1. KEY ELEMENTS OF THE FCTC

2. Purpose of Exercise
Be able to articulate concise arguments in favor of ratifying the FCTC and the policy measures it contains to policymakers, the media and other potential allies.
Enable you to anticipate and counteract common tobacco industry arguments against the FCTC and its policies.

3. Task
Develop three key arguments in favor of the policy and be able to present them in a concise and convincing manner
Anticipate main industry arguments against the policy and develop responses
Develop three main industry arguments for the next group

4. FCTC: Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship (Article 13)
Advertising Bans
FCTC: Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship (Article 13)
Requires a comprehensive ban within five years, including cross-border advertising originating within a Party's territory.
Includes indirect as well as direct forms of advertising.
Allows for constitutional constraints.
The Parties also agree to consider a protocol to elaborate on cross-border advertising.

5. Advertising Bans and Consumption
Scientific and economic rationale for bans:
Research shows that comprehensive tobacco advertising and promotion bans can decrease consumption.
Partial bans have been found to be ineffective, since substitution to other non-banned media occurs.
[i] [ii] A study of 22 Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries with weak, limited, and comprehensive provisions showed a significant decrease in consumption in countries with comprehensive bans. On the other hand, those with weak or limited restrictions showed no or relatively small decreases. Countries with comprehensive bans were shown to have the lowest consumption and greatest decline in consumption over time during the time period If it had been the case that all of the countries had comprehensive advertising bans, the study predicts that a 5.4% reduction in tobacco use and an approximately 7.4% reduction in cigarette use would have occurred. [i] Saffer and Chaloupka, 2000 (above).
[ii] Canadian Cancer Society. Controlling the tobacco epidemic: selected evidence in support of banning all tobacco advertising and promotion, and requiring large, picture-based health warnings on tobacco packages. Ottawa: Canadian Cancer Society, International Union Against Cancer, Available at Accessed Aug 12, 2003.

6. Common Arguments Against Ad Bans and Useful Responses

7. “Tobacco advertising doesn’t affect tobacco consumption”
Dozens of studies show that increased tobacco promotion is linked to increased tobacco use in the general population. Promotion is also linked to smoking initiation among specific groups – such as women and children – as a result of campaigns targeted at them. Studies have also shown that the elimination or near-elimination of tobacco promotion decreases tobacco use. Partial restrictions on promotion have little or no impact on consumption, usually because the tobacco companies simply invest more money in promotional avenues still available to them.

8. “We should prohibit advertising aimed at kids”
It is impossible to draw a clear line defining what advertising is targeted at kids. Cigarette promotion has been successful in reaching youth in large part because it portrays smoking as an “adult” behavior: something that every adolescent aspires to. And studies have shown that partial restrictions on promotion do not reduce tobacco use. Bans or near-total bans on promotion do reduce tobacco use.

9. “Arts and sporting events would disappear without tobacco industry support”
Many jurisdictions have banned tobacco sponsorships and, despite dire predictions, most groups have found alternative sponsors. Other jurisdictions have used revenue from tobacco taxes to buy out tobacco sponsorships and fund events. This way, people are exposed to messages about health rather than unhealthy products when they watch sports events or musical concerts.

10. “We don’t need to regulate tobacco advertising – the tobacco companies have a voluntary code and are behaving responsibly”
Tobacco company codes, by their own admission in internal documents, are designed solely as public relations strategies to forestall meaningful regulation of promotion. The codes are extremely weak, and in most countries the companies routinely violate their own codes. Rather than allowing the fox to guard the chicken coop, the best solution is a legislated ban on all tobacco advertising and promotion.

11. FCTC: Taxation & Duty Free Sales
(Article 6)
Tobacco tax increases are encouraged.
Recognition that raising tobacco prices "is an effective and important means of reducing tobacco consumption“
Duty-free sales are discouraged. Parties may prohibit or restrict duty-free sales of tobacco products.

12. Tobacco Taxes and Consumption
Scientific and economic rationale for taxes:
Price increases through taxation on tobacco products are among the most effective interventions in reducing demand, especially among youth and persons with low incomes.
At the same time, tobacco taxes are very efficient at raising government revenues.
Price increases through taxation on tobacco products are among the most effective interventions in reducing demand, especially among youth and persons with low incomes. [i] According to the World Bank, sustaining a high tax rate on tobacco products over the long term reduces teen use, with a lasting impact on consumption. At the same time, tobacco taxes are very efficient at raising government revenues. [ii] The World Bank advises that the tax component of a retail pack of cigarettes in countries with comprehensive tobacco control policies is between 2/3 and 4/5 of the total retail cost. [iii] The World Health Organization advises governments to raise the real price (over and above inflation) of tobacco products regularly. [iv] France has used tax rate increases to raise real cigarette prices by at least 5% each year over the past decade. [v]
[i] Jha P, Chaloupka F. Curbing the epidemic: governments and the economics of tobacco control. Washington, DC: World Bank; 1999.
[ii] Yurelki A, deBeyer J. (Eds). Economics of tobacco tool kit. Tool 4: Design and Administer Tobacco Taxes. Washington, DC: World Bank; Available at Accessed June 13, 2003.
[iii] Jha and Chaloupka, 1999 (above).
[iv] WHO. Guidelines for controlling and monitoring the tobacco epidemic. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1998.
[v] Guindon G, Tobin S, Yach D. Trends and affordability of cigarette prices: ample room for tax increases and related health gains. Tobacco Control, March 2002;11:35-42.

13. Common Arguments Against Tax Hikes & Useful Responses

14. “Tobacco taxes hurt the poor and punish smokers”
Tobacco taxes are extremely effective in reducing tobacco use. For every 10% increase in the real price of tobacco products, consumption in middle-income countries will drop by about 8%. The decrease will be greatest among youth and the poor, exactly those groups that government policy hopes to benefit the most and that can least afford to bear the burden of tobacco-caused disease. Money from taxes can be used to pay for programs that help smokers quit smoking, and for programs that benefit the poor.

15. “Tobacco taxes are just a money grab by governments”
It is true that some governments raise tobacco taxes primarily to increase government revenue. But this does not detract from the fact that tobacco taxes are healthy public policy.

16. “Government will lose revenue if they increase tobacco taxes”
There has not been a single instance in which an increase in tobacco taxes has resulted in decreased government revenue. On the contrary, data from dozens of countries shows that when tobacco taxes increase, revenue from tobacco taxes increases. Although tobacco consumption falls in response to higher prices, because tobacco is addictive the decline is small in proportion to the tax increase, guaranteeing stable government revenue at least in the medium term.

17. “Higher tobacco taxes will increase tobacco smuggling”
The level of corruption in a country as measured by the “transparency index” is a far better predictor of tobacco smuggling than the level of tax. In most countries, the benefits of higher tobacco taxes in terms of health and revenue have been significant even in countries where the level of consumption of smuggled tobacco is high. And governments can use increased tax revenue to strengthen anti-smuggling efforts.

18. FCTC: Secondhand Smoke (Article 8)
Obliges parties to adopt “effective” laws to protect citizens from tobacco smoke.
Guiding Principle calls on governments to contemplate measures to protect all persons from exposure to tobacco smoke.
Nonsmokers must be protected in workplaces, public transport and indoor public places. The treaty recognizes that exposure to tobacco smoke has been scientifically proven to cause death, disease and disability. It requires all Parties to implement effective measures to protect nonsmokers from tobacco smoke in public places, including workplaces, public transport and indoor public places -- evidence indicates that only a total smoking ban is effective in protecting non-smokers.

19. Clean Indoor Air Laws, Consumption & Public Health
Scientific Rationale
The scientific evidence unequivocally establishes that tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death to those exposed, both smokers and non smokers. Tobacco smoke contains more than 60 known or suspected cancer-causing compounds, as well as other toxins. For many of these compounds, there is no safe level of exposure
Definitive reports by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the U.K. Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, among others, have concluded that tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen.

20. Prohibiting Smoking in Public Places
Policy Rationales:
Protecting Non-Smokers
Influencing Smoking Consumption
Changing Social Norms
In addition to protecting individuals from involuntary exposure to hazardous tobacco smoke, prohibitions on smoking in public places, including workplaces, have been shown to be associated with a decrease in the amount individuals smoke and an increase in quit rates.[i] According to an internal document from Philip Morris, “Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly affects industry volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11% - 15% less than average and quit at a rate that is 84% higher than average.” [ii] Smoking bans also can challenge the social norm of smoking acceptability that still prevails in many places by reinforcing the message that smoking is unhealthy and socially unacceptable. [iii]
[i] Emont SL, Choi WS, Novotny TE. Clean indoor air legislation, taxation, and smoking behavior in the United States: an ecological analysis. Tobacco Control, 1993; 2(1):13-7.
[ii] Heironimus J. Philip Morris. Impact of Workplace Restrictions on Consumption and Incidence. Jan 21,1992. Bates: Tobacco Documents Online. Available at Accessed September 24, 2003.
[iii] Roemer R. Legislative Action to Combat the World Tobacco Epidemic, Second Edition. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1993.

21. Common Arguments Against Clean Indoor Air Laws & Useful Responses
In the US, 53,000 nonsmokers die every year from heart disease and 3,000 die from lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke. Transferring these statistics to a country with 10 million people, we could estimate about 2000 deaths from lung cancer and heart disease among nonsmokers per year due to secondhand smoke. And secondhand smoke makes kids sick: it causes pneumonia, bronchitis, asthma, and ear infections. The only group that still denies this is the tobacco industry and its front groups.
Many things pollute our air, and we should work to clean up all health hazards in our environment. But tobacco smoke must be recognized as one of those hazards. Along with solid fuel fires for indoor cooking and heating, tobacco smoke is one of the biggest causes of indoor air pollution, and it is a form of pollution that has an easy solution: eliminating smoking indoors.

22. “There is no proven link between secondhand smoke and disease”
Every credible medical and scientific organization in the world – including the World Health Organization, the US Surgeon General, national environmental protection agencies, colleges of physicians and surgeons – agrees that secondhand smoke exposure causes serious illness and death in nonsmokers. There are no more important sources of air pollution.

23. “Shared smoking and nonsmoking areas will solve the problem”
This is like having a urinating and non-urinating section in a swimming pool. Would you jump in? If the air is shared, the smoke pollution is shared. Smoke in the smoking section causes disease in the nonsmoking section.

24. “Secondhand smoke is just an issue of poor ventilation”
Better ventilation may reduce the odour of smoke, but it does not eliminate the harmful chemicals. To eliminate these chemicals in an average smoking office, so many air exchanges would be required that there would be a small hurricane. And why force businesses to invest in expensive ventilation equipment when they can just eliminate the source of the pollution? The cheapest, most effective, and only sensible solution is to eliminate smoking indoors.

25. “Smoke-free environments will harm businesses, especially bars, restaurants, and tourist industries”
Workplaces that are smoke-free lower their maintenance and insurance costs, and their workers are more productive. Smokers and nonsmokers exposed to smoke get sick more often than nonsmokers not exposed, and smoke-free workplaces help smokers to quit smoking.
The effect of banning smoking in bars and restaurants has been studied in hundreds of communities. Sales receipts show that sales increase or remain the same in smoke-free bars and restaurants in comparison to those in jurisdictions that still allow smoking. Studies that show otherwise are always funded by the tobacco industry allies, and usually look at owner predictions rather than actual sales data.

26. “Government doesn’t have the right to tell my business what to do”
Businesses do not have the right to endanger the health and lives of their employees and customers. Government is obligated to protect public health and safety, as it does when it regulates drinking and driving, implements seatbelt laws, or sets environmental pollution standards.

27. “Smoking restrictions infringe on smokers’ rights”
As the old saying goes, my right to swing my arm stops where your nose begins. Smokers do not have the right to harm others with their smoke. Smoke-free environments do not violate the “right” to smoke, they protect the right of nonsmokers’ to breathe clean air.

28. PACKAGING & LABELING (including light & low)
FCTC: Packaging and Labeling (Article 11)
Obliges parties to adopt and implement effective measures to ensure that:
packaging and labelling do not employ false or misleading promotions about health effects, which may include a ban on terms such as “low tar,” “light”, “ultra light” or “mild”;
Every package carries health warnings describing the harmful effects of tobacco use. These warnings and messages:
(i) shall be approved by the competent national authority
(ii) shall be rotating
(iii) shall be large, clear, visible and legible
(iv) should be 50% or more of the principal display areas but shall be no less than 30% of the principal display areas
(v) may be in the form of or include pictures or pictograms.
Each unit package to contain information on relevant constituents and emissions.
Packaging and Labeling (Article 11)
Large health warning labels are required. Parties to the treaty agree that health warning labels ideally should cover 50% or more of the principle display areas of each packet, which for a standard cigarette package means both the front and back. Parties are required to implement health warning labels that cover, at a minimum, 30% of the principle display areas within three years of ratifying the treaty. Health warning labels must include rotating messages in the principle languages of the Party, and may include pictures or pictograms.
Deceptive labels must be prohibited. Countries agree to prohibit misleading or deceptive terms on tobacco product packages within three years of becoming a Party. Research has proved that cigarettes that are labeled "light", "low tar", and "mild" (among other terms) are as dangerous as those denoted as regular and thus these terms mislead and deceive consumers about the risks involved in the use of these products. Although the treaty does not specify the terms that Parties should ban, the scientific evidence would certainly support banning the use of terms such as "light", "mild", "low tar", etc.

29. Scientific and economic rationale
PACKAGING & LABELING
Scientific and economic rationale
Prominent health warnings and messages on tobacco product packages have been found to lead to an increased awareness of risks and an increased desire to quit
Prominent health warnings and messages on tobacco product packages have been found to lead to an increased awareness of risks and an increased desire to quit.[i] Rotation of messages helps keep this information from becoming stale and worn out. Studies from a number of countries show the continued effectiveness of health messages even as the population has become more informed about the dangers of tobacco use over time, provided the messages are sufficiently prominent and contain hard hitting factual information.[ii] [iii] In Brazil, after tobacco product packages began to circulate with prominent picture-based heath warnings and a Hot Line number to call for cessation assistance, Hot Line calls increased almost 300%.[iv]
The law in Canada requires that health messages comprise at least 50% of the package’s front and back panels and provide graphic pictorial depictions showing the health effects of tobacco use.[v] In Brazil, 100% of one principle display panel must consist of a pictorial health warning.[vi] At the time of publication of this Manual, Belgium requires the world’s largest warnings, at roughly 55%, on average, of the package front and back.[vii] General guidance for labelling requirements is offered by the International Union Against Cancer.[viii]
Because of the industry’s adeptness at evading labelling requirements, discussed in several contexts within this section, it might be advisable in some circumstances to require prescribed messages on individual sticks of smoked products and individual portion pouches of smokeless products.
[i] Jha P, Chaloupka F. Curbing the epidemic: governments and the economics of tobacco control. Washington, DC: World Bank; 1999.
[ii] Id.
[iii] Environics Research Group Ltd. Evaluation of new warnings on cigarette packages. Prepared for Canadian Cancer Society, Available at Accessed Aug 14, 1003.
[iv] Personal communication with Tania Cavalcante, National Tobacco Control Program Manager, and Christiane Vianna, Legal Advisor, Tobacco and Other Cancer Risk Factors Control Programs Division, National Cancer Institute, Health Ministry, Brazil; Aug 15, 2003.
[v] Tobacco Products Information Regulations, JUS (SOR/DORS), June 1999, as amended.
[vi] ANVISA Resolution - CBR No. 104 of May 31, 2001.
[vii] Personal communication with Luk Joosens, UICC Consultant and WHO Expert on European Tobacco Control Activities; October 18, 2003.
[viii] International Union Against Cancer. International Union Against Cancer Tobacco Control Tobacco Control Fact Sheet 2: Health Warnings/Messages on Tobacco Products. Available at Accessed Sept 24, 2003.

30. Common Arguments Against Packaging & Labeling and Useful Responses

31. “Package messages are ineffective”
The package messages in many countries are ineffective because they are so small and give unclear information. But in Canada and Brazil, where health messages on packages are large and use pictures, messages have motivated many smokers to try to quit smoking. Smokers say that the information is relevant and informs them about the effects of smoking on their own health and on the health of others who breathe their smoke involuntarily. These messages can reinforce other elements of a tobacco control program, such as smoke-free environments.

32. “People here buy single cigarettes, they won’t even see packages”
If the health messages are large enough and clear enough, people will see them when they are displayed for sale, when they are taken out of smokers’ pockets and purses, and when they are discarded. Package messages are one of the cheapest and widest-reaching forms of public education available.

33. “Many people can’t read so package messages won’t work”
This is a good reason to have pictures accompanying text messages. Pictures can graphically illustrate the health harms of smoking and secondhand smoke, and can be understood even without text.

34. FCTC: Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products (Article 15)
SMUGGLING
FCTC: Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products (Article 15)
Obliges parties to “monitor and collect data on cross-border trade in tobacco products, including illicit trade, and exchange information among customs, tax and other authorities, as appropriate, and in accordance with national law and relevant applicable bilateral or multilateral agreements.”
Requires parties to implement measures to monitor, document and control the storage and distribution of tobacco products held or moving under suspension of taxes or duties within its jurisdiction…”
Additional Article 15 obligations on smuggling are related to labelling and to enforcement.
Smuggling (Article 15)
Action is required to eliminate tobacco smuggling. Measures required include marking all tobacco packages in a way that signifies the origin and final destination or the legal status of the product, and cooperating with one-another in anti-smuggling, law enforcement and litigation efforts.

35. ANTI-SMUGGLING MEASURES
Scientific and economic rationale
Tobacco product smuggling deprives the government of significant tax revenues. Total revenue lost to governments on account of smuggling is estimated to be $25-30,000 million annually.
Smuggling also brings tobacco products into markets more cheaply, making them more affordable, increasing consumption.
Tobacco product smuggling deprives the government of significant tax revenues. Total revenue lost to governments on account of smuggling is estimated to be $25-30,000 million annually. [i] Smuggling also brings tobacco products into markets more cheaply, making them more affordable. Access to more affordable tobacco products, in turn, increases consumption.[ii]
Large scale, organized smuggling commonly is executed by buying tax free cigarettes under an “in transit” regime that allows the temporary suspension of customs duties, excise, and value added taxes payable on goods originating from or destined for a third country while under transport across a defined customs area. In “round tripping”, smuggled tobacco products are exported to countries where there is no market and then secretly transported back into the country of export. There, they are sold illegally at one-half to one-third the legal price. [iii]
[i] Joosens L. How to combat tobacco smuggling through the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Presentation at the Second World Conference on Modern Criminal Investigation, Organized Crime and Human Rights, Durban. Dec 7, Available at Accessed Sept 25, 2003.
[ii] Id.
[iii] Id.

36. Common Arguments Against Anti-Smuggling Measures & Useful Responses

37. “Tobacco taxes will increase smuggling”
Smuggling is a problem worldwide, even in countries where taxes are low

38. Common Arguments Against the FCTC and Useful Responses

39. “The FCTC is taking away the sovereign right of countries to decide their own approach to tobacco use”
The FCTC has been negotiated by WHO Member States in their capacity as sovereign nations. It is an agreement that countries can choose to sign or not. The vast majority of countries support the FCTC, because they see it as a mechanism to strengthen their national efforts to reduce tobacco use.

40. “The FCTC will set up a new, expensive bureaucracy for tobacco control”
The FCTC will provide a mechanism for countries to share knowledge and resources to support tobacco control, providing most countries with cost savings and an opportunity to boost the impact of their domestic policies and programs.

41. “The FCTC will violate trade agreements”
By signing and ratifying the FCTC, countries will acknowledge the importance of measures to protect public health and will be less likely to challenge other countries that implement such measures.