The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) debate on Industry exclusion
By Moses Obaloju
While the Tobacco
Control debate increases in momemtum, it appears to be paying more attention to dealing with tobacco companies than
anything else. One cannot help but ask if this is the right approach to
reducing tobacco consumption and stemming the tide of possible increase.
There is an inherent danger that the global
drive to eliminate tobacco use and manufacture will take on the same outlook
that the drive to eliminate poverty took in developing countries. The attempt
to eliminate poverty through the use of aid granted to many countries in Africa
did not achieve its intended objectives. After pumping huge amounts of funding
into different projects all in a bid to reduce poverty, , multi-lateral
agencies and others have changed their strategies, believing more in
socio-economic growth or poverty reduction enabled by either foreign or local
investment.
As funding for tobacco control increases, so
also have the organisations involved in the race to address tobacco related
issues. The demand for smoking has persisted despite the increase in funding
and tobacco control advocacy. Smuggling of tobacco by criminals and terrorists
has also increased tremendously in countries where stringent regulation have
been enacted, leading to a decrease in government revenue with no protection
for public health.
Understandably Tobacco is a product that must
be regulated. This is an incontestable fact. However, what can be contested is
the form of regulation that will be most
effective in protecting people from the harm related to smoking. It is
extremely important for all tobacco policy formulators to understand the
critical importance of drafting laws and policies which will have the effect
they should have, within the context of its operating environment. Copy and
paste laws do not work anywhere in the world, least of all in developing countries.
Tobacco policy making must also be all
inclusive, everyone must state their case. It is expected that those who are
charged with the affairs of formulating these laws are trust worthy enough and
have the requisite expertise to make the right kind of calls that will protect
public health. There is, therefore no basis for excluding the tobacco industry
from deliberating on issues that will affect them. Attempting to exclude them
from such discussions by engaging in unnecessary media sensationalism is mere whitewash. Funding used in this regard if
any should be used to educate consumers on the ills of smoking.
For laws to be properly drafted all issues and stakeholders must
be considered, with the aim of having a robust process of deliberation which
can lead to sound policies and laws. Not listening to all concerned parties can
invariably affect the soundness of decisions made and will also encourage
adapting laws and policies which are borrowed from foreign parties and will not
be effective within the local context.
Developed countries are domesticating the FCTC articles not only
through inclusive strategies but also in the context of their operating
environment. A recent move by the UK health department to introduce plain
packaging in the UK was aborted after extensive deliberations with all stakeholders,
including the tobacco industry, simply because such a move would have other
unintended consequences such as increased smuggling and the loss of revenue and
jobs for small businesses.
We need to be careful in Nigeria. We must not copy and paste
recommended guidelines that are not mandatory but can further jeopardise the
public health debate and create bigger problems in the long term. Tobacco sales
and manufacture is a lucrative business for criminals and terrorists who
smuggle the product into countries where policy or enforcement gaps allow the
illegal trade of tobacco to thrive. The insecurity issues, lack of adequate
resources and many other problems we are currently facing in Nigeria must all
be put on the table with advocates thinking logically and working in the best
interest of everyone. The recent
allusions to the issues of tobacco smuggling must not be swept under the carpet
but should be weighed alongside the impact of legislating these companies away
and the attendant rise in the use of illegal tobacco which will have
consequences that are far worse than we could have imagined.
While industry practices must be monitored,
there are benefits associated with the existence of tobacco companies. The
reality is that it is the tobacco companies, and not the tobacco control
advocates, who have over the years assisted the country to reduce smuggling,
replacing counterfeit tobacco products with products that several regulatory
agencies can now monitor and regulate. These legally produced and properly regulated
products also generate revenue for the government. There is definitely a
benefit to having structured, legal tobacco companies around, versus having a
situation where faceless and nameless entities flood the markets with smuggled
counterfeit tobacco products. It is important to look at these issues
holistically and also compare the successes recorded in other places. Each
country must on its own look at how to address the issues affecting them, and
so far this has been the case for most developed countries.
The failure to reduce the effect of tobacco
use on public health should be seen as a need for the advocates to take another
look at their strategies, although it is the norm for corporate activists
world-wide to attempt to shame the businesses they attack. This strategy cannot
be employed in all situations especially when you have a teeming population of
consumers who say smoking is their choice.
Globally, huge sums of money have been pumped
into tobacco control advocacy over the last few decades by philanthropists and
many others, however, the demand for tobacco consumption persists and illegal
markets continue to thrive. As the
advocates continue to focus their energies on the tobacco industry, so do the
criminals, smugglers and illegal marketers who continue to smile to the bank,
to the detriment of public health
On one hand, tobacco control advocates report
that the incidence of smoking in some of countries has declined, while on the
other hand the media and enforcement agencies continue to report increased
incidences of smuggling. Tobacco smuggling is often linked to the funding of
terrorism and other criminal activities. Countries like Canada, Ireland and
even New York, USA are some of those affected. A CNN online report of 17th
May 2013, stated that “A cigarette smuggling scheme that cost New
York State millions of dollars in sales tax revenue may have raised funds for
militant groups…” The reality is that the strategies deployed by tobacco
control advocates are attempting to push the legitimate businesses out of the
picture yet these same strategies are consequently fueling the entrants of
smugglers into the same space. .
Over the last few years we have seen an increase in the number of
tobacco control advocates who have shown interest in tobacco control, the bills
introduced into the National Assembly have increased and there is also a
doubling up of efforts on other fronts including the State, Executive level and
the judiciary.
The global drive to
wish tobacco demand away is the same as was done for alcohol in the USA in
1920. Referring to historical antecedents can be a useful way of developing
effective strategies. The introduction of alcohol prohibition in the USA in
1920 made the production, distribution and consumption of alcohol illegal and the enforcement of this law was a hotly
debated issue. “The contemporary prohibitionists presented it as a victory for
public morals and health, but once the laws were passed they did little to help
enforce them.” Alcohol simply became a product used and traded by criminals, which made
the situation worse and during this period people’s lives were put
at jeopardy because of the increase in sub-standard alcohol that was available
on the market. The government lost control and nothing could be done about it
until the laws prohibiting alcohol were changed.
In the case of Nigeria, what needs to be considered is how we are
going to tackle the issue of smuggled tobacco products when the legitimate
tobacco businesses have been driven out. Are there benefits from legitimate
tobacco business? Definitely yes. Does this mean that tobacco regulation will
be subverted and public health put at more risk? The answer is a resounding no.
Can the problem of smoking be solved through the current strategies without
proffering alternative approaches? Definitely not! The simple logic as we have
seen with other controversial products is that millions of people will still
smoke, law or no law.
Beverage companies are giving their consumers healthier choices,
so also are the tobacco companies attempting to proffer alternative options
which may be considered less harmful and we should support this. The European
smokeless tobacco council on their site stated that “the risk of dying from a
tobacco related illness is lower in Sweden than in any other European country despite tobacco
consumption being on a comparable level with other European countries. This
paradox is often referred to as the Swedish Experience and is primarily
explained by the fact that snus, a smokeless tobacco product, has served as a
viable and less harmful alternative to cigarettes for Swedish men.” More
funding should, therefore, be devoted to assisting tobacco companies come up
with products like this that smokers will enjoy. The European Commission also recently declared that e-cigarettes can be regulated as
general consumer goods which is a good start to assisting consumers to switch
to a less harmful option.
The advocates must ensure that the confusion
and distraction that has arisen recently must not divert all concerned from
simple logic, which is to protect the man on the street who has chosen to smoke
irrespective of the harm associated with doing do. For
this to happen their focus and strategy must change and the existing funds
received must be devoted to less complex areas which will achieve the results.
If the legislators or government are pushed into drafting a bad tobacco law,
they will invariably make matters worse.
This is the message we should all walk away with.
0 comments: