Forest's responses to consultations on TPD2 and Public Health (Wales) Bill

As I wrote on Saturday, two government consultations closed last week.

The first was a Department of Health consultation on implementation of the EU's revised Tobacco Products Directive (aka TPD2).

Many of the questions were fairly technical. For example:

Are there any other pack shapes for cigarettes, Roll Your Own (RYO) and waterpipe tobacco on the market, other than pouches and squat cylindrical tins/tubs, where there may be technical difficulties in applying any of the new health warnings under Articles 9 and 10?'

I've no idea and I didn't bother finding out.

Instead Forest's submission focussed on the eight or nine questions that had direct relevance to consumers. One in particular stood out:

We are aware that tobacco products that benefit from transitional arrangements (menthol), or are exempt from the ban on characterising flavours, will no longer able to provide a reference to the flavour on the packet. We would be interested to receive views on the impact of this provision.

Here's our response:

Of all the measures in the TPD2, several of which are illiberal and unnecessarily restrictive in terms of consumer choice, this is possibly the most absurd. The ban on menthol cigarettes will deny millions of consumers throughout the EU a product they have consumed and enjoyed for years if not decades. Incredibly, in the interim period before the ban is introduced in 2020, menthol cigarettes will be available to the consumer but there will be no mention of the flavour on the packet!!

Petty, childish, ridiculous … none of these adjectives do justice to this extraordinary proposal. It beggars belief that anyone could come up with such a ludicrous idea but nothing surprises us about the tobacco control industry that stops at nothing to inconvenience ordinary law-abiding consumers, not to mention the retailers who sell this perfectly legitimate product. Without the word ‘menthol’ on the packet how on earth are consumers supposed to tell whether a packet contains menthol cigarettes? The aim, clearly, is to restrict consumers to their existing brand of cigarette, making it difficult if not impossible for them to choose a new or different brand during the transitional period (which they are perfectly entitled to do).

The impact of this measure will not only inconvenience consumers, it will also inconvenience and confuse a great many shop assistants unfamiliar with the names of different brands of menthol cigarettes. Asked by a customer, ‘What brands of menthol cigarettes do you sell?’, many shop assistants will be unable to answer. Instead of using their eyes to search the shelves (which should take no more than a few seconds), they will no doubt have to refer to a list before looking for the relevant brands that, in the UK, are already hidden behind shutters or doors.

Consumers have a right to be allowed to make an informed choice about the product they buy. After the introduction of standardised packaging in the UK consumers and shop assistants will be faced with identical packs with only the name identifying the brand the consumer wishes to buy. Removing any reference to the flavour will make it even harder for the consumer.

Given the tobacco display ban and the introduction of standardised packaging (which will remove all branding colours from the packet), do we really need yet another regulation that treats adult consumers as if they are infants? Is the Government really prepared to lower itself to that level? It’s bad enough that menthol cigarettes are to be outlawed (Forest is strongly opposed to the measure) but don’t, in the intervening period, remove the reference to the flavour on the packet.

Whatever the product, consumers have a right to expect any relevant information, including the flavour, to be included on the packet. Why should consumers of tobacco, a legal product, be treated any differently?

You can read our full response to the consultation on implementation of TPD2 here.

As for the consultation on the Public Health (Wales) Bill that closed on Friday, our response included a strong rebuttal of the proposal to ban the use of e-cigarettes in all enclosed public places.

Ignoring the sections on body piercings and public toilets (!) we concluded our submission with these comments:

E-cigarettes are market-led devices that have the potential to revolutionise public health if the product is not strangled in its infancy by hyper-regulation and unnecessary restrictions. Based on existing evidence there is no reason to believe that e-cigarettes are a serious risk to the health of the consumer or that vaping is a gateway to smoking tobacco.

Politicians must overcome their unwarranted fear of nicotine (which can be addictive but is no more harmful than caffeine) and embrace the potential that electronic cigarettes have to become a game-changing harm reduction product that could eventually wean millions of smokers off cigarettes. To achieve that requires a leap of imagination and the ability to reject unnecessarily restrictive legislation.

At the same time, attempts to force smokers to quit combustible cigarettes could be counter-productive with many consumers ‘reaching for their fags in defiance’. Forest supports education not coercion. In a free society adults must have the freedom to make an informed choice and as long as tobacco remains a legal product consumers should neither be vilified for their habit nor forced to quit.

Click here for our full submission.