WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/TBT/W/331 
23 June 2010 
 (10-3437) 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade Original:   English 
  
 
THE EFFECTS OF CANADA'S "TOBACCO ACT" ON UGANDA 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 23 June 2010,  is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Uganda
. 
 
_______________ 
  
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. Uganda as one of the major tobacco growing count ry in Africa is concerned about the effects 
of Canada’s Cracking down on Tobacco Marketing Aimed at Youth Act , on its tobacco leaf 
manufacturing and exports.  The law prohibits the ma nufacture and sale of ciga rettes, little cigars and 
blunt wraps that contain any of the flavourings and additives listed in a Schedule  appended to the law.  
Uganda is deeply concerned that this law is in consistent with Canada’s  obligations under the WTO 
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade  (TBT Agreement ) and will have a negative effect on 
Uganda’s long term economic prospects. 
2. Uganda understands that the spirit and purpose of  the law is to reduce the incidence of youth 
smoking by, among other things, prohibiting the ma nufacture and sale of confectionary and fruit 
flavoured tobacco products that Canada believes ar e designed to appeal to youth. Whereas Uganda 
fully supports this noble and moral objective, she is de eply concerned that the law is far too restrictive 
to trade than is necessary to achieve this goal.   
3. Specifically Uganda is concerned that the law effectively bans "traditional blended" 
cigarettes.  It is important to note that trad itional blended cigarettes are one of the two major 
categories of cigarettes in the world.  They are pr oduced with three types of tobacco, Virginia, burley 
and oriental tobacco, and blende d with certain additives that th e law now seeks to prohibit.   
4. Additives are an essential component of traditio nal blended cigarettes. They are merely 
applied as manufacturing aids to blend the three differ ent types of tobaccos, i.e. Burley, Oriental and 
Virginia, and as flavourings to confer on each bran d its unique tobacco taste. Additives in traditional 
blended cigarettes do not lend a characterizing fruit or confectionary flavour to the end product.  
Thus, by banning the additives, the law effectivel y bans traditional blended cigarettes, even though 
such cigarettes do not exhibit any discernible confecti onary, fruit or other flavour that is particularly 
attractive to youth. 
5. Uganda is a significant producer of tobacco leaf in the world, with an approximate annual 
crop volume of 37 million Kilograms of which over half of that volume constitutes Burley tobacco. 
Approximately 76,810 farmers grow tobacco in Uga nda of which about 36,000 of these farmers grow 
Burley tobacco. Over 95 per cent of Uganda's to tal annual tobacco crop is  exported to cigarette 
manufacturers worldwide generating annual revenu e of USD 66 Million. Measures which restrict 
blended cigarettes will, therefore, have a detrim ental impact on Uganda's tobacco production and 
tobacco exports which has been the lead ing export cash crop for several years. G/TBT/W/331 
Page 2  
 
  6. The issues with the Canadian law could easily be  resolved by equally effective but less trade-
restrictive alternatives that would address the objectiv e of the legislation but also ensure compliance 
with Canada's obligations under the TBT Agreement.   
II. OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED TECHNICAL REGULATION 
7. The Canadian law would ban the manufacture a nd sale of any cigarettes, little cigars and 
blunt wraps that contain any of the flavourings an d additives listed in a Schedule appended thereto.  
The list includes "additives that have flavour ing properties or that enhance flavour." 
8. This law prohibits the listed additives regardless of the amount used in the finished tobacco 
product even if they do not impart a characterizing fl avour to the tobacco product.  In effect, the law 
out rightly bans the manufacture and sale of trad itional blended cigarettes in Canada which do not 
have the characterizing flavours that were the targ et of the "Cracking Down on Tobacco Marketing 
Aimed at Youth Act".  
III. CONCERNS REGARDING THE CONSISTENCY OF LAW WITH THE TBT 
AGREEMENT 
9. As explained further herein below, Uganda has serious concerns about the consistency of law 
with Articles 2.2, 2.8 and 2.9 of the TBT Agreement . 
A. A
RTICLE 2.2 
10. Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement  states that "technical regulations shall not be more trade-
restrictive than necessary to fu lfil a legitimate objective, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment 
would create."  It further states that, "in assessing such risks, relevant elements of consideration are, 
inter alia:   available scientific and technical informa tion, related processing technology or intended 
end-uses of products."  Uganda requests that Canada  explains how its law is  consistent with these 
requirements.  
11. The objective of the law is to reduce the incidence of youth smoking by banning the 
manufacture and sale of candy and fruit flavoured ciga rettes that are particularly enticing to youth.  
This is a legitimate health objective.  However, ra ther than banning cigarettes with a distinctive or 
characteristic confectionary or fruit flavour, Canada  has instead banned the use of additives, in any 
amount, even if they do not impart a characterizing fl avour to the tobacco product.  There is no basis 
for this approach.  If a consumer cannot taste a candy or fruit flavour when smoking a cigarette 
product, and the product instead tastes simply like tobacco, there is no reason to assume that youth would be uniquely attracted to it.  Presumably th is is why the law permits the continued sale and 
manufacture of flue-cured cigarettes, the dominant t ype of cigarette sold in Canada, which tastes like 
tobacco.  It is not at all clear why Canada is proposing to ban traditional blended cigarettes, which 
similarly taste like tobacco. 
12. Canada has not cited any evidence showing th at traditional blended cigarettes are not any 
more attractive to youth than flue-cured cigare ttes, nor has it provided any evidence demonstrating 
that traditional blended cigarettes are as attractive to youth as candy or fruit flavoured products.  If 
Canada is concerned with flavours that are par ticularly appealing to youth, there are less trade-
restrictive ways to deal with th e problem.  For example, Canada could, like other WTO Members like 
France, Australia, and the United States, only ban pr oducts with characterizing confectionary or fruit 
flavours.    G/TBT/W/331 
 Page 3 
 
 
  13. In short, based on the information available,  Uganda fails to see how Canada has sought to 
ensure that the law is no more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil its  legitimate public health 
objective.  
B. ARTICLE 2.8 
14. Article 2.8 of the TBT Agreement states that "wherever appropriate, Members shall specify 
technical regulations based on product requirements in  terms of performance rather than design or 
descriptive characteristics."  Other WTO Members ha ve adopted a performance-based standard that 
only bans fruit or confectionary additives that impart  the characterizing flavour of the cigarette.  In 
contrast, Canada has sought to regulate the design of the product – the inputs into the cigarette – 
without regard to how these inputs affect the performance ( i.e. the characteristic flavour) of the 
product.  The "characterizing flavour" approach is mu ch more precise and targeted than an approach 
banning a list of additives in any quantity and regardless of their effect on the flavour of the final 
tobacco product.  Uganda asks that Canada cons ider adopting a similar performance-based approach. 
C. ARTICLE 12.3 
15. Article 12.3 of the TBT Agreement requires WT O Members to ensure that their technical 
regulations "do not create unnecessary obstacles to e xports from developing country Members."  In 
light of this obligation Uganda’s and the heav y dependence of Uganda on tobacco growing and 
exports, Uganda asks that Canada consider adop ting a less trade-restrictive approach, as discussed 
above. 
D. ARTICLE  2.9 
16. Article 2.9 of the TBT requires members to notif y at an early appropriate stage any technical 
regulation that may have a significant effect on trade of other members, in such a manner as to allow interested parties to get acquainted with it, and allow reasonable time for other Members to make 
comments. Uganda is concerned that this critical st ep was not followed and is concerned that this may 
set a precedent for future regulations in trade matters.  
IV. CONCLUSION 
17. Given the significant repercussions of the Cana dian legislation, we ask that Canada respond 
to the attached list of questions so as to enab le WTO Members to better evaluate the basis for 
Canada’s policy. 
18. We believe that there is a simple fix Ca nada could implement without amending the 
legislation.  Section 7 of the Canadian Tobacco Act  allows Canada to ame nd the list of additives and 
products that are covered by the ban administratively, i.e., without further legislative action.  Canada 
can use this authority to ensure that the ban only applies to cigarettes that exhibit discernible 
confectionary or fruit flavours.  We urge  Canada to consider this approach. 
19. While Uganda fully supports the purpose of law, the approach taken in the proposed law is far 
too trade restrictive than necessary to address the problem of youth smoking encouraged by candy and 
fruit flavoured tobacco products.  Uganda looks forw ard to Canada’s response to the concerns we 
have raised.   G/TBT/W/331 
Page 4  
 
  V. QUESTIONS 
(a) Does Canada believe that traditional blende d cigarettes exhibit a confectionary or 
fruit flavour?  If not, what is the basis for effectively banning traditional blended 
cigarettes?  
(b) How was the list of additives and flavouri ngs included in the Schedule created?   
(c) What scientific evidence has Ca nada considered that supports the view that the over 
5,000 additives referenced in the list ar e particularly appealing to youth. 
(d) Is there any scientific or technical inform ation Canada relied upon in deciding that the 
additives and flavours used in traditiona l blended cigarettes should be banned? 
(e) Is there any scientific or technical info rmation Canada relied upon that specifically 
demonstrates that traditional blended cigarettes are particularly appealing to youth?  
(f) Would Canada consider using the authority set forth in subparagraph 7.1(1)(a) of the 
Tobacco Act  to amend the Schedule of products a nd additives affected by the ban to 
ensure that the ban only applies to cigare ttes exhibiting a discernible confectionary or 
fruit flavour? 
 
 
__________