Saturday 19 April 2014
Advertise  |  Subscribe  |  Register  | 

Close

About cookies: we use cookies to support features like login and sharing articles. Keep cookies enabled to enjoy the full site experience. By browsing our site with cookies enabled, you are agreeing to their use. Review our cookies information for more details.

EU Tobacco Control 2.0

By Alberto Alemanno  -  10.01.2013 / 04:05 CET
The limits of EU policymaking have been tested by the draft tobacco directive. Bold legislation may nonetheless emerge.

On 19 December, the European Commission published its much-awaited proposal for a new tobacco-products directive. The preparation of the proposal – as epitomised by the enforced resignation of John Dalli as European commissioner for health and consumer policy – has been highly convoluted, lobbying-intensive and, at times, grotesque. 

The drafting process has not only highlighted the disparity of resources between the industry on the one hand, and the health community on the other, but has also questioned – by showing their limits – the principles that guide the consultation process, regulate the representation of interests, and govern the independence of European commissioners and the European Parliament's exercise of its oversight powers.

Yet, if approved, this directive could still affect millions of lives, shape the tobacco industry and put the EU back at the forefront of tobacco regulation after a decade of significant scientific, market and international developments. The EU's 2001 directive was pioneering, introducing far-reaching measures such as mandatory health warnings and a ban on misleading descriptions (such as ‘mild' or ‘light'). The new directive would go beyond the minimum requirements of the public health treaty signed by 176 countries – the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) of 2005 – in its efforts to reduce the attractiveness of tobacco consumption.

The Commission's proposals to ban slim cigarettes and menthol cigarettes (as well as other tobacco products with characterising flavours) are ground-breaking. Though the Commission eventually decided (mainly for legal reasons) not to embrace plain packaging, its choice – to opt for highly standardised packaging – will result in packets very close to the plain pack pioneered by Australia. Combined (graphic and pictorial) warnings would cover 75% of a package; the remaining surface would represent the last available channel for tobacco companies to display their brand and market their products, as tobacco advertising is banned. Since member states are free to introduce more stringent standards, tobacco packaging may become even more standardised, with plain packaging a possible result.

The Commission's proposal illustrates how most tobacco-control tools today no longer aim to inform the public about the adverse effects of consumption but to change social norms, adjusting the ‘choice environment' to de-normalise tobacco.

While the proposal focuses predominantly on tobacco, it also extends the directive's scope to include products that do not contain tobacco, but nicotine, such as electronic and herbal cigarettes. Their marketing material must now carry health warnings. In addition, e-cigarettes are subject to the same authorisation required for medicinal products. It also maintains the ban on oral tobacco products with the usual exception for snus in Sweden.

This stance to alternative products favours an abstinence-only policy and de facto rejects a risk-reduction policy of encouraging smokers to switch to nicotine-delivery products that carry less risk. This approach may appear understandable (proponents fear that these products might become a gateway to future consumption). It also seems somehow inevitable, since Big Tobacco has earned mistrust. Nonetheless, it ignores millions of addicted smokers: they are left with only one choice – to continue to consume nicotine by smoking or not to consume nicotine at all.

Still, the proposal leaves the door open to ‘novel tobacco products', be they smokeless or for smoking, that could be marketed (provided that they are accompanied by scientific and marketing studies and that member states are notified six months in advance).

The Commission's abstinence-only approach is questionable. However, overall, the proposal appears a bold and solid text that has proved resilient to the scandal of Dalli's departure. This initiative – hugely important economically and politically – will continue to test not just the limits of the EU decision-making process, but also the integrity of members of the European and national parliaments and the Council of Ministers. Forewarned is forearmed.

Alberto Alemanno is Jean Monnet professor of EU law at HEC Paris and adjunct professor of global risk regulation at Georgetown University Law Center. He is also the editor-in-chief of the “European Journal of Risk Regulation”.

© 2014 European Voice. All rights reserved.
Clinical trials
Varrow

Most viewed in Health & society

Commission launches mHealth consultation

Commission requests information on how to deal with data protection and safety concerns.

Bloodpressurenew

MEPs back new clinical trial rules You need an active subscription to read this article

New rules will require greater transparency.

HIVdrugs

Related articles

Commission requests information on how to deal with data protection and safety concerns.

The financial crisis has put great strains on healthcare systems across the EU.

There are huge gaps between member states when it comes to healthcare provision.

EU moves towards a single market for medicines still face national obstacles.

Advertisement

Comments

 

Your comment
Please note: The fields followed by an asterisk (*) are obligatory fields

Comment*

Name*
E-mail*
Website

Please, copy the code on the left into the box on the right

 I accept the Terms & conditions
 I would like to share my e-mail & website

Advertisement

Cookies info | Privacy policy | Terms & conditions