The European Commission yesterday announced significant revisions to its Tobacco Products Directive (TPD).
The main proposals are:
As you can imagine we've been following the TPD process with interest. In fact, Forest's concern with what happens at EU level goes back two decades when we were founder members of a now defunct European-wide organisation that brought together smokers' rights groups in a dozen countries.
All that remains of that network are groups in Holland and Spain so in 2007 we struck out alone and submitted a response to an EU Green Paper consultation, 'Towards a Europe free from tobacco smoke: policy options at EU level'.
Having registered our intention to represent the views of consumers, the next step was to engage directly with officials. In March 2008 we discovered that a meeting was being held for "EU experts, civil society and social partners to support the Commission's Impact Assessment on the forthcoming initiative on smoke-free environments".
Hosted by DG Sanco, the department (or Directorate General) for health and consumer protection in Brussels, it was also described as a "stakeholder consultation on the Commission's smoke-free initiative".
Needless to say, when I asked if Forest could attend we got the distinct impression that officials weren't terribly keen on the idea. Writing on this blog, I described what happened:
I sensed, as soon as I entered the room and introduced myself ("Hello, I'm Simon Clark - from the smokers' lobby group Forest"), that there could be trouble. The guy from Pfizer (yes, the pharmaceutical company) didn't look pleased, and there were mutterings from some of the other delegates. (There were around 20 in all.)
No surprise then, when, as soon as the meeting began, and we had all formally identified ourselves, two or three hands shot up. As I suspected, some of my fellow delegates were none too happy that a representative of Forest was in the room. If I didn't leave, said one, she would. Others nodded their heads in agreement.
Full story: EU couldn't make it up.
Leading blogger Iain Dale read my post and commented:
Whether you agree with Forest's pro smoker standpoint, what an absolute outrage it is for people to behave like this in a so-called democratic institution. I hate smoking, but I abhor the smoking ban even more. It's this kind of libertarian view which pseudo-fascists like the woman mentioned above would just love to outlaw. They don't just want to ban things, they want to police what we are allowed to say too. They are on the slippery slope to a thought controlling authoritarian state.
See: The consequences of being denied freedom of speech.
Eighteen months later I attended another meeting hosted by DG Sanco in Brussels. Unusually it was organised to give the tobacco lobby an opportunity to question an impact assessment report (by "leading think tank" RAND Europe) entitled Measuring the Impacts of Revising the EU Tobacco Products Directive.
This time I wrote:
Superficially impressive, the 345-page report was the target of fierce criticism from almost everyone in the room with the obvious exception of the EC officials who were chairing or recording our comments and were, nominally, impartial ...
My own contribution was short and sweet. I criticised RAND's stakeholder engagement policy, pointing out that not a single consumer group had been contacted to participate in the report. (I told the meeting that a representative of RAND had been present when I had been asked to leave a previous meeting in Brussels in March 2008 so the company was well aware of Forest's existence and the fact that we wanted to play a full role in EU policy-making.)
I also criticised the scope of RAND's impact assessment which focussed on the impact of further tobacco regulations on health, economics and employment within the tobacco and retail sector but ignored other areas. I also objected to the fact that RAND talk about the "social cost of tobacco" as if this is entirely negative.
What is missing from the RAND report, I said, is an impact assessment of further regulations on adults who enjoy smoking and don't want to quit. What about the impact on their lifestyle? And why no assessment of the impact on people's freedom of choice or issues such as personal responsibility?
See: Taking (RAND) Europe to task.
Two months later, in December 2010, we organised an online petition to enable people to respond to the EC's public consultation document, Possible revision of the Tobacco Products Directive.
It was a last minute effort so to promote it we produced a short video (Fight EC proposals on tobacco control) that featured contributions from Mark Littlewood (Institute of Economic Affairs), Dr Eamonn Butler (Adam Smith Institute), and Dave Bowden (Institute of Ideas).
See also: Forest petition, final total.
Seven months later, in July 2011, the EC published a report on the consultation. And guess what?
A significant majority of (citizen) respondents were against extending the scope of the Directive (ie further regulations).
A vast majority of (citizen) respondents ... were in favour of lifting the ban on snus.
A significant majority of (citizen) respondents disagreed with the regulation of ingredients at the EU level.
A significant majority of (citizen) respondents opposed limiting access to tobacco products.
According to the EC, the number of "citizen respondents" was 82,117, or 96 per cent of the overall total. The outcome of the consultation indicated there was a massive majority against further tobacco controls.
But wait. According to the EC:
It is to be noted that the responses to the consultation do not represent a survey of a diverse cross-section of society ...
While it is encouraging to see a great number of responses, it should also be noted that this volume appears to be a result, to a large extent, of several citizen mobilisation campaigns that took place in some Member States ...
Several different methods of mobilising and encouraging participation in the consultation process were utilized: from producing websites providing detailed information and guidance on how to participate ... to producing and distributing videos via YouTube about the need to limit changes to tobacco product regulation and tobacco control policy.
The actions and efforts of these campaigns and their ability to mobilise citizens seem to have affected the overall results of the public consultation.
Consequently, said the EC:
It is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the outcome of the public consultation procedure.
Full story: EC cries foul as citizens have their say.
Fast forward to December 2012 and the European Commission has not only ignored well-founded criticisms of the impact assessment report, it has chosen to dismiss the result of its own public consultation document. Instead it will press ahead with further regulations.
Forgive me for being cynical but I wonder if officials at the Department of Health are watching and thinking, "Can we pull a similar stunt with our own consultation on standardised packaging?".
Oh, to be a fly on the wall in Waterloo Road!
PS. Dick Puddlecote The EU acts swiftly to protect profits over health and Chris Snowdon Why snus will stay banned have also written about the TPD proposals.
See also: Tobacco products: towards bigger health warnings and ban of strong flavourings