Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the present and proposed Community role in combating tobacco consumption'
Date: 1997-07-09
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: action programme, disease prevention, public health, smoking, tax system













EUR-Lex - 51997AC0772 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51997AC0772

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the present and proposed Community role in combating tobacco consumption'  


Official Journal C 296 , 29/09/1997 P. 0032 





Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the present and proposed Community role in combating tobacco consumption` (97/C 296/08) On 23 December 1996 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication.The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 3 June 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Fuchs.At its 347th plenary session, held on 9 and 10 July 1997 (meeting of 9 July 1997), the Committee adopted the following opinion by 86 votes to 44 with 13 abstentions.1. Introduction1.1. With a view to reducing the public health impact of smoking on European citizens, the communication sets out a number of options for further action to combat tobacco consumption both at Community and at Member State level. The communication also takes stock of the range of existing measures and Community provisions to counter tobacco consumption. On the basis of reactions to the document, the Commission will subsequently consider the need to propose specific measures.1.2. To underline the need for further action, the Commission points to the fact that progress to date in reducing smoking levels in the European Union is disappointing. Over 40 % of the Community population continues to smoke, and deaths from smoking are expected to rise sharply over the coming decades. The communication particularly highlights the need for measures targeted at a number of vulnerable groups, such as women, young people, people in less favourable socio-economic conditions and non-smokers.1.3. The policy options suggested by the Commission build on a number of existing Community initiatives such as the 1996-2000 'Europe against cancer` programme and a number of directives regarding, inter alia, prohibition of television advertising of tobacco products, health related labelling requirements, a ban on marketing certain types of tobacco for oral use and the maximum allowable tar yield of cigarettes. The communication, which responds to a recent Council resolution on the need to fight tobacco consumption in Europe, is partly based on recommendations made by the High Level Cancer Experts Committee established in the framework of the 'Europe against cancer` programme.1.4. The envisaged policy options cover a wide range of issues including:- education and awareness raising;- data collection and epidemiological research;- cigarette content (tar, nicotine, additives);- labelling;- taxation and retail prices;- sale conditions and advertising;- passive smoking;- cooperation with third countries and international organizations.1.5. The Commission divides these policy options into two main categories: those which can be proposed and taken at the Community level itself and those where, in the light of the subsidiarity principle and the provisions of Article 129 of the Treaty, the Commission plays only a coordination role.2. General comments2.1. The Committee welcomes the Commission's intention to step up action to combat smoking.2.2. The Committee highlights the significance for public health in the EU of the unanimous recommendation made by the High Level Cancer Experts Committee at its conference on 2 October 1996 that measures to reduce tobacco consumption be the top health priority for the EU. The recommendation is contained in the appendix to the Commission communication.2.3. The Committee would emphasize the considerable importance of information, instruction and health education designed to prevent children and young people from smoking. These groups should clearly be a priority target area as smoking generally begins at puberty or earlier and there is a correlation between starting to smoke at an early age and long-term addiction to smoking. Pregnant women, too, should be given special protection.2.4. However, the Committee is aware of the tobacco sector's socio-economic importance, especially in terms of employment. It would stress that raw tobacco producers have no possibility of financially viable conversion in the farming sector. Their case should therefore receive particular attention, for instance by studying measures which offer workable concrete suggestions for switching to other agricultural products or pave the way for job creation outside agriculture. At all events, the Committee, in line with previous opinions, underlines the need for a systematic on-going appraisal of current and proposed measures in order to determine their effectiveness in reducing tobacco consumption.2.5. In the Committee's view the principle which should underlie the proposed measures is that everyone has the right to breathe clean air. It is, however, also accepted that smokers are entitled to smoke as long as they do not expose others to health risks. The aim is not to stigmatize smokers as individuals but to seek to prevent smoking and change attitudes.2.6. The Committee agrees with the Commission that 'the Community is in a good position to promote a better and more coherent overall strategy to combat smoking` Moreover, the Committee shares the Commission's view that future Community action in the public health field must take account of the principle of subsidiarity and the requirement of proportionality.3. Specific comments3.1. Regarding cigarette content, the Commission proposes to evaluate possible health consequences of additives to tobacco products and to consider the case for a further reduction in the allowable maximum tar content (currently 15 mg from 31 December 1997, 12 mg under Council Directive 90/239/EEC), as well as the desirability of introducing a maximum admissible nicotine level.The Committee broadly supports the phased limitation of the tar and nicotine content of tobacco, as proposed by the High Level Cancer Experts Committee; a scientific appraisal should however be carried out into the impact of the proposals on smoking habits and the public health consequences.The Committee would also point out that a reduction in the tar and nicotine content of tobacco might well be taken advantage of by the industry for advertising purposes by, for example, describing tobacco products as 'light`. This downplaying of the dangers could lead to an increase in smoking.3.2. Cigarette manufacturers should be required to prove that any additives used are harmless. Investigations carried out in the US indicate that additives are used to 'doctor` tobacco in order to enhance the effectiveness of nicotine, thereby increasing the level of addiction of smokers. This process must be banned.3.3. On labelling, the Commission suggests considering the case for requiring bigger and more visible health warnings under existing labelling Directives 89/622/EEC and 92/41/EEC. The Committee welcomes this proposal and also suggests that consideration be given to taking further measures to bring about detailed labelling of tobacco additives, as is the case with, for example, the contents of medicinal products and food products.3.4. Under the existing Directives on taxation of cigarettes and tobacco products, the Commission seeks to encourage Member States - in particular, those where current retail prices of cigarettes are below Community average - to use the available flexibility to increase taxation levels.The Committee welcomes this proposal as a large number of scientific studies have demonstrated that availability of tobacco influences people's smoking habits. Upward harmonization of the consumer prices of tobacco products is one way of deterring in particular children and young people from smoking, given their limited funds. Tax revenue from tobacco products should be earmarked, on a pro rata basis, for information campaigns and general measures to promote public health by deterring people from smoking, rather than being used en bloc to bolster national exchequers. The Committee proposes that the abovementioned increase in taxation be excluded from the consumer price index, as far as this is used for compensatory income measures, in order to prevent it from fuelling inflation.In connection with the proposed measures to increase taxation, the Committee highlights the need for rigorous measures to combat the smuggling of tobacco products.3.5. The Commission does not present any specific proposals in respect of tobacco product advertising. In particular, no reference is made to its 1991 Modified Proposal for a Directive on advertising for tobacco products (COM(91) 111 final - SYN 194) that would ban all direct and indirect advertising of tobacco products (with the exception of publicity in dedicated tobacco sales outlets).In its opinion of 23 September 1992 () the Committee emphasized that the European tobacco industry should be given the opportunity, under a self-regulatory scheme, to introduce binding rules on direct and indirect advertising. As self-regulation is mainly inadequate, the Committee supports the recommendation made by the High Level Cancer Experts Committee that tobacco advertising be banned, inter alia because such advertising helps to encourage children and young people to start smoking.3.6. A number of the Commission proposals concern smoking in public buildings and at the workplace. These proposals, including the suggestion that the subject of protecting non-smokers be addressed in the Agreement on Social Policy, clearly deserve special consideration as, despite the right of smokers to smoke, non-smokers are entitled to breathe air which contains as few harmful substances as possible. The presence of harmful substances, such as asbestos and benzol, has to be limited by law to the lowest possible level which can be achieved in practice. As far as tobacco smoke is concerned, the lowest feasible level is zero. In order to safeguard the rights of non-smokers, every possible measure should be taken to reduce the level of tobacco smoke in the ambient air.In this context, the Committee would draw attention to the positive experience of a number of Member States, such as Finland, in the field of statutory measures to protect non-smokers. It is also important that the Member States ensure that their legislation in this field (e.g. laws banning smoking in public places) is consistently observed. In this connection the Committee stresses the importance of consultation and the role of the social partners in the negotiation and application of measures regarding smoking in public places and at the workplace.3.7. In the 1995 financial year, the EU paid out a total of ECU 993 million in grants and subsidies under the common market organization for raw tobacco, whilst only 1 % of this amount was earmarked for research and educational measures (under the Tobacco Research and Information Fund). The Commission has proposed that the proportion of the raw tobacco payments allocated to the Tobacco Research and Information Fund be raised to 2 %.The Committee welcomes this proposal. The Commission is also urged to consider the feasibility of securing assistance from independent sources for information and educational services.The Committee further believes that the funding for the 'Europe against cancer` programme (currently amounting to only ECU 2 million) should also be substantially increased.3.8. Nicotine addiction should, in accordance with the Commission's proposal and in line with the stand taken in a large number of scientific publications, be classified as a 'drug dependence`.3.9. The availability of tobacco, in particular to children and young people, should be further restricted by taking a number of measures, including the removal of public cigarette vending machines. In this context the Committee recognizes that a number of Member States have introduced successful programmes and it encourages all Member States to continue to develop and introduce such programmes.Brussels, 9 July 1997.The President of the Economic and Social CommitteeTom JENKINS() OJ C 313, 20. 11. 1992.APPENDIX to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee Defeated amendments The following amendments, endorsed by over a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected in the course of the deliberations:Point 1.2 Replace by the following:'1.2. The Commission points out that the incidence of smoking in the Community has been in decline for a number of decades, but that the rate of fall has slowed in recent years. The Commission notes that over 40 % of the Community population continues to smoke, and it anticipates a rapid increase in major smoking-related health problems in the next few decades. Eurobarometer 41.0 shows an even steeper decline in the number of smokers, and states that only just over a third (35 %) of EU citizens over the age of 15 smoke. The communication particularly highlights the need for measures targeted at a number of vulnerable groups, such as women, young people, people in less favourable socio-economic conditions, and non-smokers.`ReasonThe data cited in the communication differ from those given in Eurobarometer, an official instrument of the Commission. A more detailed reference is thus needed to the various factors entering into consideration, such as those contained in Eurobarometer 41.0, on Europe and smoking, issued by the Public Health Unit of DG V/F/I on 21 September 1994.Result of the voteFor: 42, against: 92, abstentions: 7.Point 2.5 Replace by the following:'The Committee takes the view that the principle which should underlie the proposed measures is that everyone has the right to breathe clean air. It is, however, also accepted that smokers are entitled to smoke, as long as they do not endanger or bother others. The Committee highlights the important role to be played by the social partners in setting guidelines on smoking at the workplace. The aim is not to stigmatize smokers as individuals but to endeavour to promote non-smoking in the context of national cultures and to change attitudes.`ReasonThe social partners should always be involved in matters affecting people at their place of work. The best solution is for the people on the spot to reach agreement amongst themselves.Result of the voteFor: 51, against: 87, abstentions: 10.Point 3.5 - second paragraph Replace by the following:'In its opinion of 23 September 1992 the Committee rejected a ban on tobacco advertising. It wanted to give the European tobacco industry the chance to introduce self-regulatory measures, enforceable by the industry itself, for direct and indirect advertising, which would, in particular, not be directed at young people or linked to sport. As a result tobacco producers should refrain from advertising in publications mainly devoted to sport or read by young people. This self-regulation has functioned satisfactorily.If the Committee is to be consistent, it must reaffirm its opinion of 23 September 1992 and once again reject a blanket ban on advertising, in the light of experience.`ReasonSelf-explanatory.Result of the voteFor: 44, against: 90, abstentions: 8.Point 3.8 Reword as follows:'The Committee notes that the Communication proposes to reclassify nicotine addiction as a dependency, thus allowing it to be tackled through major Community public health programmes. In its opinion of 29 May 1991, the Committee stressed the fact that the word "addiction" seemed rather strong.`ReasonIt is legitimate to question the wisdom of reclassifying legally available products in order to be able to deal with them via Community programmes which mainly address the problem of illegal drugs. The Committee has already rejected this interpretation.Result of the voteFor: 49, against: 71, abstentions: 5.