+ All Categories
Home > News & Politics > How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

Date post: 05-Dec-2014
Category:
Upload: burning-brain-society
View: 1,896 times
Download: 1 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
A presentation by Hemant Goswami on How tobacco industry have managed to manipulate the public health agenda over the years. Quoting from the tobacco industry documents itself, Hemant demonstrated the tactics the industry uses to plant tobacco control legislations themselves to prevent any effective and powerful legislation from coming into effect. Example of how Indian Tobacco Control law has been weakened by the industry influence has also been given by Hemant in the presentation.
46
how how how how Tobacco Control Tobacco Control Tobacco Control Tobacco Control agenda agenda agenda agenda and the and the and the and the Government Government Government Government’ ’s s s have been have been have been have been manipulated manipulated manipulated manipulated by the by the by the by the Tobacco Industry? Tobacco Industry? Tobacco Industry? Tobacco Industry? how how how how ‘Tobacco Control Tobacco Control Tobacco Control Tobacco Control’ ’ agenda agenda agenda agenda and the and the and the and the Government Government Government Government’ ’s s s have been have been have been have been manipulated manipulated manipulated manipulated by the by the by the by the Tobacco Industry? Tobacco Industry? Tobacco Industry? Tobacco Industry? The Real Picture The Real Picture The Real Picture The Real Picture Hemant Goswami Hemant Goswami Hemant Goswami Hemant Goswami www.Tobacco www.Tobacco www.Tobacco www.TobaccoFree Free Free FreeIndia.Org India.Org India.Org India.Org
Transcript
Page 1: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

how how how how Tobacco ControlTobacco ControlTobacco ControlTobacco Control agendaagendaagendaagenda and the and the and the and the

GovernmentGovernmentGovernmentGovernment’’’’ssss have beenhave beenhave beenhave been

manipulatedmanipulatedmanipulatedmanipulated by the by the by the by the Tobacco Industry?Tobacco Industry?Tobacco Industry?Tobacco Industry?

how how how how ‘‘‘‘Tobacco ControlTobacco ControlTobacco ControlTobacco Control’’’’ agendaagendaagendaagenda and the and the and the and the

GovernmentGovernmentGovernmentGovernment’’’’ssss have beenhave beenhave beenhave been

manipulatedmanipulatedmanipulatedmanipulated by the by the by the by the Tobacco Industry?Tobacco Industry?Tobacco Industry?Tobacco Industry?

The Real PictureThe Real PictureThe Real PictureThe Real Picture

Hemant GoswamiHemant GoswamiHemant GoswamiHemant Goswami

www.Tobaccowww.Tobaccowww.Tobaccowww.TobaccoFreeFreeFreeFreeIndia.OrgIndia.OrgIndia.OrgIndia.Org

Page 2: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

SmokeSmokeSmokeSmoke----Free LegislationsFree LegislationsFree LegislationsFree Legislationssponsored by the Tobacco Industry?sponsored by the Tobacco Industry?sponsored by the Tobacco Industry?sponsored by the Tobacco Industry?

Around�the�late�1980s,�the�tobacco�industry�made�a�fundamental�shift�in�its�legislative�strategy�from�simply�fighting�bills�it�didn't�like,�to�actively�drafting�and�pushing�legislation�designed�to�head�off�public�resistance�to�its�products.�They�called�it�their�"proactive�strategy"�or�"throwing�bombs."�They�used�it�to�dissipate�opponents'�resources,�harass�them,�get�out�in�front�of�them�and�keep�them�from�causing�more�trouble�for�the�industry.�Related�strategies�to�manipulate�legislations�was�already�being�practiced�by�the�Industry�since�70’s.

Lessons in Legislative Manipulation From the Tobacco Industry by Anne Landman

[From the Tobacco Industry Documents Depository]

Page 3: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

SmokeSmokeSmokeSmoke----Free LegislationsFree LegislationsFree LegislationsFree Legislationssponsored by the Tobacco Industry?sponsored by the Tobacco Industry?sponsored by the Tobacco Industry?sponsored by the Tobacco Industry?

TACTIC: Instead�of�a�Strong�Law,�Manipulate�to�Push�a�Weak�One�[That�too�at�the�federal�level]

One�corporate�legislative�"bomb-throwing"�tactic�involves�pushing�through�weak,�ineffective�laws�designed�to�head�off�more�restrictive�ones.�

The�Industry�uses�friendly�legislators�to�introduce�and�steer�the�bills�and�amendmends.�

The�Tobacco�Industry�Strategy�has�been�clear; "Publicly,�tobacco�industry�advocates�should�express�the�position�that�NO�smoking�restriction�law�is�desirable. If�pressed,�they�should�acknowledge�that�uniform�regulation�throughout�the�state�is�preferable�to�the�state�of�confusion�which�now�exists. Privately,�our�lobbyists�would�of�course�encourage�legislators'�support�of�the�substitute�[weak]�bill.“

Page 4: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

The Proactive LegislationThe Proactive LegislationThe Proactive LegislationThe Proactive Legislation

Why�Industry�Pushes�

Smoke-Free�

Legislations?

Page 5: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

Tobacco Industry Ensures Tobacco Industry Ensures Tobacco Industry Ensures Tobacco Industry Ensures ComplianceComplianceComplianceCompliance

Promoting�laws�Which�do�not�hurt�their�business

Page 6: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

Building RelationshipsBuilding RelationshipsBuilding RelationshipsBuilding RelationshipsA Part of Well Planned StrategyA Part of Well Planned StrategyA Part of Well Planned StrategyA Part of Well Planned Strategy

What�is�Grasstops?

Page 7: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

The The The The GrasstopsGrasstopsGrasstopsGrasstops StrategyStrategyStrategyStrategy

Page 8: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

THE INFLUENCE OF THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY ON EUROPEAN TOBACCO-CONTROL POLICY - Gerard Hastings, Kathryn Angus.

Page 9: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

The Industry FearsThe Industry FearsThe Industry FearsThe Industry Fears

And�the�Proactive�Strategies

Page 10: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

Engage with LawmakersEngage with LawmakersEngage with LawmakersEngage with Lawmakers

USING�RELATIONS�TO�AVERT�POSSIBLE�REGULATIONS

Page 11: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

The Game PlanThe Game PlanThe Game PlanThe Game Plan

Evaluating�Legislation�and�Deciding�Which�Will�Get�Through

Page 12: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

Are we sitting DUCKS?Are we sitting DUCKS?Are we sitting DUCKS?Are we sitting DUCKS?

The�Industry�Claims�– way�back�in�1994

[We�Have�Passed�Tobacco�Control�Legislations]

Page 13: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

Who Is the Winner?Who Is the Winner?Who Is the Winner?Who Is the Winner?

Tobacco�Industry�or�the�Public�Health�Advocates

We�Have�Actually�Lost

Page 14: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

Indian LegislationIndian LegislationIndian LegislationIndian Legislation

Indian�Tobacco�Control�Legislation�was�passed�on�April�30,�2003�(By�the�Upper�House�too).�It�does�not�refer�to�the�FCTC�but�rather�reads;

“WHEREAS,�the�Resolution�passed�by�the�39th�World�Health�Assembly�(WHO), in�its�Fourteenth�Plenary�meeting�held�on�the�15th�May,�1986�urged�the�member�States�of�WHO�which�have�not�yet�done�so�to�implement�the�measures�to�ensure�that�effective�protection�is�provided�to�non-smokers�from�involuntary�exposure�to�tobacco�smoke�and�to�protect�children�and�young�people�from�being�addicted�to�the�use�of�tobacco;�AND�WHEREAS,�the�43rd�World�Health�Assembly�in�its�Fourteenth�Plenary�meeting held�on�the�17th�May,�1990,�reiterated�the�concerns�expressed�in�the�Resolution�passed�in�the�39th World�Health�Assembly�and�urged�Member�States�to�consider�in�their�tobacco�control�strategies�plans�for�legislation.”

QUESTION: Why�was�there�such�a�haste�– When�the�FCTC�negotiations�had�already�reached�its�final�stage,�why�the�hurry?�When�the�Indian�government�was�a�part�of�the�FCTC�negotiation;�why�there�is�no�reference�of�the�same�in�the�tobacco�control�legislation?�And…

Any�Guesses?????

Page 15: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

Over the Years Tobacco Over the Years Tobacco Over the Years Tobacco Over the Years Tobacco control is handled by Federal/ control is handled by Federal/ control is handled by Federal/ control is handled by Federal/

Union Governments Union Governments Union Governments Union Governments –––– Why?Why?Why?Why?

EXAMPLE�– INDIA

According�to�the�Indian�Constitution,�all�trade�and�related�matters�are�a�subject�matter�of�the�State�

government�and�the�Union/Federal�Government�is�not�allowed�to�interfere�in�it�(except�for�specified�

items).�The�Seventh�Schedule�of�the�Constitution�provides�for�the�specific�list.�However�making�a�

departure�from�this,�a�specific�provision�was�inserted�in�the�“Tobacco�Board�Act,�1975” and�later�in�

“Cigarettes�and�Other�Tobacco�Products�Act,�2003�(COTPA)” which�declared�that,�

“It�is�expedient�in�the�public�interest�that�the�Union�should�take�under�its�control�

the�tobacco�industry.”

Thereafter�this�placed�“Tobacco” directly�under�the�control�of�the�Union�Government.�It�restricted�the�states�greatly�in�

matters�of�enacting�legislation�and�gave�the�final�authority�only�to�the�Union�Government�to�make�rules�(delegated�

legislation)�or�amend�the�law.

Page 16: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

The Industry StrategyThe Industry StrategyThe Industry StrategyThe Industry StrategyGo for National/Federal LegislationsGo for National/Federal LegislationsGo for National/Federal LegislationsGo for National/Federal Legislations

FROM�THE�HORSE’S�MOUTH

Page 17: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

Example Example Example Example ---- IndiaIndiaIndiaIndia

Section�4: No�person�shall�smoke�in�any�public�place:

Provided that�in�a�hotel�having�thirty�rooms�or�a�

restaurant�having�seating�capacity�of�thirty�persons�

or�more�and�in�the�airports,�a�separate�provision�for�

smoking�area�or�space�may�be�made.

This provision was inserted in the last minute on the basis of

a single half-page representation by the Hotel and

Restaurant Association. Prior to 2003, such a provision/ exemption did not exist in any of the State level tobacco

control legislations.

[Headed by ITC Limited, the biggest tobacco company in India. ITC operates a chain of big hotels in India]

Page 18: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

Example Example Example Example ---- IndiaIndiaIndiaIndia

Section�5. (1)�No�person�engaged�in,�or�purported�to�be�engaged�in�the�production,�

supply�or�distribution�of�cigarettes�or�any�other�tobacco�products�shall�advertise�

and�no�person�having�control�over�a�medium�shall�cause�to�be�advertised�cigarettes�

or�any�other�tobacco�products�…………………

Provided that�this�sub-section�shall�not�apply�in�relation�to—

(a)�an�advertisement�of�cigarettes�or�any�other�tobacco�product�in or�on�a�package�

containing�cigarettes�or�any�other�tobacco�product;

(b)�advertisement�of�cigarettes�or�any�other�tobacco�product�which is�displayed�at�the�

entrance�or�inside�a�warehouse�or�a�shop�where�cigarettes�and�any�other�tobacco�

products�are�offered�for�distribution�or�sale.

This exemption did not exist in any of the State level tobacco control legislations. No body asked for it …. But

the exemption sneaked into the legislation…

Page 19: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

Public PlacesPublic PlacesPublic PlacesPublic Places[An area fully exploited by industry to spread [An area fully exploited by industry to spread [An area fully exploited by industry to spread [An area fully exploited by industry to spread

confusion]confusion]confusion]confusion]

Section�2 (l)�“public�place” means�any�place�to�which�the�public�have�access,�whether�as�of�right�

or�not,�and�includes�auditorium,�hospital�buildings,�railway�waiting�room,�amusement�centres,�

restaurants,�public�offices,�court�buildings,�educational�institutions,�libraries,�public�

conveyances�and�the�like�which�are�visited�by�general�public�but does�not�include�any�open�

space;

Then�there�was�an�attempt�to�correct�it�in�the�rules�…..�Which�added�to�

more�confusion

Rule�2(c) “open�space” mentioned�in�Section�3(1)�of�the�Act�shall�not�include�any�places�visited�by�

the�public�such�as�open�auditorium,�stadium,�railway�station,�bus�stop�and�such�other�places;�

and�

This�was�further�complicated�(and�added�to�the�confusion)�by�the

October�2,�2008�notification�which�provided�even�a�newer�definition�

of�“Public�Places.”

Page 20: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

Promoting Major AberrationsPromoting Major AberrationsPromoting Major AberrationsPromoting Major Aberrations

Provision of “The Cigarettes (Regulations of Production, Supply and Distribution), Act, 1975:”

Section�19: Offences�to�be�cognizable�and�bailable -

(1)�Notwithstanding�anything�contained�in�the�Code�of�

Criminal�Procedure,�1973,�an�offence�punishable�under�this�

Act�shall�be�bailable.

(2)�For�the�avoidance�of�doubts,�it�is�hereby�declared�that�

every�offence�punishable�under�this�Act�shall�be�cognizable.

Page 21: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

New LegislationNew LegislationNew LegislationNew Legislation

Provision of “CIGARETTES AND OTHER TOBACCO PRODUCTS ACT, 2003:”

Section�27: Notwithstanding�anything�contained�in�

the�Code�of�Criminal�Procedure,�1973,�an�offence�

punishable�under�this�Act�shall�be�bailable.

(The�necessary�requirement�of�the�offences�being�

COGNIZABLE�is�missing)

Page 22: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

Criminal Procedure CodeCriminal Procedure CodeCriminal Procedure CodeCriminal Procedure Code

THE�FIRST�SCHEDULE

II-CLASSIFICATION�OF�OFFENCES�AGAINST�– OTHER�LAWS

If�any�offence�is�punishable�with�imprisonment�for�less�than�3�years�

or�with�fine�only�it�is�triable by�any�magistrate�and�shall�be�treated�

as�Non-Cognizable(Unless�the�cognizability of�an�offence�is�mentioned�in�the�legislation)

Meaning�thereby: A�policeman/enforcement�officer�can�not�

make�arrest�without�warrant�and/or��register�FIR�or�investigate�

without�courts�prior�order.�

Both,�the�provisions�related�to�advertising�ban�as�well�as�the�graphic�

warning�are�stuck�in�this�technicality.

Page 23: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

Makes it uselessMakes it uselessMakes it uselessMakes it useless

This�lacunae�leaves�the�pictorial�warning�

provisions�largely�un-implementable�and�

useless.�Only�a�highly�motivated�law�

enforcement�officer�is�likely�to�go�

through�the�long�process�to�book�any�

violator.�This�has�till�date�not�happened�

with�Section�5;�which�also�has�a�similar�

lacunae.�

Page 24: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

Manipulation even with the Manipulation even with the Manipulation even with the Manipulation even with the public warning textpublic warning textpublic warning textpublic warning text

Rule�3�reads: Prohibition�of�smoking�in�a�public�place.�—(1)�The�owner�or�the�manager�or�in�charge�of�the�affairs�of�a�public�place�shall�cause�to�be�displayed�prominently�a�board,�of�a�minimum�size�of�sixty�centimeter by�thirty�centimetre in�the�Indian�languages(s)�as�applicable,�at�least�one�at�the�entrance�of�the�public�place�and�one�at�conspicuous�place(s)�inside,�containing�the�warning�“No�Smoking�Area�-Smoking�here�is�an�offence�

However�this�was�replace�by�a�new�regulation�recently�(in�2008). Interestingly,�no�one�from�the�tobacco�control�or�public�health�community�asked�for�it.�Effectively�it�reduced�the�size�of�the�warning�and�also�made�it�more�complicated�to�comply�with.�The�dangerous�thing�is�– No�one�noticed�this�change�or�questioned�why�this�was�done.�

Schedule�II�[�The�New�Provision�w.r.t.�the�warning�against�smoking�at�public�places]

1.�The�board�shall�be�of�a�minimum�size�of�60�cm�by�30�cm�of�white�background.

2.�It�shall�contain�a�circle�of�no�less�than�15�cm�outer�diameter�with�a�red�perimeter�of�no�less�than�3�cm�wide�with�a�picture,�in�the�centre,�of�a�cigarette�or�beedi with�black�smoke�and�crossed�by�a�red�band.

Page 25: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

ExampleExampleExampleExampleDirect BribesDirect BribesDirect BribesDirect Bribes

All�the�major�political�parties�in�the�Indian�Parliament�were�given�donations�by�the�biggest�tobacco�company�“ITC�Limited.”

The�donation�(Official�– on�record)�runs�in�crores for�all�the�National�political�parties�in�India.

In�2005,�ITC�Limited�provided�1.44�crore Rupees to�the�Congress�and�1.37�crore to�BJP (The�ruling�and�the�opposition�political�parties�in�Indian).�

Some�of�the�parties�which�have�accepted�money�in�2005�from�ITC�Limited�are�All�India�Anna�DravidaMunnetra Kazhagam - Rs.�0.06�Crore;�All�India�Trinamool Congres - Rs.�0.04�Crore;�Bahujan Samaj Party�- Rs.0.19�Crore ;�Bharatiya Janata Party�- Rs.1.37�Crores;�Biju Janata Dal - Rs.0.11Crore�;�Dravida MunnetraKazhagam - Rs.0.16�Crore;�Indian�National�Congress�- Rs.1.44�Crores;�Indian�National�Lok Dal - Rs.0.03�Crore;�Jammu�&�Kashmir�National�Conference�-Rs.�0.03�Crore ;�Nationalist�Congress�Party�- Rs.0.09�Crore;�Samajwadi Party�-Rs.�0.36�Crore;�Shiv Sena - Rs.0.12�Crore;�Telegu Desam Party�- Rs.�0.15�Crore;�Janata Dal (United)�- Rs.0.08�Crore;�Jharkhand�Mukti Morcha - Rs.0.05Crore;�Rashtriya Janata Dal - Rs.�0.21�Crore;�Shiromani Akali Dal - Rs.�0.08�Crore;�Telangana Rashtra Samithi -Rs.�0.05�Crore

2005 – Annual Report of ITC

Page 26: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

Example Example Example Example –––– Involving Public Involving Public Involving Public Involving Public FunctionariesFunctionariesFunctionariesFunctionaries

Background

� Godfrey�Phillips�India�Limited,�is�the�second�largest�tobacco�company�in�India�associated�with�“Phillips�Morris.” It�has�a�cigarette�brand�named�“Red�&�White.”

� In�1980’s�this�brand�was�being�promoted�by�targeting�it�to�the�lower�middle�and�middle�class segment.

� As�a�conscious�attempt�to�market�and�promote�these�cigarettes,�the�“Red�&�White” brand�was�positioned�to�associate�it�with�the�aspiration�levels of�the�middle�class�and�lower�middle�class�of�India.�

� One�of�the�identified�aspirations�of�the�middle�class�was�recognised�as�a�need�to�appear�different;�to�do�something�worthwhile;�to�be�brave�and�to�be�identified.�The�whole�marketing�strategy�of�GPI�revolved�around�this�concept�and�thereafter�the�concept�of�“Bravery” became�an�inseparable�part�of�the�brand-image�of�“Red�&�White”

� Since�1990,�the�bravery�awards�are�handled�by�the�marketing�team of�“Godfrey�Phillips�India�Limited” and�the�expenses�are�debited�to�the�marketing�account�of�the�company.�The�vice-president�marketing�or�sales�of�GPI�is�the�one�who�coordinates�the�activity.

� The�Law�is�against�it�and�it�prohibits�any�kind�of�promotion�of�aby tobacco�product�in�any�form.�Section�5 of�the�“Cigarettes�and�Other�Tobacco�Products�Act,�2003” reads;�“no�person�shall�take�part�in�any�advertisement�which�directly�or�indirectly�suggests�or�promotes�the�use�or�consumption�of�cigarettes�or�any�other�tobacco�products.” Section�5-(3)�further�reads; No�person,�shall,�under�a�contract�or�otherwise�promote�or�agree�to promote�the�use�or�consumption�of— (a)�Cigarettes�or�any�other�tobacco�product;�or��(b)�Any�trade�mark�or�brand�name�of�cigarettes�or�any�other�tobacco�product�in�exchange�for�a�sponsorship,�gift,�prize�or�scholarship�given�or�agreed�to�be�given�by�another�person.

� Article�13-2�of�FCTC: “Each�Party�shall,�in�accordance�with�its�constitution�or�constitutional�principles,�undertake�a�comprehensive�ban�of�all�tobacco�advertising,�promotion�and�sponsorship.”

� We�(the�presenter,�Hemant�Goswami�and�Burning�Brain�Society)�even�went�to�the�High�Court,�highlighted�the�issue�and�got�an�assurance�from�the�Government�that�they�will�adhere�to�the�law�on�tobacco�control�and�not�engage�in�such�activities.�However,�the�brand�promotion�continues�with�the�support�of�top�politicians.

Tobacco IndustryPartnering with the

Government officials and Politicians

Page 27: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

Example Example Example Example ---- 2 2 2 2 Brand EndorsementBrand EndorsementBrand EndorsementBrand Endorsement

From the “Brochure” of GPI

Indian Union Minister for Finance (Defence Minister in the previous government)

Governor of Madhya Pradesh

Former Advocate General of

India

Chief Minister of DelhiDr Verghese Kurien,

Known as the father of White Revolution

in India

Vice President & Finance Minister of India (Now Ex)

Who’s-Who�of�every�State�participate�in�the�tobacco�companies�indirect�promotion�and�liaison�activity.�Some�for�greed,�some�for�a�

return�favour�and�others�for�unknown�reasons?

The (present) Home Minister of India

Page 28: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

Example Example Example Example ---- 2222List of people who help out the tobacco company – They are the people who should otherwise enforce

the tobacco-control law. No surprise that not a single case under the tobacco control law has been registered since the promulgation of the legislation. Since the enactment of the legislation in 2004, the

patronage of top bureaucrats and politicians continues. Credit goes to the tobacco companies for keeping these people on their rolls.

The Punjab Governor and UT Administrator

Gen. S. F. Rodrigues at the Red & White

Activity

Page 29: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

ExampleExampleExampleExample

The Vice-President of India along with the then

Finance Minister (Now Home Minister) on June 3, 2005 at Delhi

Invitation issued by the office of the Vice-

President, Government of India for covering

the “Red & White Bravery Awards”

Invitation sent to the press from the office of Vice-President of India [Obtained by Hemant Goswami from the office of the Vice Presidents]

Page 30: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

Tobacco farmer Tobacco farmer Tobacco farmer Tobacco farmer

gets just 1 cent gets just 1 cent gets just 1 cent gets just 1 cent

from every dollarfrom every dollarfrom every dollarfrom every dollar

spent on spent on spent on spent on

tobaccotobaccotobaccotobacco

But the fact is that the poor farmer gets less than 1% (one percent) of the net value from any kind of tobacco product sale

Interestingly Interestingly Interestingly Interestingly …………........ Nobody talked about farmers during the MSA negotiations when tobacco was on the verge of being declared an illegal product. In-fact, the farmers were not even referred to and neither were they considered stakeholders.

A Manipulation Game –Emotional Plank

in the name of

Farmers

Whenever tobacco industry is cornered,

the politicians and the bureaucrats on the roll of the industry start talking about

the “Interest of the Farmers.” Recently,

major changes and policy shift in

tobacco control in India was done by calling it in the “Interest of the tobacco

farmers.”

Page 31: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

These pictures were supposed to appear

on tobacco brands and were also notified

in 2005 – However they never saw the

light of the day. Why and How?

Page 32: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

NOTIFICATION NOTIFICATION NOTIFICATION NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 5th July 2006New Delhi, the 5th July 2006New Delhi, the 5th July 2006New Delhi, the 5th July 2006

G.S.R. 402EG.S.R. 402EG.S.R. 402EG.S.R. 402E

Rule�2(c):�“Principal�display�area” means�

(i) for�box�type�packages,�two�equal�sized�largest�surface�area(s)�of�the�box�that�may�be�displayed�or�visible�under�normal�or�customary�conditions�of�sale�or�use;�

(ii) for�pouch�type�packages,�the�entire�surface�area�of�the�pack�that�may�be�displayed�or�visible�under�normal�conditions�of�sale�or�use;

(iii)�for�conical�or�cylindrical�type�of�packages,�the�entire�curving�area�of�the�pack�that�may�be�displayed�or�visible�under�normal�or�customary�conditions�of�sale�or�use;

(iv)�for�any�other�form�or�type�of�package,�the�entire�surface�area�of�the�pack�that�may�be�displayed�or�visible�under�normal�or�customary�conditions�of�sale�or�use;

(b)“specified health�warning” means,�such�health�warnings�as�specified�by�the�Central�Government�from�time�to�time,�in�the�schedule�to�these�rules.

Rule�3.�Manner�of�packing�and�labelling.-

3(1)�Every�person engaged�directly�or�indirectly�in�the�production,�supply,�import or�distribution�of�cigarette�or�any�other�tobacco�products�shall�ensure�that,-every�package�of�cigarette�or�any�other�tobacco�product�shall�have�the�specified�health�warning�exactly�as�specified�in�the�schedule�to�these�rules;�

Page 33: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

The ScheduleThe ScheduleThe ScheduleThe Schedule

Schedule

(see�rule�3)

Components�of�specified�health�warning.-

The�components�for�the�specified�health�warning�shall�include:

(1) Skull�and�Bones�Sign.- Every�specified�health�warning�shall�mandatorily�include�a�pictorial�depiction�of�skull�and�bones�sign,�in�white�on�a�black�background�(100%�black)�with�white�outlines.�This�sign�shall�be�prominently�placed�on�the�top�left�hand�corner�of�the�warning.

(2) Health�Warning.- The�warning�“Smoking�Kills” (on�smoking�forms�of�tobacco�products)�and�“Tobacco�Kills”(on smokeless/chewing�and�other�forms�of�tobacco�products)�shall�appear�in�white�font�colour�on�a�red�background�(consisting�of�100%�magenta�+�100%�yellow).

(3) Pictorial�Representation�of�ill�effects�of�tobacco�use.- Pictorial�depiction�of�the�ill�effects�of�tobacco�use�on�health, shall�be�placed�below�the�skull�and�bones�sign,�and�should�appear�in�colour�exactly�as�in�the�soft�copy�provided�in�the�CD�accompanying�these�rules.

(4) Health�Message.�- Every�specified�health�warning�shall�include�the�health�message in�black�font�colour�on�a�white�background. The�health�message�should�be�printed�in�easy�to�read�black�font�on�a�white�background�and�the�font�type/font�size�shall�be,�exactly�as�per�the�soft�copy�provided�along�with�these�rules.�

…………………

3.�Minimum�size�of�the�specified�health�warning.-

(1)�The�minimum�size�of�the�specified�health�warning�on�each�panel�of�the�tobacco�pack�shall�be�3.5�cm�x�4�cm�to�ensure�that�the warning�is�legible�and�prominent.

(2)�The�size�of�all�components�of�the�specified�health�warning�shall�be�increased�proportionally�according�to�increase�of�the�package�size�to�ensure�that�the�specified�health�warning�occupies�fifty�percent�of�the�principal�display�area/s�of�the�pack.�

Page 34: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

Notification ReplacedNotification ReplacedNotification ReplacedNotification Replaced

MAJOR�SETBACKS:

1. Picture�Warning�on�both�sides�replaced�with�one�side

2. 50%�display�on�both�panels�(100%�one�side)�replaced�with�

40%�on�one�side

3. Strong�picture�messages�replaced�with�meaningless�and�

useless�messages

4. The�necessity�of�having�the�warning�language�in�local�

language�done�away�with

……..Thereby�making�the�whole�exercise�ABSOLUTELY�USELESS

Page 35: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

Breach of Trust with the Breach of Trust with the Breach of Trust with the Breach of Trust with the PublicPublicPublicPublic

Dilution of graphic images to be printed on tobacco productsDilution of graphic images to be printed on tobacco productsDilution of graphic images to be printed on tobacco productsDilution of graphic images to be printed on tobacco products

2

00

8

20

05

Page 36: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

What The Law ProvidesWhat The Law ProvidesWhat The Law ProvidesWhat The Law Provides

Section�8:�

(1)�The�specified�warning�on�a�package�of�cigarettes�or�any�other�tobacco�products�shall�be—

– (a)�legible�and�prominent;

– (b)�conspicuous�as�to�size�and�colour;

– (c)�in�such�style�or�type�of�lettering�as�to�be�boldly�and�clearly�presented in�distinct�contrast�to�any�other�type,�lettering�or�graphic�material�used�on�the�package�or�its�label�and�shall�be�printed,�painted�or�inscribed�on�the�package�in�a�colour�which�contrasts�conspicuously�with�the�background�of�the�package�or�its�labels.

(2)�The�manner�in�which�a�specified�warning�shall�be�printed,�painted�or�inscribed�on�a�package�of�cigarettes�or�any�other�tobacco�products�shall�be�such�as�may�be�specified�in�the�rules�made�under�this�Act.

(3)�Every�package�containing�cigarettes�or�any�other�tobacco�products�shall�be�so�packed�as�to�ensure�that�the�specified�warning�appearing�thereon,�or�on�its�label,�is,�before�the�package�is�opened,�visible�to�the�consumer.

Page 37: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

What The Law ProvidesWhat The Law ProvidesWhat The Law ProvidesWhat The Law Provides

Section�9:

(1)�Where�the�language�used�on�a�package�containing�cigarettes�and any�other

tobacco�products�or�on�its�label�is—

(a) English,�the�specified�warning�shall�be�expressed�in�the�English language;

(b) any�Indian�language�or�languages,�the�specified�warning�shall�be expressed�in�such�Indian�language�or�languages;

(c)� both�English�and�one�or�more�Indian�languages,�the�specified�warning�shall�be�expressed�in�the�English�language�as�well�as�in�such�Indian�language�or�languages;

(d)� partly�English�and�partly�any�Indian�language�or�languages,�the�specified�warning�shall�be�expressed�in�the�English�language�as�well�as�in�such�Indian�language�or�languages;

(e)� any�foreign�language,�the�specified�warning�shall�be�expressed�in�the�English�language;�contents.

(f)� partly�any�foreign�language�and�partly�English�or�any�Indian�language�or�languages,�the�specified�warning�shall�be�expressed�in�the�English�language�as�well�as�in�such�Indian�language�or�languages.

(2)�No�package�of�cigarettes�or�any�other�tobacco�products�or�its�label�shall�contain�any�matter�or�statement�which�is�inconsistent�with,�or�detracts�from,�the�specified�warning.

Page 38: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

The kind of aberrationsThe kind of aberrationsThe kind of aberrationsThe kind of aberrations

29th�September�2008 Notification:

Rule�3(f): The�specified�warning�shall�be�inscribed�in�the�language/s�usedon�the�pack:

Provided�that�where�more�than�one�language�on�the�back�the�specified�warning�shall�appear�in�two�languages,�one�in�which�the�brand�name�appears�and�other�in�the�local�language of�the�area�where�the�product�is�being�sold.”

Replaced�by�28th�November�2008 Notification:

Rule�3(f): The�specified�warning�shall�be�inscribed�in�the�language/s�usedon�the�pack:

Provided�that�where�more�than�one�language�on�the�back�the�specified�warning�shall�appear�in�two�languages,�one�in�which�the�brand�name�appears�and�any�other�language used�on�the�pack.”

WHY?WHY?

Page 39: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

The ProvisionsThe ProvisionsThe ProvisionsThe Provisions

2005;�5th�July�2006�Notification�and�15th�March�

2008�Notification

� Rule�3(e):�no�product�shall�be�sold�unless�the�

package�contains�the�specified�health�warning:

Provided�that�the�specified�health�warning�shall�be�

printed�on�every�retail�pack�in�which�the�tobacco�

product�is�normally�intended�for�consumer�use�or�

retail�sale,�as�well�as any�other�external�

packaging,�such�as�cartons�or�boxes;

Page 40: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

WHY?WHY?

Major AberrationMajor AberrationMajor AberrationMajor Aberration

15th�March/�29th Sep.�2008�Notification

� Rule�2(b):�“package” means�box,�pouch,�conical,�cylindrical�or�any�other�type�of�pack�used�for�packing�cigarette�and�other�tobacco�products.

3rd�May�2009�Notification

� Rule�2(b):�“package” means�pack�in�which�cigarette�and�other�tobacco�product�is�packaged�for�consumer�sale�but�shall�not�include wholesale,�semi-wholesale�or�poorapackages�if�such�packages�are�not�intended�for�consumer�use;

Page 41: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

Dilution Dilution Dilution Dilution ---- Rule 3(1)(b)Rule 3(1)(b)Rule 3(1)(b)Rule 3(1)(b)2005/�5th�July�2006�Notification

Rule�3�(1): Manner�of�packing�and�labelling�- Every�person engaged�directly�or�indirectly�in�the�production,�supply,�import�or�distribution�of�cigarette�or�any�other�tobacco�products�shall�ensure�that�–(b) the�specified�health�warnings�shall�occupy�at�least�fifty�percent of�the�principal�display�area/sof�the�pack�and�shall�be�positioned�parallel�to�the�top�edge�of�the�package�and�in�the�same�direction�as�the�information�on�the�principal�display�area/s:

Provided that�for�conical�packs,�the�widest�end�of�the�pack�shall�be�considered�as�the�top�edge�of�the�pack:

Provided�further�that�for�box�and�pouch�type�of�packs,�the�specified�health�warning�shall�appear�on�both�sides of�the�pack,�on�the�largest�panels;

15th�March�2008�Notification

Rule�3(1)(b) the�specified�health�warnings�shall�occupy�at�least�fourty (40%) percent�of�the�principal�display�area/s of�the�pack�and�shall�be�positioned�parallel�to�the�top�edge�of the�package�and�in�the�same�direction�as�the�information�on�the�principal�display�area/s:

Provided that�for�conical�packs,�the�widest�end�of�the�pack�shall�be�considered�as�the�top�edge�of�the�pack:

Provided�further�that�for�box�and�pouch�type�of�packs,�the�specified�health�warning�shall�appear�on�both�sides of�the�pack,�on�the�largest�panels;

3rd�May�2009�Notification

Rule�3(1)(b) the�specified�health�warnings�shall�occupy�at�least�fourty (40%)�percent�of�the�principal�display�area/s of�the�front�panel of�the�pack�and�shall�be�positioned�parallel�to�the�top�edge�of�the�package�and�in�the�same�direction�as�the�information on�the�principal�display�area/s:

Provided that�for�conical�packs,�the�widest�end�of�the�pack�shall�be�considered�as�the�top�edge�of�the�pack:��(�The�Second�Proviso�about�display�on�both�sides�go�missing)

Page 42: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

Penal ProvisionsPenal ProvisionsPenal ProvisionsPenal Provisions

� Section�20�(2): Any�person�who�sells�or�distributes�

cigarettes�or�tobacco�products�which�do�not�contain�either�

on�the�package�or�on�their�label,�the�specified�warning�and�

the�nicotine�and�tar�contents�shall�in�the�case�of�first�

conviction�be�punishable�with�imprisonment�for�a�term,�

which�may�extend�to�one�year,�or�with�fine�which�may�

extend�to�one�thousand�rupees,�or�with�both,�and,�for�the�

second�or�subsequent�conviction,�with�imprisonment�for�a�

term�which�may�extend�to�two�years�and�with�fine�which�

may�extend�to�three�thousand�rupees.

Page 43: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

Penal ProvisionPenal ProvisionPenal ProvisionPenal Provision

� Section�20:�(1) Any�person�who�produces�or�manufactures�

cigarettes�or�tobacco�products,�which�do�not�contain,�either�

on�the�package�or�on�their�label,�the�specified�warning�and�

the�nicotine�and�tar�contents,�shall�in�the�case�of�first�

conviction�be�punishable�with�imprisonment�for�a�term�

which�may�extend�to�two�years,�or�with�fine�which�may�

extend�to�five�thousand�rupees,�or�with�both,�and�for�the�

second�or�subsequent�conviction�with�imprisonment�for�a�

term�which�may�extend�to�five�years�and�with�fine�which�

may�extend�to�ten�thousand�rupees.

Page 44: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

WHY?WHY?

OldOldOldOld Cigarette Act of 1975Cigarette Act of 1975Cigarette Act of 1975Cigarette Act of 1975

The�Cigarettes�(Regulations�of�Production,�Supply�and�Distribution),�Act,�1975�[The�Act�replaced�by�2003�Act�- COTPA]

� Section�17:�Penalty- Any�person�who,-

(a)�sells,�or�distributes�or�supplies�in�the�course�of�any�trade or�commerce,�any�package�of�cigarettes�which�does�not�contain,�either�on�the�package�or�on�its�label,�the�specified�warning,

(b)�produces,�or�supplies�or�distributes�in�the�course�of�any�trade�or�commerce,�any�package�of�cigarettes�which�does�not�contain,�either�on�the�package�or�on�its�label,�the�specified�warning,

(c)�advertises,�or�takes�part�in�the�advertisement�of,�cigarettes�if�such�advertisement�does�not�include�the�specified�warning,

shall�be�punishable�with�imprisonment�for�a�term�which�may�extend�to�three�years,�or�with�fine�which�may�extend�to�five�thousand�rupees,�or�with�both.

Clearly the new legislation has been made weaker Clearly the new legislation has been made weaker Clearly the new legislation has been made weaker Clearly the new legislation has been made weaker and also been diluted even if compared to 1975 Actand also been diluted even if compared to 1975 Actand also been diluted even if compared to 1975 Actand also been diluted even if compared to 1975 ActClearly the new legislation has been made weaker Clearly the new legislation has been made weaker Clearly the new legislation has been made weaker Clearly the new legislation has been made weaker and also been diluted even if compared to 1975 Actand also been diluted even if compared to 1975 Actand also been diluted even if compared to 1975 Actand also been diluted even if compared to 1975 Act

Page 45: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

LetLetLetLet’’’’s Rewind >>>>>>s Rewind >>>>>>s Rewind >>>>>>s Rewind >>>>>>

Page 46: How Tobacco Industry Hijacked Public Health Agenda

ItItItIt’’’’s Time to be Proactives Time to be Proactives Time to be Proactives Time to be Proactive

The tobacco Industry has been manipulating both the Government as well as Public Health Activists. Most of us are playing to their tunes and merely REACTING to what the industry throws at us. The Industry is well prepared for all this……..

…….It’s time to be PROACTIVE and undo the DAMAGE


Recommended