Plans to restrict tobacco advertising throughout the European Union have been severely watered down after running into fierce opposition from a small but influential group of members of the European parliament (MEPs).
After blocking the proposed legislation for 16 months, the European parliament's legal affairs committee approved a series of amendments earlier this month that remove much of the substance from the draft legislation.
It is insisting that the new rules should not cover indirect advertising (the labelling of other products with tobacco brands) and should be limited to cases with “significant cross-border effects”—a requirement which, for example, would exempt local radio stations from the EU ban.
Similarly, tobacco sponsorship of radio programmes would be prohibited only where these are targeted at more than one country. Governments would also have the option—rather than be required, as stated in the original proposal—to restrict advertising to publications intended exclusively for the tobacco trade.
The amendments have been largely championed by German MEPs. They have alarmed health campaigners, who argue that the legislation is necessary to discourage young people in particular from becoming addicted to tobacco from an early age as a result of advertising, marketing, sponsorship, and other promotional devices.
Andrew Hayes, the EU liaison officer for the Association of European Cancer Leagues, said: “We are very worried. The proposal was already very weak, and indirect advertising has now become a huge loophole. We are also concerned that the draft legislation does not contain a safeguard clause stating that member states can go further on public health grounds.”
Supporters of a more comprehensive advertising ban are now hoping that the amendments will be overturned by the full European parliament when it votes on the legislation during its November plenary session in Strasbourg. The new rules are designed to fill the vacuum created by the European Court of Justice when it annulled the previous legislation in October 2000, maintaining that some aspects of the advertising ban exceeded the European Union's powers.
The European Commission promptly tabled new proposals taking account of the court's ruling the following May. However, in a bid to delay approval of the legislation, the parliament's legal affairs committee took 16 months, instead of the usual six, to give its opinion. The BMA was one of many organisations to criticise the filibustering tactics.