Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products, 'recast version''
Date: 2000-03-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU Member State, approximation of laws, smoking, tobacco, tobacco industry

C 140/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2000

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the Approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco
products, “recast version”’

(2000/C 140/08)

On 15 February 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 14 March 2000. The rapporteur was Mr Fuchs.

At its 371st plenary session (meeting of 29 March 2000) the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion by 85 votes to 33, with 8 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The Economic and Social Committee notes that, in the
context of the completion of the single market, the purpose of
the current proposal for a directive is to recast, update and
complete the three existing single market directives dealing
with (i) the tar yield of cigarettes (1), (ii) oral tobacco (2) and
(iii) the labelling of tobacco products. (3) This directive aims to
harmonise the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
of the Member States concerning the tar yields of cigarettes,
the warnings regarding health to appear on packets of tobacco
products, carbon monoxide and nicotine yields and the
ingredients of tobacco products.

This proposal is based on Article 95 of the Treaty,
1.2.
taking as a basis a high level of public health protection.
Account is also taken of public health issues raised by the
Member States and scientific authorities, which have been
the Commission (Article 95
brought
paragraph 8).

to the attention of

1.3.
The ESC notes that the proposed measures are in line
with the recommendations of the Commission’s advisory
committee for cancer prevention (4) and of the WHO World
Health Assembly (5). They also take account of the opinion by
the Commission’s consumer committee on socially responsible
community tobacco policy of 14 June 1998 (6).

1.4.
This proposal seeks to continue the reduction in tar
levels of cigarettes and requires that the tar yield of cigarettes

(1) Directive 90/239/EEC, OJ L 137, 30.5.1990, p. 36.
(2) Directive 92/41/EEC, OJ L 158, 11.6.1992, p. 30.
(3) Directive 89/622/EEC, OJ L 359, 8.12.1989, p. 1.
(4) COM(96) 609 final — annex.
(5) WHO, Tobacco or Health, A global status report, Geneva, 1997,

p. 49.

(6) Opinion by the Consumer Committee on Socially Responsible

Community Tobacco Policy, 14 June 1998.

put into free circulation, marketed or manufactured in the
Member States must not exceed 10 mg per cigarette as from
31 December 2003 (or three years from date of adoption).

1.5.
The proposal requires that the nicotine yield of ciga-
rettes put into free circulation, marketed or manufactured in
the Member States must not exceed 1 mg per cigarette from
31 December 2003 (or three years from date of adoption).

1.6.
A ceiling of not more than 10 mg per cigarette is
also to be established for carbon monoxide yield from
31 December 2003 (or three years from date of adoption).

The measurement systems proposed for the above-
1.7.
mentioned ceilings are to be those set down by the Inter-
national Standards Organisation (ISO).

In addition to measuring the yields in cigarettes of tar,
1.8.
nicotine and carbon monoxide, the Commission proposes
that Member States may require tobacco manufacturers or
importers to carry out any other such tests as may be laid
down by the appropriate national authorities in order to assess
the yield of other substances produced by their tobacco
products on a brand-by-brand basis.

Cigarette labelling is to include an indication of the
1.9.
yields not only of
tar and nicotine but also of carbon
monoxide. Improvements are also to be made in this context
to the presentation,
impact, visibility, comprehension and
content of health warnings for consumers of tobacco products.

1.10.
In respect of oral and other smokeless tobacco, the
Commission recommends replacing the existing warning with
a more general one.

1.11.
This proposal also envisages that all manufacturers
and importers of tobacco products must submit to their
Member States a list of non-tobacco ingredients and constitu-
ents, including additives and quantities thereof, used in the

18.5.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 140/25

manufacture of their tobacco products by brand. This list is to
be accompanied by a statement setting out the reasons for the
inclusion of such ingredients and constituents in their prod-
ucts. For the purposes of enabling an evaluation of the health
impact of such non-tobacco components, it is furthermore
proposed that Member States obtain toxicological data on
these non-tobacco ingredients and constituents in burnt and
unburned form and require manufacturers and importers to
demonstrate that the said ingredients are safe for the health of
the consumer when used as intended in their tobacco products.

1.12.
The Commission proposal envisages prohibiting
product descriptions such as ‘low tar’, ‘light’, ‘ultra light’, ‘mild’
and so on, since these terms can give rise to misapprehensions
on the part of consumers who may mistakenly believe that
some such products are less dangerous to health than others.
Derogations whereby such terms are expressly authorised by
Member States are to be permitted provided the Member
States inform the Commission of the conditions for such
authorisation.

1.13. Moreover, it is proposed that the Commission report
every two years to the Council, the European Parliament, and
to the Economic and Social Committee on the application of
this proposed text, and if necessary make further proposals to
adapt it to developments in the field of tobacco products.

2. General comments

2.1.
The ESC welcomes the fact that the European Parlia-
ment and the Council are recasting measures for the harmonis-
ation and approximation of the laws, regulations or adminis-
trative provisions of the Member States regarding the manufac-
ture, presentation and sale of tobacco products.

2.2.
The Committee agrees that the Commission proposals
for the harmonisation and approximation of Member States’
existing laws, regulations and administrative provisions make
practical improvements to the provisions concerned. Trade
barriers are to be removed. The ESC advocates a more extensive
harmonisation and approximation of legal provisions as an
additional necessary step towards completion of the single
market. The ESC stresses that the harmonisation and approxi-
mation proposed by the Commission should if possible reflect
the disparate nature of the market in tobacco products. The
manufacturers of smoking, cigar, snuff and chewing tobacco
are often small and medium-sized enterprises offering a very
broad product range. These companies are mainly located in
the less-favoured regions of the Community.

2.3.
The ESC would stress that the Commission initiative
can be seen as a further step towards improving public health
in the European Union. The Committee has on many occasions
welcomed the increasingly important role of public health at
Community level (1).

The Committee sees the Commission’s action as an
2.4.
additional step towards preventing smoking-induced health
problems. In this context, the Committee would point out that
lasting success is possible only by pursuing a comprehensive,
trans-national strategy to avert tobacco-related damage to
health. The ESC would therefore propose that the Commission
submit a wide-ranging work plan for monitoring tobacco
consumption including a range of measures targeting high-
risk groups such as women, children, young people and people
from poor economic and social backgrounds. This plan should
contain in particular the following additional elements:

— development of appropriate preventive measures to stop
tobacco consumption among children and young people;

— development of schemes to help young people and adults

who do smoke beat the habit;

— ongoing health education in schools and the development

of information campaigns for all age groups;

— ban on the sale of tobacco products to people under 18

(to be laid down at national level);

— ban on the sale of packs containing fewer than twenty

cigarettes (‘child packs’);

— ban on smoking in public places;

— ban on the sale of cigarettes from vending machines unless
(technical and/or physical) measures have been taken to
prevent the purchase of cigarettes from vending machines
by juveniles;

— increased and harmonised taxation of tobacco products,
and, at the same time, systematic action to combat the
smuggling of tobacco products.

Moreover, the ESC would reiterate its call of 9 July 1997 (2) to
ban direct and indirect tobacco advertising and hopes to see
that call translated into practice quickly in all Member States.

The Committee calls on the Member States to use a consider-
able percentage of their tax take from tobacco sales to step up
anti-smoking campaigns and to spend more on medical
research and on treating the diseases afflicting smokers and
the unwitting victims of the harmful effects of tobacco. Some
of this tax revenue could go to the sickness funds.

(1) ESC Opinion on the development of public health policy, OJ

C 407, 28.12.1998.

(2) OJ C 296, 29.9.1997, p. 32.

C 140/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2000

2.5.
The ESC refers to its many earlier opinions in which it
noted that tobacco products are harmful to human health and
lead to cardiovascular diseases, cancer and other illnesses.
The World Health Organisation (1) (2) believes that some
500 000 EU citizens die prematurely each year as a result of
tobacco consumption. Given the Community’s aim of securing
a high level of health protection, and with a view to consumer
protection, it is essential to provide consumers with adequate
information on the ingredients of tobacco products and their
effects. It is therefore essential to identify tobacco ingredients
properly. This is the only way to ensure that consumers can
make decisions backed by scientific fact.

the term ‘tar’ as misleading because it is a collective name for
the thousands of chemical substances which form the residue
tobacco smoke (6). Tar is composed of very different
of
substances which are harmful
in varying degrees, and the
constituents of
tar differ widely between products. The
medium-term aim must therefore be to set ceilings for, and
require the gradual reduction of specific toxic or carcinogenic
substances in relation to nicotine concentrations (tar:nicotine
ratio). Reducing toxic or carcinogenic substances in relation to
nicotine should also include reducing carbon monoxide yield
in proportion to nicotine yield.

2.6.
The ESC believes that a reliable measurement system
for the ingredients concerned is essential for comprehensive
and accurate consumer information. The measurement sys-
tems laid down by the International Standards Organisation
(ISO) for tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide yield do not
adequately meet these criteria. (3) (4) The ISO test is machine-
based. A large number of studies have shown that, quite
simply, people do not smoke like machines. There is consider-
able variation in the average volume of smoke, the number and
length of draws and depth of inhalation. Thus, a consumer’s
exposure to tobacco ingredients varies tremendously and may
in fact be many times higher or lower than shown in the
machine test. Machine-generated data can thus result in wrong
information being passed to consumers. The development of
reliable measurement systems is therefore vital to the regu-
lation of tobacco substances and should be actively promoted
by the Commission.

2.7.2.
Regulation of nicotine yield should be undertaken
only with great caution, and the ESC thinks it is something
that requires further research. It may seem appropriate to
reduce the nicotine yield of tobacco products in order to
protect children and young people, since this could be expected
to prevent experimental users, including these groups, from
developing nicotine dependence so quickly. On the other
hand,
it is likely that dependent smokers, who maintain
nicotine levels in their bodies at a certain level, would be
inclined to smoke more in order to build up the desired
nicotine concentrations. The possibility cannot be ruled out
that smokers’ risk of lung cancer may not be reduced by laying
down fixed levels of nicotine and tar. Since not enough
research has been done in this area (7) (8) (9), no measures
should be taken to limit nicotine yield further until work has
been done to evaluate relevant investigations.

2.7.
Cigarette smoke is made up of some 3 500-4 000 sub-
stances, many of which are known irritants. Over 40 of
these substances have carcinogenic effects and others can be
classified as toxic. Nicotine is the substance in cigarettes that
causes dependency. The Commission is now proposing that
tar, carbon monoxide and nicotine yield be stated on cigarette
packets and that ceilings be fixed for these substances. The
ESC considers the matter to be complex, and argues that each
substance should be dealt with separately.

2.7.3.
Over 600 additives may legally be added to tobacco
products in the European Union. The intended use and effects
of existing and new additives must be declared and justified on
public health grounds.

Tar and carbon monoxide are harmful to health (5).
2.7.1.
Yield labelling should therefore be welcomed on principle,
provided it can be formulated correctly. Many experts regard

The ESC points to the need for some protection of
2.7.4.
the legitimate interests particularly of smaller manufacturers
and importers who must not have their livelihood jeopardised
by excessive requirements.

(1) WHO, Tobacco or Health, a global status report, Geneva, 1997.
(2) Peto et al., Mortality from smoking in developed countries 1950-

2000, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1994.

(3) WHO Conference on the Regulation of Tobacco Products, con-

clusions, Helsinki, 18 October 1999.

(4) Slade, J. & Henningfield, J.E., Tobacco products regulation: context
and issues, Food and Drug Law Journal, 53 (suppl.), 43-77, 1998.
(5) US Department of Health and Human Services: Reducing the

(6) Gray, N. et al. Tar concentration in cigarettes and carcinogen

content. Lancet, 352, 787-8, 1998.

(7) Bates C. et al. The future of tobacco product regulation and
labelling in Europe: Implications for the forthcoming European
directive. Tobacco Control, 8, 225-235, 1999.

(8) Henningfield J.E. et al. Reducing the addictiveness of cigarettes. A
report of the American Medical Association. Tobacco Control, 7,
281-93, 1999.

(9) Shatenstein S. et al. Eliminating nicotine in cigarettes. Tobacco

health consequences of smoking, 1989.

Control, 8, 106-9, 1999.

18.5.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 140/27

3. Specific comments

3.1. Article 1

The ESC supports the objectives of the directive and hopes
that it will lead to a high level of health protection in the
Member States.

3.2. Article 3

3.2.1.
The ESC feels that is confusing to talk about tar and
carbon monoxide yield in cigarettes. Unlike nicotine, tar and
carbon monoxide are produced by burning or carbonisation
of the cigarette, and are present in the condensate (tar) and the
gaseous (carbon monoxide) part of the cigarette smoke. It
would therefore be better to describe the yield of
these
substances per cigarette as ‘nicotine in tobacco’, ‘tar in smoke
condensate’ and ‘carbon monoxide in smoke’. In the case of
carbon monoxide, it can also be assumed that the quantity
produced per cigarette will depend on the oxygen input, i.e.
the intensity of smoking.

3.2.2.
The ESC points out that it is questionable in toxico-
logical terms to further cut the 1 mg per cigarette nicotine
yield in tobacco. This may make sense for occasional smokers,
whose smoking habits are not determined by the amount of
nicotine absorbed. However, the smoking behaviour of nic-
otine-dependent smokers is determined by the amount of
nicotine absorbed: if they need a lot of nicotine, they inhale
more frequently and more deeply, and also smoke more
cigarettes than those who need less nicotine. The impact of
regulating nicotine yield has not, as yet, been sufficiently
clarified. The ESC considers that an appropriate research
project is needed to clear up this issue.

3.2.3.
The ESC would very much welcome worldwide
recognition of European standards in this regard in order to
avoid the distortion of competition and the resultant threat to
jobs. The ESC advises the Commission to do everything it can
to achieve this objective as a matter of urgency. For the time
being, the ESC calls on the Commission to set up a fund for
compensation of the job losses and for retraining the workers
affected.

3.3. Article 5

3.3.1.
It is certainly right to require that the values proposed
in the directive be measured, but the ESC wonders whether the
proposed ISO system reflects the current state of technology.
The ESC assumes that if other measurement systems prove
satisfactory, these will also be made mandatory.

The ESC feels that consumers have the right to expect
3.3.2.
that tobacco products are checked, tested and approved in
accordance with commonly approved standards. The ESC

urges the Commission to develop for the long term a
Community framework for national systems, based on inter-
nationally accepted standards. This will guarantee that the
most suitable methods of analysis are applied in a consistent
and uniform way within the EU in order to produce compar-
able results.

3.3.3.
The Committee broadly welcomes the provision
whereby Member States may also request that tobacco manu-
facturers and importers carry out any other such tests as may
be required by the appropriate national authorities in order to
assess the yields of other substances produced by their tobacco
products on a brand-by-brand basis.

3.4. Article 6

The ESC supports and welcomes the improvement
3.4.1.
in the presentation,
impact, visibility, comprehension and
content of health warnings for consumers of tobacco products.

The Committee would advocate that the general
3.4.2.
warnings must be readily discernible. 25 % of the external area
of the corresponding surface of the packet of tobacco would
appear an appropriate figure, taking due account of the size of
the packet so as to avoid any measures not commensurate
with the objective sought.

3.4.3.
The ESC proposes that the Member States should be
allowed to require details of a tobacco withdrawal programme
to be printed on all packets of tobacco products.

3.5. Article 7

The ESC welcomes the Commission’s proposal to list all non-
tobacco ingredients for each tobacco product and in particular
the requirement
that producers and importers state the
reasons for including such ingredients and constituents. The
transparency this ensures will promote a high level of health
protection within the Community. At the same time the ESC
would like to know where, how and according to what criteria
these lists will be interpreted.

The absence of a Community framework for national systems
and the tests is likely to lead to widely varying national laws
and artificial barriers to the internal market of the same type
as those which this directive seeks to avoid.

The ESC considers that harmonisation as regards ingredients
can be achieved by drawing up a list of permitted substances,
taking as an example one of the existing positive lists in
Belgium, Germany, Austria or France, or a combination of
these.

C 140/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2000

3.6. Article 8

3.7. Article 10

The ESC fundamentally welcomes the Commission’s
3.6.1.
proposed ban on misleading descriptions such as ‘low tar’,
‘light’ or ‘mild’, since the claimed advantages are demonstrably
non-existent, and it makes little sense for nicotine-dependent
smokers to distinguish between cigarettes with low,
light,
ultra-light, etc. tar yield. Member States must be prevented
from introducing special arrangements.

The ESC supports the proposed two-year review and report,
and asks the Commission to check whether the relevant
scientific committee could be given the task of regularly
reviewing the existing directive and adapting it in the light of
experience.

3.6.2.
The ESC suggests that from a preventive point of
view it would make sense for occasional smokers to be allowed
to choose a ‘light’, and therefore less harmful, cigarette. But
such labelling can be allowed only if measuring methods exist
to demonstrate a very high correlation with such descriptions.

3.8.
The ESC considers that the transitional provisions
should be aligned on those pertaining to the implementation
of existing directives in order to take account of the limited
possibilities of technical adjustment open to SMEs and the
slow turnover in certain products.

Brussels, 29 March 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

During the debate, the following amendments, which received more than 25 % of the votes cast, were defeated.

Point 2.4, fourth bullet

Replace text with:

‘ban on the sale of tobacco products to young people (the age limit to be laid down at national level in accordance
with the subsidiarity principle).’

Reason

The original text contradicts itself by stipulating a minimum age, but then requiring that the Member States fix that
age. By not stipulating any age, the amendment makes it clearer that the Member States are responsible for defining
the term ‘younger’ in accordance with their specific social and cultural situation.

Result of the vote

For: 43, against: 59, abstentions: 13.

18.5.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 140/29

Point 2.4, seventh bullet

Delete

‘ban on the sale of cigarettes from vending machines.’

Reason

A complete ban on the sale of cigarettes from vending machines is inappropriate and discriminates between vending
machines and other sales outlets.

Result of the vote

For: 35, against: 75, abstentions: 13.

Point 2.4, eighth bullet

Amend the indent ‘increased and harmonised taxation of tobacco products, and, at the same time, systematic action
to combat the smuggling of tobacco products’ to read as follows:

‘harmonised taxation of tobacco products, and at the same time, systematic action to combat the smuggling of
tobacco products’.

Reason

Any increase in the already high taxation of tobacco products in the EU will lead to distortion of the market as it will
bring an increase in smuggling, with the end result that consumers will find products at even lower prices, which is
the opposite of the desired effect. Some countries that had high taxation like Sweden and Canada have decreased
their taxation exactly in order to combat smuggling.

Result of the vote

For: 59, against: 61, abstentions: 16.

Point 3.2.3

Add the following to the end of the paragraph:

‘In the meantime, it is advisable to limit the establishment of content ceilings for products placed on the market in
the EU and a transition period should be introduced for Greece, in respect of nicotine and carbon monoxide, as is
the case for tar.’

Reason

There is simply no reason to give only products manufactured outside the EU the possibility of meeting the demand
for products with different characteristics.

Greece’s current derogation for tar should be extended to cover nicotine and carbon monoxide, since there is a close
correlation between the yields of these components.

Result of the vote

For: 29, against: 74, abstentions: 14.

C 140/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2000

Point 3.2.3

Add a new point after point 3.2.3 as follows:

‘Article 4

The ESC feels that the upper limits for nicotine and carbon monoxide should be proportionate to the limit proposed
for tar. Thus, the temporary derogation for Greece should refer not only to tar but also to nicotine and carbon
monoxide.’

Reason

There is a relationship between the yields of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide in cigarettes. Therefore, if the limits
of 1 mg of nicotine and 10 mg of carbon monoxide also apply to Greece from 31 December 2003, in effect this will
indirectly impose a limit of 10 mg of tar on that country from the same date. The temporary derogation on tar alone
granted under Article 4 thus has no practical relevance.

Result of the vote

For: 36, against: 58, abstentions: 14.

Point 3.2.4

Add the following new point 3.2.4:

‘3.2.4.
The ESC agrees that the ceiling for carbon monoxide yield in cigarettes should be proportionate to the
proposed ceiling for tar (10 mg) and nicotine (1 mg). The ESC suggests, therefore, that the Commission take the
necessary steps to ensure that the proposed ceiling on carbon monoxide yield is proportionate to the ceilings for tar
and nicotine and that it is established on the basis of reliable scientific data.’

Reason

The Commission’s explanatory memorandum recommends the introduction of ‘... a ceiling for carbon monoxide
yields proportionate to the ceilings already mentioned ...’ for tar and nicotine. Given the inevitable differences in the
results of experiments carried out under current methods for measuring carbon monoxide yields, great care needs to
be taken when establishing an appropriate ceiling. The Commission therefore needs to ensure that the proposed
ceiling for carbon monoxide yield has been established on the basis of reliable scientific data and that it is
proportionate to the ceilings for nicotine and tar, as envisaged.

Result of the vote

For: 34, against: 70, abstentions: 8.

Point 3.2.5

Add the following new point 3.2.5:

The ESC is concerned that the Commission proposal, which in its current form covers tobacco products
‘3.2.5.
exported from the EU, will hinder EU exports unnecessarily, harm the competitiveness of the Community and of the
Member States, and adversely affect employment in the EU.’

18.5.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 140/31

Reason

The Commission proposal, which in its current form covers tobacco products exported from the EU,
is an
unnecessary obstacle to EU exports, will harm the competitiveness of the Member States and the EU, and will
adversely affect employment in the EU. In 1998, 16 % of the cigarettes manufactured in the EU were exported to
third countries and the tobacco manufacturing industry employed around 50 000 people. This provision could,
therefore, jeopardise EU jobs and manufacturing.

Result of the vote

For: 44, against: 67, abstentions: 7.

Point 3.4.2

Replace ‘25 %’ by ‘10 % of the external area, with the warning framed by a 1-mm-thick line, ...’

Complete the sentence: ‘... for cigarettes. For other tobacco products warnings can be attached to the container (e.g.
cigar boxes, pipe tobacco tins), but should not exceed 15 cm2 in size.’

Reason

The percentage proposed by the Commission seems excessive given that the objective is to improve legibility.

It is not possible to print warnings on containers of certain products and doing so would anyway be very
uneconomical for manufacturers of products with limited circulation in Europe, given that each market would
require special packaging.

Result of the vote

For: 34, against: 71, abstentions: 1.

Point 3.4.4

Insert a new point:

‘3.4.4.
be allowed to use colours other than black and white, provided warnings are perfectly legible.’

To ensure fair treatment for all products, irrespective of the colour of the packaging, manufacturers should

Reason

By proposing the use of black type on a white background, the Commission is effectively favouring products with
this type of packaging. The amendment should make it possible for other background colours to be used.

Result of the vote

For: 33, against: 71, abstentions: 7.

Point 3.5.1

Insert a new point 3.5.1 as follows:

‘3.5.1.
As an alternative, the ESC advocates the development of a Community framework for testing and reporting
non-tobacco ingredients. Testing methods should be based on developing and establishing uniform, internationally
accepted standards, so as to obtain data and information confirming that use of these ingredients does not constitute
a major health risk. This would ensure that the most appropriate and reliable testing methods were consistently and
uniformly applied throughout the EU and would help to ensure efficient operation of the single market.’

C 140/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2000

Reason

If the draft directive does not establish a Community framework for listing ingredients, 15 different national systems
will probably be set up. This would create additional obstacles to the internal market and could constitute a
considerable economic burden for operators, which is contrary to the proposal’s intention.

Result of the vote

For: 39, against: 72, abstentions: 8.

Point 3.6.2

Replace the second sentence with:

‘Standards must therefore be fixed, both for each description and for the maximum tar levels that it denotes.’

Reason

As the opinion notes, indicating absolute levels is not informative for smokers, who should therefore be given more
precise information that will be of more help to them when choosing a product.

Result of the vote

For: 42, against: 70, abstentions: 10.

Point 3.6.3

Insert a new point 3.6.3 worded as follows:

‘The ESC suggests that descriptions such as “light” or “mild” (“soft”) could be permitted if they clearly designate
features connected with the aroma, taste or colour of tobacco products other than cigarettes.’

Reason

The descriptions ‘light’ and ‘mild’ often refer to the aroma or the taste of cigars, cut tobacco and snuff.

Result of the vote

For: 35, against: 65, abstentions: 16.

There was a request, by over a quarter of votes cast, to keep the following passage in the section opinion, but it was
deleted subsequent to an amendment adopted by the plenary session.

Point 2.4, third paragraph

‘In the medium term, this list of measures should also include an end to Community subsidies for growing tobacco
products. The aim is to eliminate inconsistencies in Community policy, which seeks to prevent tobacco consumption
on the one hand, while promoting tobacco growing on the other. The Commission should buy up more areas where
tobacco is grown in the Community and discontinue production there. Aid for tobacco production granted up to
now should be converted into social aid.’

Result of the vote

For: 73, against: 64, abstentions: 2.