MANILA, PHILIPPINES – GOVERNMENT officials and employees have been prohibited to interact with tobacco industry members under a joint circular issued by the Department of Health (DoH) and Civil Service Commission (CSC), pursuant to the government’s anti-smoking campaign.

Under Joint Memorandum Circular 2010-01, government workers are banned to interact with any tobacco corporation or company, except “when strictly necessary for the latter’s effective regulation, supervision, or control.”

Health Secretary Esperanza I. Cabral, in an interview, said the memorandum is based on the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control signed in 2003, which the Senate ratified in 2005.

Signatory states have committed to implement “public health policies with respect to tobacco control.”

“This [circular] is in keeping with our anti-smoking campaign,” Ms. Cabral said.

The memorandum prohibits, among others, the acceptance of gifts, donations and sponsorships, “which may affect the functions of [government] offices” from tobacco entities.

It also bans public officials and their family members from “accepting employment or recommend any one to any position in any private enterprise connected with the tobacco industry.”

It added: “Public officials or employees, regardless of status, shall avoid conflicts of interest with the tobacco industry at all times. When a conflict of interest arises, he/she shall resign from his position in the tobacco industry within 30 days from his/her assumption of office and/or divest himself/herself of his/her shareholdings or interest within 60 days from assumption.”

Ms. Cabral said the memorandum supplements a CSC memorandum issued last year that prohibited smoking inside government offices and within 10 meters from the entrance of the agencies.

“CSC will impose penalties for violators [of the memorandum],” she added.

CSC Chairman Francisco T. Duque III was not available for comment.

Officials from Philip Morris and Fortune Tobacco, Corp. declined to comment.

“I could not make a comment because I haven’t read the memo yet,” Carmen L. Herse, Philip Morris counsel, said by phone.

Fortune Tobacco said no authorized official was available to issue a comment.

By Prinz P. Magtulis
Bworldonline

Jakarta ― Tobacco growers from Indonesia, Korea, the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand and India are up in arms over a World Health Organization (WHO) proposal that they claim would kill as much as 50 million jobs in the tobacco industry and related fields around the world.

The first Asia Tobacco Forum, held in the Indonesian capital last week, discussed proposed guidelines under the WHO Framework Convention for Tobacco Control (FCTC) that would ban the use of ingredients, such as sweeteners, stimulants and spices, to reduce the attractiveness of tobacco products.

Tobacco growers from the six Asian countries signed a formal declaration opposing the FCTC proposal for its potentially devastating effect on the industry, its lack of scientific basis and its violation of international trade laws.

Roger Quarles, president of the International Tobacco Growers Association (ITGA), said the proposal would have a serious impact on the jobs and livelihood of millions of tobacco farmers and workers in related areas.

“We urge all governments to reject the proposal to ban tobacco ingredients and to investigate other alternatives that can achieve public health goals while protecting the millions of jobs dependent on tobacco growing,” he said. The ITGA is an organization of tobacco growers from 22 countries, representing 85 percent of the world’s tobacco production.

The WHO FCTC is a treaty aimed at stopping the global tobacco epidemic. Proposed guidelines including Articles 9 and 10, which deal with ingredient bans in tobacco products, will be taken up during the next WHO FCTC meeting in Uruguay in November.

However, tobacco growers have questioned the proposed guidelines for their lack of scientific basis, since the FCTC assumes the ingredients are being added to enhance the appeal of tobacco products.

The growers noted these ingredients are essential components of traditional blended or American-style cigarettes, which account for half of the global market for such products.

These traditional blended cigarettes, containing a combination of burley, Virginia and Oriental tobaccos, need extra ingredients to make the blend come together. Without the additives, they would not be palatable.

They fear the proposed FCTC guidelines would effectively lead to the elimination of these traditional blended cigarettes from the world market. Once this happens, burley growers say demand for their produce will fall and their industry would immediately be decimated.

Soedaryanto, chairman of the Indonesia Tobacco Community Alliance (AMTI), also criticized the lack of transparency in the FCTC discussions. He noted tobacco growers in Asia, who are already some of the poorest in their countries, have been excluded from discussions, even though they will be the most affected by the WHO proposal.

“No other crop currently exists that can provide similar economic benefits to those communities,” he said.

Soedaryanto said the group will lobby with the Indonesian government to urge other countries to reject these measures. Indonesia has not ratified the FCTC.

There will be a significant impact not just on the tobacco growers, but also for the countries’ fiscal revenues and employment in other industries.

Tobacco growers in India, Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand produce 1 million metric tons of tobacco leaf and $33 billion in finished products. Around 50 million jobs are linked to these countries’ tobacco industries, which generated tax revenues of more than $16 billion in 2009.

Korean tobacco growers are also expected to feel the pinch, since there are around 7,000 families involved in growing tobacco, half of which is burley. Burley production in Korea is estimated at 8,000 tons a year, worth 64 billion won.

“The proposal will do serious damage to the Korean tobacco industry. Many of the households are from the older generation, whose income depends fully on tobacco. It won’t be easy for them to switch to other crops,” said Choi Kyu-sup, director of the Korea Tobacco Growers Cooperative Association.

While it is clear the objective of the FCTC is to reduce the use of tobacco to safeguard people’s health, tobacco growers said it should not be at the expense of their livelihood.

“We need to strike a balance. Tobacco is the world’s number one choice for relaxation and it is legal. We have recognized the harmful effects of tobacco use. But this is a matter of choice. Obviously people still choose tobacco even knowing the risks involved. No one is forcing them to use tobacco,” Quarles said.

By Cathy Rose A. Garcia
Koreatimes

LONDON -The U.K. government’s decision to freeze alcohol and tobacco duty was welcomed by the tobacco and pub sectors Tuesday, while a rise in sales tax to 20% was described as “understandable” given the nation’s finances.

“We welcome the coalition government’s decision not to increase tobacco duties at this time,” The Tobacco Manufacturers Association said.

These comments were echoed by brewer and pub lobby group The British Beer & Pub Association. “This is a welcome relief for struggling pubs during difficult times,” it said.

The decision to freeze the beer and alcohol duty came in Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne’s first Budget speech Tuesday.

Both sectors had feared a further rise in duty as Osborne attempts to cut a budget deficit which is estimated at about 11% of gross domestic product, or about GBP155 billion for the fiscal year ending 2011.

As expected however, Osborne did announce a rise in U.K. sales tax to 20% from 17.5%, though not until January 2011.

The British Beer & Pub Association estimates that a 20% sales tax would result in a 6 pence rise in the price of a pint of beer.

“This tax increase is not welcome, but is understandable and applies to everybody,” said the BBPA. “We hope this will be short-term pain for long-term gain.”

Pub groups have already faced a rise in sales tax in January to 17.5% from 15%, but Osborne’s duty freeze effectively scraps the previous government’s alcohol tax escalator–which pledged to raise alcohol duty 2% above the rate of inflation each year until 2015.

Osborne also confirmed the government would reverse the previous administration’s decision to raise duty on cider by 10%.

Lower taxes on cider have historically been in place to protect apple growers and artisan cider makers. The cider category is now dominated by drinks giants like Heineken NV (HEIA.AE) and C&C Group (CCR.DUB).

Osborne also pledged to report back later in the year with proposals to overhaul the alcohol duty regime in order to combat binge drinking.
By Michael Carolan
Dow Jones Newswires

CINCINNATI – General Tobacco is arguing to a federal appeals court that it was unfairly shut out of the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement.

General Tobacco says the payment structure of the settlement, which allows tobacco companies to do business in 46 states and the District of Columbia in exchange for annual payments, discriminates against companies that were not around when it was signed.

General Tobacco allegedly owes the states $284 million and faces delisting. The company, which filed its brief May 18 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, is challenging three portions of the payment structure. They are:

-Grandfathered subsequent participating manufacturers, companies that did not originally sign the MSA but were grandfathered into it, do not have to make any back payments for cigarette sales prior to joining the MSA;

-Grandfathered SPMs receive a market-share exemption only available to companies that were in business in 1998 and signed the MSA during a set signing period. SPMs only pay states for cigarette sales after they reach their market share from 1998 or 1997, while companies like General Tobacco must pay for every cigarette sale; and

-General Tobacco must make advanced quarterly escrow deposits for its annual payments even though payments aren’t due until April.

“This Quarterly Escrow Deposit Requirement harshly impacted General Tobacco’s working capital,” attorneys for the company wrote.

“For example, General Tobacco in 2008 paid at least $36 million into escrow while its principal competitors were not required to make any such quarterly escrow payments and consequently enjoyed superior working capital opportunities.”

General Tobacco claims its competitors are able to sell their products at a much lower cost because of all these reasons.

“Because of this unfair pricing advantage, General Tobacco has suffered a dramatic and significant loss of market share since joining the MSA, has incurred substantial operating losses of tens of millions of dollars during this period, and has been forced to close its business operations,” attorneys wrote.

The MSA has an estimated worth of $246 billion over its first 25 years.

The state attorneys general are also named in General Tobacco’s lawsuit. They withheld information necessary to General Tobacco’s full understanding of its payment obligations prior to the company joining the MSA in 2004, it is alleged.

General Tobacco said it requested specific information about the market-share exemption but was denied.

The company’s claims were all dismissed at the trial level.
BY JOHN O’BRIEN, Legal Newsline

DANVILLE Tobacco contracting for leaf growers is down statewide and nationwide.

“There’s no doubt the amount contracted for has been reduced,” said D. Stanley Duffer, marketing specialist with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates the number of acres of flue-cured tobacco planted in Virginia this year is 16,000, down from 17,500 estimated acres in 2009. That’s a 9 percent decline.

Overall in the United States, the crop estimates were 224,000 acres in 2009 and 207,000 acres this year, an 8 percent decline. Flue-cured tobacco is grown in Southside Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama and Florida.

It’s hard to tell how individual growers fared. Some don’t have a contract at all compared with last year, while others may have seen a reduction or no cutback in the amount of tobacco contracted, Duffer said.

The decline in planted acres of flue-cured tobacco follows domestic cigarette consumption, which declined 8 percent from 2008 to 2009. The decline stems from increasing federal and state taxes on cigarettes and restrictions, such as recently implemented restaurant smoking bans in both Virginia and North Carolina, Duffer added.

Pittsylvania County is on par with the past few years in the amount of flue-cured tobacco planted, which hovers around the 5,000-acre mark, said Stephen Barts, Pittsylvania County extension agent.

Most of that tobacco is being grown under contract, he said. While individual producers may have lost volume with one company, they may have been able to gain back some with another company.

“We as a region on a per-acreage basis are going to be fairly stable,” Barts said. “We may see a bit of a increase, we’ll see.”

Barts attributes it to the experience of local farmers and the region’s soil type and climate that produce a desired tobacco leaf, which is part of the tobacco blend for cigarettes.

The opening of two more tobacco-receiving stations in Danville this year may have helped local farmers. Philip Morris USA continues having a receiving station in Danville.

The JTI Leaf Services LLC facility in Riverview Industrial Park will begin receiving tobacco this fall. JTI Leaf Services in Danville is Japan Tobacco International’s regional headquarters for leaf procurement. JTI is a division of Japan Tobacco Inc. — the world’s third largest tobacco company.

The U.S. Tobacco Cooperative, based in Raleigh, N.C, will use the former Dimon facility on Kentuck Road as a receiving station or “marketing center” this year, said Mike Parker, manager of public and member relations. The cooperative is consolidating into a centralized location in Danville after closing marketing centers in South Hill and Rural Hall, N.C.

Clarence Emerson of Emerson Road Farms in Dry Fork grows about 100 acres of tobacco, which he will sell to Bailey’s Cigarettes in Clarksville. His contracts have remained steady. He attributes the stability of local contracting to the flavor and smoking characteristics of the region’s tobacco.

“This old red land right here grows quality tobacco,” he said.

TARA BOZICK
Timesdispatch: June 12, 2010

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. — Assemblyman Lou Tobacco said he is opposed to a plan being floated in the state Senate that would require not-for-profits to pay property taxes. He said the move would place “additional burdens on already struggling non-profit organizations by forcing them to contribute to the real estate tax.”

Tobacco (R-South Shore) called it “an extension of a movement in Albany to view once protected sectors as revenue streams,” which could have “potentially disastrous results for non-profits.”

Instead of “taxing non-profits to generate new revenue,” Tobacco said, “the state must reduce spending and adopt more fiscally responsible budgeting practices.”

Specifically, he said state agencies with duplicative services should be eliminated, along with reducing by 10 percent “personal services,” including salaries and fringe benefits for political appointees, capping state spending to the rate of inflation and banning borrowing without voter approval.

AROUND ALBANY

In other state news, Assemblywoman Janele Hyer-Spencer is encouraging Staten Island homeowners to attend next week’s New York State Public Service Commission’s public hearing on proposed Con Ed natural gas rate hikes.

The hearing will be held in the CUNY Graduate Center, 365 Fifth Ave., Manhattan, beginning at 7 p.m.

Rate hikes must be OK’d by the PSC.

“Con Edison is attempting to increase natural gas bills nearly 7 percent and delivery charges by more than 17 percent for the average consumer over the next three years,” said Ms. Hyer-Spencer (D-East Shore/Brooklyn). “While the utility company claims rate increases are necessary, last month it posted a 27 percent jump in first-quarter profits.”

Along those lines, she noted legislation she is sponsoring that would require utilities to “consider a range of energy alternatives” and make “prudent purchasing decisions to protect consumers” from rate spikes.

Ms. Hyer-Spencer said if residents are unable to attend, they can submit comments online at www.dps.state.ny.us or call the PSC’s toll-free number at 1-800-335-2120. Comments must be received by Aug. 2.

Elsewhere, state Sen. Andrew Lanza said he is sponsoring a “Proud to be an American” photo contest. Photos may be sent to lanzad24@gmail.com or mailed to his office at 3845 Richmond Ave., 10312.

The deadline is July 16. The winning photos will be displayed at a Back to the Beach celebration in August.

“It’s said that a picture is worth a thousand words, so let’s tell everyone about our pride and patriotism,” said Lanza (R-Staten Island.)

By Judy L. Randall
Silive, June 07, 2010

An order requiring tobacco companies to print graphic health warnings on cigarette packs is contrary to law, the Philippine Tobacco Institute (PTI) said on Thursday.

Complying with the health department’s administrative order 2010-13 will be a violation of Republic Act 9211 or the Tobacco Regulation Act (TRA) of 2003, the group said in a statement.

The law prohibits the printing of any other health warning on cigarette packs other than those specified by law, the group said.

Under Section 13 (g) of the law, “no other printed warnings, except the health warning and the message required (by the law) shall be placed on cigarette packages.”

“If AO 2010-13 is implemented, cigarette manufacturers, exporters, and importers will be violating the TRA, which has penal provisions that could land them in jail and be meted heavy fines,” said the group, which includes Philip Morris-Fortune Tobacco Corp., the Philippines’ largest cigarette firm.

As a result, the PTI called on Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral to withdraw the said order, saying it is “defective” and “deplorable.”

“Secretary Cabral has wrought much confusion in taxation and regulation in the last days of this administration… We call on Secretary Cabral to immediately withdraw her defective administrative order and not embarrass her president any further,” the PTI said in the statement.

The PTI is a group of local cigarette manufacturers which include the Philippines’ biggest tobacco firm, Lucio Tan’s Philip Morris-Fortune Tobacco Corporation, and other corporations like the Anglo-American Tobacco Corporation, La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Manufacturing Inc., and Mighty Tobacco Corporation.

The FTI likewise accused Cabral of “arrogantly flaunting her powers” by issuing the order and by-passing Congress, which the group said should be the one issuing legislations governing these graphic warnings.

“Congress did not pass such a law, after long consultations with all stakeholders, so Secretary Cabral usurped legislative powers and issued her own diktat. This arrogant flaunting of the law and arrogation of powers not hers to exercise should be condemned by all law-abiding citizens of this country,” the group said.

Cabral issued last week an administrative order requiring the printing of graphic warnings on the bad effects of tobacco smoking on cigarette packs, saying it was in accordance with an international treaty ratified by the Philippines back in 2005.

The Philippines is one of the 168 signatories of the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which requires parties to the convention to “implement large, rotating health warnings on all tobacco product packaging and labelling.”

At least 38 countries and territories — including neighboring countries Thailand and Singapore — have already implemented the printing of picture-based warnings of cigarette packs, while 27 other member-states of the European Union has also recommended its implementation.

Comply or find alternative industry, Cabral says

However, Cabral remained firm about implementing the administrative order this month, saying tobacco companies can easily alter product packaging since they provide similar packages to other countries.

“These tobacco manufacturers are the ones who print and export packages with graphic warnings to other Asian countries. They can very well comply with the order,” she said in a phone interview with GMANews.TV.

The health department has given tobacco companies enough time to change their current packages and even invited them to a dialogue before the order was released, she said.

“We invited them, but nobody came except for one person,” she said.

The health secretary also said her administrative order does not violate any law, since RA 9211 only covers textual warnings.

“We consulted our legal experts here, and they said the order is well within the law. What we want now are graphic warnings, not textual ones,” she said.

Cabral likewise said that she expected strong opposition from tobacco firms after she released the order, but withdrawing her directive is not an option.

“In other countries, this order has also been met with opposition. Tobacco companies kept threatening to sue. It really depends on the political will,” she said.

“Natatakot ako, pero trabaho ko ito. Kung matatakot ako at hindi na magtatrabaho, I might as well resign,” she added.

Cabral also advised tobacco manufacturers to reconsider their options, since the DOH is determined to put an end to smoking in the country, especially among the youth.

“To the tobacco companies, I think they should start thinking of an alternative industry because we won’t stop unless we put an end to smoking here in the country,” she said.
By ANDREO C. CALONZO, GMANews.TV

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review what has been called the first state court decision upholding the extension of a smoking ban to theatrical performances.

“We’re certainly disappointed, but not surprised,” said petitioner Chip Walton, founder of Denver’s Curious Theatre. He’s lost at every judicial level since his four-year campaign began.

Most recently, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled 6-1 in December that the state’s ban on smoking extended to actors onstage. It ruled that public health trumps freedom of expression. Theater companies had argued that smoke that lingers on stage is crucial to set a mood, develop character or establish a time period.

“There are very apparent misconceptions about the role of smoking vis a vis freedom of expression,” said Walton. “Smoking has become such a hot-button issue that I think people have been blinded to the very well-founded argument that we feel we have.”

The Colorado ruling pointed out that of 24 states with indoor smoking bans, 12 have exemptions, or exemptions on a case-by-case basis, for theatrical performances. Walton wonders why a practice that is commonplace in other states, including New York, can be considered criminal behavior in another.

“My hope is that our efforts may perhaps one day be seen as the opening salvo on an issue that gains attention into the future,” said Walton, “because clearly the Supreme Court isn’t ready to hear it at this point in time.”

Attorney General John Suthers, who defended the law in state courts, agreed with the high court’s decision.

“The Colorado Supreme Court’s December decision, upholding the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act in the context of theaters, was well reasoned in upholding the law,” Suthers said. “Although the Curious Theatre case would have been fascinating to argue at the U.S. Supreme Court, I am pleased that the justices have declined to hear this case.”

No other top state court had ruled on a similar issue at the time of Colorado Supreme Court decision.

The fight, thought to have the potential to affect bans in other states, drew both national attention and support from theatrical and civil-rights groups such as the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, the Dramatists Guild of America and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Walton said he hoped that despite the rejection by the federal court, his case could be an opening salvo for theaters elsewhere facing similar restrictions.

“Maybe we just started the volley in an ongoing issue that will gain some mom out of our efforts,” he said. “It takes a while to get an issue into the public consciousness.”

By John Moore and Jessica Fender
The Denver Post, 24 Mai, 2010

WASHINGTON – To the average school nurse, teacher or security officer, they might well pass as innocent packages of breath mints.

That’s a big reason “dissolvable tobacco” products such as Camel Orbs are so attractive to youths trying to pull a fast one on adults while still getting a significant hit of nicotine, says Kate King, a school nurse in central Ohio.

“My big concern is we don’t see them they are below the radar,” said King, president-elect of the Ohio Association of School Nurses. “It’s an easy thing. It’s a cute package. They are easily concealable.”

That attraction to teenagers, as well as potential health dangers to children cited in a study last month, is why Sen. Sherrod Brown wants federal regulators to immediately remove such material from the market.

“Dissolvable tobacco products are being used to hook youth and sustain nicotine addiction,” Brown said in an April 21 letter, co-written with Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg.

Columbus is one of three test markets for Camel Orbs, which are finely milled tobacco tablets in mint and cinnamon flavors, and similar Camel Sticks and Strips.

The tobacco-regulation legislation enacted last year included a Brown/Merkley amendment requiring the Food and Drug Administration to produce a report within two years on the impact of dissolvable tobacco products, including their use by children.

But a study last month in Pediatrics added urgency. The research concluded that dissolvable tobacco products could result in accidental ingestion and poisoning by young children and are of “concern with their discreet form, candy-like appearance and added flavorings that may be attractive to young children.”

Brown and Merkley told Hamburg, “Given the compelling new evidence in this study that these new tobacco products pose an immediate and significant health risk to children, we urge the FDA to take action right away to keep tobacco candy products off store shelves and out of the hands of children.”

The lawmakers noted that the agency already has expressed concerns.

In February, Lawrence Deyton, director of the FDA’s Center of Tobacco Products, wrote R.J. Reynolds, maker of the Camel dissolvable tobacco products, and Star Scientific – which makes similar products called Ariva and Stonewall – asking for thousands of pages of information.

“CTP is concerned that children and adolescents may find dissolvable tobacco products particularly appealing, given the brightly colored packaging, candy-like appearance and easily concealable size of many of these products,” Deyton wrote. “We are also concerned about the extent to which the high nicotine content and rapid dissolution of dissolvable tobacco products may facilitate initiation of tobacco use, nicotine dependence and addiction in adolescents, and may serve as a mechanism for inadvertent toxicity in children.”

The FDA’s findings “will make them want to pull it” from the market, Brown said in an interview Thursday. “I am not going to set expectations that they (the FDA researchers) are going to be done in a month or two or three. But I want to let them know we are watching.”

Reynolds and Star Scientific say their dissolvable tobacco products are made for and marketed to adults.

Star says it has manufactured and marketed its Ariva and Stonewall dissolvable tobacco products since 2001, saying that “hardly makes them ‘novel’ – and in that time we have not encountered one case of nicotine ‘poisoning’ of a child.”

Reynolds’ Camel Orbs are drawing perhaps the most scrutiny, apparently because of the bright packaging and what critics charge is a similarity to Tic Tacs and other candy-like breath mints.

David Howard, a Reynolds spokesman, said the Camel products are sold from behind store counters, just like cigarettes, in childproof packaging.

“These are adult tobacco consumers we are trying to appeal . . . these products offer adult tobacco consumers options,” Howard said, adding that Reynolds has provided the FDA with 13,000 pages of information. “They can enjoy tobacco pleasure, make an informed decision and do it without bothering others.”

There are limited data on youths and dissolvable tobacco products, but a natural attraction may exist because of the ability to use the tablets in the open without adults realizing it, said Dr. Terry Pechacek, associate director for science at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s office on smoking and health.

“This makes it possible they can be used in school settings, even in front of parents and places where children are not able to smoke cigarettes,” Pechacek said. “The concern is the potential for doing something you are not supposed to do, the ‘getting away with something’ . . . factor.”

By Jonathan Riskind
Dispatchpolitics, May 3, 2010

RICHMOND, Va. – Three small tobacco companies say a new FDA regulation favors Big Tobacco by imposing “Draconian restrictions” on commercial speech that could drive small tobacco companies out of business. The regulation bars use of cigarette brands that share a name with non-tobacco products.

Small companies, such as plaintiff Renegade Tobacco, will not be able to keep selling its “Tucson” brand cigarettes, because Hyundai uses the term for cars, according to the federal complaint.

But Big Tobacco companies already have cemented rights to their products, such as Marlboro and Camel, and so will not be affected.

Renegade Tobacco, Alternative Brands, and Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco say the Product Name Restriction regulation will restrict “the ability of cigarette manufacturers to engage in commercial speech using their federally registered trademarks, including brand names that have been in use for years.”

The regulation will impose civil and criminal penalties on manufacturers who sell cigarette brands that share a brand name with non-tobacco products – and in some instances these manufacturers could face jail time, according to the complaint.

Big Tobacco protected from the new restrictions because the FDA provides immunity for brand names that were in effect on Jan. 1, 1995, so long as there were no non-tobacco companies using the same name.

This immunity protects most of Big Tobacco’s major brands, the plaintiffs say.

“The practical effect of this regulation will be to unfairly drive the relatively new, small cigarette manufacturers out of business by banning the use of their established brand names, while protecting the big tobacco companies that have long dominated – and that continue to dominate – the cigarette market in the United States,” according to the complaint.

The regulation is to take effect on June 22.

The plaintiffs sued the FDA and Dr. Margaret Hamburg, Commissioner of Food and Drugs, seeking an injunction preventing enforcement of the regulation. They also want a declaration that the regulation violates due process and the First Amendment.

The companies are represented by William Hurd with Troutman Sanders

By RYAN ABBOTT

Courthousenews,  April 28, 2010

A top legal expert has warned shops to prepare for a “bureaucratic logjam” when new restrictions on the sale of tobacco come into force.

Audrey Ferrie, head of licensing at Scottish law firm McGrigors LLP, which has a branch in Aberdeen, has predicted a repeat of the fiasco when new alcohol licensing legislation was introduced last year.

The Scottish Government was forced to postpone the introduction of personal liquor licences for a couple of months after protests from the trade over a huge backlog in applications.

Under the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act retailers will have to be licensed to sell tobacco..

Penalties for failing to register include a fine of up to £20,000 or six months’ imprisonment.

The law, which includes a ban on tobacco vending machines, was passed by the Scottish Parliament three months ago.

Ms Ferrie said: “New laws covering the sale of tobacco come into force shortly, and if the experience of the recent overhaul of the liquor licensing regulations is any guide, retailers should brace themselves for a bureaucratic logjam.”

Details of what will be involved in registering are still not clear despite the fact that it will be in force for supermarkets from next year.

Corner shops will not come under the legislation until 2013.

Ms Ferrie said: “The shadow of the new Scottish liquor licensing legislation, which came into force on September 1, 2009, is inescapable.

“The bureaucracy and paperwork associated with that legislation has proved phenomenal, and several boards have still not issued the appropriate licences.”

She added: “Given the likelihood of similar delays with the tobacco licences, retailers – particularly large ones – would be well advised to keep a close eye on any smoke signals from the government as to when the documentation will be made available, and then move quickly.”

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said registration would be straightforward and problems were not expected.

She said: “Signing up for the national register of tobacco retailers will be a simple administrative task designed to minimise the impact on businesses.

“A chain of shops will only require to register once and registration will be free.

“A marketing campaign will give retailers all the information they need about the scheme and how to join. We don’t anticipate that the process will create any backlog.”

Detailed proposals outlining how the ban on tobacco displays will work will be unveiled today as part of a three-month consultation to give shopkeepers a say in how it will be implemented.

Small shops say they could lose a third of their income.

Fiona Barrett, Scottish spokesman for the Tobacco Retailers Alliance, said the government should enforce the law properly before banning tobacco displays.

“The suggestion that youngsters will stop smoking just because they don’t see tobacco being sold in shops is ridiculous,” she said.

If foreign antismoking activists had not criticized the tobacco sponsorship of US singer Kelly Clarkson’s concert in Jakarta next week, would Indonesians even have noticed?

Given the prevalence of tobacco advertising throughout the country, probably not.

Ricky Pesik, secretary of the Jakarta chapter of the Indonesian Association of Advertising Agencies, said “tobacco companies remain some of the biggest spenders on advertising.”

Figures from Nielsen Media Indonesia back this up, showing that tobacco firms were in the top 10 of advertising spenders in all types of media in the first quarter of the year.

The report shows advertising for clove cigarettes was among the top five, with Gudang Garam the third biggest buyer of television commercial slots with total spending of Rp 73 billion.

Ika Jatmikasari, associate director of Nielsen Media Indonesia, said makers of clove cigarettes spent Rp 377 billion ($42 million) in the first quarter of 2010, 8 percent more than the Rp 349 billion spent in the same period last year.

LA Lights, the canceled sponsor for Clarkson’s concert, was among the top 15 for cigarette advertising in the first quarter of the year for its clove cigarettes, with manufacturer Djarum spending billions of rupiah.

But with companies facing more restrictions on placing advertisements in the mass media, Ricky said they were shifting their advertising budgets to sponsorships instead, such as of concerts and other events that provide “an interactive channel for the product with the consumer.”

“There’s a concept of ‘brand experience’ introduced by sponsoring events,” he said.

The report shows that there has been a 35 percent decrease in spending on advertising clove cigarettes in all types of media, including a percent decline in television commercial spots and a 53 percent decrease in print media advertisements.

The chairman of the National Commission for Child Protection (Komnas Anak), Seto Mulyadi, said the move to withdraw LA Lights’ sponsorship for the concert should be the impetus for Indonesia to ban smoking in public spaces. “Not only music, but other events, even sports, are often sponsored by cigarette producers,” he said.

Many events in Indonesia, the world’s fifth-largest tobacco market, are still sponsored by cigarette companies, including the country’s main football league.

Tobacco companies also sponsor several music festivals and often are seen handing out cigarettes at those events, even though they are mainly handed out in areas restricted to people aged 18 and older.

Seto said activists should use the momentum of LA Lights’ sponsorship withdrawal to step up the antismoking fight.

“This is a good momentum, along with the Alicia Keys concert a few years ago,” he said.

Two years ago, a tobacco affiliate of US-based Philip Morris International, which dominates Indonesia’s tobacco market, removed its logo from advertising promoting an Alicia Keys concert in Jakarta after the singer publicly denounced the sponsorship and apologized to her fans.

A study by Komnas Anak in 2007 found that almost half of the teenage smokers polled said they had taken up the habit because of advertising. The study also found that tobacco companies had sponsored 1,350 youth-oriented events from January to October in 2007.

Indonesia, a country with about 240 million people, has yet to ratify the UN Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, an international treaty that became law in February 2005. The framework’s 152 ratifying nations have to implement effective methods to reduce tobacco use.

The Ministry of Health is preparing two bills regarding cigarettes; one to ratify the UN framework and another on controlling the negative health effects of tobacco. A spokesman for the ministry’s legal division said the bills had been given priority to be passed by the House of Representatives.

Indonesia sells a pack of cigarettes for less than $1, making it one of Asia’s cheapest markets, compared with Singapore, where a pack costs $5.

Thejakartaglobe, April 23, 2010

Starting Tuesday, June 22 the Food and Drug Administration will have far greater control over how tobacco and cigarettes are marketed, distributed and sold. The announcement on Thursday, March 18 was made by Kathleen Sebelius, the US Health and Human Services Secretary.

It is a decision which many have been waiting for in the anti-tobacco activist camp. Indeed since the Cigarette Companies managed to thwart the attempts of the FDA to restrict the tobacco industry in 1996, there has been considerable support generated for the legislation.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act as it is known was passed in June 2009 by the US Congress. It was sponsored by Henry Waxman, (Democrat, California) and will formally go into effect on June 22, 2010. It states its purpose as follows,

“To protect the public health by providing the Food and Drug Administration with certain authority to regulate tobacco products, to amend title 5, United States Code, to make certain modifications in the Thrift Savings Plan, the Civil Service Retirement System, and the Federal Employees’ Retirement System, and for other purposes.”

The passing of the legislation, which regulates the $89 billion tobacco industry with its strong lobby is indeed a momentous event. Howard Koh, assistant secretary for health dubbed the event as “truly a historic announcement in our country’s public health history”. So how will the new legislation affect the tobacco companies?

1. The FDA will ban tobacco companies from sponsoring sports or entertainment events. The name of major tobacco companies will no longer feature along with major entertainment or sporting events which receive large amounts of publicity.

2. Tobacco companies will be unable to give free cigarette samples away. There will be no giveaways of non-tobacco items when you buy tobacco as well. So there will be less incentive to buy the cigarettes, and you will not be able to try out a new brand for free.

3. Sale of “kiddie packs” or those with less than 20 cigarettes will be prohibited. This is said to be a major factor which makes cigarettes more affordable according to many public health experts. By eliminating these small sized packs it is hoped that the habit becomes more expensive and less appealing to teenagers.

4. The FDA will be also able to forbid the sales of tobacco products to children who are under 18 years of age. Over the counter sales will require photo identity cards. Tobacco product vending machines are to be placed in adult only facilities. Self service displays of cigarettes will need to move behind the counter in retail stores.

5. The legislation is to be enforced using federal help against violators. There is a provision for stringent punitive action against stores found violating the law. These measures range from warning letters to criminal penalties to those concerned.

How effective the legislation will be is yet to be seen. With R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and Lorillard, (tobacco producers) already challenging the new law in the state of Kentucky. The appeal of the FDA is still pending, and it is going to be a long and bloody battle.

A global pact to halt smuggling and counterfeiting of tobacco products, which costs governments up to $40 billion a year in lost taxes, has become bogged down over ways to trace products, officials said on Friday.

The agreement would also ban duty-free sales of cigarettes, popular with international air travellers, but which health campaigners claim are often diverted into illicit trade.

The aim is to reach agreement in Geneva by Sunday ahead of a meeting in November in Uruguay where the pact could be adopted.

But by Friday, debate had not even begun on duty-free sales.

Campaigners have accused multinational tobacco companies and duty-free lobbyists of trying to derail the week-long negotiations being held among officials from 168 countries under the auspices of the World Health Organisation (WHO).

“There is a consensus that track-and-trace measures are needed to combat traffic in illicit products,” Vijay Trivedi, policy advisor to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) secretariat, told Reuters.

“The devil lies in the detail,” he said.

UNIQUE SERIAL NUMBERS

The closed-door talks have stumbled over discussions of details, mainly a “tracking-and-tracing” system for tobacco products at the heart of the new treaty, formally a protocol to the 2005 Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

The draft treaty would require countries to license tobacco manufacturers and retailers and set up the tracing regime with a global data base.

Within three years of adoption, all unit packets of cigarettes would have to be marked with unique serial numbers.

Philip Morris International, (PM.N), which sells Marlboro cigarettes and is the world’s largest non-state-owned tobacco firm, and British American Tobacco (BATS.L), the world’s second-biggest cigarette maker, say that they would back a protocol with effective measures against illicit trade.

PASSING ON THE COST

But they say that a tracking system must cover all countries and producers and warn its cost will be passed on to smokers.

“I would say it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars for the industry to implement,” Pat Heneghan, global head of anti-illicit trade at BAT, told Reuters.

“There are also physical challenges with high-speed production of tens of thousands of cigarettes per minute to get the code on every pack and registered in a data base at that speed,” he said.

Goekhan Aladag, director of regulatory and fiscal affairs at Philip Morris International, said that it began tracking and tracing 10 years ago at the level of master cases, which contain 50 cartons each. The system is now implemented in 124 countries.

“We are implementing carton tracking in risk markets,” he said, naming Russia. “We’re working to extend it to pack level.”

Tobacco kills 5.4 million people a year from cardiovascular disease, cancers, diabetes and other illnesses, the WHO says.

Illicit trade cheats governments of lost tax revenues and undermines efforts to reduce tobacco use and save lives. “It is a double whammy for governments,” said Trivedi.

“Having a licensing system on a global scale would be a significant improvement in combating illicit trade and would wipe out a significant portion of smuggling,” a Western government official at the talks told Reuters.

“The biggest issue of contention is whether you have to license retailers,” he said.

The 2005 treaty obliges governments to protect their populations from exposure to tobacco smoke and reduce demand through price and tax measures, regulating packaging and labelling of tobacco products and curbing tobacco advertising and sponsorship.

“There is still a lot of optimism that a decision can be reached. But it will take a lot of work and negotiations,” said Gigi Kellett of Corporate Accountability International. “We want to make sure an effective protocol comes out at the end.”

Airports, airlines and duty-free operators are fighting the ban on duty-free tobacco sales. In a joint statement they said $3 billion in annual revenue would be lost despite “no evidence whatsoever” that products intended for duty-free are diverted.

WASHINGTON — Fifteen years after the Food and Drug Administration first proposed banning the sale and marketing of tobacco products to teenagers, top government officials announced Thursday that they would finally put the rule into effect.

The rule was hugely controversial when first proposed in 1995 and was never adopted by the agency because of a Supreme Court ruling that legislation was needed to empower the F.D.A. to regulate tobacco products. That legislation was passed and signed by President Obama last June. The rule goes into effect on June 22.

The tobacco industry adopted most of the rule’s provisions in 1998 as a result of litigation. And every state bans tobacco sales to minors, although enforcement provisions vary widely. The new rule provides consistent enforcement mechanisms across the country.

“The historic rule we’re issuing today will help our kids to stay healthy,” Kathleen Sebelius, the Health and Human Services secretary, said at a news conference.

Other provisions not adopted by the industry are still contentious and may end up in court, and even those that are not controversial may lead to changes across the country. For instance, the rule prohibits tobacco companies from using color advertising in store displays, a provision that a federal judge in Kentucky recently found unconstitutional.

The rule also bars sponsorship of sporting or entertainment events by tobacco companies, even by smokeless tobacco products. It would not allow non-tobacco products to have the same names as those on tobacco products and it restricts outdoor advertisements near schools.

Anthony Hemsley, a spokesman for Commonwealth Brands, said his company supports a ban on the use of tobacco brands on non-tobacco products. The point of the rule is to prohibit products like Marlboro clothing that provide marketing messages through means other than advertising.

But unless a product has been on the market since the first day of 1995 — around the time the rule was first proposed — it must be removed from the market.

Commonwealth sells Fortuna cigarettes while a separate company sells Fortuna rice crackers, Mr. Hemsley said, claiming that under the rule one would have to change its name.

“You can’t pick an ancient date and then try and remove hundreds of brands that companies have invested in over the years,” Mr. Hemsley said. “If they try to enforce that, we’ll end up back in the courtroom.”

The rule also bans the sale of packages with fewer than 20 cigarettes, bans all vending, self-service displays or other impersonal sales in areas that have not been restricted to adults only and bans free samples of tobacco products.

F.D.A. inspectors will ensure compliance, and the agency will contract with state agencies to provide even more inspectional oversight, said Dr. Margaret Hamburg, F.D.A. commissioner. Violations could lead to warning letters, fines and seizures.

“These are all important new activities that will make a real difference,” Dr. Hamburg said.

Separately, the House passed legislation on Thursday requiring those who sell tobacco products over the Internet to collect state sales tax, prohibits the distribution of cigarettes through the mail, and mandates that age and identification be checked at purchase and delivery. The measure, which already passed the Senate and is expected to be signed by President Obama, was opposed by some Indian tribes that sell discounted cigarettes over the Internet.

By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: March 18, 2010

Kadima MK Yoel Hasson tabled a private member’s bill on Monday that, if passed, would be the world’s first law barring the sale of tobacco products containing addictive substances such as nicotine, or other substances, such as menthol and ammonia, that make nicotine more addictive, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

If tobacco were not addictive, the smoking rate would quickly decline (from the present 23 percent). People already addicted to nicotine who felt the need for it would be able to get it through other “delivery systems,” such as nicotine chewing gum, skin patches and other forms, but not through tobacco, the bill states.

Hasson’s bill is due to go to the Ministerial Committee on Legislation to get the go-ahead. The Health Ministry has reportedly not yet discussed the issue and whether to endorse it.

The idea of tobacco without addictive or addiction-promoting substances was first proposed in 2000 by Amos Hausner, a veteran Jerusalem lawyer and head of the Israel Council for the Prevention of Smoking, during a session of the Gillon Committee hearings on how to reduce the prevalence of smoking.

Hasson, who is chairman of the Knesset State Control Committee, was a partner with Likud MK Gilad Erdan in initiating the 2007 law that put major responsibility for anti-smoking enforcement on the owners and managers of public places (in addition to municipal inspectors), and significantly increased fines against violators.

Hausner told the Post on Monday that Hasson’s bill was “revolutionary” in smoking prevention and cessation.

“Most new smokers are youngsters who smoke fewer than 100 and already get addicted. We want to prevent them from starting to smoke. At present, it is not illegal for children to smoke – it’s only illegal to sell them tobacco. Today, consumers have no [option] of smoking cigarettes that are not addictive. They are harmful without the nicotine and can harm others by exposing them to smoke, but with such a law, they will at least not be addictive,” Hausner explained.

The bill would allow a two-year delay for companies to prepare and for addicted smokers to assuage their nicotine addiction with replacement products.

Sasson noted that smoking causes the death of some 10,000 Israelis each year. This figure is more than the total number of victims of road accidents, war, terror and crime. Tobacco addiction, thanks to its nicotine content, has often been compared to addiction to hard drugs, including cocaine and heroin, the sale of which is illegal. Thus, under the bill, substances in tobacco products that cause addiction would be illegal as well.

By JUDY SIEGEL-ITZKOVICH
16 March, 2010

Come June 1 and cigarette packets and tobacco products will carry a new set of pictorial health warnings, an NGO said.

Binoy Matthew of Voluntary Health Association of India (VHAI), an NGO said: “The ministry of health and family welfare March 5 notified the new pictorial health warnings which will be implemented on all tobacco products from June 1.”

“Since the news came just a few days before the No Smoking Day, we are very happy. VHAI had field tested these pictorial warnings in seven states in the country and found them to be most effective,” he said.

The seven states where VHAI tested the pictorial warnings for efficacy were Orissa, Bihar, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh.

“The pictorial warnings on tobacco products were enforced May 31 last year. However they were found to be ineffective. Further the rules mandate that the pictorial warnings should be rotated every 12 months – thus the new warnings which shows a picture of oral cancer, will be implemented in June,” Matthew said.
March 11, 2010 Indiatimes

HAVANA, – With anti-smoking laws and the global recession causing sales to fall, Cuba wants to develop a largely untapped market for its famous cigars — women.

Habanos S.A. executives said on Monday sales fell 8 percent to $360 million in 2009, so they have created the Julieta, a smaller, milder version of the Romeo y Julieta cigar, aimed specifically at female smokers.

Women now make up only 5 to 10 percent of customers for Habanos, the worldwide distributor of Cuban cigars, marketing director Ana Lopez told a news conference kicking off the annual Habanos cigar festival.

The Julieta is an attempt to overcome perceptions among women that Cuban cigars are made up of “only strong tobacco for men,” she said.

The search for new markets is needed because even though Cuban cigars are considered the world’s finest, sales are slipping with the rise of anti-smoking laws around the world, said Habanos vice president Manuel Garcia.

The 8 percent sales drop in 2009 was preceded by a 3 percent fall, to $390 million, in 2008.

Even with the creation of the Julieta, Garcia said Habanos has only modest hopes for 2010 sales, due largely to a weak economy in Spain, the biggest market for Cuban cigars.

“We think it would be a very good result if we can at least maintain the (sales) we reached in 2009,” he said.

Habanos is a joint venture between Cuba and British tobacco giant Imperial Tobacco Group Plc.

Habanos — which produces other well-known brands such as Cohiba, Monte Cristo, Trinidad and Partagas — has about 71 percent of the sales in its markets, Garcia said.

The U.S. market, the largest in the world with 230 to 250 million cigars smoked annually, is off limits to Habanos due to the U.S. trade embargo imposed against Cuba since 1962.

Some area bar owners are still upset about the upcoming smoking ban, but talk of a loophole in the law has made many bar owners all ears.

“Why do people go to a bar? They go to a bar so they can enjoy company, drink, and smoke,” My Place tavern owner Larry Kubinski said.

The owner of My Place in Neenah just put up about $30,000 into a new outdoor smoking patio, but according to how the smoking ban law is written, he might not need the patio.

“I was totally unaware of it,” Grand Chute building inspector Cary Nate admits. “I thought it was considered an indoor smoking ban like everybody is talking about it — but it’s not an indoor smoking ban, it’s an enclosed-area smoking ban.”

The law, which takes effect in July, bans smoking in nearly every public, enclosed space.

But the law defines an enclosed space as having a roof and two walls which have “an opening that may be used to allow air in from the outside that is less than 25 percent of the wall’s surface area.”

What that basically means is, any room that has two walls and at least 25-percent window coverage that opens to the outside air, you bypass the smoking ban.

The Grand Chute building inspector says a few bar owners have discussed opening up their bars but none has filed for a building permit yet.

“What I feel uneasy about is this going to change by July 5th and the work people have done and the money spent on projects be for vain,” Nate said.

Kubinski says if he would’ve known about this loophole, he wouldn’t have bought the patio, he would have invested in windows.

“If I would have been able to put windows in, $10,000, I would have saved money.”

The Wisconsin Department of Commerce is looking at closing this loophole. It’s holding a hearing about that in April.

The My Place owner says if the language in the law stays the same, he will be buying some more windows.

“I’ll definitely put in the windows so they will be here and they can smoke inside,” Kubinski said.

By Chris Hrapsky

Mumbai: Golden Tobacco has moved closer to developing its land in Vile Parle, Mumbai. At a board meeting on February 16, the company approved the memorandum of association (MoU) for joint development of the property.

Golden Tobacco did not reveal the name of the company it has signed the MoU with, but said it was a “reputed” builder.
Sanjay Dalmia, chairman of Golden Tobacco, could not be reached for comment.

However, talking to CNBC-TV18, Dalmia said the company had mega plans to enter the real estate market, particularly housing.
The company was in a legal tangle with Pramod Jain, one of the shareholders, moving the Company Law Board against the resolution passed by the company board and subsequently by the shareholders through the extra-ordinary general meeting held on January 18.“I have taken my petition back,” Jain told DNA Money on Wednesday, but declined to give further details.

Reacting to the news, the stock was locked in at the upper circuit of 5%, at Rs 139.65, at close of trading on Wednesday.

PETERSBURG – The federal Food and Drug Administration has asked a tobacco manufacturer based in Petersburg to supply detailed information on the marketing and potential misuse by minors of its smokeless products.

In a letter dated Feb. 1 and released late Tuesday, the director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, Dr. Lawrence Deyton, told Star Scientific Inc. the agency is aware that the company “is marketing two types of flavored, smokeless tobacco products that resemble candy products and dissolve in the mouth of the user.”

Deyton said the center “appreciates your stated public commitment to prohibit youth access to tobacco products” but asked for “information about the perception and use of these products by individuals, including those 25 years old and younger, and about consequences associated with their misuse.”

Star – which maintains its corporate headquarters in Petersburg but has its main manufacturing operations in Chase City and its research and government relations offices in Bethesda, Md. – makes two smokeless tobacco products, Ariva and Stonewall.

The products are sold as dissolvable, flavored tablets. As Deyton noted, “Ariva is marketed as a ‘refreshing Wintergreen blend.’ Stonewall is marketed as a ‘refreshing Wintergreen blend,’ a ‘robust Natural tobacco blend’ and a ‘fresh brewed Java blend.’”

Deyton said his agency “is concerned that children and adolescents may find dissolvable tobacco products particularly appealing, given the brightly colored packaging, candy-like appearance and easily concealable size of many of these products.”

In addition, he said, “We are also concerned about the extent to which the high nicotine content and rapid dissolution of dissolvable tobacco products may facilitate initiation of tobacco use, nicotine dependence and addiction in adolescents, and may serve as a mechanism for inadvertent toxicity in children.”

The FDA received authority to regulate tobacco products under a law passed by Congress last year. It plans to hold its first public hearings on tobacco later this year, and asked Star to provide the requested information within two months.

The FDA sent a similar letter to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., which makes various dissolvable tobacco products under the Camel brand.

Star filed a lawsuit against Reynolds several years ago alleging that the Winston-Salem, N.C.-based tobacco giant had infringed its patents for a curing process aimed at reducing the carcinogens in tobacco. A federal court in Maryland last year rejected Star’s claim, and in December it turned down Star’s motion to reconsider the case.

Sara Troy Machir, a spokeswoman for Star Scientific, told the Reuters news service that the company was not surprised by the FDA letter and would cooperate fully. “We’re happy to share information with them,” Machir told Reuters, and noted that Star’s smokeless products have been on the market for 10 years.

By Michael Buettner
February 4, 2010

Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, will signal his support for the move as he launches the government’s “tobacco control strategy” tomorrow which aims to halve the number of smokers in Britain by 2020.

In a major speech Mr Burnham will also pave the way for new “interventionist” policies aimed at stopping people smoking in their own homes or cars if they live with children.

However, he will stop short of planning an outright ban on domestic or in-car smoking – claiming this would be a move too far against freedom of choice.

Instead, ministers will consider banning the sale of cigarettes from vending machines, which they say currently provide far too easy access for children as they can be positioned near the entrances of pubs and clubs.

And the current ban on smoking in workplaces and “enclosed public places” such as pubs and workplaces could be extended to cover areas such as walkways and entrances to buildings, currently a favourite haunt of smokers exiled from inside.

Ministers will also announce a new crackdown on the import of cheap illicit cigarettes from abroad.

Mr Burnham said that while no final decisions had been taken, he personally backed moves to impose a “plain packaging” regime on tobacco manufacturers.

“It’s something I will be looking at closely,” he said.

He aims to halve the number of smokers from its current level of 21 per cent of the population to 10 per cent in 10 years.

If the ban comes in the Department of Health would be likely to outlaw the use of logos, colours and graphics on packets and require cigarettes to be sold in plain packs with just the text of the brand of cigarettes.

The tobacco industry admits that plain packaging would have a drastic effect on profits and do enormous damage to cigarette makers.

A ban on branding and logos on packets in England could see smokers abandoning well-known brands such as Marlboro and Silk Cut, which cost around £6 a pack, and switch to cheaper options.

Experts say the move could strip cigarettes of what remains of their glamorous image and help reduce the numbers of young people taking up the habit.

City analysts predict that if a ban was introduced in the UK it could have a “domino effect” on governments around the world, slashing worldwide profits of tobacco companies.

However, Mr Burnham believes that Britain is among the antismoking pioneers, with a ban on smoking in public places introduced in Scotland in 2006 and in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2007 and the government should not be afraid to adopt a similarly aggressive stance on packaging.

He said the drive to stop people smoking at home or in their cars to protect children from the effects of passive smoking could be taken forward with new hard-hitting advertising campaigns.

In his speech tomorrow he is expected to say: “I make no apology for taking a hard line when it comes to protecting children and giving them the best start in life.”

“We’re also looking at new protections for children.

“Recent studies have shown that tobacco packaging influences smoking behaviours, rather than simply promoting particular brands.

Removing brand marketing on packs and having a requirement for ‘plain packaging’ on all tobacco products would increase the effectiveness of health warnings and reduce misconceptions about the relative risks of different brands which terms like ‘smooth’ perpetuate.

“All cigarettes prematurely kill lifelong smokers regardless of make or brand. So we need to look closely at the evidence on the links between packaging and consumption.

“And we’re encouraging research to further our understanding, especially when it comes to children and young people. We’ll also seek views on the legal implications of any restrictions on packaging for intellectual property rights and freedom of trade.”

Currently, some 80,000 deaths are caused each year as a direct result of smoking and the habit costs the NHS around £2.7 billion per year.

Chris Ogden, chief executive of the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association, said: “We welcome the new initiative to crack down on the illicit trade in tobacco products.”

However, he hit out at plans to force firms to use plain packaging and said: “All policy in this area should be based on evidence and not merely tokenistic.”

The American Lung Assn.’s 2009 report: People smoke, close to the same rate as they did last year, and six states do nothing to help Medicaid recipients quit. Funny, that sounds a heck of a lot like some of the 2008 conclusions

.Yawn-worthy as it is, there are some highlights:

– The FDA can now regulate tobacco products.
– Congress passed a 62-cent hike in the federal cigarette tax.
– Forty states (plus the District of Columbia) received an “F” for their prevention and control programs.

Also, it’s worrisome that in these rough economic times, states are leaning on tobacco taxes while cutting back on tobacco prevention programs. Obviously, the states are more concerned about their bottom lines than about your health. That part may be up to you.

If you’re looking for help quitting yourself, check out the National Cancer Institute’s website, Smoke Free.
By Amina Khan

SANTA CRUZ — Despite a smoking ban on Pacific Avenue that took effect in October, the city of Santa Cruz got a “D” in 2009 from the American Lung Association for overall efforts to control tobacco.

Capitola, Scotts Valley and Watsonville didn’t fare any better. Each got a “D,” as did Santa Cruz County.

Paul Knepprath, vice president for advocacy and health initiatives at the association, explained that the grades took into account licensing of tobacco retailers and smoke-free housing policies along with smoke-free outdoor air. Santa Cruz rated a “B” for smoke-free air due to the ban, but got a subpar grade overall due to failing or close to failing scores in the other areas.

Knepprath said he hoped the grades, released Tuesday, would motivate Santa Cruz County leaders to do more to protect residents from the deadly toll of tobacco. The city of Richmond, in one year, adopted ordinances in all three areas recommended by the association, earning an “A” for 2009.

The public “strongly supports increasing protections,” Knepprath said, noting only 14 percent of Californians smoke.

The local cities scored higher than two-thirds of cities and counties in the state, which rated an “F.” So far, 59 citations have been handed out in Santa Cruz since Oct. 20, according to police spokesman Zach Friend. The Santa Cruz ban covers West Cliff Drive, Beach Street and the wharf, outside dining areas, and city property including parks along with Pacific Avenue, the downtown business district.

Capitola’s smoking ban, which took effect Jan. 1, covers the Esplanade, the wharf, city parks, the Rispin Mansion property, the library, City Hall and the Stockton Avenue Bridge.

“We’re getting compliance,” said Capitola Police Chief Mike Card.

Capitola Councilman Dennis Norton, who advocated the smoking ban, was surprised at the low grade.

“I thought we were moving in the right direction,” he said, noting he’s taken heat from the owner of Havana Village cigar shop.

Scotts Valley Mayor Jim Reed said he was pleased to see Santa Cruz County jurisdictions ranked in the top one-third of the state.

“Obviously there’s more that can be done,” he said, noting he was on the short end of a 2007 attempt to ban smoking in the parking lots at parks. “It’s a classic question of how to strike the right balance between the individual and the overall community.” Natasha Kowalski, senior health educator with Santa Cruz County, lobbied for the local smoking bans, pointing to the U.S. surgeon general’s 2006 warning about health hazards from secondhand smoke.

“Research shows it’s not safe. Evidence is mounting,” she said, adding, “Santa Cruz and Capitola “deserve recognition for the strong outdoor ordinances” they adopted.

Other institutions going smoke-free include the fairgrounds in Watsonville and Dominican Hospital.

“Two of our Rehab campus neighbors would like to join forces with us and will go smoke free as well,” said Mylene Sakamoto, Dominican’s employee health services manager.

Kowalski hasn’t talked with officials in Watsonville or Scotts Valley about a smoking ban.

“We’d be excited if they were interested,” she said.

She called retail licensing “the next step” in tobacco control.

After San Luis Obispo adopted such a policy, sales of cigarettes to minors dropped from 17 percent to zero, she said.

The rate in the city of Santa Cruz and unincorporated areas of the county in a March 2008 survey was 17 percent, twice the state rate, she added.

She said it’s not too late for smokers to sign up for the health agency’s free quit-smoking class that starts at 5:30 p.m. today at 1060 Emeline Ave. Bldg. F Solarium Conference Room.

By Jondi Gumz
Posted: 01/12/2010

A ban on smoking in restaurants and bars in eastern Switzerland could have led to fewer heart attacks since its introduction, according to a recent medical study.

These first Swiss results come after similar findings in other countries, and constitute yet another indication that cigarettes play an important role in cardiac disease.

The smoking ban was introduced in canton Graubünden in March 2008. According to the study’s authors, although there is no clear correlation between the ban and cases of acute myocardial infarction [heart attacks], these fell 22 per cent from March 2008 to February 2009 compared with 2006 and 2007.

In the two years before smoke-free legislation was introduced in Graubünden, 229 and 242 patients respectively from all over the canton were treated in Chur for acute myocardial infarction. After the ban, that number fell to 183 cases.

According to the lead author of the study, Piero Bonetti, the decrease is due mainly to fewer heart attacks among non-smokers. Passive smoking is believed to increase the risk of heart disease for this category by up to 30 per cent.

The other beneficiaries included people with a history of coronary disease and holidaymakers. Bonetti, a cardiologist in Chur, thinks this last category is influenced because people benefit quickly from being away from passive smoke.

But the study, which is published online by the Swiss Medical Weekly, does not establish direct causality between the smoking ban and heart disease. “Proving causality is impossible because there are only two ways of showing that,” admits Bonetti.

Similar studies

One solution would be to lift the smoking ban and see what happens. The other would be to study another population elsewhere with the same living conditions, but where no smoking ban has been implemented.

“There have been no similar studies in Switzerland,” Bonetti told swissinfo.ch.

“The first study to show this was carried out in Helena, Montana where a smoking ban was lifted after six months. When it was first introduced, the incidence [of acute myocardial infarction] fell and when the ban was dropped, the number of cases rose again.”

But Bonetti says that while causality cannot be proven, there is a strong case for a link between the ban and the number of heart attacks, especially given the lack of other obvious culprits.

“The strongest argument for causality is that more than ten studies worldwide have come up with similar results,” he said. “If you take all these studies together, you get an average decrease of 17 per cent in the first year after a ban is implemented.”

Other factors

The Institute of Medicine, one of the national academies in the United States, which carried out a so-called meta-analysis of these foreign studies, said this consistent data leads to the conclusion that smoking bans lead to fewer heart attacks.

But it also pointed out that other factors associated with a ban such as education, information and outreach programmes can also have an impact.

Some of those studies have also shown that the longer a ban has been in place, the higher the benefits.

Bonetti says the Graubünden study will continue, with data collection ongoing. Indications are that the first year results will be at least confirmed if not bettered.

“It’s important to show this kind of results in a Swiss context even though similar studies have been done elsewhere,” he told swissinfo.ch.

“You need local data to convince people that change is necessary.”

Scott Capper, swissinfo.ch

A federal judge in Kentucky ruled that a new federal law giving the U.S. Food and Drug Administration jurisdiction over tobacco can’t prevent companies from using color and graphics to advertise their products.

U.S. District Judge Joseph H. McKinley Jr. ruled that provisions of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, signed into law by President Obama in June, violate the free-speech rights of advertisers.

McKinley, whose court is in Bowling Green, agreed with Reynolds American Inc.’s R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and other companies that challenged the law, “that images of packages of their products, simple brand symbols, and some uses of color communicate important commercial information about their products.”

McKinley, whose opinion was released publicly today, also blocked a provision barring statements that tobacco products are less harmful because they are regulated by the FDA or comply with agency requirements. The judge declined cigarette makers’ request to strike down other provisions in the law.

Biggest Issue

“We are certainly pleased with the judge’s decision in finding that certain provisions of the law are unconstitutional, including what we believe was one of the biggest issues in the case — use of color and imagery in our advertising,” R.J. Reynolds spokesman David Howard said in an e-mailed statement.

Howard said the company continues to believe the other challenged provisions of the law are unconstitutional and is considering its options.

“FDA is pleased this ruling will allow us to continue, in large part, with the implementation of the tobacco control act to protect public health,” agency spokeswoman Kathleen Quinn said in an e-mailed statement today. “The agency will thoroughly review the opinion rendered by the judge.”

Anti-smoking groups, including the Campaign for Tobacco- Free Kids, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association and American Lung Association, issued a statement in which they hailed the decision for upholding most aspects of the law.

The groups disagreed with McKinley’s ruling that the bans on color and graphics and on statements implying greater safety because of FDA regulation are unconstitutional. The groups urged the government to appeal those parts of the ruling.

Adult Smokers

Reynolds, the second-largest U.S. cigarette maker, and third-biggest Lorillard Tobacco Co. sued in August to block the marketing restrictions. They claim the law goes far beyond discouraging kids from smoking and leaves them “virtually no means” to communicate with adult smokers and other tobacco users.

“We are gratified that the court upheld our free speech rights to use color and graphics in our advertising to communicate with our adult consumers,” Lorillard spokesman Michael Robinson said in an e-mailed statement.

Altria Group Inc.’s Philip Morris USA, which makes half of the cigarettes sold in the U.S., supported FDA regulation and endorsed the law. It is not involved in the suit.

In the ruling, McKinley upheld provisions in the law barring tobacco-related merchandise, such as caps and t-shirts, banning sponsorship of concerts and sporting events and requiring that ads and packages carry new safety warnings.

The case is: Commonwealth Brands Inc. v. U.S., 09-Civ.-117, U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky (Bowling Green).

SMOKERS, your drug of choice is going to disappear from view.

It is now illegal for large outlets to display all tobacco products, which must be concealed in drawers that show only the prices.

On New Year’s Day, NSW became the first state to enact the ban, which has been approved by most other governments.

Here and in the ACT, retailers that employ more than 50 people, such as the Coles and Woolworths supermarkets, and their affiliated servos, must keep their ciggies under wraps.

Smaller outlets such as news-agents and corner stores have until July 1 to cover up, and specialist tobacconist shops have a grace period of three years.

The ban is expected to have a significant impact on smoking in NSW, which has not recorded much of a drop in the past couple of years.

ASH spokesman Stafford Sanders said: “There is very good research evidence to show that concealing these products has an impact on the attitude of children to tobacco. It has been effectively shown that the visibility of tobacco has an impact on children’s perception of how normal smoking is, and covering them up will flow through to child uptake.

“Plus, keeping tobacco out of sight will help those people who want to give up smoking – about two thirds of smokers – and discourage them from impulse buying.”

But specialist tobacco retailer Bart Muscat, who owns Free Choice in Lismore’s Magellan Street, believes that tobacco is here to stay, and that legislation to control it is little more than a revenue-earning device.

“As part of the new laws I now have to apply for a licence to sell tobacco, which costs me $250,” he said.

“The government already makes billions on cigarettes. It’s hard on small businesses.”

But, he says, the new laws are good for his business.

“The others have to cover their stock, so people are coming to me because I have a wider range and I know what I’m talking about.”

The number of teenagers who have never lit up a cigarette is rapidly increasing, leading some to conclude a sea change is occurring in young people’s attitudes to tobacco.

Surveys for the Ministry of Health show that just over half of teenagers aged 15 to 19 have never tried smoking – “not even one puff”. This is markedly higher than in 2006, when the figure was 39 per cent.

The trend, attributed to the increasing “denormalisation” of smoking through changes like the 2004 ban on smoking in bars, is even more marked among 14- and 15-year-olds. A survey of them in 2008 found that 61 per cent reported never having smoked – a figure that has nearly doubled in nine years.

The possibility of a radical shift in youth behaviour and attitudes to smoking coincides with a two-pronged push to plot the demise of tobacco.

The public health community and Maori Party MP Hone Harawira are campaigning for the eventual elimination of what they call an addictive poison that should no longer be considered a normal consumer product.

The National-led Government refused – in line with storekeepers’ wishes – to implement the recommendation to put tobacco out of public view in shops. Yet it is convinced of the importance of reducing the smoking rate, so much so that it is holding district health boards to account on their smoking-cessation support to hospitalised smokers.

This is because smoking is so destructive – to individuals and to the economy. By causing serious illnesses like lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and other breathing and circulation conditions, it kills 4200 people a year, and secondhand smoke is estimated to take another 300.

And it costs the economy more than $1.6 billion, of which $1.5 billion is spent on healthcare.

Smokers spend about $1.6 billion a year on tobacco products, of which more than $1 billion is taken by the government in excise tax and GST.

Campaigning by the Maori Party has led to Parliament’s Maori affairs committee deciding to hold an inquiry aimed at forcing the tobacco industry to reveal the methods it has used to promote smoking among Maori.

The committee is likely to recommend radical tobacco-control policies to the Government.

Smokefree campaigners such as Ben Youdan, the director of Action on Smoking and Health, are excited about the inquiry, which they see as a turning point in the history of smoking – and not just for Maori.

“This is a major opportunity to get tobacco manufacturers, who are the ones responsible for promoting tobacco and getting people addicted, to be publicly held to account.
“Traditionally, New Zealand has been a leader in tobacco control, for example banning advertising and introducing smokefree environments.

“Now we need to look at some of the end-game solutions for tobacco. The inquiry is a great opportunity to do that, to make tobacco a highly controlled product by 2020.”

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia, who holds portfolio responsibility for tobacco control as Associate Minister of Health, last year put pressure on the Government by strongly suggesting that she favoured banning retail tobacco displays and increasing the excise tax, particularly on roll-your-own tobacco.

An acting deputy director-general at the ministry, Ashley Bloomfield, said discussions were ongoing with Mrs Turia and Health Minister Tony Ryall over displays, and a licensing regime for tobacco retailers was “on our radar”.

He asserted that the evidence from the surveys of 14- and 15-year-olds was compelling, that youth attitudes and behaviour had swung firmly against tobacco.

Although the adult smoking rate, currently around 20 per cent, was declining only slowly, Dr Bloomfield said he was confident the youth change would flow through into a lower adult rate.

But Otago University marketing expert Professor Janet Hoek said the increasing proportion of never-smokers among young people did not automatically translate into reduced adult smoking prevalence.

She said the fact that smoking prevalence remained quite high among those aged 18 to 24 indicated the initiation age of smoking had simply been deferred because of the restrictions that applied to younger people.

Dr Bloomfield accepted there had been some deferral, but said the increase in youth who had never smoked was critically important.

“The longer you delay initiation the better, because they are less likely to take it up the older they get – once you get over 18 and get through those teenage years with their very strong peer pressure to try these things.

“In the past, 80 to 90 per cent [of smokers] have been addicted by the time they turn 18.”

Smokefree Coalition director Prudence Stone said Ireland’s retail display ban, introduced in July, had led to a sharp change in youth attitudes.

“They were asked to recall tobacco products on display. Their recall dropped dramatically, from 80 per cent before the ban to just over 20 per cent after. And less of them had confidence they could purchase cigarettes from a retailer after the ban.”

Banning retail displays and applying progressive tax increases are key measures the Maori affairs committee will be asked to support.

Others include killing off tobacco brands, allowing tobacco packets to carry only generic text and health warnings, and capping the volume of tobacco released for sale, which would force up the price.

By Martin Johnston
Jan 4, 2010

As many Michigan residents celebrate the state’s likely new smoking ban in public places, others are wondering why, if it’s such a popular sentiment, it needed to be legislated at all. In a free market — the platform on which the opposition to the smoking ban stood — if consumers demand nonsmoking establishments, that’s what proprietors would provide.

It’s surprising that, in 2009, we’re even still debating issues around smoking cigarettes. This is truly a civilization that treasures its vices.

And certainly those supporting the smoking ban raised most loudly the issue of public health — those unfortunate bystanders inhaling secondhand smoke.

Legislating against personal freedoms in the name of public health, said the fattest state in the union.

Many establishments in Michigan already have gone smoke free, at their personal choice and possibly reflecting the wishes of their patrons. Others have stood their ground as a haven for smokers. Both have a place in a free market, and thank goodness we are all free to make our choices of which establishments we patronize. There was no need to legislate against public smoking — it simply eradicates a nuisance.

But there is a need, a significant need in Michigan right now, not to lose jobs, and that is what many warned a smoking ban would do. John Nothdurft of the Heartland Institute argued last year against a smoking ban in this state, saying, “Many studies have shown that smoking bans have hurt small businesses, especially in the hospitality and gaming industries. In Ohio, for example, the Department of Job and Family Services predicted a 10,000-job gain for the state’s hospitality and leisure industry prior to the ban’s implementation. In reality, during the first 12 months of the smoking ban, the industry lost 5,400 jobs.”

There’s always rhetoric on either side of any debate, but in this case, arguing to ban the use of a legal product in a business that should have the freedom to choose the clientele it caters to is not a strong enough argument to limit a free market and risk job loss.

And aren’t there so many better things our state government should be working on right now?

On the bright side, the businesses excluded from the smoking ban, such as smoking specialty shops, may have an opportunity to expand their businesses and net some of the individuals who want to smoke and socialize.

We don’t advocate smoking or other behaviors that endanger personal health. After all, it’s in these pages that we argue for personal responsibility and wellness to help mitigate exorbitant health care costs.

But a free market reigns supreme and should always be our consistent baseline for any new legislation. After all, if we’re basing the smoking ban on any semblance of public health, guard your soda closely.

And we must point out the irony of further limiting cigarette smoking when Michigan has consistently looked to cigarette taxes to increase state revenues. This radical move likely will help many smokers kick the habit — good for them — but who will be left to tax when all the smokers are gone?

Again, enjoy that soda pop.

Pamekasan:Cigarette entrepreneurs have refused ratification of the Tobacco Control bill. They said that the bill could kill small cigarette factories and cause the dismissal of workers.
“Currently, with 35 percent duty, many factories are closing. A 65 percent duty will make it worse,” said Secretary of Handmade Cigarette Entrepreneurs Association in Pamekasan, East Java, Heru Budi Paryitno, yesterday.

Nowadays, 150 handmade cigarette factories in Pamekasan employ thousands of workers, most of them female.
If the bill is ratified, the number of those unemployed will increase.

“I consider that this is a made to order bill, created in the name of health,” said Heru.

In the Tobacco Control draft bill, factories are not allowed to promote and advertise their products in the media and have to pay a 65 percent duty. “This amount could only be paid by big factories,” he said.

Limitation on tobacco production could also harm farmers, because tobacco revenuse are greater than other commodities such as rice, corn and ground nuts.
“In Madura, tobacco harvests are considered money harvests,” he said.

Tobacco production in Pamekasan has so far amounted to 20,000 tons in 2009, from 32,000 hectares of land with duty dividends of Rp18 billion per year.

Mohammad Iksan, the owner of cigarette factory Mitra Lima, Malang , said that the bill will cause thousands of people to become unemployed and harm the regional government.

The Malang municipal government, for example, receive Rp17.6 billion. This is a 400 percent increase compared to the 2008 revenue which amounted to Rp4 billion.

The Head of Legal and Organization Bureau of the Health Department Budi Sampurna said that although it is too late for the government to ratify the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), it will control tobacco with this bill.“Even though it (the FCTC) is still not ratified, we still have the Tobacco Control bill which is already included in the national legislation program,” said Budi in Bandung yesterday.
The Tobacco Control bill adopts important articles in FCTC.

The Deputy Head of Commission IX of the House of Representatives Irgan Chairul Mahfiz said that they await the decision of the Legislative Bureau (Baleg) concerning the Tobacco Control bill ratification. “We already proposed to Baleg that we wait for 2010,” Irgan told Tempo

Irgan assured that the bill would not hurt tobacco farmers. “We will invite tobacco farmers and others related to this business to come to the House of Representatives to discuss the bill,” he said.