Good evening. It is my pleasure to address this important conference.
We’ve come to discuss tobacco industry tactics and I think we’re all clear what this really means – we’re referring to attempts by the tobacco industry to derail, or block, or slow the implementation of tobacco-control measures. The industry has developed a box of dark tricks in recent decades and some have proved extremely effective.
Because – let’s face it - it is very surprising that more than half a century after the link between tobacco and serious ill health was accepted, worldwide consumption of this noxious product is still rising.
If tobacco were a new product, we would ban it immediately. But tobacco is a product with a long history, so by the time scientists conclusively linked it to premature death, there was already a multi-billion-euro global business in operation.
It is wealthy and determined and it won't go away without a fight. Of course, the tactics used by the industry to block our progress areimportant, and I will talk about them in greater detail in a moment.
But we should also understand that every tactic is part of a grand strategy. The industry’s long-term aim is survival in the face of increasing threats from organizations like the European Union and public health treaties like our own WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the FCTC.
It is our aim to reduce the demand for tobacco, and they rightly see this as an existential struggle. They will do almost anything to achieve their aim. So what about some examples?
Perhaps the most interesting recent conflict, at least in European terms, has been the debate over the EU’s deal with Philip Morris International, or PMI.
First signed in 2004, it was designed to end EU legal action against the big tobacco companies in the United States, and to force them to clean up their act regarding the illicit trade in tobacco products.
Since that time, PMI has paid a large sum of money to the EU – in the region of $1.25 billion - and other tobacco majors have followed suit.
Now the agreement is coming to an end. Commissioner Kristalina Georgieva has released an assessment of the deal in the last week and that will inform a decision on whether to renew it. This decision has far-reaching implications.
Now, it may be that the commissioner has already decided that the agreement needs to end and I would be happy to endorse that. But let me just explain why an extension would be such a bad idea and why this issue really matters.
The global campaign against tobacco use has few better allies than the European Commission and the 28 member states of the European Union.
The global corporations selling tobacco know just how influential the EU is, rightly understanding that what happens in Europe today is likely to happen elsewhere in the world tomorrow.
So if EU officials agree to sit down and negotiate with a “Big Five” tobacco company like PMI, it’s a significant event.
There are numerous legal and technical reasons to ditch this agreement. But there is one absolutely critical issue that has an impact worldwide, so let me start with that.
Tobacco companies are desperate for respectability. They really can’t allow us to see them for what they are – multibillion-euro businesses enthusiastically peddling a product that kills its consumers.
We see evidence from around the world that tobacco chiefs are putting their cash into a global rebranding. In this imaginary incarnation, tobacco companies are responsible global citizens working as partners with governments, law enforcement agencies and others. A renewed EU agreement would assist this campaign.
Of course, in the first decade of this century there may have been good reasons to reach agreement with tobacco companies. Now though, we have global agreements and strengthened regional systems.
The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the first public health treaty of the 21st century, entered into force a year after the deal with Philip Morris International. The Convention now has 180 Parties, including the EU.
And in 2012, the first FCTC protocol, which will help eliminate illicit trade in tobacco products, was adopted and is now open for ratification. It has 15 Parties so far, and needs another 25 to enter into force.
We warmly welcome last month’s decision by the Council of the EU to approve the Protocol. And we note that five EU member states - Spain, France, Portugal, Austria and Latvia - have already done so.
The EU has also taken other far-reaching action in the past decade. The Tobacco Products Directive is a good example of a tough, non-nonsense approach to tobacco control.
Yet this same Directive is being challenged in the courts by, among others, PMI, the company which describes itself as a respectable partner for the EU. There are many things one could say about the company’s actions, but let me restrict myself to this - PMI has an eccentric idea of partnership.
The company doesn’t limit itself to kind words. It also offers us its technology.
The EU-PMI deal, and other deals with tobacco companies, have been using a PMI system called Codentify.
PMI likes to call this a track-and-trace system, aware that the FCTC Protocol and the Tobacco Products Directive require such systems.
But it isn’t a track-and-trace system, it’s a code generator system and there are concerns that it’s open to fraud.
There are other problems with Codentify. It’s essentially a “black box” that is protected by a tobacco industry patent. We don’t know what’s inside, but we do know that it’s managed and controlled by the tobacco industry.
As I said earlier, the debate about agreements with tobacco companies in Europe is part of a broader issue – the tobacco industry’s worldwide campaign to secure its future.
It fights our efforts at every turn. It is not restrained by ethical considerations and is therefore willing to employ a range of tactics which are immoral if not illegal.
Industry tactics on the illicit trade can be grouped into five main areas. Firstly, it seeks to hijack the political and legislative process. By working with officials, ministers and legislators, tobacco executives marshal those who are already sympathetic or seek to persuade waverers that its arguments make sense.
Memorandums of understanding, which are essentially voluntary agreementswith the tobacco industry,are increasingly being signed with governments.
Such agreements are in contravention of Article 5.3 of the FCTC and of articles in the Protocol which state that the tobacco industry must be kept at arm’s length.
That same article, 5.3, also aims to halt secret meetings between policymakers and industry representatives. It is ignored in some parts of the world but it’s important to reassert that openness – the antiseptic of sunlight – is the best way to counter an industry really likes to operate in the darkness.
A second favoured tactic is to exaggerate the industry’s economic importance. It is accepted that tobacco consumers pay tax on legally purchased products and the industry makes much of this. But it’s far less willing to discuss the other side of the equation – the health costs of its victims, and the loss to national productivity when workers become sick, or die prematurely.
Thirdly, there are so-called corporate social responsibility activities. I have already mentioned the industry’s efforts to achieve respectability, an activity which takes several forms. As with MoUs, this element of tobacco industry work seems to be on the increase.
It takes numerous forms, some of which seem rather creepy – Imperial sponsors a campaign in central Europe to recognise the efforts of sniffer dogs working for Customs, and there are numerous meetings with government officials and law enforcement bodies around the world. Why is this? Well, the industry is always keen to peddle its Codentify numbering system and to develop personal relationships with influential figures.
The fourth element is the use of front groups, like the International Tax and Investment Center (ITIC). It may sound like a foundation or think-tank, but it’s part-funded by major tobacco companies, has company representatives on its board and work to promote the industry’s interests.
This organization arranges conferences, invites Parties to the FCTC and then discusses tobacco taxation.
The organization sponsors reports and research on the illicit trade using poorly defined methodology and often exaggerated statistics. ITIC’s meetings press for tax systems that are beneficial to tobacco company finances but harmful to public health.
Lastly, there’s the industry’s attempts to discredit proven science. The tobacco industry provides funds to consultants and academics to produce reports. Philip Morris International, for example, has provided money to an Italian research centre called Transcrime to fund doctoral students projects and reports.
These five tactics are effective and portray the industry in a warm light. But there is one other tactic for those who fail to get the message. This is legal action.
Australia and the United Kingdom have both been targeted by lawsuits over plain packaging and we have already referred to PMI’s court action against the EU. These actions seem destined to fail, but they have another purpose – they send a warning to less wealthy countries. Rather like a street hoodlum, the tobacco industry is offering a choice between the nice option (cooperation) or the nasty option, which may prove very expensive.
Many of you in this room have years of experience in dealing with the industry’s tactics. We have watched its spokespeople evolve their arguments from outraged denial of the right to regulate, to something multifaceted and sophisticated.
The essence of the current battle is this – policymakers and officials must understand that this business cannot be co-opted to do the right thing. Its very essence is to keep alive an industry whose products kill six million people a year, a number that is rising as it develops new markets.
Meetings with tobacco industry executives should end, attendance at industry-funded conferences should stop, advice from the industry should be shunned.
In fact, Article 5.3 of the FCTC makes it clear that parties are obliged to protect tobacco-control policies from the commercial interests of the industry.
All 180 parties to the Convention, which has the force of international law, have already agreed to act against the tobacco industry.
We’re not lacking the means to act. These already exist. What we’re lacking is the will to act.