Rejected in the Senate, the question of the establishment of the neutral package in France arises again with the examination of the health bill at second reading in the National Assembly. The MEP Gilles Pargneaux, of the European Parliament working group to combat tobacco industry interference, discusses tobacco lobbying.
At the beginning of the year, you created a working group to combat interference by the tobacco industry in the European Parliament. Why ?
In 2014, the European Parliament voted on an anti-tobacco directive and on that occasion I saw how tobacco lobbyists did everything to thwart it. But you should know that tobacco kills 700.000 people in Europe every year. It's the equivalent of a city like Frankfurt! Young people are also smoking more and more and earlier and earlier. Tobacco therefore wreaks havoc in terms of health. We must fight against the tobacco industry, which has abnormal practices, hence the creation of this group.
You speak of “abnormal practices”, what are they?
They have unethical approaches. During the discussion on the European directive, tobacco companies paid for trips and good restaurants to parliamentarians. They spend tens of millions of euros and put pressure on MPs. Example: the elimination of menthol cigarettes could be detrimental to the south known for the manufacture of perfumes! It's a kind of job blackmail.
What are the priorities of your working group?
First of all, follow up on the transposition of the European directive in the member states and ensure that they sign and ratify the WHO protocol on traceability. We want to see the establishment of independent traceability of tobacco companies. The Codentify system they are defending is kind of a scam. And the cooperation agreements between the EU and tobacco companies in the fight against the black market are a fool's game: 90% of counterfeit cigarettes leave the factories of the big tobacco companies. Adopting the WHO protocol will make it possible to better fight against illicit trade.
Opponents of the establishment of the neutral package in France put forward two main types of arguments. First of all, the generic package could be contrary to trademark law and second, it would be ineffective and lead to an increase in illegal trade. What do you think ?
First of all, I am in favor of the neutral package. The European directive plans to cover 65% of the package with health warnings. France decided to go further and Marisol Touraine was right. The arguments put forward are false arguments. We see that the tobacco companies are at work. The objective of the neutral package is to make tobacco less attractive and to reduce the effect of brands. Studies show that this is an effective measure. In France, there are 13 million smokers on a daily basis, it is a public health problem. The brands' argument is childish in the face of this problem. Finally, the neutral package has nothing to do with contraband since the WHO protocol will precisely help to strengthen the fight against illicit trade.
There is, however, an increase in tobacco control policies. Is tobacco industry lobbying still effective?
Lobbying has been very effective for years: the tobacco companies emerged victorious in the 20th century. But I hope we emerge victorious in the 21st century.
Source : Challenges.fr
