Strasbourg, 14/06/2000 (Agence Europe) - Adopting the report by Dutch Liberal Jules Maaten, the European Parliament strengthened the proposed European Commission directive on tobacco products, which brings down the level of tar in cigarettes to 10mg (instead of 12), the level of nicotine to 1 mg and introduces a maximum level of carbon monoxide of 10mg. The Parliament supports this measure, but has added to it a ban on the addition of ammonia (used to increase dependence) which will come into force 31 December 2003. The Parliament is also calling for an extension of health warnings: to cover 35% of the front side of cigarette packets (37% and 40% for countries with two or three official languages) and 45% (47 and 50% for multilingual countries) of the reverse side of packets. The European Commission had proposed that health warnings should cover 25% of the packet area. The Parliament also decided to ban the terms "light" "ultra-light" and "mild". Tobacco products exported to third countries should meet the same standards as those sold to European consumers. This measure has been heavily criticised by the tobacco industry and trade unions who view it as a threat to move production elsewhere.
The EP rejected amendments aimed at (1) introducing a gradual reduction of Community aids for tobacco production, (2) requiring a minimum contribution from the tobacco industry for research into the risks of tobacco and dependency. The Parliament did not withdraw, as its Environment Committee wanted, the derogation permitting Greece to maintain the tar level above 10mg until 31 December 2006.
Debate confirms deep divisions at the Parliament - Amendments aimed at ending subsidies for growing tobacco and the very detailed nature of " warnings" draw fierce criticism - Differences over the legal basis
The plenary debate on Tuesday clearly showed, as expected, that one section of the Parliament believes that the improvements made in the report on the Commission's proposals for the protection of health are sufficient, while the other section believes they go too far. Arguments in favour of employment and industry used by many MEPs were vehemently rejected by others, who underlined the absolute priority of public health.
Free choice must be maintained, of course: smokers must decide as adults. But they must be sufficiently informed and environmental protection must also be considered. These were the particular points confirmed by the rapporteur Mr Maaten, attacking some erroneous descriptions which feature on cigarette packets and give consumers a false impression to consumers that they are smoking lighter cigarettes (young women are the most vulnerable, he noted). Turning to the warning messages on packets, Mr Maaten stated that in Poland they already take up to 30% of the space, and that EU countries cannot do less…As for the question of the legal basis - Article 95, an article on the "single market" and not on "public health" - Mr Maaten can accept this in the interests of a vote in favour of rewriting the three directives. But Mr Lechner, speaking for the Legal Committee, rejected it believing that the Parliament should reject the directive in its current form, and the German Christian Democrat Mr Langen, together with 39 other MEPs, tabled amendments through which the European Parliament would: - reject the European Commission's proposal, "for lack of legal basis" (in his view, the Commission has not understood the disruption to the single market) ;- recommend that the consideration of the directive be adjourned until the Court of Justice has given its decision on the 1998 advertising directive. Mr Langen presented other amendments aimed particularly at reducing the minimum area which should be used for health warnings to smokers, according to the Maaten report.
David Byrne, Commissioner for consumer protection, indicated that the European Commission was not in a position to accepter all the discussed amendments; not those made by Mr Langen, or ten of the forty eight amendments in the Maaten report (which, he noted, had been adopted by a very narrow majority by the Environment Committee), and which are particularly aimed at prohibiting the addition of ammonia (which raises the ingestion of nicotine and "increases" the dependence as a result) and at ending the derogation for Greece, until 2006, concerning the limit for the level of tar. Among the amendments tabled by other MEPs, Mr Byrne particularly rejected those by: - the French Socialist Mr Garot aimed at delaying until the end of 2006 the deadline from which the level of tar and carbon monoxide must not exceed 10 mg per cigarette and nicotine must not exceed 1 mg ; - by Mrs Fraga Estevez (Partido Popular, Spain) aimed at stating (within a "whereas") that "the Community will pay around one billion euros annually" for tobacco growing ; - by the Christian Democrat Mrs Martens calling for the ending of the prohibition by Member States on the marketing of "chewing tobacco" and excluding pipe tobacco and cigars from the warning texts provided in the directive ; - by Mr Papayannakis (Unified Left, Greece) and other Greek MEPs aimed at obtaining a derogation for Greece on nicotine and carbon monoxide limits ; - by Messrs Rod and Lannoye, for the Greens, calling for the requirement on tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide limits to apply from the end of 2001 (instead of 2003) and to prohibit from the end of 2003 ingredients which "encourage tobacco consumption" (such as cocoa, sugars, menthol, aniseed, which "mask the acrid taste of the cigarette smoke) or which strengthen dependence on these products (such as ammonia).
According to the Commission, Article 95 is an adequate legal basis, as the existence of different rules for products as widely sold as tobacco products poses "real problems" in the single market. Some MEPs would like an immediate ban on "descriptions" (such as light, ultra-light, etc) which minimise the risk of the cigarette to consumers, but this is not yet possible, he believed. He also viewed as premature.the proposal to immediately ban certain additives: drawing up a "positive list" of permitted additives will only be possible when there is sufficient scientific information on the effective dangers ; with this aim, the Commission intends to set up a
"multidisciplinary group" which will meet before the end of this year. On the importance of labels, Mr Byrne warned again the risk of advertisements for consumers degenerating into "harassment" of the consumer.
During the debate, several MEPs stated that one of the priorities should be to stop young people from starting to smoke: According to Mrs Martens, an increase in the price of cigarettes and prohibiting their sale to people under sixteen could be introduced. The Belgian MEP, speaking for the EPP, called for different treatment for pipe and cigar smokers, who are generally older and wealthier. and who were generally "those who enjoyed the smoker's atmosphere"… (but Mr Byrne replied that we could not act as if these people were smoking a product that was not made with tobacco). Mr Sacconi, for the socialist group, believed that the Maaten report achieve a difficult balance between the health aspects and those concerning employment and industry ; we must protect health, but we cannot require a sector to convert itself overnight, he stated, welcoming that the Portuguese presidency has set as a priority the adoption of the directive at the Health Council on 29 June. The Swede Mr Olsson, speaking for the liberal group, noted the positive experience of his country on chewing tobacco, while, speaking for the Greens, Mr Rod insisted: there is just one figure to bear in mind, that of the 500.000 deaths caused each year by cigarettes. We do not want our young people to die from lung cancer, in great pain, said the French Green, who is a doctor (and who doubted the impartiality of setting up a Scientific Committee where the industry would be represented and who "spend their time lying"). The Greek, Mr Papayannakis, for the Unified Left, generally supported the Maaten report, except for the abolition of subsidies for tobacco growing (this would only encourage production in third countries) and the Greek derogations.
"Let the Member States deal with tobacco, with their structures, their cultural traditions, said Mrs Thomas-Mauro, speaking for the Union for the Europe of Nations (who think that "the warnings serve no purpose", as we must "make consumers responsible not treat them like children") The National Front representative Mr Martinez, speaking for the Technical Group of Independent MEPs attacked the report for slipping towards "unreality and fundamentalism": we will end up with something that is"worse than tobacco", he believed, denouncing with his usual vehemence the "root of Puritanism from Northern Europe" and putting "Robespierre, Pol Pot, the Greens and the Quakers" in the same pot. Speaking for the Group for a Europe of Democracies and Differences, Mr Bernié stated that: we want "a Europe without tobacco, it is something to worry about, as we cannot make people happy in spite of themselves, except in totalitarian states". How can such a report be adopted despite the negative opinion of the Legal Committee ? the French MEP asked, who also noted that a million jobs were at stake. Mr Fiori, Italian member of the EPP went further: to reduce tobacco consumption , do we want to "kill European farmers", without any proof that the proposed measures will actually reduce consumption ? The sector employs 130.000 producers and 400.000 seasonal workers, said the French Socialist Mr Gavrot. On the other hand, the Luxembourg Green Mr Turmer stated that a reduction in tobacco consumption will enable employment to increase, as the money saved in this sector can be used for products which create more jobs. Finally, German Social Democrat Mrs Roth-Behrendt praised the European Commission proposal, but only half of it, as in her view there will be no real improvement in health all the time there is no positive list established for the only ingredients which can be used safely.