THE EU TOBACCO PRODUCTS DIRECTIVE MUST NOT BE DERAILED
The EU Tobacco Products Directive must not be derailed
This week, tobacco control activists across Europe were
expecting to celebrate a win in a protracted war with the
tobacco industry. After an extensive preparatory phase,
the European Commissioner for Health and Consumer
Policy was due to present his proposals for a revised
Tobacco Products Directive to the other Commission
services on Oct 22, 2012, with a view to adopting the
text by Dec 19, 2012. This process has been derailed
after the resignation of EU Commissioner John Dalli,
amidst allegations that he was aware of, but took no
action to stop, impropriety.1,2
The proposed contents of the revised Tobacco Products
Directive had been trailed in advance, most notably when
an advanced draft was leaked to the German media.3 The
revised Directive built on a wealth of research, much of it
derived from the tobacco industry’s internal documents
released under US court orders. This information had
provided important new insights into how the industry
had manipulated the composition of cigarettes—for
exam ple, by adding fl avourings that would make their
products more attractive to children and by changing
the pH to increase the initiation of nicotine addiction.4,5
The research also revealed the sophistication of industry
research on cognition to enhance the appeal of images of
its products.6
The revised Directive was expected to tackle the
industry’s once secret tactics to ensnare future generations
of smokers. Specifi cally, it was expected to maintain
the existing ban on all forms of smokeless tobacco
(except Sweden, which had secured an opt out during its
accession to the European Union to protect its domestic
snus market), and extend the ban to e-cigarettes.7 These
measures recognised concerns that the industry may seek
to circumvent the danger that smokers, faced with indoor
smoking bans, might quit.8 These products would help to
ensure that consumers remained nicotine dependent. The
Directive was also expected to: ban a range of fl avourings;
standardise the width, length, and colour of cigarettes;
limit displays at point of sale; require larger graphic
warnings on packs; and possibly propose future reviews,
including the option of plain cigarette packaging.
Although many aspects of the tobacco industry’s
response to the proposed revised Directive are not known,
it might have adopted a similar approach to that revealed
in a report of how it sought to “block, amend, delay” the
existing Directive through direct and indirect lobbying
to challenge the legality and the technical aspects of the
Directive.9 The EU’s health Commissioner at that time,
David Byrne, was however wise to such tactics, as were a
number of key Members of the European Parliament, and
the Directive passed.9
This time, it is diff erent. The progress of the Directive
has come to a halt and this delay seems likely to prevent
its promulgation within the period of the current
European Parliament. Activists now fear that the version
of the revised Directive that is eventually presented—if
at all—will be much weaker than the text as it stands
today. Even if it is eventually enacted, the tobacco
industry will have benefi ted from the delay, not only
through probable increased sales in the EU but also in
other parts of the world that might have followed the
EU lead. So what happened? Although many facts are
unclear, some key developments are known.
On Oct 16, 2012, Maltese Commissioner Dalli was
summoned to meet the President of the European
Commission, José Manuel Barroso. He was told that
the European Anti-Fraud Offi ce (OLAF), had evidence
that a Maltese businessman had approached a Swedish
smokeless tobacco manufacturer, trading on Dalli’s
name and claiming to be able to infl uence the Directive,
and seeking considerable fi nancial advantage for doing
so. It also seems that this approach might have been
made after the draft Directive had been fi nalised.10 The
OLAF report remains secret and the matter is now under
Comment.
consideration by the judicial authorities, but OLAF issued
a press release alleging that there was circumstantial
evidence to indicate that the Commissioner was aware of
the activities of the businessman but failed to act.2 Dalli
strenuously denies this charge; there is no suggestion that
he either benefi ted personally or changed the Directive.
The tobacco industry is reported to have invoked Dalli’s
resignation to call for the Directive to be withdrawn.11
2 days later, a series of break-ins took place in an eight
storey building in Brussels.12 The burglars are believed
to have abseiled from the roof, disabling sophisticated
movement sensors. The only offi ces targeted were
those belonging to anti-tobacco and public health
organisations. Laptops and documents were stolen
while other valuables were untouched.
In a further twist, it was revealed that a senior OLAF
offi cial had previously opposed plain cigarette packaging,
on the grounds that it might encourage counterfeiting,13
an argument favoured by the tobacco industry but
refuted by anti-tobacco activists who note that plain
packs will have the same security markings currently used
to distinguish genuine from counterfeit products.14
This combination of events has, inevitably, set alarm
bells ringing. While the truth will emerge eventually, it
may be too late for the revised Tobacco Products Directive.
Yet there is no reason why this should be so. There seems
to be no evidence that the drafting of the Directive was
infl uenced by the alleged events and the text has been
cleared, legally and administratively, to pass to the next
stage. The Directive addresses one of the greatest threats
to the health of Europeans, is based solidly on evidence,
and should be taken forward as planned. The Government
of Malta has spared no time in nominating a replacement
Commissioner, Tonio Borg. However, there is no need to
wait for his nomination to be approved by the European
Parliament because the Directive has already been
approved by the existing Commissioners. But will this be
too late? The only benefi ciaries of delay are the tobacco
companies and further delay will raise serious questions
about whose interests the EU Commission is promoting.
