The European Commission is unprepared for an impending lobbying blitz by the tobacco industry, according to a report released Thursday by watchdog Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO).
According to the NGO, the industry is gearing up for a fight ahead of the review of the Tobacco Products Directive in 2021. The latest version of the legislation, which entered into force in 2016, tried to limit the impact of smoking through stricter laws on cigarette packaging and a phase-out of flavored tobacco products.
It’s now up for review again, with the potential for new amendments to account for recent developments such as the popularity of e-cigarettes.
The corporate watchdog listed a raft of transparency-related shortcomings by the Commission, including 36 undisclosed meetings between EU officials and tobacco industry representatives since 2017. It also found the process of obtaining information on lobbying contacts burdensome, while the information that does end up released lacks detail.
The issue of transparency has long been fraught. The last time the directive was up for revision, then-Commissioner for Health John Dalli resigned after an OLAF investigation revealed his involvement in an attempted bribery scandal as well as other controversial industry tactics at that time.
With the Commission now trying to turn a corner, President Ursula von der Leyen has issued guidelines stating that “we need more transparency throughout the legislative process.”
“Citizens should know who we … meet and discuss with and what positions we defend in the legislative process,” she added.
To date, the Commission has signed up to the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which stipulates that governments ought to minimize the influence of the tobacco industry by reducing interactions to a minimum, CEO noted.
“The [WHO] rules are crystal clear: Tobacco control policies, aiming to prevent diseases and deaths for millions of people, should be protected against the tobacco industry’s lobbying,” said Olivier Hoedeman, a researcher at CEO. “One of these protective measures is proactive transparency to enable scrutiny.”
The challenge noted by the report: While lobbyist meetings attended by commissioners, Cabinets and directors general are disclosed (amounting to six since 2017), the vast majority of lower-level interactions fly under the radar.
Shining a light on lobbying
To unearth more details, CEO has made freedom of information requests asking for all interactions between the Commission and the tobacco industry since 2017.
But it found the process “extremely burdensome” and “not a workable option,” noting that documents were slow to be released; scattered across a number of different sub-requests; and requiring a number of appeals and reminders. As for notes of recorded meetings, they often lacked detail and were heavily redacted.
Broad industry federations such as BusinessEurope and the American Chamber of Commerce were excluded from the FoIs — as were some Commission departments such as research, international cooperation and development, environment, and employment.
Despite this, the organization unearthed 24 meetings between lobbyists and DG TAXUD (the taxation and customs union department); seven meetings with DG TRADE; five meetings with DG AGRI; and over 300 pieces of correspondence such as emails — all since 2017.
The documents show that “tobacco industry lobbying has focused on three main priorities: Delaying a revision of EU tobacco tax law, influencing EU trade negotiations with Latin America and other countries, and … shaping the EU’s new ‘track and trace’ system for cigarettes,” the report said.
CEO’s Hoedeman said that when the TPD was being revised in 2013-14, a number of tobacco lobbying scandals came to light, showing the industry’s determination to influence legislation.
“The tobacco industry seems to have regained self-confidence, and the Commission seems not to have learned anything from this episode,” Hoedeman said.
Disputed conclusions
The tobacco lobby has countered that it’s been complying with transparency provisions.
Andrew Cave, communications chief of Philip Morris International, insisted his company has “taken action to comply” with the directive since its revision in 2014.
“Together with other economic operators in the tobacco industry, we were invited by DG SANTE … to participate in an evaluation process of the implementation and practical application of the [directive], all of which was transparent,” Cave added.
Meanwhile, the European Smoking Tobacco Association (ESTA) told POLITICO it believes the Commission is already “sufficiently transparent,” and that “excessive” public pressure, including allegations of the industry’s influence, can undermine “effective communication.”
The transparency must cut in both directions, argues Guillaume Périgois, director of Forest EU, an industry-funded group representing smokers. He notes that there are 24 different anti-smoking organizations that operate in Brussels.
“These organizations are staffed with 94 lobbyists and have a self-declared lobbying budget of between €5 [million] and €6 million,” he added. “Far from David versus Goliath, it’s Goliath versus Goliath.”
In 2016, €6 million was given to these organizations from the Commission, he noted. That kind of money “doesn’t promote transparent policymaking,” he added.
“You don’t have to like smoking to see there’s a problem with the European Commission giving taxpayers’ money to NGOs who then use that money to lobby the Commission,” he argued.
The European Commission did not respond to POLITICO’s inquiries about the report.
Turning a new leaf
Among CEO’s recommendations, it proposes that the Commission enforce a more consistent standard for disclosure. For example, other departments don’t — but should — follow the example of DG SANTE, which makes public all its meetings with industry representatives on its website.
Additionally, the way disclosures are issued should be simplified to allow “one central portal gathering this information to enable easy public scrutiny,” it wrote.
More generally, top EU officials must do more to protect policymaking from the influence of Big Tobacco, the NGO said, pointing to a recent meeting between Philip Morris and the head of Cabinet for Vice President Maroš Šefčovič, who’s in charge of interinstitutional relations.
When asked by POLITICO in early June about the meeting, a spokesperson said the Commission is “fully committed to implementing” the WHO’s framework. He described this particular instance as a “courtesy meeting” that took place in the context of a New Year’s concert organized by the Slovak Permanent Representation, and under the patronage of Šefčovič, who is from Slovakia.
“Philip Morris was one of the sponsors of the concert and held a courtesy meeting, like other sponsors, with a member of Cabinet,” the Commission spokesperson said, adding that the gathering “did not touch upon topics related to tobacco control.”
However, the report notes that guidelines for implementing the WHO framework state that parties “should interact with the tobacco industry only when and to the extent strictly necessary to enable them to effectively regulate the tobacco industry and tobacco products.”
Furthermore, the notes of the meeting, obtained by CEO, reveal that Philip Morris “presented their activities, confirmed there is a need to innovate products towards [a] more clean and low-carbon society, adaptation to digital technologies and to focus on research and innovation.”
Such examples suggest that parts of the Commission “appear to have an open-door policy for the tobacco industry, meaning that the standard approach is that tobacco industry requests for meetings are accepted,” reads the report. “This is at odds with [the WHO].”
CORRECTION: This story has been updated to clarify Andrew Cave’s name and note that the tobacco directive will undergo a review.
Are you a professional following the impact of Brexit on your industry? Brexit Transition Pro, our premium service for professionals, helps you navigate the policy, and regulatory changes to come. Email [email protected] to request a trial.
Click Here: Cheap France Rugby Jersey