From a recent TBT Committee meeting:
Tobacco: Australia’s plain packaging
This issue attracted the most attention in this meeting even though it had already been discussed at length in the June meeting. Because it affects trademarks it has also been discussed in the Council for Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Council). (See also this Australian government web page, which includes sample images of the proposed packaging.)
For
Responding to concerns raised by a number of members, Australia repeated its defence of its bill on plain packaging and health warnings for tobacco products, which it said is needed to deal with a serious health problem by making the products less attractive, removing the last possible way to advertise them, and reducing consumption. It cited evidence that these measures work, noted that the bill has been amended in response to comments and concluded that the bill conforms to WTO agreements, including TBT.
Australia pointed out that it is not a major importer of tobacco, accounting for 0.5% of trade in these products, and that many critics of the bill do not export to Australia. It insisted that it had consulted fully and answered members’ questions. Australia said no alternative measures with less of an impact on trade could have the same result.
The bill passed the Senate on 10 November and is expected to be approved finally by the lower house on 21 November, Australia said. Revisions in the Senate now allow branded packaging to be imported before repackaging in Australia to comply with the new law. Anti-counterfeiting features can be included in the packaging, and the law will now protect the right of trademark owners to prevent unauthorized use of the marks by others. All products will have to comply with the law by the end of 2012 (October 2012 if made in Australia), the delegation said.
Supporting Australia were Norway, Uruguay and New Zealand. They said that under WTO rules countries have the right to give priority to public health, and some of them cited the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Controamong the evidence that the measures in the bill are recognized as legitimate internationally. Some of them said they are also considering new measures.
Against
Objecting to the bill in this meeting were Ukraine, Dominican Rep, Mexico, Nigeria, Colombia, Chile, Honduras, Turkey, Indonesia, Zambia, El Salvador, Zimbabwe, Nicaragua, Jordan, and Russia (an observer). Cuba was concerned about the impact on cigars; Australia said consultations continue on packaging for products that are not cigarettes.
These countries challenged Australia’s scientific evidence. They said Australia’s measures will therefore restrict trade unnecessarily (a key issue in TBT) because the public health objective — which they support —can be met by other means. The argued that plain packaging will cause confusion among consumers because trademarks will not be available for them to distinguish between products, and will encourage smuggling.
Non-committal
In this meeting, the EU, Japan and Hong Kong China were non-committal. The EU said it is also considering plain packaging and is therefore studying the situation. It urged Australia to reply to questions asked previously and to give manufacturers enough time to adjust.
Hong Kong China said it recognizes Australia’s right but given the weight of concerns expressed, Australia should consult other members to ensure its measure does not unnecessarily restrict trade. Japan said Australia should answer the many questions asked.
WHO
The World Health Organization said the health problems caused by smoking are on the scale of an epidemic and described in detail its Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (www.who.int/fctc). Honduras, Mexico, Dominican Rep and Zimbabwe, said the WHO, which is an observer organization, should not comment on whether measures comply with WTO agreements.
Tobacco: Brazil’s additives ban
Brazil defended its proposed ban on additives and maximum levels of tar and carbon monoxide in tobacco products, arguing that this is necessary for public health concerns. The ban on additives is needed because attractive flavouring and other features encourage young smokers, while experience shows that banning flavours does not work, Brazil said.
Objecting to the measure as an unjustifiable restriction on trade were: the EU, Mexico, Nigeria, the Philippines, Indonesia, Turkey, Colombia, Honduras, Zimbabwe, Chile, Zambia and Russia (an observer).
