{"id":5628,"date":"2021-11-24T10:40:38","date_gmt":"2021-11-24T09:40:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/snusforumet.se\/?p=5628"},"modified":"2021-12-06T12:59:50","modified_gmt":"2021-12-06T11:59:50","slug":"will-the-eus-final-beca-report-include-harm-reduction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/snusforumet.se\/en\/will-the-eus-final-beca-report-include-harm-reduction\/","title":{"rendered":"Will the EU’s final BECA report include harm reduction?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

As bureaucrats in Brussels wade through more than 1,500 suggested changes to the EU\u2019s proposed plan for fighting against cancer, it remains unclear whether the European Parliament\u2019s BECA report will incorporate harm reduction.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For more than a year, the Special Committee on Beating Cancer of the European Parliament (BECA) has overseen the legislative work involved with drawing up a final plan meant to guide Europe\u2019s efforts to combat cancer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The committee, chaired by Polish MEP Bartosz Ar\u0142ukowicz, is tasked with establishing concrete recommendations for EU member states and institutions to strengthen the EU\u2019s \u201cresilience against cancer\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cancer claimed 1.3 million lives in the EU in 2020<\/a>, with more than 100 million Europeans expected to be diagnosed with cancer in the next 25 years<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In order to combat the problem, the EU presented a comprehensive Beating Cancer Plan<\/a> earlier this year, calling for \u20ac4bn in spending to improve prevention, treatment, and care.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the plan\u2019s main priorities is to \u201censure that less than 5% of the population uses tobacco by 2040\u201d. The plan\u2019s focus on reducing tobacco use rather than on reducing the harm caused by tobacco left many harm reduction advocates frustrated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBy focusing on tobacco use, not smoking, the Commission implicitly rejects the value of switching from high-risk tobacco products like cigarettes to low-risk tobacco products like snus. This is a grave error, but I doubt it was an accident,\u201d harm reduction advocate Clive Bates told Snusforumet at the time<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1,500 BECA report amendments to review<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

And judging by the number of proposed amendments submitted to BECA, it appears there is no shortage of MEPs who also have concerns about the EU beating cancer plan\u2019s current formulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere are clearly several voices in the European Parliament who believe that harm reduction is fundamental to the fight against cancer. But there are also plenty of MEPs who don\u2019t see things that way,\u201d says Cecilia Kindstrand-Isaksson, Swedish Match\u2019s Director of Public Affairs in Brussels. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

MEPs submitted more than 1,500 amendments for inclusion in the final BECA report, several of which sought an increased emphasis on scientific evidence or highlighted the need for the final plan to include tobacco harm reduction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An amendment submitted by MEPs Peter Kofod, Jo\u00eblle M\u00e9lin, Angelo Ciocca<\/a>, for example, called for references to \u201cexperiences from Europe showing that smokeless nicotine products constitute a less harmful alternative to cigarettes\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MEPs Ond\u0159ej Knotek, Irena Joveva, Alin Mitu\u021ba, meanwhile, called for excise duties on tobacco and nicotine products<\/a> \u201cproportionate to the health risks they represent to their users\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/
Text from one of the more than 1,500 amendments<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Swedish MP Johan Danielsson\u2019s amendments focused specifically on snus, including the importance of maintaining Sweden\u2019s exemption to the EU ban on snus<\/a>. Danielsson also hoped to loosen the ban<\/a> by enabling other member states to \u201callow the sale of certain types of tobacco for oral use, \u2018snus\u2019, should a Member State express a desire to do so\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MEP: Sweden ‘best practice’ for beating cancer<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Another Swedish MEP, Charlie Weimers submitted an amendment together with Pietro Fiocchi<\/a> of Italy calling for scientific evaluation of the \u201crelative risks of new tobacco-free nicotine products\u201d, adding that consumers who currently use more harmful products like cigarettes \u201cshould be encouraged towards using products with scientifically proven reduced risks\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaking with Snusforumet, Weimers says his motivation for submitting the amendment was to ensure the EU remained open to alternatives that could help smokers switch to less-harmful alternatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSweden has the lowest smoking prevalence in Europe and amongst men the lowest rate of lung cancer. It\u2019s not necessarily because we use less nicotine, but many nicotine users have switched to less harmful alternatives,\u201d he explains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He believes the EU would be well-served to look to Sweden for clues about how to fight cancer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cRight now, in terms of beating cancer, the best practice is the Swedish example,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt\u2019s important that we in the EU learn from each other\u2019s experiences.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Targeting smoking instead of tobacco?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Reading the tea leaves regarding exactly where the BECA committee stands on harm reduction has been a challenge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Harm reduction advocates were given hope, for example, by language in an October debate article penned by BECA Rapporteur V\u00e9ronique Trillet-Lenoir<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the piece, she addresses the importance of prevention as one of the four \u201cmain areas of action\u201d for the EU\u2019s beating cancer plan. But rather than echoing the original plan\u2019s call for a drop in all tobacco use by 2040, Trillet-Lenoir targets smoking specifically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe propose a strong target on smoking: \u2018a smoke-free generation\u2019 by 2040,\u201d she writes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And minutes from a November 8th BECA meeting<\/a> where amendments were discussed further indicate Ar\u0142ukowicz and his colleagues are at least aware of the fundamental principle of harm reduction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proposed flavour ban ‘disastrous’<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Among other things, the document states that e-cigarettes, for example, \u201ccan help heavy smokers to give up smoking\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the document goes on to say that the smoking cessation potential of alternative nicotine products must not allow them to be a \u201cgateway for children to start smoking\u201d, leading BECA to conclude e-cigarette flavours that are \u201cattractive for children\u201d should be banned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Concerns about \u201cunintended consequences\u201d of additional flavour restrictions prompted the European Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (ETHRA)<\/a>, which represents 27 million EU consumers of safer nicotine products, to submit a letter to BECA members<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the letter, ETHRA says it would be \u201cdisastrous\u201d if the EU\u2019s beating cancer plan included further restrictions on reduced-risk products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe current focus on youth use ignores the fact that the most at-risk groups for developing smoking-related cancers are citizens who are elderly and middle-aged,\u201d the group writes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe also know that a primary risk factor for youth smoking is whether someone in the family smokes, so allowing adults to use appealing products to quit smoking is actually preventative against youth smoking.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With more than 1,500 compromise amendments to consider, BECA members have had a busy autumn. In between official meetings, Shadow Rapporteurs have been hard at work trying to find an agreement on which amendments will be included in the compromise report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

BECA report vote in December<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Swedish MEP Weimers admits it\u2019s \u201cdifficult to say\u201d whether any pro-harm reduction compromise amendments will ultimately be included in the final BECA report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He fears that MEPs advocating for flavour bans could \u201cclose the door for less harmful substitutes\u201d, calling a potential flavour ban the \u201cbiggest risk\u201d to ensuring Europe\u2019s smokers have access to less-harmful alternatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kindstrand-Isaksson of Swedish Match is equally uncertain as the December vote approaches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe\u2019ll have to wait for the final vote on the BECA report before we know for sure where the European Parliament stands on tobacco harm reduction,\u201d says Kindstrand-Isaksson.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She explains there is clear evidence from Scandinavia<\/a> and elsewhere that flavours play an important role in making it easier for smokers to switch<\/a> to less harmful alternatives like nicotine pouches or e-cigarettes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf the EU tries to ban flavours in nicotine products, it will undoubtedly have negative consequences in terms of offering current smokers an alternative to cigarettes,\u201d she tells Snusforumet, adding that the industry obviously supports marketing restrictions and other measures to keep nicotine products out of the hands of young people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBut rather than helping fight cancer, a flavour ban would simply make it harder for Europe\u2019s adult smokers to switch, forcing them to keep using cancer-causing cigarettes.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Subscribe to the Snusforumet newsletter<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Subscribers receive instant access to the story behind the EU snus ban by author Christopher Snowdon<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t