Worldwide newsand commentUSA/ASIA: US-BASED THINK-TANKTRIES TO INTIMIDATE REGIONALTOBACCO CONTROL GROUPTobacco control advocates are familiarwith the “scream test” – the litmus test foran effective measure that hurts the tobaccoindustry and causes it to protest. Recently, aregional tobacco control group, theSoutheast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance(SEATCA) received a 36-page letter fromDr Gary Johns on behalf of theInternational Tax and Investment Center(ITIC) which shows the industry screaming.

The ITIC is a think tank based inWashington DC that claims to be an inde-pendent, non-profit research and educa-tional organisation supported by 100corporations including four transnationaltobacco companies (BAT, PMI, JTI andImperial Brands), each of which are repre-sented on its board of directors (http://www.iticnet.org/Sponsors_BoardOfDirectors).Dr Gary Johns is an Australian consultant“engaged by ITIC to engage with its critics”.

The letter sent to SEATCA is riddledwith false accusations against SEATCA,mischaracterizations of fact and law, dis-paraging comments about the WorldHealth Organization (WHO), the WHOFramework Convention on TobaccoControl Secretariat (FCS) and the Partiesto the FCTC.

What had SEATCA done to bring aboutthis tirade? In 2012, the ITIC and OxfordEconomics (OE) released a report on illicittobacco trade, Asia-11 Illicit TobaccoIndicator 2012 to provide evidence of illicittrade of tobacco products of 11 countries inAsia. The ITIC later launched an updatedversion, Asia-14 Illicit Tobacco Indicator2013”, expanding the review to 14 coun-tries in Asia. Both reports were funded byPhilip Morris International (PMI).

SEATCA published critiques of bothreports. The first, More Myth than Factprovided an expert review of the method-ology of the Asia-11 report, questioningthe reliability and accuracy of the esti-mates of illicit consumption. The second,A Critique of the ITIC/OE Asia-14 IllicitTobacco Indicator 2013, pointed out thatthe report failed to provide scientifically

sound and unbiased information. Thefigures and statistics used in the reportwere products of either incorrect orunverified/unverifiable estimation methods,applied to often questionable data frommultiple, disparate sources.It appears that PMI wants to steer

governments away from WHO FCTCArticle 5.3, which aims to protect publichealth policies from tobacco industryinterference, and would rather govern-ments participate in industry sponsoredprograms and adopt its recommendationson tobacco taxation.In November 2014, the ITIC organized

a briefing for governments attending thesixth session of the FCTC Conference ofthe Parties (COP6) in Moscow hoping todissuade them from their decision toadopt Article 6 guidelines on tobacco tax.However, the Framework ConventionSecretariat (FCS) was able to cautiongovernments in a timely manner aboutthis ITIC meeting by issuing a NoteVerbale in September 2014.In February this year, SEATCA’s

Executive Director received a letter fromITIC’s President inviting her to a ‘round-table discussion’, particularly “an experts’meeting of professional economists”which SEATCA declined.In March, the FCS issued a second

Note Verbale on tobacco industry interfer-ence on the tracking and tracing systems,again making reference to the ITIC.Dr Johns wrote to an internationally

renowned Thai tobacco control leaderrequesting them to urge SEATCA to meetwith him about the critiques of ITICreports. However, SEATCA has a policyof not engaging with the tobacco industryor its representatives. Dr Johns made

another effort by phone and email, andfailing to secure a meeting hand-deliveredthe letter in April. Because SEATCA doesnot engage with the tobacco industry orindividuals or organisations representingit, it decided to publish an open letter inresponse to Dr Gary John and the ITIC.

Among the many accusations the ITICmakes is that SEATCA “sees itself as an in-strument of the World Health Organizationand its Framework Convention Secretariat”.This statement undermines the credibility ofthe many international and regional non-governmental groups that work closely with

An image used by Vital Strategies Bangladesh for a Thunderclap campaign to support graphichealth warnings in the lead up to World No Tobacco Day 2016. Credit: Vital Strategies –Bangladesh country program.

All articles written by Marita Heflerunless otherwise attributed. Ideas anditems for News Analysis should be sentto: marita.hefler@menzies.edu.au

A drawing from a World No Tobacco Day eventorganised by Unfairtobacco in Germany withsixth grade students (11–12 years old). Thestudents participated in workshop about theproblems caused by tobacco growing. Studentsdesigned postcards to spread information aboutthe problems and then released them tied toballoons. Credit: Harry Thomass, Unfairtobacco.

Tob Control July 2016 Vol 25 No 4 373

News analysiscopyright.

on February 23, 2021 by guest. P

rotected byhttp://tobaccocontrol.bm

j.com/

Tob C

ontrol: first published as 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053236 on 22 June 2016. Dow

nloaded from

inter-governmental organisations. SEATCAis a civil society alliance that works inde-pendently of the WHO and FCS. Likemany other tobacco control NGOs,SEATCA has observer status with theFCTC COP. Observer status with the COPdoes not make SEATCA an instrument ofthe COP.

SEACTA is an NGO in a developingcountry which carries out its activities incountries in the Southeast Asian region.ITIC’s letter, with its intimidating tone,appears aimed at bullying SEATCA in itsefforts to expose the tactics of PMI andits representatives. This type of intimida-tion has a larger impact in a developingcountry setting as it aims to discredit atobacco control NGO that works closelywith governments.

The ITIC’s attack on a tobacco controlNGO is another example of an old triedand tested tactic of the tobacco industry.Attempts at intimidation or silencing NGOsin any form must be exposed and stopped.

Mary AssuntaSoutheast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance

mary.assunta@cancer.org.au

UK: BIG TOBACCO INVOKES SLAVERYABOLITION PRECEDENT FORCOMPENSATIONBritish American Tobacco, Philip Morris,JT International and Gallaher Limitedfailed in a last ditch legal challenge tostrike down the plain packaging regula-tions which came into force in the UnitedKingdom from 20 May. In a 386 pagejudgement handed down on 19 May,

Mr Justice Green found that there was nobasis to void the regulations or preventtheir implementation.One of the more striking arguments put

forward by the industry’s lawyers was arequest for compensation for deprivationof its property. The precedent invoked was

the compensation provided to slaveowners of the British colonies whenslavery was abolished in 1833. Given bigtobacco’s comprehensive image problem,the precarious livelihood of many tobaccofarmers in low income countries, and theongoing problem of child labour in thetobacco supply chain, aligning the indus-try’s claim to compensation with the slaveowners of the 18000s is a tactic that shouldmake even its most ardent defenders blush.

GERMANY: DELAY & RESISTANCE INTOBACCO CONTROL POLICY MAKINGWhen the Tobacco Products Directive(TPD) was adopted by the EuropeanUnion in April 2014, it was widely hopedthat member states would use the oppor-tunity to undertake a comprehensivereview of their tobacco control regulationsand then to go further than the minimumrequired when implementing the directiveinto national law.

In the case of Germany, that is turningout to have been a fleeting hope.Although Germany’s initial draft legisla-tion had indeed included wider ranging,long overdue restrictions, particularly foroutdoor advertising, these proposals provedto be controversial. The legislation was thenseparated into two parts. In the first part,the minimum TPD requirements were

Australia’s Queensland University of Technology announced on World No Tobacco Day that all itscampuses and research facilities would become smoke free from July 1, 2016. Credit: AnthonyWeate, QUT.

An extract from the ruling which found there was no basis to strike down the UK’s plainpackaging legislation, and dismissed the claim for compensation to the tobacco industry basedon compensation paid to slave owners when slavery was abolished. Credit: Pascal Diethelm,OxyRomandie.

374 Tob Control July 2016 Vol 25 No 4

News analysiscopyright.

on February 23, 2021 by guest. P

rotected byhttp://tobaccocontrol.bm

j.com/

Tob C

ontrol: first published as 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053236 on 22 June 2016. Dow

nloaded from

implemented on 20 May, complying withthe deadline set by the EU.

Christian Schmidt, the government min-ister for food and agriculture from theminority Bavarian coalition partnerChristian Social Union (CSU), then intro-duced additional wider ranging reforms ina separate bill approved by cabinet on 20April 2016. Although the cabinet initiallyapproved the measure, by early June its fatewas still uncertain. The other two, largercoalition partners, the ChristianDemocratic Union (CDU) and the SocialDemocratic Party, both have expressed theiropposition to the advertising restrictions,the CDU having done so formally througha resolution at its national party conventionin December 2016. A date for the firstreading in parliament has yet to be set.

The proposed legislation is striking inacknowledging the need for an outdooradvertising ban on the one hand, while atthe same time refusing to implement itwithin the current legislative session. Theproposed partial ban, which would nottake effect until June 2020, would beeffectively left to the discretion of thenext federal government, to be electedbefore September 2017.

Germany recognised the need to banoutdoor advertising and had already com-mitted itself to doing so within five yearswhen it ratified the FCTC in 2005.However, implementation of legislationhas consistently been set for subsequentparliamentary terms. The latest legislationwould again require implementation bythe next government, four to five yearsfrom being passed by parliament. Even if

the proposed legislation is adopted by thecurrent legislature, the next parliamentcould follow the precedent and postponethe implementation for another five years,and so on.Pushing for long-term postponements

of legislation is a potent tactic of tobaccolobbyists. In a similar manner, the Austriangovernment postponed implementation ofsmoke-free bars and restaurants for fouryears, also putting the decision at the dis-posal of the next government. Long-termpostponement provides the tobacco indus-try with an empty playing field whenlobbying for yet a further postponement ordilution of regulations.In a positive development, the smoking

ban in bars and restaurants in the Germanstate of North Rhine-Westphalia has beensuccessfully in place since 1 May 2013.The change was adopted almost immedi-ately after the state election and wasimplemented within just 12 months,meaning it will have been in place forfour years by the next state election duein May 2017. The speedy implementationhas meant that the restrictions are nolonger a political issue. Unfortunately,however, the good example out of thestate capital in Düsseldorf (which fol-lowed earlier bans in Bavaria in 2010 andSaarland in 2011) has not been followedby other German states.Again at the federal level, most distres-

sing has been the recent changes to thechild protection provisions. Euphemisticallyreferred to by the government as a ‘strict’prohibition, Germany has essentially theweakest imaginable statutory regulation in

this area. The federal restrictions on thesupply of cigarettes to minors only apply totransactions made in public and by busi-nesses. Anyone else, however, is allowed tobuy cigarettes and pass them on at cost tominors, regardless of parental consent ordisapproval. Regardless of age, minors areallowed to acquire and possess cigarettes.Outside the school-yard, a child is alsoallowed to consume tobacco, so long as itis not openly done in public.

Such lax regulations around distributionand sales of tobacco mean that cigarettesare easier to obtain for minors than mediasuch as DVDs, CDs and other digital media.Distribution of media products to minors isprohibited both in public and in private,unless the distributing person is either aparent or is acting with the parents’ consent.

The failure to prohibit the non-commercial supply of tobacco to minorsplaces German legislation well behind theUnited Kingdom, many US states, andeven behind neighbouring Austria whichhas the worst tobacco control record of34 European states.

The relevant federal statute was revisedeffective 1 April to include a prohibitionon distribution of all inhalation productsto minors in public, regardless of nicotinecontent. Protecting children against inhal-ation products in general is certainly war-ranted. However, children are now beingtold that the nicotine content is irrelevant.De facto, the addictive and harmfulnature of nicotine as a drug has been tri-vialised while the restrictions for tobaccoproducts have remained superficial.

The implementation of the TPD inGermany on 20 May has led to a mélangeof contradictory philosophies on tobaccocontrol legislation. Graphic pictorialwarnings on cigarette packaging will soonbe on display at check-out counters, nextto bubble gum and within children’sreach. For advertising on outdoor bill-boards and at the point of sale, where theEU has no jurisdiction, there will be nocomparable requirement to show picturesof the deadly reality of smoking. Thisdichotomy may undermine the potency ofgraphic health warnings, and lead furtherto minimising acceptance of the dangersof smoking.

Despite the inadequate protections withinthe revised German tobacco control legisla-tion, the changes have been widely criticizedin the German press and in internet forumsas an example of EU over-regulation incon-gruent with German liberalism.

The German government continues to bea bulwark of resistance to tobacco controlmeasures. Imperial Tobacco cited Germanyin 2014 as a model 22 times in its

On World No Tobacco Day, the president of Palau signed a proclamation for the observance ofWNTD with the theme about getting ready for plain packaging. Credit: Office of the President,Republic of Palau

Tob Control July 2016 Vol 25 No 4 375

News analysiscopyright.

on February 23, 2021 by guest. P

rotected byhttp://tobaccocontrol.bm

j.com/

Tob C

ontrol: first published as 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053236 on 22 June 2016. Dow

nloaded from

arguments against plain-packaging in theUK. After manufacturing operations inSpain were closed in June 2015 (asreported in the March 2016 edition ofNews Analysis), Imperial Tobaccoannounced that manufacturing will bemoving as well from Nantes, France andfrom Nottingham, England toLangenhagen, Germany and to Poland.Additional cigarette manufacturing inGermany can be expected to furthersecure the political influence of thetobacco industry.

The prevalence of smoking among15-year-olds in Germany is above theaverage among European countries. Everyday an estimated 423 minors take upsmoking on a regular basis in Germany.Roughly a quarter of German youth reachage 18 addicted to nicotine. Measures toprotect children and adolescents fromsmoking initiation continue to be desper-ately needed.

Carl AnderssonNiemals-Nikotin.de

Carl.Andersson@gmx.de

OBITUARY: YUL FRANCISCO DORADOLatin America, and the global tobaccocontrol community, lost a champion ofpublic health on 1 May 2016. YulFrancisco Dorado was born in Popayán, insouthwest Colombia, where he completedhis studies in Law and Political Science. Ata young age he became interested in theright to health and environment. Hebecame a key leader in the fight againsttobacco in Latin America.

With a postgraduate degree in PublicLaw, he moved to Chile and worked forConsumers International. In 2003, hereturned to his native Columbia, where helater established the Latin Americaregional office of Corporate AccountabilityInternational.

Over the last 13 years, he devotedhimself to contributing to the creation ofnational and international networks fortobacco control, as well as the protectionof the right to water and healthy environ-ment. His dedicated work as an advocateled him to find a way not only amonginternational organisations, but alsoamong health authorities, the media andgeneral public opinion, for Latin America

to trigger alarms on the epidemic oftobacco-related disease and death.He was a key figure in the movement

within Latin America to implement thestandards and laws provided by the WHOFramework Convention on TobaccoControl. He worked energetically on highimpact campaigns to prevent tobacco con-sumption, especially among minors. Everyyear, on May 31, Yul Francisco addressedthe media to promote a message duringthe celebration of World No Tobacco Day.Governmental entities understood Yul

Francisco’s fight, not only in Colombia,but at an international level. Beforehe joined Corporate AccountabilityInternational in 2005 as Director forLatin America, he worked for ConsumersInternational, supervising and supportingthe ratification and implementation pro-cesses of the FCTC in Chile, Colombia,Ecuador, Guatemala and Costa Rica.He travelled all around the world,

bringing a message of solidarity andfriendship to all meetings, winning theaffection and recognition of severalinternational organizations.Yul Francisco Dorado was a determined

leader, teacher and relentless health advo-cate. His work will live on through hismany friends and colleagues who havelearned from, and been inspired by him.

Dr Vera Luiza da Costa e Silva, Headof the FCTC Convention Secretariat,perhaps put it best when she paidtribute to his legacy:

“Yul’s impact on the tobacco controlmovement has, and will undoubtedlycontinue to save millions of lives.His work has ensured that people arevalued above the profits of the tobaccoindustry and that this industry will nolonger be allowed to have a voice inpublic health policy. Yul will be sorelymissed and our COP meetings will neverbe the same as they will miss his kindand strong presence. Nevertheless, hislegacy will live on for its support to theWHO Framework Convention onTobacco Control”.

Yul Francisco Dorado is survived by hiswife and three sons.

This obituary and additional tributesare published online at http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/2016/06/06/obituary-yul-francisco-dorado-a-visionary-tobacco-control-leader-in-latin-america/.

Tob Control 2016;25:373–376.doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053236

Yul Francisco Dorado, on the left holding the camera, was a tireless advocate for health andtobacco control in Latin America

376 Tob Control July 2016 Vol 25 No 4

News analysiscopyright.

on February 23, 2021 by guest. P

rotected byhttp://tobaccocontrol.bm

j.com/

Tob C

ontrol: first published as 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053236 on 22 June 2016. Dow

nloaded from