Proposition 54K0507

Proposition de loi modifiant la loi du 24 janvier 1977 relative à la protection de la santé des consommateurs en ce qui concerne les denrées alimentaires et les autres produits et visant à l'instauration d'un paquet de cigarettes neutre.

General information ¶

Author

LE Catherine Fonck

Submission date

Oct. 24, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Rejected

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

consumer protection health risk smoking advertising tobacco preparation for market public health disease prevention

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Els Van Hoof (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

April 30, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Let me present to you the first part of the report. My colleague, Ms. Jiroflée, will report on the second part.

The Public Health Commission examined this bill on March 17 and 24. The author, Ms. Fonck, first wanted to recall the major public health challenge that is tobacco consumption, emphasizing that it causes 20,000 premature deaths annually. As young people are ⁇ affected among the most vulnerable audiences, she believes that public authorities should do everything they can to prevent consumerism from starting at a young age.

Advertising plays a major role in the consumption of tobacco. It can take different forms, including the cigarette package itself. Despite the health warnings to appear on the packaging, there remains, according to Ms Fonck, a margin for the expression of advertising aesthetics. Studies have shown that packaging is one of the criteria that determine the choice to consume tobacco products of a given brand.

The proposal therefore aims to introduce a neutral cigarette package, i.e. a package without advertising clothing, without brand and logo, in order to make consumption less tempting. The Cancer Foundation has been advocating for years in this direction.

by Mr. Thiéry and Van Hoof believed it was better to wait for the transposition of the EU Directive on tobacco products scheduled for May 2016. It may be a way to take care of the goat and the cabbage, as Mr. said. and Thierry.

Together with Ms. Somers, they also expressed their doubts as to whether there is sufficient scientific evidence regarding the influence of the neutral package on consumption. A good health education is, according to Mr. Thiery, more effective in combating tobacco consumption. Like Somers and Hufkens, he believes that the neutral package will facilitate the counterfeiting of cigarettes and that the latter can be even more harmful to health.

Ms. Jiroflée first wanted to recall the steady increase in the number of cancers and the fact that one in three cancers was related to tobacco. It therefore wants measures to be taken to reduce smoking and to draw public attention to the dangers of tobacco. She thus believes that the establishment of the neutral package is one of the measures referring in particular to the studies carried out by the Cancer Foundation. It also considers this measure to be an excellent measure of prevention, which it considers essential and should be part of a broader strategy, especially with regard to young people. It also notes that while waiting for the transposition of the EU directive, certain aspects could be settled in advance in Belgian legislation. Mr Jiroflée finally held that the argument concerning the counterfeit was not relevant since it already exists. He concluded by supporting the proposal.

Ms. Hufkens acknowledged that smoking is harmful to health and that it should be reduced. However, she said she was not convinced that the neutral package would be the solution and believed that the proposed measure did not take into account the interests of the sector and that they could have disastrous consequences for it.

For my part, without going back long on the harmful and harmful consequences associated with the consumption of tobacco products, I stressed the need to continue to pursue a genuine, thoughtful, coherent and effective tobacco control policy. I would also like to remind that cigarette packages themselves now serve as advertising support and can in themselves prove to be real incentives for consumption, ⁇ for young people and women. It is indeed the only advertising space that remains for the tobacco industry and it needs to be restricted. By imposing the generic package, I pointed out that it was indeed possible to avoid the entry of a number of non-smokers into smoking, while further increasing the impact of the health messages on the packages.

Like Ms. Jiroflée, I would like to point out that, while the new EU Directive on tobacco products reserves a greater place for health warnings, it also allows states to take additional packaging measures if they wish.

I therefore considered that the introduction of the neutral package represents a step in the right direction in the fight against tobacco, especially with regard to young people, and that it seemed essential for us to be able to prioritize, above all, the public health interests in this regard.

Mrs Gerkens, on the other hand, noted that her group supported the bill, with the fight against tobacco and related advertising being a necessity. According to her, the appearance of cigarette packages is a well-thought-out form of advertising. Ms Gerkens found it unacceptable to support an industry that markets products that are harmful to health. For her, the argument that the interests of the sector must be taken into account does not need to be in a file where the interest of public health must prevail. Furthermore, the speaker considered that, if it was appropriate to continue the fight against counterfeiting, it had not waited for the neutral package to develop.

Finally, Van Hoof stressed that certain issues such as intellectual property rights still need to be addressed and that the effects of a possible rise in the price of cigarettes should be studied. She concluded by proposing to reflect on the issue by hearing experts on the subject.

Dear colleagues, I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, I will begin with Mrs. Fonck’s answers to the first speeches.

Ms Fonck repeats that a lot of people die due to smoking, that the solution must be an en-en-story and that the strategy of combating tobacco use is based on four pillars: price, advertising, prevention and smoking cessation guidance.

Preventing young people from starting to smoke is the most important thing. She recalls that 37 studies in eight countries have demonstrated that the introduction of neutral packages leads to less smoking, ⁇ among young people. She believes that the argument that the EU is working on a regime to limit tobacco use is not a reason for our country to do nothing. It also points out that Belgium has not taken any new measures in eight years. Ms. Fonck, by the way, would like to know the Minister’s opinion on the present bill. She also believes that the arguments of the majority are those of the tobacco industry. Finally, Ms. Fonck will ⁇ also agree to hear experts on the bill.

This is again replicated, among others by Ms. Somers. It reiterates that there is insufficient evidence that the neutral cigarette package is effective. She wants to focus on prevention and active measures to discourage smoking and points out that this is a parliamentary proposal, which the Parliament can decide autonomously without the Minister having to agree to it.

Mrs Gerkens, the chairman of the committee, however, notes that the minister or her representative is normally present at such legislative proposals.

Mr Thiéry repeats his arguments and wishes to put them again in the right context. It supports the preventive role of schools.

The majority is of the opinion that work should first be done on the correct transposition of the Directive.

I myself, at that stage of the story, have repeatedly stated that I disagree with the statement that the neutral cigarette pack would make the fight against counterfeiting more difficult. There have already been a number of broadcasts and reports that have shown that, among other things, the tobacco lobby would pay for such studies. It would also be interesting to hear experts from the field.

Mr Senesael considers it interesting to organise hearings. He welcomes the fact that the proposal makes the fight against tobacco back on the agenda after no progress has been made for eight years.

The Chairman, Ms. Gerkens, recalls that since 1999 tobacco advertising has been on Parliament’s agenda and has given rise to debate. She asks which evidence-based arguments the majority cites, to demonstrate that counterfeiting will increase.

The legislative proposal may enter into force simultaneously with the transposed directive. Thus, arguments to not act legislatively now are, in her opinion, unacceptable.

In the next session we saw the representative of the Minister. He notes that Belgium must ensure the transposition of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the European Council. He also points out that the Government has begun work to transpose that Directive.

This transposition will require the adoption of a position on matters not directly decided by the European legislature, such as electronic cigarettes and neutral packages.

He also cites a number of examples from countries where the neutral package has been or will be imported. He says that the minister has commissioned its administration to study evolution.

At this stage of the investigation, the government and the Minister responsible for Public Health consider it too early to introduce the neutral cigarette packages.

There is another replica from Ms. Fonck, who notes that the introduction of neutral cigarette packages in some UN states is already a fact. These Directives allow Member States to adopt national measures concerning the packaging of tobacco products. The speaker continues to hope that Belgium will do the same.

Then, in the replies by the representative of the minister, it is again emphasized that the minister will decide after investigation. Through the other speakers, the previous discussion is further delayed and no new arguments are discussed.

Ultimately, Article 1, and consequently the entire bill, is rejected by eleven against three votes.

I would like to thank the two rapporteurs.

Even though there are not many of you today, this is a matter that concerns a major public health issue.

The best are here!

This is all but an anecdotal record because it refers to a reality in our country, namely 20,000 preventable and premature annual deaths: one cancer in three and very many cardiovascular pathologies. We discussed this issue in the committee, which is a major public health issue. The various elements have been recalled here by the rapporteurs.

All the arguments used by the majority are exactly the same as those repeatedly advanced by the tobacco industry. These are the same and it is enough to consult the documents from the tobacco industry. At some times, it’s almost a “copy-paste” of these documents that I’ve heard from the mouth of some committee members.

Scientifically proven? and no! The industry sector says exactly the same thing. Are you worried about it because it would be imposed on the industry? Yes indeed indeed. Worried because they would be forced to change their packaging? Yes, indeed, and that is the purpose. Yes, cigarette smokers worry and some members, especially the majority, worry in the same way.

Does the fight against tobacco only go through the establishment of a neutral package? The answer is of course no. An effective public health policy on tobacco is based both on price, on advertising – two advertising vectors are now allowed in Belgium –, on prevention and on aid in smoking cessation.

Yesterday, you received an email from the Cancer Foundation. I hope everyone has read this email carefully. In fact, you may have, in your family, in your relationships, people who suffer from cancer. The email whose question responds, point by point, to the arguments advanced by the tobacco industry and by you.

It answers the question of whether this neutral package is actually effective.

The Cancer Foundation supports the measure first because it is shown that neutral packages are less attractive. According to her, numerous studies conducted by institutes, reliable and independent universities, which have addressed this topic from different methodological angles, have provided similar results. Health warnings are much more visible on a neutral package and cigarettes lose much of their attractiveness. For a young audience that has not yet been trapped by addiction, this can make a huge difference.

The Foundation has also put forward a number of other arguments regarding the effectiveness of the measure in the countries where it was implemented. For example, in Australia, the percentage of daily smokers dropped by 15.1% in 2010 and by 12.8% following a series of measures including the neutral package.

Furthermore, according to the Foundation, there was no price collapse and small merchants were not affected by the measure.

The illicit trade in cigarettes has not increased, and counterfeiting has even decreased.

As you, I hope, read in this letter, the Cancer Foundation, for each item, brings references and concrete evidence. The foundation continues by also referring to the director of the World Health Organization (WHO), who advocates for neutral packages. Finally, for an argument regarding intellectual property rights also raised in the committee, he has already been submitted to legal advice. Again, it refers to a solid source: the full report of an EU Parliament hearing on intellectual property rights.

Some have said that anyway, a new EU directive – voted a year ago – will apply in 2016. Certainly, but rightly, this EU directive provided that the issue of the neutral package was directly the responsibility of the Member States. In the example of Australia, some of these Member States are more courageous than Belgium, as France, the United Kingdom and Ireland have now made clear progress toward introducing this neutral package as of 2016.

This would allow, and this is the main element of the struggle for the neutral package, to prevent new people, especially young people, from being attracted to cigarettes; and thus to prevent young people from starting to smoke.

The conclusion, in this debate, I will leave it to the Cancer Foundation. Who better than all its members, than especially all the patients affected by cancer or cardiovascular disease, to convince you? Let me read some of their conclusions.

For the Cancer Foundation, fighting smoking among young people is an absolute priority. This struggle will also have an undeniably beneficial effect on social security spending. As a foundation, it supports unreservedly the measures that have demonstrated in the tobacco problem and the introduction of neutral packaging is part of it.

The Foundation calls on you, dear colleagues, to protect our youth from tobacco before they, in turn, become addicted.

Dear colleagues, I invite you to be courageous and to choose the health of citizens. I urge you to protect our young people rather than support the tobacco industry. I invite you to put people’s health ahead of the tobacco industry. Choose the right! This vote is, first and foremost, aimed at our youth and must serve to prevent a large number of cancers and, above all, suffering and deaths that can be prevented.