The global campaign against tobacco use has few better allies than the 28 member states of the European Union.
European scientists were among the first to uncover incontrovertible evidence that tobacco killed its users, and European governments have blazed a trail in the fight-back against this pernicious product. And that’s quite right, when you consider that almost 700,000 EU citizens die of tobacco-related illnesses every year.
The gigantic global companies 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 it is noteworthy when EU officials sit down with the representatives of Philip Morris International (PMI), one of the world’s “Big Five” tobacco companies. It’s worrying too, because if these talks do take place, they could lead to the extension of a deeply flawed agreement.
For 11 years, PMI has been paying large sums of money - $1.25 billion a year – to the EU. This is part of a settlement to halt legal action against the company in the United States over the sale of contraband cigarettes in EU markets. At that time, in 2004, it was considered a major development and three other large tobacco firms swiftly copied the idea.
But times have changed. Just one year later, in 2005, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the first public health treaty of the 21st century, became binding international law. The WHO FCTC currently has 180 Parties, including the EU. And in 2012, the first Protocol to the FCTC to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products was adopted and is now open for ratification by the Parties to the FCTC. It has 13 Parties so far, and needs another 27 to enter into force.
The EU rightly calls the Protocol “a global solution to a global problem” and describes it as the main global initiative to tackle tobacco smuggling. We warmly welcome the organization’s stated intention to become a Party, and note that four EU member states - Spain, France, Portugal and Austria - have already done so.
These legally binding agreements, which carry global credibility and acceptance, nullify the need for a deal with PMI, or the use of its tracking-and-tracing systems for tobacco products.
The Convention is clear on the obligations of its Parties:
• Article 5.3 of the FCTC requires Parties to protect public health policies from tobacco industry involvement.
• Guidelines elaborating on Article 5.3 strongly recommend that Parties do not accept, support or endorse any offer for assistance or proposed tobacco control legislation or policy drafted by or in collaboration with the tobacco industry.
• Parties are likewise recommended not to accept, support or endorse instruments drafted by the tobacco industry which might substitute for legally enforceable tobacco control measures.
• The Protocol’s tracking and tracing provisions state that these responsibilities may not be assigned or delegated to the tobacco industry. (At the moment, the EU-PMI agreement uses the company’s own Codentify tracing system).
While promoting the implementation of the WHO FCTC internationally, we need to draw breath and recollect a few fundamentals.
The tobacco industry is not our friend. The anti-fraud agreements with PMI and others were a response to the threat of legal action – the industry was forced into agreement with the EU. By doing so, tobacco firms portray themselves as responsible corporations.
This cynical argument is now being used by the tobacco companies, as they seek to replicate such deals in developing countries. This is an extremely troubling development, which makes it doubly important that the EU renounces the PMI agreement.
And just to underline the point, I should recall that PMI and other tobacco companies have launched legal action against the EU’s Tobacco Products Directive, which includes a track-and-trace system independent of the companies.
There is another unfortunate message that would be communicated by extending the PMI agreement. Reasonably or not, some critics would argue that at a time of acute budgetary strain across the continent, EU members had been influenced by the prospect of further large payments from tobacco manufacturers.
It would clearly be better to openly state that there will be no extension of the PMI deal in July of this year, that agreements with the other tobacco firms will also be allowed to expire and that in future the EU intends to take full control of tobacco policy.
This would also enable us to end those questionable areas of the current deals with tobacco firms – like use of company tracking-and-tracing systems and the firms’ self-certification of contraband.
It would allow everyone to focus on what matters – ratifying the Illicit Trade Protocol as quickly as possible and implementing the Tobacco Products Directive.
And finally, it would send a clear signal from the EU to the world, an unambiguous message that doing business with tobacco companies is a thing of the past.