Search

Health experts call for government ban on the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products

Image: Getty Australia’s state governments must set an end date for the sale of cigarettes through retailers including supermarkets, according to public health experts. In an article published in the Medical Journal of Australia on Monday, researchers from the University of Queensland said anti-smoking measures such as plain-packaging laws and health warnings were no longer enough, insisting Australia now needed to address the supply side of tobacco consumption. The researchers said a product as harmful as cigarettes should not be available for purchase in supermarkets. “Despite tobacco’s legal status, it fails to meet consumer safety standards,” the authors wrote. “Consumer and drug regulatory systems would prohibit the sale of cigarettes as a new consumer product today. “Governments should set target end dates for tobacco sales and support retailers to transition to a smoke‐free society.” Lead author of the article and tobacco health expert Coral Gartner said Australia’s state governments were falling behind the general public in anti-smoking sentiment. “Most international governments, including Australia, are lagging behind the significant public support for ending tobacco retailing,” Dr Gartner said. “Research shows half of all adults in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, England and Hong Kong want tobacco sales phased out.” Last November, the Netherlands passed laws preventing supermarkets from selling cigarettes from 2024 and in April, the New Zealand government proposed several new measures that would significantly reduce the number of tobacco retail outlets. Dr Gartner said that setting a specific date for when the sale of cigarettes would end in Australian would provide tobacco retailers with certainty and assistance in future planning, make it easier for people to quit smoking, and assist the government to plan for reductions in tobacco tax revenue.

Caring

Making the tobacco industry pay for cigarette litter could stop 4.5 billion butts polluting the Australian environment

Cigarette butts with filters are the most commonly littered item worldwide, with a staggering <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5347528/">4.5 trillion</a> of them tossed into the environment each year. This is a huge problem; many end up on <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935119300787">beaches and in the ocean</a>, and the tar from burnt tobacco in the filter can be toxic to wildlife. Fixing the problem has focused on changing the behaviour of people who smoke, but a <a href="https://www.wwf.org.au/ArticleDocuments/353/pub-WWF-Australia-Ending-cigarette-butt-pollution-3Dec21.pdf.aspx">new report</a> shows making the tobacco industry responsible for the litter with a mandatory product stewardship scheme is likely to have a much greater impact. In Australia alone, it’s estimated up to 8.9 billion butts are littered each year. Under the proposed scheme, we could potentially reduce this by 4.45 billion a year. So how can it be done in practice? And what would the benefits be from a policy like this? <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433353/original/file-20211123-15-8zbai4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433353/original/file-20211123-15-8zbai4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="Three wrens around a cigarette butt" /></a> Smoked cigarette filters take months or even years to break down. Shutterstock <h2>Social and environmental costs</h2> Cigarette filters are made of a bioplastic called cellulose acetate, and they typically take <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117393">years to break down</a>. Smoked cigarette filters are infused with the same chemicals and heavy metals in the tar that harm humans when they smoke. <a href="https://theconversation.com/cigarette-butts-are-the-forgotten-plastic-pollution-and-they-could-be-killing-our-plants-119958">Research from 2019 found</a> adding cigarette butts to soil reduces the germination of grass and clover seeds and the length of their shoots. Seaworms exposed to used filters have <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14119">DNA damage and reduced growth</a>. And exposure to cigarette filters (even unsmoked ones) are toxic to fish – <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/Suppl_1/i25?utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=TC_TrendMD-0">research with two fish species </a> found adding two to four smoked cigarette filters per litre of water could kill them. Currently, the tobacco industry does not have to pay for the clean-up of cigarette butts polluting the environment. Rather, the community bears the cost. Cigarette litter and its management <a href="https://www.wwf.org.au/ArticleDocuments/353/pub-WWF-Australia-Ending-cigarette-butt-pollution-3Dec21.pdf.aspx">costs</a> the Australian economy an estimated A$73 million per year. Local councils in particular spend large amounts of money cleaning it up. The City of Sydney, for example, has estimated their cleaning crews sweep up <a href="https://campaignbrief.com/the-city-of-sydney-launches-ci/">15,000 cigarette butts daily</a> from city streets. And volunteers spend countless hours picking up cigarette butts from parks, streets and beaches. In its 2020 Rubbish Report, Clean Up Australia Day found cigarette butts accounted for <a href="https://www.cleanup.org.au/cigarette-butts">16% of all recorded items</a>. <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433349/original/file-20211123-19-1qwxthm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433349/original/file-20211123-19-1qwxthm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="Two smiling men hold bags of rubbish" /></a> Volunteers, such as for Clean Up Australia Day, spend countless hours picking up cigarette butts from the enviornment. Glengarry Landcare VIC/Clean Up Australia <h2>Current strategies are ineffective</h2> The tobacco industry response to product waste has been to focus <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/2/100">responsibility on the consumer</a>. Tobacco companies have created public education campaigns aimed at increasing awareness of the butt litter problem, supplied consumers and cities worldwide with public ashtrays, and funded anti-litter groups. But given the amount of cigarettes that continue to be littered, it’s clear these strategies on their own have been ineffective. Many around the world are <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-explores-next-steps-to-clean-up-tobacco-litter-in-england">now calling for stronger industry regulation</a>. There have also been calls to ban cigarette filters completely. For example, lawmakers in <a href="https://calmatters.org/environment/2019/06/california-cigarette-butt-filter-ban-bill-electronic-disposable-vapes/">California</a> and New York have attempted to ban the sale of cigarettes with filters, and New Zealand is finalising their <a href="https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/proposals_for_a_smokefree_aotearoa_2025_action_plan-final.pdf">Smokefree Aotearoa Action Plan</a>, which may include a cigarette filter ban. Many jurisdictions in Australia and worldwide are starting to ban single-use plastics such as straws and takeaway containers, and have <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l5890">been criticised</a> for not including cigarette filters in these laws. If filters were banned, cigarette butt litter would remain, but without the plastic filter. Although, <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2021/11/18/tobaccocontrol-2021-056815">a recent trial</a> of cigarettes without filters found that people smoked fewer of these than when they were given the same cigarettes with filters. More research is needed on the health impact of smoking filterless cigarettes and the environmental impact of filterless cigarette butts. <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433352/original/file-20211123-27-d6ktd4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433352/original/file-20211123-27-d6ktd4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="" /></a> A pubic cigarette butt disposal facility in Salem, US. Shutterstock <h2>What would a stewardship scheme look like?</h2> The federal government’s <a href="https://www.awe.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/national-plastics-plan-2021.pdf">National Plastics Plan</a>, released in March this year, committed to initiate a stewardship taskforce that would reduce cigarette butt litter in Australia, and would consider a potential stewardship scheme. However, they proposed the stewardship taskforce be industry led. Product stewardship schemes can be voluntary or written into law. For example, waste from product packaging is managed through a voluntary scheme, the <a href="https://www.awe.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/plastics-and-packaging/packaging-covenant">Australian Packaging Covenant</a>, which sets targets for reducing packaging waste that aren’t written into law. On the other hand, <a href="https://www.awe.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/product-stewardship/products-schemes/television-computer-recycling-scheme">there is a law in Australia</a> requiring companies who manufacture TVs or computers to pay some of the costs for recycling these products. The <a href="https://www.wwf.org.au/ArticleDocuments/353/pub-WWF-Australia-Ending-cigarette-butt-pollution-3Dec21.pdf.aspx">new research</a>, commissioned by World Wildlife Fund for Nature Australia, considered four regulatory approaches: business as usual, a ban on plastic filters, a voluntary industry product stewardship scheme, and a mandatory product stewardship scheme led by the federal government. <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433344/original/file-20211123-13-tpimfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C16%2C5442%2C3600&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433344/original/file-20211123-13-tpimfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C16%2C5442%2C3600&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="A hand in blue plastic gloves holds a cigarette butt on the beach" /></a> Cigarette litter costs the Australian economy an estimated A$73 million each year. Brian Yurasits/Unsplash, <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" class="license">CC BY</a> Each of these options were ranked according to factors such as the regulatory effort required to implement them, their cost, consumer participation and the extent to which they would reduce environmental impacts on land and waterways. A ban on plastic cigarette filters and a mandatory product stewardship scheme were assessed as having the greatest potential environmental benefit. While uncertainties remain about a filter ban, there is no such barrier to implementing a mandatory product stewardship scheme on cigarette waste. This scheme could involve a tax that would pay for the recovery and processing costs associated with cigarette butt litter. The study suggested introducing a levy of A$0.004 – less than half a cent – on each smoked cigarette to manage the waste. Other studies from overseas, however, show this cost would need to be <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/Suppl_1/i36.full">higher</a>. We can look to the UK for an example of where to start. The UK is currently considering implementing an extended producer responsibility scheme to address cigarette litter. In November this year, it released a <a href="https://consult.defra.gov.uk/environmental-quality/call-for-evidence-on-commonly-littered-and-problem/supporting_documents/Call%20for%20evidence%20document.pdf">consultation document</a> on different options. They proposed a mandatory scheme where the tobacco industry would pay for the full costs of cleaning up and processing cigarette waste. Other costs they might be made to pay are for gathering and reporting data on tobacco product waste, provision of bins for cigarette butts, and campaigns to promote responsible disposal by consumers. It is time for the federal and state governments in Australia to make the tobacco industry pay for the mess they create.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171831/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kylie-morphett-1271253">Kylie Morphett</a>, Research Fellow, School of Public Health, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805">The University of Queensland</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/coral-gartner-7425">Coral Gartner</a>, Director, NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence on Achieving the Tobacco Endgame, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805">The University of Queensland</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/william-clarke-380521">William Clarke</a>, Professor of waste management, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805">The University of Queensland</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/making-the-tobacco-industry-pay-for-cigarette-litter-could-stop-4-5-billion-butts-polluting-the-australian-environment-171831">original article</a>. Image: Shuttershock

Domestic Travel

Tobacco giant angers medical community

Philip Morris International has made a £1 billion bid to take over a company that makes inhalers used to treat lung disease, sparking outrage in the medical community. The tobacco company behind the Marlboro man has made an offer to buy Vectura, a UK company that develops inhaler technology for lung illnesses. Medical experts are concerned that the takeover could see Philip Morris profiting from the treatment of smoking-related lung diseases it has helped create. “If they buy Vectura, Philip Morris will then be making money not only from selling cigarettes that cause lung disease, but they’ll also be making money from the technologies that treat patients who have lung disease caused by smoking,” respiratory pathologist and chief executive of the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand Graham Hall said. Changes to research and treatment As a result, many are concerned that research and the treatments doctors prescribe to patients with lung disease could change to avoid directing funds to the tobacco giant. For some of the 464,000 Australians with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) who use Vectura inhalers, this could result in the prescription of different medications by their doctors. <img style="width: 500px; height:414.0625px;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7844087/copd-diagram_160331_100539.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/e0a76635bd59443fbe1c71d6f4dcc0f9" /> Image: healthflexhhs.com COPD describes a group of diseases that affect the lungs, including emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and chronic asthma, which cause a progressive decline in lung health. Up to 50 percent of smokers develop COPD to some level. “How can we in good conscience give a treatment to a patient where the funding from that treatment will be going to the company that caused the disease to begin with?” asked Professor Hall. “No doctor is going to want to prescribe a treatment to a patient, that they know may be funding a tobacco company.” Research into these diseases could also be at risk, as many doctors, health bodies, and journals have policies banning professionals from dealing with tobacco companies. “Cutting-edge research would be able to be published in these journals if there was known links to Vectura if it’s acquired by Philip Morris,” Professor Hall said. ‘Indirectly’ funding tobacco companies Currently, Australians are prescribed any of 10 different dry powder inhalers that use technology made by Vectura. In 2020, 2 million scripts for different brands of these inhalers were dispensed and cost about $121 million to taxpayers, according to figures from the federal government’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). Though most of the profits go directly to the pharmaceutical company, Vectura has licensing and royalty deals with companies that use its technology, meaning it gets some of the funds as well. “It could be the situation where the Australian government is paying taxpayers’ funding indirectly to a tobacco company to treat patients who have lung disease caused by tobacco,” Professor Hall said. But, the result could put Australia in a breach of a global treaty it signed and ratified on tobacco control. Since the inhalers are subsidised under the PBS, the government would indirectly funding Philip Morris, violating the treaty. “It’s a UN tobacco control treaty and it’s been signed and ratified by more than 180 countries, including the UK, including Australia,” Melbourne-based GP Dr Bronwyn King said. “One of the provisions of the treaty is that it explicitly prohibits engagement between governments and the tobacco industry.” A spokesperson for the federal Health Department said the government was closely monitoring tobacco activities, but the ABC reports they were unaware of the 10 products on the PBS which used Vectura technology. The takeover bid has already been approved by Vectura’s board, and will go before the company’s shareholders in London. Image: Getty Images

Body

Are you committing a crime by importing cigarettes into Australia?

The tax on tobacco in Australia is astronomical, pushing the average price of a cigarette packet beyond forty dollars in recent months. The tax has been justified on public health grounds, and has been partially responsible for significantly reducing the consumption of tobacco products in Australia. The tax has been accompanied by a range of restrictions on the importation of tobacco products, with the number of cigarettes that a person can bring into the country without a permit being reduced from 200 just a few years ago, to one unopened packet of up to 25 cigarettes and one open packet of up to 25 cigarettes. Restrictions have also been placed over the years on the use of tobacco, with prohibitions on a range of venues and public places. The exorbitant price of tobacco has contributed to a <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/cheap-cigarettes-available-over-the-internet/">thriving black market</a>, with many arranging for the importation of products by mail and others packing it into their luggage. And while many feel there’s little wrong with bringing a few extra packs into the country, the law says something completely different. The law on importing tobacco products Since 1 July 2019, tobacco products including cigarettes, loose leaf tobacco, shisha/molasses tobacco and ‘heat not burn’ tobacco <a href="https://www.abf.gov.au/importing-exporting-and-manufacturing/prohibited-goods/categories/tobacco">have been classified as prohibited imports</a>, which means it is a criminal offence to import them in the mail. A permit is required to import them otherwise. A permit is not required to import cigars or up to 1.5 kilograms of chewing tobacco and snuffs intended for oral use, provided duties and taxes are paid. Travellers into Australia do not require a permit to import tobacco products in personal effects, provided they are 18 years or older, declare the product/s upon arrival and pay duties and taxes. Permission is, however, required from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commissioner to bring in more than 1.5 kilograms of chewing tobacco or snuff. Travellers who contravene these rules are subject to having their visas cancelled, being issued with infringement notices (fines) or being criminally prosecuted. Criminal offences <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/criminal/legislation/customs-act/smuggling-tobacco-products/">Section 233BABAD of the Customs Act 1901</a> (Cth) sets out four separate criminal offences which relate to tobacco products. Subsection (1) prescribes a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison for ‘importing tobacco goods’ with ‘the intention of defrauding the revenue’. The offence applies, for example, where a person brings tobacco products into the country in breach of the rules or arranges for their importation in the mail. Subsection (2) sets the same maximum penalty for possessing or conveying tobacco products in the knowledge that they were imported with the intention to defraud the revenue. The offence applies to those who receive or transport tobacco products for which they know duties and taxes haven’t been paid. In addition to prison, those who are guilty under subsection (1) or (2) are subject to fines equivalent to up to five times the amount of the applicable duty or, if the court is unable to determine that duty, a maximum of 1,000 penalty units (currently $210,000). Subsection (2A) prescribes a maximum penalty of five years behind bars for importing tobacco products in circumstances where the person is reckless as to whether there would be a defrauding of the revenue. A person is ‘reckless’ for the purposes of the subsection if they were aware it was likely that there would be a defrauding but went ahead with their actions regardless. And subsection (2B) sets the same 5 year maximum penalty for possessing or conveying tobacco products where the person is reckless as to whether they were imported with the intention to defraud the revenue. A person is ‘reckless’ if they were aware it was likely that the products were imported with the intention to defraud but went ahead with their actions regardless. In addition to prison, those who are guilty under subsection (2A) or (2B) are subject to fines equivalent to up to three times the amount of the applicable duty or, if the court is unable to determine that duty, a maximum of 500 penalty units (currently $105,000). For the purposes of the Act, ‘tobacco products’ are broadly defined as including: <ul> <li>Unmanufactured tobacco and tobacco refuse,</li> <li>Cigars, cheroots, cigarillos and cigarettes of tobacco and tobacco substitutes, and</li> <li>Other manufactured tobacco and substitutes, extracts and essences, including water pipe tobacco.</li> </ul> See <a href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html">section 4 of the Customs Act</a> which refers to <a href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cta1995178/sch3.html">Schedule 3 of the Customs Traffic Act 1995</a>. Going to Court for an Offence Involving Tobacco Products? If you have been charged with an offence involving tobacco, call <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/">Sydney Criminal Lawyers</a> anytime on (02) 9261 8881 to arrange a free first conference with an experienced defence lawyer who will advise you of your options and the best way forward, and fight to ensure you receive the optimal outcome. Written by Ugur Nedim. Republished with permission of <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/is-it-a-crime-to-import-cigarettes-into-australia/">Sydney Criminal Lawyers.</a>

Travel Tips

Cancer Council calls for tobacco licence for businesses

Around 10,000 businesses would be required to purchase a licence to continue selling tobacco products under a new proposal to reduce smoking-related cancer deaths. Cancer Council has called on the New South Wales government to introduce a ‘tobacco licence’ to reduce the number of stores selling the controversial item in the state. According to a study that the non-profit organisation conducted with the University of Sydney and Western Sydney University, an annual licencing fee would help discourage stores from selling cigarettes and other tobacco products. In Western Australia, the only state in the study that has licencing fees, around one in eight former tobacco retailers said the licence was the reason they stopped selling the product. The research surveyed more than 4,500 businesses in NSW, Victoria and Western Australia, with about 1,830 of these selling or having previously sold tobacco. “Tobacco is among the most widely available consumer goods in Australia, and this wide distribution increases consumption, maintains smoking and undermines smokers’ quit attempts,” said Christina Watts, Cancer Council NSW’s tobacco control senior project officer and lead author of the research. “This research shows that a fee-based tobacco licence can contribute to a reduction in the availability of tobacco.” Currently, retailers in Western Australia, Tasmania, Northern Territory, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory have to pay between $242 and $297 to sell tobacco products. NSW, Victoria and Queensland do not require businesses to pay any annual fee for tobacco sales. “Licensing can be used to restrict the number of retailers within areas, limit the types of outlets that can sell tobacco and/or deter retailers from selling or continuing to sell,” said Watts. The survey found up to 45 per cent of NSW tobacco retailers to be in support of an annual fee if the money was put towards greater enforcement and education of laws. “Smoking still places a huge burden on the community and on people’s lives,” Watts said. “If the NSW Government are to achieve the goal of restricting the availability and supply of tobacco, as outlined in their tobacco strategy, the introduction of an annual licence fee for retailers is a common-sense next step,” she concluded.

Retirement Income

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Games

Information