the nonsmoking section.

“Secondhand smoke is just an issue of poor ventilation”

Better ventilation may reduce the odour of smoke, but it does not eliminate the harmful chemicals. To eliminate these chemicals in an average smoking office, so many air exchanges would be required that there would be a small hurricane. And why force businesses to invest in expensive ventilation equipment when they can just eliminate the source of the pollution? The cheapest, most effective, and only sensible solution is to eliminate smoking indoors.

“Smoke-free environments will harm businesses, especially

bars, restaurants, and tourist industries”

Workplaces that are smoke-free lower their maintenance and insurance costs, and their workers are more productive. Smokers and nonsmokers exposed to smoke get sick more often than nonsmokers not exposed, and smoke-free workplaces help smokers to quit smoking.

The effect of banning smoking in bars and restaurants has been studied in hundreds of communities. Sales receipts show that sales increase or remain the same in smoke-free bars and restaurants in comparison to those in jurisdictions that still allow smoking. Studies that show otherwise are always funded by the tobacco industry allies, and usually look at owner predictions rather than actual sales data.

“Government doesn’t have the right to tell my business

what to do”

Businesses do not have the right to endanger the health and lives of their employees and customers. Government is obligated to protect public health and safety, as it does when it regulates drinking and driving, implements seatbelt laws, or sets environmental pollution standards.

“Smoking restrictions infringe on smokers’ rights”

As the old saying goes, my right to swing my arm stops where your nose begins. Smokers do not have the right to harm others with their smoke. Smoke-free environments do not violate the “right” to smoke, they protect the right of nonsmokers’ to breathe clean air.

PACKAGING & LABELING (including light & low)

FCTC: Packaging and Labeling (Article 11)

Obliges parties to adopt and implement effective measures to ensure that:

packaging and labelling do not employ false or misleading promotions about health effects, which may include a ban on terms such as “low tar,” “light”, “ultra light” or “mild”;

Every package carries health warnings describing the harmful effects of tobacco use. These warnings and messages:

(i) shall be approved by the competent national authority (ii) shall be rotating (iii) shall be large, clear, visible and legible (iv) should be 50% or more of the principal display areas but shall be no

less than 30% of the principal display areas (v) may be in the form of or include pictures or pictograms.

Each unit package to contain information on relevant constituents and emissions.

PACKAGING & LABELING

Scientific and economic rationale Prominent health warnings and

messages on tobacco product packages have been found to lead to an increased awareness of risks and an increased desire to quit

Common Arguments Against

Packaging & Labeling

and Useful Responses

“Package messages are ineffective”

The package messages in many countries are ineffective because they are so small and give unclear information. But in Canada and Brazil, where health messages on packages are large and use pictures, messages have motivated many smokers to try to quit smoking. Smokers say that the information is relevant and informs them about the effects of smoking on their own health and on the health of others who breathe their smoke involuntarily. These messages can reinforce other elements of a tobacco control program, such as smoke-free environments.

“People here buy single cigarettes,

they won’t even see packages”

If the health messages are large enough and clear enough, people will see them when they are displayed for sale, when they are taken out of smokers’ pockets and purses, and when they are discarded. Package messages are one of the cheapest and widest-reaching forms of public education available.

“Many people can’t read so package messages won’t

work”

This is a good reason to have pictures accompanying text messages. Pictures can graphically illustrate the health harms of smoking and secondhand smoke, and can be understood even without text.

SMUGGLING

FCTC: Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products (Article 15)

Obliges parties to “monitor and collect data on cross-border trade in tobacco products, including illicit trade, and exchange information among customs, tax and other authorities, as appropriate, and in accordance with national law and relevant applicable bilateral or multilateral agreements.”

Requires parties to implement measures to monitor, document and control the storage and distribution of tobacco products held or moving under suspension of taxes or duties within its jurisdiction…”

Additional Article 15 obligations on smuggling are related to labelling and to enforcement.

ANTI-SMUGGLING MEASURES

Scientific and economic rationale Tobacco product smuggling deprives the

government of significant tax revenues. Total revenue lost to governments on account of smuggling is estimated to be $25-30,000 million annually.

Smuggling also brings tobacco products into markets more cheaply, making them more affordable, increasing consumption.

Common Arguments

Against Anti-Smuggling

Measures & Useful

Responses

“Tobacco taxes will increase smuggling”

Smuggling is a problem worldwide, even in countries where taxes are

low

Common Arguments Against

the FCTC and Useful

Responses

“The FCTC is taking away the sovereign right of countries to decide their own approach to tobacco use”

The FCTC has been negotiated by WHO Member States in their capacity as sovereign nations. It is an agreement that countries can choose to sign or not. The vast majority of countries support the FCTC, because they see it as a mechanism to strengthen their national efforts to reduce tobacco use.

“The FCTC will set up a new, expensive bureaucracy for

tobacco control”

The FCTC will provide a mechanism for countries to share knowledge and resources to support tobacco control, providing most countries with cost savings and an opportunity to boost the impact of their domestic policies and programs.

“The FCTC will violate trade agreements”

By signing and ratifying the FCTC, countries will acknowledge the importance of measures to protect public health and will be less likely to challenge other countries that implement such measures.