Big Tobacco CEOs and their Big Payday

We all know that Big Tobacco companies are big spenders.

While many states including Wisconsin have been making significant budget cuts to tobacco prevention and control programs, Big Tobacco continues to spend big money to lure new customers and keep their current ones.

Big Tobacco spends more than $1 million an hour to market their products in the U.S. – including $233 million a year on advertising in Wisconsin.

The financial payoff for running a Big Tobacco company and peddling its deadly products is also huge. In 2011, the three men at the helms of Big Tobacco in the U.S. had combined salaries of nearly $32 million.

Last year, Lorillard Inc. CEO Murray Kessler made $13 million, Altria Group CEO Michael E. Szymanczyk made $10.2 million and Reynolds American chief Daniel M. Delen made $8.5 million.

The salaries are as staggering as Big Tobacco’s destructive effects on human health.

Only New York, Florida and California spend more than $32 million a year on tobacco prevention – while 47 states and the District of Columbia spend less. 

If $32 million were put toward tobacco prevention budgets, we could double every single tobacco prevention budget in 16 states: Missouri, Tennessee, Rhode Island, Washington, Idaho, Kansas, New Jersey, Michigan, Georgia, Kentucky, Nebraska, Iowa, Vermont, South Dakota, Massachusetts and Maryland.  

Wisconsin spends $5.3 million a year on our state tobacco prevention and control program. If we invested those Big Tobacco salaries in Wisconsin, we would increase our state prevention funding by seven times. That would bring us closer to the $64 million a year the CDC recommends Wisconsin spend on tobacco prevention programs. 

The battle with Big Tobacco is far from over. Smoking kills nearly 8,000 people a year in Wisconsin and is the leading preventable cause of death. Two young smokers replace every person who dies of smoking each year and tobacco use has created a pediatric epidemic in the U.S.

We know we have a steep uphill battle. We can – we must – and we will – continue to fight against the Big Spending of Big Tobacco. 

Kicking Butts and Helping Kids Stay Tobacco-Free

Happy Kick Butts Day!

Today – and every day – youth across Wisconsin are working hard to expose and counteract the deadly tactics of the tobacco industry. These young people know that Big Tobacco is targeting them to become lifetime customers. They also know that it is essential to talk peer-to-peer about the importance of being tobacco-free.

It is incredibly inspiring to see young people fight back against Big Tobacco. It’s also critical to the health of their generation.

Recently the U.S. Surgeon General released a report on youth and tobacco. The report concluded that our progress in lowering rates of tobacco use has stalled.

The report included a lot of daunting facts about youth tobacco use. Here are three:

• The younger a person is when they start using tobacco, the more likely that person will be addicted.
• Nearly 90% of smokers start before age 18 and 99% start before age 26.
• We have a staggering replacement rate – every person who dies from smoking-related causes is replaced by two new, young smokers. 

In short, we are facing a pediatric epidemic.

In Wisconsin, tobacco companies spend $233 million a year marketing their deadly products, which blows away the $5.3 million we spend on the state’s tobacco prevention and control program each year. From colorful packaging and onscreen smoking in children’s movies to candy-flavored mini-cigars and smokeless tobacco that looks like breath mints, it is clear that tobacco corporations are finding creative ways to reach young customers.

To counter the $1 million an hour that tobacco spends marketing their deadly products in the U.S., last Thursday the CDC launched its first-ever national advertising campaign encouraging people to quit smoking. The hard-hitting campaign, “Tips from a Former Smoker,” features real people who are suffering from life-altering health problems and major diseases as a result of tobacco use.

The campaign highlights that tobacco is not only the leading preventable cause of death (killing nearly 8,000 a year in Wisconsin alone) – it also leads to serious long-term suffering. The “Tips from a Former Smoker” ads hit the airwaves this week in communities across Wisconsin. You can view the compelling ads here. 

We know what works in the fight against tobacco – higher tobacco taxes, well-funded tobacco prevention programs, and strong smoke-free laws. We also know that reducing tobacco use will save lives and help our businesses, families and state save money. Let’s use Kick Butts Day as an opportunity to re-dedicate ourselves to protecting our kids from Big Tobacco.

Join our youth today in telling tobacco companies to stop targeting our kids and encourage your communities and leaders to take a stand against Big Tobacco.

Click here for a list of Kick Butts Day events in Wisconsin.

Graphic Cigarette Warning Labels and Big Tobacco's Stall Tactics

Earlier this week, a federal judge ruled the FDA’s new graphic warning labels on cigarette packages violate Big Tobacco’s freedom of speech.

The decision is only one step in the legal process – the case will go on to appeal. But it is a small victory for Big Tobacco, awarding the industry’s continued aggressive and deceitful efforts to conceal the fatal health effects of smoking.

It's clear that Big Tobacco is using the courts as a stall tactic to keep effective new cigarette warning labels off their products as long as possible.

Starting this September, the FDA will require graphic warning labels to cover 50% of the front and 50% of the back of cigarette packages. The truthful, appalling labels will also be prominently featured in tobacco ads. The warnings will replace the small text-only cigarette warning labels that have not been updated since 1984.

This idea is not new. Many other countries, from Brazil to Russia, require similar graphic warnings on their cigarettes. Research from these countries shows these labels are an effective way to educate about the risks of smoking and discourage smoking. 

We need all the tools possible to further educate people about this deadly addiction and counteract the hundreds of millions of dollars the tobacco industry spends peddling their products to new and existing customers.

In Wisconsin alone, tobacco companies spend $233 million a year to market their lethal products to kids and adults – more than 40 times what the state spends on the Tobacco Prevention and Control Program ($5.3 million/year).

In case you forgot, smoking is still the leading cause of preventable death in Wisconsin and nearly 8,000 residents die each year from tobacco-related causes. Tobacco costs us over $4.5 billion a year in health care costs and lost productivity. That’s almost $2,000 per Wisconsin household!

The new cigarette warning labels will help relieve this tremendous burden on our kids, families, businesses and communities.

Let’s get these warning labels on our cigarette packages. In doing so, we’ll help the 70 percent of adult smokers who want to quit and we’ll prevent our kids from picking up this lifetime addiction. 

Appeals Court Upholds Award For Punitive Damages against Philip Morris

Woman who died at age 65 awarded $13.8 million in punitive damages in case against Philip Morris. The decision was upheld in appeals court on Wednesday. Here's an excerpt on the case from The San Francisco Chronicle:

"The court described Philip Morris' extensive efforts from the 1950s onward to deny the dangers of smoking to its customers and the government - contradicting the company's own research - and to make cigarettes more addictive and advertise them aggressively to youths as well as adults.
"The damage award is justified by 'the extreme reprehensibility of Philip Morris' misconduct, including the vast scale and profitability of its course of misconduct,' Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the majority opinion."

To read the full article, click here. 

WHO: World no tobacco day focuses on women

World No Tobacco Day is today, May 31st. This year is focusing on women. The goal is to draw attention to the fact that women are unfairly targeted and marketed to by the tobacco industry. In some countries women are the primary focus of advertising as the racketeers at Big Tobacco want to see more women smoking. While the world has nearly 1 billion smokers, only 20% of them are women. No one knows this more than the industry. The shift towards specifically marketing products to women and girls is all for the sake of profits!

The tobacco industry capitalizes of women's sense of independence and financial vitality. Especially in nations where the new sense of independence has been found, the tobacco industry is trying to tie that freedom to smoking and tobacco use.

The hope for World No Tobacco Day  is to also encourage the passed of the Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (FCTC). This document FCTC is  the first WHO treaty of its kind. It was negotiated to prevent and control tobacco use all across the globe. The US has failed to act on this treaty.

Here is what we can do in Wisconsin to protect women and girls from the dangerous marketing of tobacco:

Call on our policy-makers!

Ask them to:

• Implement a comprehensive ban on all forms of tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, as called for in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
• Implement a comprehensive ban on tobacco smoke in all public places and workplaces, likewise called for in the WHO Framework Convention.
• Heed the call in the preamble of the WHO Framework Convention for "gender-specific tobacco control strategies" and the "full participation of women at all levels of [tobacco control] policy-making and implementation [of tobacco control measures]".
• Request assistance from WHO to implement the demand-reduction provisions of the WHO Framework Convention through the MPOWER package of tobacco control measures.
• Ensure that government agencies and other stakeholders work together to take into account the different needs of men and women.
• Ensure that tobacco control strategies take into account the special problems of women who chew tobacco.

New Study: Big Alcohol's influence in WI

Arguably the alcohol industry has been successful in their work at the capital. They ensured that Wisconsin remains the only state with the first offense of drunk driving being a mere traffic violation. They successfully defeated a beer tax. Also, they fought for the exemption and pre-emption of outdoor smoking areas and fought for untested definitions to be included in the smoke-free workplaces law. There is model language that has worked in Minnesota, Illinois, and Iowa. The Wisconsin State Legislature decided to create new, untested definitions as part of a compromise with Big Alcohol and Big Tobacco. From our perspective Big Alcohol paired with Big Tobacco ensured that their interests were served well through the smoke-free workplaces legislation.
The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign released a new study this week which examined the amount of money that legislators and partisan campaign committees received from Big Alcohol this past legislative session. The report concluded that the alcohol industry constitutes the third largest "special interest" in Wisconsin politics.

Why you might ask is an organization like SmokeFree Wisconsin concerned about the money from Big Alcohol?
Glad you asked! There are a few important reasons why Big Alcohol's financial and political influence of legislators directly effects the work that we do here at SFW.
Taverns along with manufacturers, distributors, and retailers all contributed significant dollars to the total spending by the alcohol industry ($409,000 in 2008/09 alone).Taverns are an important group of financial contributers to legislators because of the consideration of a statewide smoke-free workplaces law, tougher drunk driving penalties, and the beer tax-- all considered this past legislative session.
The largest individual recipients of Big Alcohol's money were all legislators who voted against common sense protections from secondhand smoke. Representative Davis (received $13,000), Senator Vinehout ($5,629), Senator Fitzgerald ($4,950), and Representative Fitzgerald ($3,700) all voted NO to protecting workers from secondhand smoke in Wisconsin Taverns. Is it possible that this kind of money doesn't buy influence?
To read the full release on this recent study visit: http://www.wisdc.org/pr051010.php

Looking at Tobacco Through a Microscope: FDA Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee

Photo Credit: spike55151, CAMEL (TM) Tobacco Flakes 10X

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act or FDA regulation of tobacco (or authority over tobacco) requires that a scientific advisory committee is set-up to investigate a number of issues related to tobacco. The Scientific Advisory Committee is perhaps one of the more controversial elements of the FDA regulations, both from public health, but also from Big Tobacco. This committee is charged with investigating the following areas:

• The impact of the use of menthol in cigarettes on the public health, including such use among children, African Americans, Latinos, and other racial and ethnic minorities
• The nature and impact of the use of dissolvable tobacco products on the public health, including such use on children
• The effects of the alteration of nicotine yields from tobacco products and whether there is a threshold level below which nicotine yields do not produce dependence on the tobacco product involved
• Any application submitted by a manufacturer for a modified risk tobacco product

The first three tasks are fairly straightforward and are certainly hot button issues in tobacco control right now. The last area of inquiry is more broad and delves into the recent trend that the industry has made in creating "reduced harm products." The application for modified risk could be something like the use of the word "light." The committee must find that the product does indeed carry less risk in order to use words which previously could simply be applied without any scientific backing. 

Just last week the FDA denied a request from Phillip Morris (Altria, Inc.) to remove certain panelists due to financial conflicts and "irreconcilable biases." Admittedly Big Tobacco requesting the removal of certain "biased" scientists is ironic given there will also be three tobacco industry representatives. Are industry representatives not biased?

At any rate, Altria was concerned about the appointment of Neal Benowitz, Gregory Connolly, Jack Henningfield and Jonathan Samet. Some concerns raised were related to panelists being paid for expert witness testimony in tobacco related litigation, or potential ties to pharmaceutical companies. 
While tobacco industry representatives will be non-voting, according the the FDA's own FAQ about this advisory committee, it is common to have industry representatives present on these types of committees. 


To learn more about the group of scientists brought together by the FDA to explore the issues outlined above click here. 


To learn more about the committee and its roles click here. 

Spotlight: FDA Provisions effective in June

As part of the compromise brokered between health advocates and Big Tobacco, certain elements of the FDA Regulation of Tobacco had phase in periods. Starting June 22 this year a number of different regulations will go into effect. 

As previously discussed on our blog terms like "light," "mild," and  "low" are prohibited from packaging.

Other provisions include:

• Larger, stronger warnings on smokeless tobacco product packaging and advertisements.   
• The removal of vending machines in facilities where youth under 18 are present. Vending machines would still be allowable in businesses which cater to adults only. 
• Product branded t-shirts, hats, and other swag are prohibited from being sold along with a tobacco product- say good bye to packs of Marlboro with a free T-shirt!
• Cigarettes may not be sold in packages fewer than 20. (Smaller packages are rare, now they will be completely eliminated.)
• All advertising for both cigarettes and smokeless products must be in plain black text on a white background. Magazine ads must be placed in  publications with fewer than 2 million youth readers.  
• Commercials for tobacco will change too- they can only be spoken words no music or jingles. Adult only facilities may allow audio ads with jingles or the like. 
• No billboards or other outdoor advertisements are permitted within 1000 feet of schools, parks or playgrounds. 
• Sponsoring cultural and athletic events is a thing of the past as well. No smokeless at the rodeo and no Phillip Morris at the baseball game. 
• No free samples of tobacco, except smokeless in adult-only venues which meet certain restrictions. 

Over the next few days check back on our blog to learn a little bit more about some of these provisions. Tobacco control waited a long time to finally rein in Big Tobacco in more meaningful ways. Despite compromises and delays this is a landmark piece of legislation which will ultimately reduce the burden of tobacco for generations to come. It looks like the hammer has finally dropped on Big Tobacco. 

The paradox between tobacco and cannabis regulation

Earlier this week CNBC posted an article (part of  a special report on "Marijuana & Money") debating the business models of Big Tobacco and Big Pharma when it comes to the marketing and sale of legal cannabis. This article points to the larger debate about the legality and medical uses of cannabis. Here in Wisconsin a so-called "medical marijuana" bill was offered up but did not pass either house of the legislature.

Wisconsin's bill sought to provide for a registry of medical cannabis users and to de-criminalize the act of purchasing, possessing, growing, and using cannabis. There are very specific illnesses called out in the law such as Chrohn's Disease, AIDS, cancer, and other debilitating illnesses. 

With today being April 20th, a day of demonstrations across the globe asking for two things, first, the right to access medical cannabis; and second, to legalize cannabis for recreational use. There are really two segments of the pro-cannabis movement medical and recreational users. However one approaches the issue of legalization there is an interesting debate that rests a between regulation of tobacco and the potential for regulation of legal cannabis. What does tobacco control have to teach the medical marijuana movement?

Should cannabis be legal? Only in cases of medical use? Should it be taxed and regulated like tobacco? Should it be treated like a pharmaceutical drug? A recent AP-CNBC survey  showed that public opinion is swaying towards medical use. Should marijuana become legal it could be taxed like cigarettes, prohibited from being smoked in public places like tobacco, and people could even be prevented from driving under the influence like alcohol. The question remains- how would legal cannabis fit within the framework of tobacco control? Treated the same or differently? Drug delivery device or more like tobacco? What are your thoughts? Comments welcomed!

The CNBC article debated who is a better fit to market cannabis- Big Tobacco or Big Pharma? With Big Tobacco clearly having the one up on distribution-- Big Pharma has the ability to make the product safer for use. To read more about this debate check out the CNBC Article. 

Smoke-Free Laws Map

To view the map larger click here.

Big Tobacco: How Do You Sleep at Night?

It seems Camel's trick to lure young women was successful. You may remember in 2008 Camel ran numerous ads for their new product Camel No. 9's in magazines like Cosmo, Vogue, and, Glamour. A recent study shows that the advertising of Camel may have been effective in getting young women and girls to start smoking. A survey of girls ages 10-13 found a significant spike in brand preference for Camel once the ads for Camel No. 9 began being prevalent in magazines. Below is a quote from the American Legacy Foundation release on the study:

The study enrolled more than one thousand 10-13 year olds in 2003 and followed them 5 times through 2008, asking participants to report a brand of “favorite” cigarettes. Specifically, teens who reported having a favorite cigarette ad at baseline were 50 percent more likely to have smoked by the fifth interview.  The proportion of boys who reported having a favorite ad remained stable across all five surveys; however, it was found that after the launch of Camel No. 9, the percentage of teen girls who reported having a favorite cigarette ad increased by 10 percentage points, with Camel accounting for nearly all of this increase. (emphasis added.)

While the ads described the product as light and luscious the results of the advertising were anything but that. The question must be asked, how can you sleep at night when most regular smokers started before age 18, when ad campaigns like Camel No. 9 show strong brand preferences among young girls, and when these ads directly contributed to the initiation of smoking of an audience which is supposed to be protected by the Master Settlement Agreement?

How many Wisconsin girls were lured by these ads? How many girls started smoking so that they too might be fashionable, grown-up, and luscious? How do you sleep at night Big Tobacco?

Marlboro taking Snus Nationwide

As we have discussed extensively on the blog here- new and emerging products are rapidly coming onto the market, both in test cities and nationwide. Good old Altria, owners of Phillip Morris (PMI) and makers of Marlboro brand (the cigarette of choice for more smokers than any other brand) are at it again. "Seeking future growth," Big Tobacco claims is the reason that Marlboro Snus is going nationwide. By the end of March every convenient store and gas station will be stocked full of these lethal products.

The truth is PMI knows that they can't stay in the cigarette market and maintain record margins of profits despite a major recession. They also know that cigarettes are not viewed as socially acceptable as they once were, thanks in large part to local, state, and national network of tobacco control activists. With their mainstay product falling from popularity Big Tobacco moves in for another kill- smokeless. Discreet little pouches with fun names like Snus and kid-friendly flavors like Frost. Let's be clear spit tobacco is no better for you than smoking. It is addictive, makes your teeth fall out and causes cancer. Maybe you won't die from lung cancer but losing half you jaw isn't too sexy either.
At any rate, PMI proves once again we must remain vigilant in fighting Big Tobacco. We must also watch out for Big Tobacco's dirty tricks. Many states base the tax on Snus on weight like moist snuff, aka weight-based tax. We in Wisconsin saw the trend for lighter products and have switched to a percentage of price model of taxation on other tobacco products. This ensures that products on taxed more similarly to cigarettes and less like the virtually weightless system Big Tobacco prefers.

Court Ruling

A while back we posted about a pending lawsuit that deals with FDA regulatory provisions eliminating the use of light or mild on cigarette packaging (See post on light and mild). Last week a U.S. Judge struck down portions of the new FDA law which restricts tobacco product advertising. However many of the provisions of the FDA law have stood up in the court challenge by Big Tobacco. The ruling states that FDA can't block tobacco companies from using colors and graphics- they also can't say their product is safer because it has been regulated by the FDA.

The important provisions that still stand are: the requirement to use large graphic health warnings on tobacco products, the elimination sponsorships of athletic, social and cultural events using brand names, and the elimination of using branding and logos on merchandise.

All sides, Big Tobacco, Advertising Folks, and Public Health all call this a victory.

Read the full article about the ruling.

Read the full ruling.

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids release

Big Tobacco Circumventing New Federal Tobacco Tax Laws

A recent Associated Press Article highlights the dubious tactics of Big Tobacco when it comes to the new federal tobacco taxes. By changing the marketing Big Tobacco has been avoiding paying hundreds of millions of dollars in tobacco taxes annually. The Children Health Insurance Plan (CHIP) has quite a bit to lose becuase of Big Tobacco's dirty tricks. When taxes saw a significant jump on the roll-your-own variety of tobacco, BIg Tobacco made a quick switch. Roll-your-own varieties were replaces with the less-taxed, less-restricted pipe tobacco variety. Pipe tobacco is typically coarser and moister. However, that is an industry standard, not a legal one. The distinction that the federal government makes is exclusively in the labeling of the products. Retailers simply redirected their customers to the new pipe tobacco which would be cheaper and comparable.

What is the difference?

One is pipe tobacco (to the left), the other roll your own tobacco (to the right). The bigger difference comes in the way that they are taxed. Roll-your-own tobacco is taxed at $24.78 per pound whereas pipe tobacco is taxed at $2.8311 at the federal level. Clearly there needs to be some changes made to this taxation system at the federal level. To learn more about federal taxes on tobacco products see this chart.  Leave it to Big Tobacco to find a way to circumvent nearly every public health law.

Big Tobacco Getting Bigger Reynolds in talks to buy Sweden's Niconovum

Annouced on November 8th, 2009, Tobacco Giant R.J. Reynolds in talks to buy Sweden's Niconovum. That's right R.J. Reynolds is trying to buy the Swedish-maker of a product that helps stop people who smoke. Niconovum's own website says their mission is to develop leading nicotine replacement therapies (NRT). They were formed in 2000 by experts in tobacco control and health. Currently they market a spray, gum, and pouch. 

                                          

While Niconovum's mission is completely and totally opposed to what R.J. Reynolds is trying accomplish, the only conclusion that can be drawn is Big Tobacco has something up their sleeve. Perhaps like Snus, Camel aka R.J. Reynolds is planning on making the spray or pouch that Niconovum markets and turn it into another harmful "reduced harm" product.

New Study: Smoker sensitivity to retail tobacco displays and quitting.

A new study was released by researchers in Australia about retail tobacco displays and the ease smokers have in quitting. The study assessed whether or not point of sale cigarette displays influence quitting. They found that the presence of cigarette pack displays make it more difficult for smokers to quit and be 100% successful.

Big Tobacco opposes display bans and has created a website addressing their concerns about this tobacco control policy. The website is loaded with faux studies which point to increased illicit trade of cigarettes as a result of display bans. Ironically, one study was conducted prior to the display ban even going into effect. Their website does not that four countries including Australia, Ireland, Iceland, and Canada have enacted complete prohibitions on displays at the point of sale.

The website claims that these bans are ineffective but then they claim it puts retailers out of business. One has to wonder, is that because people quit more effectively when they are not constantly being marketed a product they are trying desperately to quit? On one hand they claim their are ineffective, but on the other say retailers are going out of business. The answer is clear- they are effective- too effective for Big Tobacco to let this go on. To read this and more tobacco industry fueled junk science go to the Big Tobacco supported site. 

Federal Judge Rejects Tobacco Companies’ Effort to Block Key Provisions of New Tobacco Regulation Law

On November 5th, 2009 there was a victory for public health's continued fight with Big Tobacco. A federal judge in Kentucky rejected a motion by tobacco companies trying to block provisions of the FDA legislation. The decision strongly support the authority of the Federal Government to prevent the industry from making health claims about its products without approval from the FDA. 


Judge McKinley forcefully backed the government’s interest in protecting consumers from misleading claims about tobacco products with supposedly reduced health risks. The judge agreed with the key argument that  “given the significant health risks associated with the use of tobacco products and the history of marketing ‘low tar’ and ‘light’ cigarettes,” the government  “has a substantial interest in protecting consumers from misleading tobacco industry claims about allegedly reduced risk tobacco products.”


Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association among others released the following statement about this land mark decision. 

We applaud the federal court’s decision to quickly and decisively reject the latest attempt by Big Tobacco to frustrate the intent of the new FDA law and allow the agency to get on with its role in putting an end to deceptive and dangerous tobacco marketing.

PA: Lobbyists trying to buy their way out of increased tobacco taxes.

Information obtained from expense reports from tobacco companies, natural gas drillers, and gambling interests show that they have spent more than $4.5 million combined. While the gambling interests were attempting to open the door to new table games. Big Tobacco and natural-gas drillers were trying to protect their bottom line. While it is unclear to what extent these types of huge pay-offs to legislators effect policy- why would a company spend the money if it wasn't going to place them in a better place at the bargaining table? Legislators are trying to tax cigars and spit tobacco products, in part to fill a budget hole. Reynolds America, Inc. and its subsidiary Conwood Co. spend nearly $670,658 to block an increase in spit tobacco taxes and a new tax on smaller cigars, cigarillos. In total Big Tobacco spent nearly $1.5 million on lobbying from January to September. 


While most states have some transparency laws which allow citizens access to campaign finance information, Wisconsin is far from perfect in terms of providing completely open and detailed receipts from lobbyists. Big Tobacco often uses front groups to lobby on their behalf further making it difficult to track the money that comes from Big Tobacco to individual legislators. 


However much can be learned from investigating where legislators get their money. To look up your Wisconsin Legislator click here to examine the campaign finance information. 

Big Tobacco whines to President Obama about Canada

Its hard to be sympathetic to Big Tobacco, but that is exactly what they want- sympathy. Specifically, they want President Obama to challenge the Canadian ban on candy flavored cigarettes and small cigars. The argument is that Canada's ban on candy flavored tobacco violates WTO (World Trade Organization) obligations.  What Big Tobacco fails to mention is that their interference in this matter violates the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). While the US is not signed on, as of yet, Canada is. The FCTC states that the tobacco industry must not interfere with the setting of health policy. Attempting to frame this as a trade issue misses the point entirely. Canada set forth this policy as part of their health agenda and while the ban restricts imports, the overall goal is to improve the health of the citizens of Canada. 


They are trying to capitalize on a down economy and say that they provide jobs for growers of tobacco in the US. They have gone so far as to enlist a senator from a tobacco state to block the nomination of the deputy US Trade Representative. 


This issue raises some important questions: 

1. While there might be jobs in growing tobacco, are these jobs that contribute to the health and well-being of the population? 
2. Would farmers in tobacco states be best served by growing vegetables for the communities, instead of tobacco?

To read the full article click here 

L. A. smoke-free outdoor dining

Earlier this week the L.A. Times reported that some city council members are supportive of a smoke-free outdoor dining ordinance. The city has already worked to remove secondhand smoke from parks, farmer's markets, and city beaches. The new ordinance would prohibit smoking within 10 feet of outdoor dining areas and 40 feet from food carts, food kiosks, and the like. The City Council champions are Greig Smith and Dennis Zine. 
Per the usual in debates about smoke-free workplaces, a Big Tobacco sponsored organization is fighting the regulations. The policy could go to the full city council as early as next month. 


Unfortunately for Wisconsin, we are not allowed to take action on the local level to make our outdoor dining areas smoke-free. Big Tobacco used a front group to ensure that patrons and workers will not have the right to be protected from secondhand smoke. Hopefully in the future, the restrictions at the state-level can be repealed and local city councils, village boards, and county supervisors  will take up the issue of smoke-free outdoor dining.