In its conclusions in June, the European Council approved a new consensus on excise duties on tobacco. The member states suggest rule changes that would increase the price of tobacco, and equally affect non-tobacco products such as e-cigarettes, writes Bill Wirtz. 

Since 2011, the European Union has had a common minimum excise duty on tobacco products, which notably increased the price of cigarettes in those European countries where the prices are comparatively low. Neighbouring countries with higher taxes were claiming that the prevalence of cross-border purchases was subverting their own public health goals. For instance, German commuters buy tobacco in Luxembourg, as the price is lower than in their local shops.

Now that the 2011 directive has not yielded the benefits that some member states expected, or more plausibly, hasn’t produced the number of tax revenues that member states need in the current economic situation, they would like a revision. This revision, however, is not only targeting conventional tobacco products such as cigarettes, snuff, shisha, or cigars and cigarillos. For the first time, the European Council is asking for non-tobacco products also to be included in the… tobacco excise directive. This would make it hard for member states to pretend that the objective is public health and not reducing treasury deficits, as the logical equivalent of this move would be to classify non-alcoholic as an alcoholic beverage.

E-cigarettes or heat-not-burn devices represent viable alternatives for consumers of conventional tobacco products. We know that while not harmless, vaping is 95% less harmful than smoking cigarettes. By every available logic, governments should rejoice in the prevalence of these alternatives. However, the European Council concludes that “it is therefore urgent and necessary to upgrade the EU regulatory framework, to tackle current and future challenges in respect of the functioning of the internal market by harmonising definitions and tax treatment of novel products (such as liquids for e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products), including products, whether or not containing nicotine, that substitute tobacco, to avoid legal uncertainty and regulatory disparities in the EU”.

Adding excise taxes to reduced risk products sends the wrong signal to consumers that these products are just as risky as cigarettes. Research from the United States shows that every 10% increase in the price of vaping products results in an 11% increase in cigarettes purchases.

How serious are EU member states about increasing public health if their go-to method of prevention is raising the tax burden on consumers? E-cigarettes are one thing, but we should not disillusion ourselves with the idea that taxing cigarettes more does anyone any good either. The Council conclusions themselves recognize that Europe is facing a wave of the illicit tobacco trade, and asks for more solutions to fight it. Illegal trade correlates with increased tax burdens: by taxing low-income households out of cigarettes, which remain a legal product nonetheless, we are pushing them on the black market, where criminal elements profit off of bad public health management. In France for instance, a 2015 report found the country to be Europe’s largest consumer of fake cigarettes, with 15 per cent of the market share.

With a lack of quality control, these illegal smokes represent are much more endemic threat to consumer health. Adding to that, the revenues from the sale of these cigarettes benefits international terrorism — the French Centre d’analyse du terrorisme (Centre for Terrorism Analysis) even showed that illicit tobacco sales finance 20 per cent of international terrorism. Organizations such as the IRA, Al-Qaida and ISIS fund their activities that way.

The European Council’s suggested changes to the Tobacco Excise Directive is counterproductive to the goals of public health, and are set to reduce consumer choice and health. We need to analyse rule-changes for more than just their intentions, but look at their prospective results.

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

UK-style laws could convert more than 200 million smokers to vaping worldwide, according to research by the Consumer Choice Center. It says its findings reveal the potential for 76 million people to switch away from tobacco products in China alone.

The Consumer Choice Center looked at 61 countries and highlighted that the United Kingdom’s approach to vape advertising, displays, and tax rate is an example the rest of the world should be following.

Managing Director Fred Roeder said: “We used the UK’s progressive tobacco harm reduction policies as a reference point and estimated how many current smokers could be helped to switch by having a more permissive vaping framework. In China, 76 million people could switch. The US (6 million) and Germany (4 million) would also see huge public health benefits by emulating the UK’s approach.”

The Consumer Choice Center has drawn criticism from Bloomberg-funded organisations due to its links to American libertarian organisations and individuals. Typically, Bath University’s Tobacco Tactics focusses on the messenger and not the message.

Laughably, it accuses the centre of hosting “three strongly biased roundtables” in 2018, to discuss the World Health Organisation’s shortcomings “and how the WHO actively blocks healthier technologies in the area of harm reduction”. This from a group of people tied to a disgraceful campaign of misinformation and lies, smears, and half truths about vaping and tobacco harm reduction.

Deeply upsetting to those pocketing Michael Bloomberg’s millions, “none of the invited speakers had public health qualifications.”

And what did they object to? Was it Christopher Snowdon speaking about the “Public Funding of Public Health Activists”, Daniel Pryor talking about “How the UK can become a leader in tobacco harm reduction”, or Professor David Zaruk highlighting, “How evidence based policies are sabotaged by those who ought enforce them”?

Sharing of political ideals isn’t required in order to examine the evidence surrounding vaping or discussing the actions of public health bodies. Is it a prerequisite when applying for funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies?

The Consumer Choice Center’s affiliations are irrelevant in this context. Maybe Bath should address the findings instead of dismissing them because of the author?

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

SAVANNAH, Ga. (WSAV) — A bill that would impose a 7% excise tax on vaping products sold in Georgia now sits on the governor’s desk.

On June 26, the state Senate gave its final approval in a 45-8 vote of Senate Bill 375, following the House’s vote of 123-33 on June 25.

The bill would also allow only adults aged 21 and older to purchase vaping products in Georgia. 

“Convenience stores and gas stations are routinely selling these items to children, they had no reason to enforce the law because they didn’t have anything to lose except the sale itself,” said State Rep. Bonnie Rich, R-Suwanee, whose portion of the bill required any seller of vape products in Georgia to have a license from the Department of Revenue.

“Now, in order to have the right to sell, they’re going to have to follow the law and they’re going to have the Department of Revenue investigators kind of looking over their shoulders,” Rich told WSAV.com NOW.

In another effort to further protect youth from accessing vaping products, Senate Bill 375 also notes that no one, including adults or teachers, is allowed to have vape or tobacco products in school safety zones.

The bill’s 7% excise tax would be the first tax on vaping products in Georgia.

“The goal here was to put these vape products on par with the tobacco products, as the tobacco industry has, for a very long time, been paying excise taxes,” Rich said.

“It’s an issue of fairness to require these other nicotine delivery systems to pay an excise tax, as well, similar to what we did with respect to Airbnb and hotels, and Uber and taxis,” she said.

Nelson Hill, general sales manager of the Savannah-based Vape Loft, tells WSAV.com NOW that he believes the tax is fair. 

“We’re pretty happy with that,” Hill said. “We’re lucky to live in a state like Georgia where they don’t hate vaping; I think that there’s a lot of miseducation and misunderstanding about it.”

He says he doesn’t feel the tax would prevent his customers from enjoying vaping products.

“There’s money off some of these taxations that pay for and produce a lot of things that we need, like schoolbooks, and that’s where a lot of this tax money from Big Tobacco comes from,” Hill said, adding, “So with vaping, I think they’re just trying to figure out a place where they can use some of our tax money to help produce good, as well.”

The excise tax on vaping products could potentially raise between $9.6 million and $14.5 million in revenue.

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center, says that the vaping tax would come at the expense of poor consumers and could push many Georgians back to traditional cigarette use, which would have a detrimental impact on public health.

“Vaping products don’t exist just for fun, these exist because they give an alternative to former smokers who want to quit, so because people have this option, they’re actually able to improve their life, they’re actually able to live longer,” Ossowski told WSAV.com NOW.

He says such a tax is almost like penalizing people for making a “more responsible decision.”

“People who have transitioned away from traditional tobacco products are now going to have to pay more for exactly what they bought yesterday, and the entire idea of this is that we need to raise money, but it’s really a drop in the bucket,” Ossowski said.

“If we look at what’s happening at the state level, there’s a lot of money in the rainy day fund, and we really think that trying to increase costs for consumers — specifically poor consumers — who are trying to make a better option for their lives is really unfair,” he said.

Now that the House has passed Senate Bill 375 and the Senate has made its final approval, Gov. Brian Kemp has until early August to decide whether to veto it or sign it into law.

“After those 40 days, if he does nothing, then the bill will go into effect; however, he also has the option of signing the bill within that 40-day period, which is kind of signaling that he really supports it,” Rich said.

The cigarette tax in Georgia remains the same at 37 cents per pack — one of the lowest cigarette tax rates in the country.

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org