David Byrne

Thursday, February 3, 2000

Thank you Mr Commissioner for accepting our "rendez-vous" . May I ask you to introduce yourself ?

My name is David Byrne and I am European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection. I started this job last September and before that I have been Attorney General in my home-country, in Ireland. I am a lawyer by training.

Tobacco control falls within my area of responsibility and I take a particular interest in it since I am convinced it is one of the major themes of the new millenium if we are to reduce its appaling death toll.

1. The Irish Times recently reported that you believe the tobacco industry had a clear choice: to work with public health authorities and face up to its responsibilities to market its product responsibly or to continue its policies of denial. You added the industry "will pay a very high price if it continues its past approach of fighting tooth-and-nail each and every legislative measure aimed at combating tobacco consumption ".
Did you see any sign that the industry change its way of behaving ?

In connection with the attitudes of the tobacco industry in Europe regarding legislative change, there has been a series of meetings between myself, my services and the industry to discuss future legislative action to complete the Internal Market, and regarding existing legislation such as the tobacco advertising regulation adopted in 1998. The level of contact with the industry has been good on these occasions. I do feel that the attitudte of industry has changed and that have finally come to accept that a strong regulatory framework on tobacco control is inevitable.

2. How do you feel about the lawsuits filed by individual tobacco victims in several EU countries? Do you think there are more to come and that they are justified ?
What about the possibility of some states filing suit as well ? like it happened in the US ?

I am following closely the efforts being made in some European jurisdictions to seek damages for health effects of smoking. In the absence of appropriate legislation at the European level, these questions are being pursued before national courts.

3. A French court has judged that the French Seita had failed to adequately inform a smoker about the risks (and was thus liable) but as soon as a minimal warning (the lame formula smoking in excess is dangerous, adopted in 1976) was put up on the pack, the company was no longer liable. In the context of the new directive that aims to increase the size and the visibility of the health warnings one could think the former ones were not that effective (as it is proven by several studies showing the public is not really conscious of all the risks). In Canada the tobacco control advocates are pushing for new warnings that are more prominent and more detailed than what is proposed in the new Directive. They say the actual Canadian warnings are not sufficient : and basically these insufficient warnings are what the Directive is proposing. Is there still room to aim higher ?
Quitlines have also become an important tool to inform smokers and help them to quit. In Australia, they put the quitline number on the pack. Don't you think it would be useful to put such a number on the pack, as well as references to quit websites ?
As you know the pack is used extensively by the tobacco companies to promote their sales and they don't hesitate to add (often illegally) small promotional leaflets within the pack, and promote their own websites and 800 numbers. So shouldn't the concept of health warnings become more modern and interactive and include prevention tools like phone lines, websites and health oriented leaflet in the pack ?

Many questions at once! But in fact this is all about labelling. The proposal for a directive on tobacco labelling adopted by the Commission in November 1999 is currently in discussion before the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. The Commission's proposal is based on recommendations made in late 1996 by its High-level Cancer Experts Committee, and on the positive reactions received to a Commission Communication of December 1996.

The proposal envisages a considerable strengthening of the existing rules on labelling by increasing the size of warnings, updating health warnings and improving printing criteria to ensure better invisibility. The existing ceiling for tar content in cigarettes is reduced; a new European wide ceiling on carbon monoxide and nicotine in cigarettes is proposed. An obligation is imposed on manufacturers to identify the non-tobacco ingredients present in their tobacco products and to supply toxicological data. Additionally, Member States can control the use of certain potentially misleading trade descriptions, such as "light", "low tar", "mild", etc, which are otherwise prohibited.

The use of the cigarette or tobacco packet to give detailed information to consumers on quitlines is limited by two factors; firstly, several EU Member States have more than one official language, restricting the size of warnings and messages when more than one language exists. Secondly; putting essentially national information on smoking cessation quitlines would not facilitate the smooth operation of the Internal Market. However, both prevention campaigns and cessation are promoted through means other than messages on the cigarette pack, particularly by Member State information campaigns and at EU level, by the Europe Against Cancer Programme and by the Community Fund for Research and Information on Tobacco. Nonetheless, I have an open mind on any suggestions by the Member States and the European Parliament on the current proposals.

4. Recently tobacco taxes were raised in Ireland. Tobacco prices still vary widely among EU member countries. Do you foresee any progress toward a harmonization and do you think the EU will be able to combat smuggling more efficiently while it is a serious threat to high taxes on tobacco products ?

Further harmonization of indirect tobacco taxes is a complex process, although the basis for additional movement still exists within the framework established by the Excise directives. One should also recall the issue of varying purchasing power levels, and the effects of the moves to monetary union within the Euro zone, which could also have an influence on price differences. The reinforcement of the external frontier is very much a high priority, and tobacco smuggling has been recognized as a grave problem by all sides as is the question of transit regimes.

5. You said in a speech delivered earlier: "I hope in turn that Member States will accept their responsibilities to spend much more on effective prevention measures. Huge taxes are derived from tobacco consumption. It is time that a substantial share of these taxes are spent on combating smoking and in helping smokers to kick the habit. "
What would you consider "a substantial share". In the US, the CDC published in august a report titled "best practices for comprehensive tobacco programs" that includes state by state budgetary objectives, could the Commission try to work out similar estimates?

The Commission needs to be careful not to overstep its powers. Member States could point out that we have no legal competence to decide how they spend their taxpayers money. Nonetheless, it is an issue to which I hope to return in the future.

6. You also said you favored the phasing out within a short period of the annual 800 million EU tobacco farmers'subsidy. I guess this will sound like a declaration of war to the very vocal tobacco farmers lobby and it's tobacco industry allies (I think they are now all together within the same new lobbying organization in Brussels).
Do you have any proposals to help out the tobacco farmers who for so many years have been cajoled into starting growing tobacco and are often deeply in debt ?
On a much more restricted scale, what about the prevention programs that are now funded by 2% of the farmer's subsidy ?
Do you feel the Commission should invest more into tobacco prevention ? What type of cooperation could eventually be developed with the member countries and what role would be left for the NGO's that are often the most active players ?

The responsibility for the operation of the tobacco growing support scheme falls with my colleague Franz Fischler. I have simply indicated that, in my view, we should be moving away from this existing support scheme, towards a replacement support which would be more compatible with the public health objectives of the Treaty.

Smoking prevention at EU level is not only funded by the 2% levy on the tobacco growing subsidy. Funds are also available in the Europe Against Cancer Programme. Both programmes closely involve Member State authorities and in particular NGO groups.

Do you have anything else you would like to add?

It was a pleasure to be with you today and I appreciate your efforts in the fight against smoking!

Thank you Mr Commissioner for taking the time to be with us today.