Critics of tobacco law spreading lies
THE exploitation of poverty and unemployment for reactionary reasons – a strategy employed by some in the tobacco industry – is not new.
At the height of apartheid, when the progressive forces called for economic sanctions against the racist regime, those who wanted the status quo to remain argued that sanctions would increase the rate of unemployment and thus harm the poor more as levels of poverty would rapidly increase.
This was just a tactic to prolong the system of apartheid. The plain truth is that this argument was made by those who were not honest enough to admit that they supported apartheid and wanted the system to remain because it benefited them.
It is now déjà vu. The greedy tobacco industry is at it again. They are again spreading lies to the population in their opposition to the proposed amendments to the legislation that will impose stricter conditions, designed to limit the harmful effects of tobacco. They are in overdrive, making all sorts of arguments with the aim of ensuring that their products continue to have devastating effects on the population.
In the early days of the first tobacco laws, introduced by the then health minister Dr Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma, the tobacco industry threatened that if the law was passed, there would be massive job losses and that soccer teams that received sponsorships from the industry would collapse. They even approached then president Nelson Mandela, telling him Dlamini Zuma’s planned legislation would collapse the economy. None of the threats materialised.
According to a recent report in Business Day, AgriSA, the Food and Allied Workers Union and the SA Spaza and Tuckshop Association said the Control of Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Bill would devastate South Africa’s agriculture and township businesses.
Business Day quoted a joint statement issued by these organisation as saying “the bill would put thousands of law-abiding spaza shop owners and hawkers out of business and drive 80% of tobacco sales into the hands of criminals”.
“The bill would end the legal production of cigarettes in South Africa, leading to an estimated 7 000 job losses, and a shutdown of hundreds of farms.”
The argument being made by those opposed to the bill is simply that jobs are more important than lives. This is absurd.
Are we planning these township businesses for corpses? We cannot sustain jobs by selling poison to our people. In fact, this argument is only being made because we are an African country. They can’t do this in Europe.
The tobacco companies are deliberately exploiting the legitimate issue of unemployment to advance their business interests. They are using the poor to pursue their greed, using information devoid of facts to propagate their agenda.
As government, we are acutely aware that certain legislation, even if it means well, can have a negative socio-economic impact. For this reason, the government has developed the Social Economic Impact Assessment Study that evaluates the impact of any new legislation. We have subjected the proposed amendments to this assessment study, and these amendments were given the green light.
Another falsehood that has been created by the tobacco industry is that the government is doing nothing to fight illicit tobacco trade.
While the SA Revenue Services has reportedly floundered with regard to the illicit tobacco trade, there is clear evidence the government at the highest level is committed to combating the illicit trade.
We are not the only country that has tobacco legislation.
And those who tried to stop legislation that regulated tobacco have never succeeded in their court bids in various countries including the US, the UK, Australia and Ireland.
The tobacco companies know that they have no credible facts. That is why they run to the poor and vulnerable.
They can easily mislead the poor and make them believe that tobacco sustains jobs, while deliberately hiding the harmful effects of tobacco.
These multinational tobacco companies would want the poor people to believe it is in the interest of the working class to fight this legislation.
They are pushing a narrative in the minds of our people that health and economic growth are mutually exclusive. No country has been able to grow its economy with a sick population.
You do not need a job when you are dead. Just over 10% of deaths in this country are caused by tobacco related illnesses. In simple language, 42 100 people die in this country every year because of tobacco.
Have these people calculated the impact of these premature deaths on the economy and the social devastation these deaths cause to the families of the victims of tobacco?
There are other costs that are often ignored. For example, our hospitals are over-burdened by people who contract tobacco-related diseases such as lung cancer. Many of these people have to receive medical care from public health facilities.
Because of our tough stance on the regulation of tobacco, our department has been accused of undermining people’s choices in relation to smoking. Of course people are free to choose, but there are figures that should shock all of us as a nation. More than 55 000 young people, aged 10-14, smoke. From 15 years and older, there are more than 6 million people who smoke daily. Nobody can argue that these children have a full appreciation of the health hazard that smoking causes.
They need our collective protection before they take up a fatal habit.
To show that we are on the right path, of all the conventions of the UN, the tobacco conventions are the most supported.
These companies tried to block the plain packaging of tobacco by approaching the World Trade Organisation, which was formed to promote fair trade across the globe, but they did not succeed.
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), the experience from dozens of countries and the independent scientific evidence demonstrate that tobacco control is good for the economy.
Tobacco control leads to improved health, lower absenteeism and lower health-care costs to treat tobacco-related diseases.
There is no evidence that tobacco control increases illicit trade. Measures to control smuggling are described in the UN’s Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco, which South Africa has signed, and reinforce that comprehensive, strong, tobacco control regulations do not lead to an increase in illicit trade.
Restaurants and small business actually benefit from tobacco control, including smoke free laws.
A 2018 study conducted by the University of Cape Town with 2 000 restaurants demonstrated that the majority support the changes promoted by the new bill.
Additionally, the study showed that nearly half of all restaurants are already smoke-free and have suffered no negative impact.
We will not be derailed in our intent by groups that represent the interests of the tobacco industry and not the interests of South African workers. No costs will be incurred by restaurant owners to convert to 100% smoke-free areas.
Similarly, small businesses have not suffered an undue economic burden from tobacco control measures, although the tobacco industry often uses this argument to oppose tobacco control legislation. It is demonstrated that over time, funds not spent on tobacco are spent on other goods.
The WHO recognised the threat of job losses as a well-established and unproven tobacco industry strategy to oppose legislation.
The Health Department is aiming at protecting young people from easy access to cigarettes, which in turn negates addiction to smoking.
There is adequate evidence that vaping products are harmful and also promote smoking behaviour.
It is important to remember that all the profits made from the tobacco business are in the hands of a very few, private interests.
The small number of South African farmers that grow tobacco, approximately 140, will not be negatively affected by this tobacco control bill.
Tobacco production in South African has been decreasing over the several past decades by as much as 80%, and over half of the production is for export.
Farmers are negatively affected by the decisions of corporations that dictate crop prices and control the market, and as global demand declines, farmers must be supported in finding sustainable alternative livelihoods.
South Africa’s bill is based on facts and we remain committed to promoting the social and economic development of the country through the implementation of this bill.