They also work on acknowledging that comprehensive social transformation is necessary for the elimination of health-threatening forces and relations and they are advocating a multidisciplinary advocacy by believing in the importance of entering, revealing and engaging in struggle.

Learn more about them...

The deadline for submission is 15 March 2019!
Please note that applications are to be submitted electronically.

Who can be nominated? How to submit a nomination?
Read more...

Please note that the deadline for submission of nominations is Friday, 8 March 2019 - 17:00 hs (GMT).

He has published recent books, articles or book chapters in each of these areas. His earlier work has dealt with biotechnology and human rights; impunity for mass atrocities; terrorism and human rights; cultural rights; access to medicines, and human rights education. He directs the Program on Human Rights in Development (PHRD). He recently co-edited a book on Advancing the Human Right to Health (Oxford University Press, 2013). His book Health and Human Rights: Basic International Documents, is now in its third edition. Professor Marks is collaborating with Prof. Balakrishnan Rajagopal of MIT on a Research Handbook on Human Rights and  Development  for publication in 2019  by Edward Elgard Publishing. He was also  consultant editor of Realizing the Right to Development: Essays in Commemoration of 25 Years of the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development, published by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2013. He is Co-Chair, Human Rights Thematic Group, Human Development and Capability Association (HDCA) (2013-present) and served on the Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) form 2010 to 2017. He teaches courses at HSPH and in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

His Excellency Vytenis Andriukaitis, the European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, will be in Bucharest on 26 March as an honorary guest of the Global Forum on Human Rights and a Tobacco-Free World to emphasize the direct link between tobacco consumption and harm the fundamental right to health of every citizen.

EUPHA strongly supports the statement issued by the World Federation of Public Health Associations and many other like minded partners regarding the attempt made by the Philip Morris funded “Foundation for a Smoke-Free World” to interfere with global health policy and decision-making. EUPHA has consistently voiced its concern about the tactics being used by the tobacco industry and has issued several statements to this effect over the past months. In support of the statement issued by the FCTC secretariat on the launch of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, EUPHA reiterates that no government or organisation should accept money from, endorse, or enter into partnerships with the Philip Morris International (PMI) funded ‘Foundation for a Smoke-Free World’.

Read the letter...

Francisco Rodriguez Lozano, President of the European Network for Smoking and Tobacco Prevention (ENSP), offered some introductory remarks. He welcomed everyone to what he hoped would be a fruitful discussion, and he thanked MEP Bușoi for the organisation of the event. Price, he highlighted, was one of the most effective measures of tobacco control. 

The Director of Smoke Free Tobacco, Anca Toma Friedlander, also offered some opening remarks. She thanked for the invitation to the event, and for being allocated time to intervene. Smoke Free Partnership is a partnership of the Belgian Foundation against cancer, Cancer Research UK, the Dutch Cancer Society and the Norwegian Cancer Society with the European Heart Network, Action on Smoking and Health (UK), and La Ligue contre le Cancer, she explained. They coordinate a coalition of 45 organisations all over Europe to advocate for the implementation of the illicit trade protocol. The points that she will be presented have also been endorsed by the European Cancer League, she noted.

The main pannels of discussion were: Legal framework adopted under the TPD and its derived acts, Article 7 and 8 of the WHO-FCTC illicit trade protocol, Illicit tobacco trade, Tobacco control research and  The legal framework adopted by the European Commission vs. the WHO protocol.

Vinčiūnas confirmed once again the Commission’s opposition to consider novel tobacco products and e-cigarettes as healthy saying that  “There are scientific reports saying that e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes (...) but it’s still tobacco". " You can drink less poison, but it is still poison in the end,” he added.

Read more...

Abstract

Read the full article here...

What are the effects of using e-cigarettes for a long period of time? The dangers seem to be almost the same for e-cigarettes smokers or dual smokers. Despite the illusion of smokers, the harm wasn't reduced and the long-lasting effects on the health are still very significant. This paper explains the case and provides the conclusion after a four-year study.

OBJECTIVE: More than a decade after e-cigarette (e-cig) market launch, limited information are available on their safety after 24 months of use. In 2013, we started the first observational study assessing e-cig long-term effectiveness and safety, directly comparing tobacco smokers and e-cig users. Here we report the results after four years of follow-up.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults (30-75 years) were included if: smokers of ≥1 tobacco cigarette/day (tobacco smokers); users of any type of e-cig inhaling ≥50 puffs weekly (e-cig users); users of both tobacco and e-cig (dual users). Data were collected by phone and/or internet, and carbon monoxide levels tested in 50% of those declaring tobacco abstinence. Main outcomes were: possibly smoking-related diseases (PSRD; validated through hospital discharge data or visit in 62.6% of the sample); 4-year tobacco abstinence; number of tobacco cigarettes/day.

RESULTS: Data were available for 228 e-cig users (all ex-smokers), 471 tobacco smokers, 216 dual users. A PSRD was observed in 73 subjects (8.0%). No differences emerged across groups in PSRD rates, with negligible variations in self-reported health. Of e-cig users, 63.6% remained tobacco abstinent; dual users and tobacco smokers showed non-significantly different rates of tobacco (33.8% vs. 26.8%) and all-product (20.2% vs. 19.4%) cessation, and a similar decrease in cigarettes/day. Almost 40% of the sample switched at least once (tobacco smokers: 17.2%; dual users: 81.9%).

CONCLUSIONS: After four years, a scarce, non-significant harm reduction was observed among e-cig or dual users. Given the long-lasting health effects of tobacco smoking, the benefits of e-cig use may start being detectable at the next follow-up (six years). The complete switch to e-cig may help tobacco quitters remain abstinent, but e-cig use in addition to tobacco did not increase the likelihood of smoking cessation or reduction.

Read the full paper...

On Friday March 1, 2019, a unanimous Quebec Court of Appeal with a panel of 5 justices (5-0) dealt the tobacco industry a massive defeat in the two tobacco class actions.  In a compelling 422-page judgment, the Quebec Court of Appeal upheld a May 27, 2015 trial judgment of the Quebec Superior Court.  At trial, the Superior Court had found the 3 major tobacco companies in Canada (which are 100% subsidiaries of BAT, PMI and JTI) liable for $C15.5 billion in damages (US$11.7 billion at current exchange rates).  The total liability has now climbed to about C$17 billion (US$12.8 billion) given accumulating interest.

 

The tobacco industry has indicated that it will seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.  A decision as to whether or not the Supreme Court of Canada will grant permission to appeal would be made in about 6 months.

Learn more about the historical cronology of the case...

In order to be able to appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal, two of the tobacco companies had to pay a total C$984 million into court, funds to be available to the plaintiffs should the tobacco companies lose the appeal.

 

Read the full Quebec Court of Appeal March 1, 2019 judgment (French)...

 

Read the English summary here...

Increasing taxes on tobacco is essential for global health for reducing consumption, reducing the affordability, poverty and at the same time for saving millions of lives. But with higher taxes, increase much more smuggling and many new brands come onto the market to keep alive the interes of the low-income population.

"Illicit tobacco trade refers to any practice related to distributing, selling, or buying tobacco

products that is prohibited by law, including tax evasion (sale of tobacco products without  payment of applicable taxes), counterfeiting, disguising the origin of products, and  smuggling. Illicit trade can be undertaken both by illicit players who are not registered with  relevant government agencies, as well as by legitimate entities whose business operations are contrary to applicable laws and regulations. (...) Confronting illicit trade in tobacco products is critical to effective tobacco control in all countries. However, addressing this issue poses complex political, legal, and technological challenges. As such, illicit trade is one of the topics on which policymakers and program implementers responsible for national tobacco control most frequently request information and technical collaboration from international organizations."

Read the full report...

The main goal is to consistently limit access to tobacco products, to reduce the negative effects of smoking on health of people and to envisage legislative regulation of production, sale and use of electronic smoking systems, and also heat-not-burn tobacco products.

Learn more...

In June 2014, Swedish Match originally submitted a Modified Risk Tobacco Product Application (MRTPA) to permit it to market eight sub-brands of General Snus with warning label statements different from those required by law for other commercially marketed smokeless tobacco products. The application aimed at leading smokers who would not otherwise quit smoking to switch completely to a Swedish match snus product, and would not lead to dual use or significant use among youth.

Two years later, the FDA denied Swedish Match’s request to remove a currently required warning stating that the products can cause gum disease and tooth loss, and deferred final action on the company’s other requests to remove or revise two additional currently required warnings. It was determined that the MRTPAs did not contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate that, as actually used by consumers, the snus products sold with modified risk claims would significantly reduce harm and the risk of tobacco-related disease to individual tobacco users and benefit the health of the population as a whole.

Another two years later, in September 2018 Swedish Match submitted an amendment in response to the three deficiencies enumerated in FDA’s December 2016 letter, and submitted a second amendment in November 2018 in response to FDA’s October 2018 Advice and Information Request Letter. Regarding the first two deficiencies, the company’s September 2018 amendment accepted FDA’s recommendations to retain the warnings stating that the product “can cause mouth cancer” and “is not a safe alternative to cigarettes.” In response to the third deficiency, Swedish Match conducted a new consumer perception study entitled “Perceptions and Behavioral Intentions Study” to address the issues with its previous consumer perception study that the FDA identified. Based on the results of this study and other research, Swedish Match proposed the following modified risk claim for the General Snus: 

Read more about the requirements for a MRTP order...