[Intl-tobacco] Interview on Tobacco Issues with European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection David Byrne

[Robert Weissman]

http://www.eupolitix.com/EN/Interviews/06dab1df-9147-4d5f-865d-03c15cc81c1c=
.htm

eupolitix.com
September 18, 2003

David Byrne
   European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, David Byrne
                       Question: You are individually credited for
making tobacco a
                       top issue for the EU =82=C4=EC is there a personal
element to your
                       stance?

                       David Byrne: Well, I am convinced by the health
and personal arguments.
                       This is not a complicated issue. The medical
advice is clear and has been clear
                       for quite some time: that smoking leads to
disease, cancer particularly, and
                       many other diseases and also leads to premature deat=
h.

                       In those circumstances anybody who holds the post
of commissioner for
   health of the European Union, if he fails to promote policy against
tobacco, he is failing in his duty and is
   negligent in his tasks. It seems to me to be an obvious policy
response for me to engage myself with these
   issues.

   Question: You said recently that in terms of the cigarette industry,
you do not want to
   meet with them, you want to close them down: you do seem to have a
very strong
   position=82=C4=B6

   David Byrne: I was asked in a press conference =82=C4=F2do I meet them?=
=82=C4=F4,
and sometimes the context shifts and
   changes, so it is probably important to put it in context. I was
asked and I said =82=C4=F2no=82=C4=F4 to the question.

   In the beginning I did but I began to realise that we had mutually
exclusive objectives. I wanted to reduce
   tobacco consumption, if possible to the point of zero, they wanted to
maximise profits, probably to the
   point of infinity. These are mutually exclusive objectives and
therefore I began to realise that there was no
   point in us continuing to meet any longer.

   Question: But the EU gives out around =82=C7=A81 billion in subsidies to
tobacco growers, how
   long is that going to continue?

   David Byrne: It is the commission=82=C4=F4s policy to phase out the
subsidies. It is also important to say that the
   commission brought that objective to the European Parliament and the
Council of Ministers and neither those
   two institutions agreed with our policy. It is still commission
policy - we are trying to see to what extent we
   can reduce that subsidy.

   I should also emphasise that the subsidy goes to, by and large,
typically small farmers, small hillside farmers,
   for whom this subsidy makes up a very large proportion of their
income. It isn=82=C4=F4t our ambition to penalise the
   farmers involved, it is the product that we have our focus of
attention on.

   So, I=82=C4=F4m perfectly happy for any subsidy to continue for alternat=
ive
products or in some other manner or form
   so long as it isn=82=C4=F4t associated with the product: so for instance=
 if
there was some kind of =82=C4=F2de-coupling=82=C4=F4 of the
   subsidy from tobacco that would be consistent with existing
commission policy.

   The focus of my attention is on tobacco consumption.

   Question: You have publicly given support to Ireland=82=C4=F4s plans to
effectively stop
   smoking in bars and restaurants =82=C4=EC would you like to see similar
measures in the EU?

   David Byrne: There is clear evidence now that there is a correlation
between passive smoking and health
   related responses like disease. If that is the case then the adoption
of measures to prevent the exposure of the
   public to tobacco and the effects of tobacco is desirable. Therefore
the logic of that is, the less smoking there
   is in public, in public places, the better.

   So I would support measures that move in that direction.

   Question: You recently said =82=C4=F2we are about to conceive a major
initiative aimed at
   banning smoking in workplaces=82=C4=F4. Can you tell me anything about w=
hat
will this mean?

   David Byrne: This is in the early stages. My officials are working
with the officials in DG Employment to
   try and see in what way we can bring forward policy that is directed
at this problem.

   The motivation, for example in Ireland, for banning smoking in pubs
and restaurants is very largely inspired
   by not just the need to protect the public, those who resort to pubs
and restaurants as customers, but also to
   protect those who are working in that environment.

   Given the relationship that exists between passive smoking, and the
adverse health consequences that result
   from that, there are clear legal issues here that those of us in
public life as law makers, or in my case a law
   drafters, must address. And there might ultimately be legal exposure
for employers in circumstances where
   workers have been exposed to this risk.

   Question: You said =82=C4=F2early stages=82=C4=F4 is there any timescale=
?

   David Byrne: I don=82=C4=F4t have a timescale. We are working together o=
n
this and I would hope that will lead to
   the drafting of legislation in the normal way: a proposal will be
brought forward to the college of
   commissioners to determine whether it is adopted or not. Then it goes
into the normal process, the parliament
   and the council of ministers.

   Questions: Ireland=82=C4=F4s measures have won plaudits but also critici=
sm:
given the status of
   caf*=A9 culture in cities like Brussels or Paris, you would surely be a
brave man to
   introduce legislation that could see a ban on smoking in the EU=82=C4=F4=
s
bars and restaurants?

   David Byrne: I know that traditions and cultures differ. One must
always be sensitive to respecting different
   cultural traditions and I always seek to try and do that when I=82=C4=F4=
m
contemplating policies and bringing forward
   objectives.

   But when you are dealing with something fundamental, like health, you
have to try and see to what extent you
   can change opinion.

   If you can put forward an argument with sufficient force, clarity and
rationality people will see there is merit in
   the argument.

   It will make sense, the points being made are fair and therefore
people will have to give serious consideration
   to shifting views on this.

   I would see development of debate on this issue is, at the very
least, something that is not just desirable but
   necessary.

   Question: How do you respond to the news that Germany is to challenge
the ban on
   tobacco advertising?

   David Byrne: Every member state is entitled to challenge legislation
in the Court of Justice. Germany has
   challenged tobacco legislation before in the Court of Justice and the
most recent challenge failed. They are the
   only member state that has adopted this view, Germany is unique in
its opposition to my proposals, all the
   other 14 member states are in agreement. The vast majority of MEPs in
the European Parliament are in
   agreement with my policies. So I have to say, and I say it with
respect to the largest member state in the EU, I=82=C4=F4
   m afraid they=82=C4=F4re out of step with everyone else.

   Question: So the argument that this is an issue of press freedom is a
red herring?

   David Byrne: It is a red herring. If you examine the laws in other
Western countries, for example the United
   States, which is the country in the Western world with the most
developed sense of freedom of the press
   enshrined in their constitution=82=C4=F4s First Amendment on freedom of
speech. That amendment does not extend to
   commercial advertising and, in fact, they make a clear distinction
between commercial advertising and other
   forms of freedom of expression. Therefore they have put in place very
strict forms of legislation in relation to
   commercial speak, that is strictly regulated, and there is a capacity
with US law to do this, the Supreme Court
   has regularly expressed a view on this issue.

   I make a clear and logical legal distinction that if you are engaged
as a manufacturer of a particular product,
   that you seek to sell that product, and you seek to advertise that
product, it is not unreasonable that the
   advertising is, let us say, accurate and not misleading.

   If you take a product like tobacco however, I believe, that this
product, which has proven to be damaging to
   health and kills people prematurely, in those circumstances, in my
opinion, it perfectly reasonable to ban
   tobacco advertising.

   Question: In June you spoke about people=82=C4=F4s =82=C4=FAinconsistenc=
y=82=C4=F9 on
risk issues. So, for
   example, in the case of Genetically Modified Organisms is the public
response in terms
   of the science rational or irrational?

   David Byrne: I think when speaking on this issue I=82=C4=F4m conscious o=
f
the way human beings respond to risk
   generally.

   The risk that you are exposed to, which is a familiar risk, is one
that you feel comfortable about, it is one that
   you feel that you can weigh up in your mind as to how to respond to
that risk, and therefore you can deal with
   it.

   Where it is a new risk, where it is innovation, or something you
don=82=C4=F4t have much information about, so as to
   weigh it up, and if you add to that the voices of those who may be
expressing an anxiety form a viewpoint that
   is not totally rationally motivated, in those circumstances you can
produce a response in people=82=C4=F4s minds
   which is disproportionate to the risk.

   Now I am not being critical in saying that. I=82=C4=F4m saying that this
something that those of us involved in public
   life must understand in trying to respond to, accommodate to and to
explain to the public the nature of risk in
   any particular area =82=C4=EC and we can think of many particular exampl=
es.

   Most of those examples will show a relaxation on a serious risk that
is familiar but a high anxiety on a very
   low risk that is unfamiliar. This is just a fact of life.

   You can add into the equation, also, the fact that people will add up
the risk/benefit ratio. For instance, with
   GMOs, there really isn=82=C4=F4t much anxiety in relation to the
consumption of GMO medicines because consumers
   can identify clearly there is a benefit. They weigh up the
risk/benefit ratio and in these circumstances they
   will consume the product.

   Consumers to this day still have not the clear appreciation of the
benefits of GMO food, and they don=82=C4=F4t see
   any desire, need or requirement to consume those products. And
therefore if there is expression of anxiety in
   respect of that product then it has got a more receptive audience.

   Question: Is there any comparison between seeking greater tobacco consum=
ption
   restrictions and calls for restrictions from people with a high level
of anxiety around
   GMO food?

   David Byrne: Rationally, you know the two situations are not
comparable. In respect of tobacco all the
   scientific evidence indicates that it is damaging to your health and
shortens human life span, half a million
   people every year in the EU die prematurely from smoking, that is one
every minute.

   Whereas in respect of GMO food all the scientific evidence is going
in one direction which is that GMO food
   is as safe as conventional food.

   In those two circumstances you must respond to the scientific
analyses that have been made. The science in
   one case is that it is dangerous, the scientific evidence for the
other is that it is as safe as conventional food.
   Clearly those two different sets of advice require a different
response, otherwise we are not following science =82=C4=EC
   and that is something I have always said we need to do in the
commission and, indeed in public life, so far as
   possible.

   Sometimes there may be good reasons to deviate from scientific
advice, but if you do deviate, you need to
   articulate that, you need to justify it publicly, that doesn=82=C4=F4t
arise in this situation.

   Question: I suppose it is predictable from some quarters of industry,
but talking to
   some academics =82=C4=EC and I am not necessarily directing this critici=
sm
at you specifically =82=C4=EC
   they say the commission isn=82=C4=F4t sufficiently prepared to tackle wh=
at
are seen as alarmist
   scares surrounding product safety, chemicals or GMOs?

   David Byrne: I have done that in relation to GMOs, in the sense that
I have said, time and time again, that
   the GMO issue is not a public health issue, it is a consumer
information issue.

   I have clearly indicated in the face of criticism of those who have a
different view that they are wrong and that
   the scientific analysis is something that should be followed. So to
that extent I have robustly faced up to what
   would be an alarmist approach from the anti-GMO lobby.

   In respect of other areas it is difficult to answer your question. I
think where my own portfolio is concerned I
   have sought to be as rational as possible, to follow scientific
advice as close as I possibly can, even in
   circumstances when meeting with a politically allergic response. I
face up to that and deal with that.

   You are always going to find criticism in political life. You have a
set of choices to make. You weigh up the
   choices that are given. You analyse the facts, you come to the best
conclusion that you can, apply your
   judgement, go forward with the proposal and then defend it.

   And it is not going to please everybody. Some times you will even
find different people who oppose a
   particular proposal because you going too far in one view or not far
enough in another.

   But this is all in the nature of political debate. It is perfectly
legitimate and you must be courageous without
   being foolhardy in defending your position.

   Yet at the same time you must make sure that you consult, that you
take into account the views of stakeholders
   and all the circumstances that are relevant to get the best possible
outcome.

   You must also give a clear signal to the public, the stakeholders,
that you are listening to their concerns.
   They may not always like the result but they must be assured that is
an open door - that is something I always
   try to do.

   Question: You have warned that SARs-style epidemics show Europe=82=C4=F4=
s
vulnerability to
   disease, urging greater coordination and information sharing at EU
level =82=C4=EC does that
   vulnerability mean that Europe is at risk?

   David Byrne: I suppose there are different levels of risk. There is
always a level of risk in relation to the
   onset of communicable diseases that exists even in sophisticated
Western societies. In those societies the
   public health authorities do their jobs so well that risk is
minimised to its very lowest level. But at the same
   time the outbreak of disease is such that it causes great anxiety in
the community and can spread very quickly.
   We have been lucky in relations to SARS because it was not a highly
infectious disease in the way flu is.

   We need to have in place preparedness plans, we need to have in place
mechanism and instruments available
   to us to ensure that id there is an outbreak of a disease,
particularly a highly infectious, communicable disease,
   we know how to respond to it and are capable of responding to it very
quickly.

   This is a lesson that we learned with foot-and-mouth disease. From
the time of making the decision and
   putting in place movement restrictions in the UK, in a matter of
hours, 19 farms that wouldn=82=C4=F4t otherwise been
   affected if restrictions had taken place earlier were infected.

   The speed of response when dealing with communicable disease is of
critical importance, and all the experts
   will tell you that, it is the primary priority.

   Question: You wanted new powers from the convention to tackle cross
border public
   health threats =82=C4=EC will the issue be reopened at the
Inter-Governmental Conference?

   David Byrne: We are looking at this at a number of levels.

   The first level is our move bringing forward legislation for the
establishment of a European Centre for Disease
   Prevention and Control.

   That is going to enhance the situation considerably. There are a
number of the member states, particularly the
   larger ones, which have very sophisticated institutions that are
capable with dealing with these kinds of
   issues.

   But not all are in that category, particularly in smaller member
states, they tend to rely their larger
   neighbours. This is going to be a problem as we head into
enlargement.

   Some of the new member states will not have that institutional
capacity and we believe that we need to have at
   the European level, at the very least, a coordinating body that can
make sure information is made available
   throughout the EU.

   We already have a communicable disease network in place which was
particularly valuable during the SARS
   epidemic, working well with the member states and with the World
Health Organisation. I see the European
   Centre for Disease Prevention and Control taking on this task in a
bigger, more prominent way. And as the
   role grows the centre will add value to itself in terms of personnel
and credibility.

   On the convention, it has to be acknowledged that the treaty as
presently drafted casts the public health
   competence quite narrowly.

   There is a competence there but it is not sufficiently wide, for
instance, to bring forward an instrument, on a
   harmonised level throughout the EU, in the face of an emergency
threat.

   In the context of recent diseases, both animal and human, I felt it
my duty to bring forward debate at the
   confluence of the convention and SARS to raise awareness that this is
an issue, we need to debate it, to look at
   it and may be to do something about it.

   I believe there was some response to that on the convention, not as
much as I would have liked, and I believe
   it will be the wish of the commission to seek to ask the IGC to give
some further consideration to the issue.

   Question: How would you describe the EU=82=C4=F4s preparedness for a
bioterror attack?

   David Byrne: It is improving. I think the preparedness wasn=82=C4=F4t th=
ere
in the past. I=82=C4=F4m now representing the
   commission and the EU in the global health security initiative which
also includes the G7 countries and
   Mexico. We have met on a number of occasions after being established
in Toronto year and half ago. We are
   increasing our knowledge of this issue, we=82=C4=F4re building informati=
on
to achieve a preparedness for a bioterror
   attack =82=C4=EC for example a stockpile of vaccinations, there are many=
,
many other areas we have been looking at to
   achieve a good response to this little know problem.