Smokers will be prohibited from smoking on beaches, in outdoor eating areas or at sports or other public events if a proposed amendment to the  to the Tobacco Control Products Act is approved.

The proposed new regulations will forbid smoking in any of the following areas:

• Stadiums, arenas, sports facilities, playgrounds, zoos;
• Premises of schools, or childcare facilities;
• Health facilities;
• Outdoor eating or drinking areas;
• Venues when outdoor events take place;
• Covered walkways and covered parking areas;
• Service areas and service lines; and
• Beaches (smoker can only light up 50 metres away from the nearest person on the beach).

What this basically means is that no smoking may take place in any public outdoor area, except for spaces solely dedicated to this purpose. And even these are regulated. Smokers thinking they can still dine in the “outdoor smoking area” at restaurants are mistaken, as the new regulations stipulate that no food or beverages may be served within the designated smoking areas.

Furthermore, to protect non-smokers from having to walk through a cloud of smoke at the entrance of a building where smokers often congregate on their breaks, the new regulations also prohibit any smoking within 10 meters of a doorway or entrance, window or ventilation inlet to a public place.

Designated outdoor smoking areas may not be adjacent the entrance of a premises, or close to walkways or other areas where people pass frequently. The area should be positioned in such a way that the minimum amount of smoke enter any other area where smoking is prohibited.

According to the proposed regulations, no person under the age of 18 years will be allowed in the designated smoking area, no entertainment might be provided in this area, and smokers should be discouraged from spending more time in the area than what is necessary to smoke a cigarette in order to minimise the harm from second-hand smoke.

In a recent Cape Times article, many smokers raised their objection to the proposed new regulations stating that it was “ridiculous” and “unfair to this minority group” (smokers). However, Peter Ucko from the National Council Against Smoking praises the proposed regulations, stating that it would benefit public health, and children in particular, as it will make smoking less of a social norm.

Click here for for full version of Regulations

Sources: Government Gazette, Cape Times

The National Council Against Smoking is pleased to announce that its executive director, Dr Yussuf Saloojee has won the prestigious American Cancer Society  (ACS) Luther L. Terry Award for Outstanding Individual Leadership.

The award recognizes people and organizations who have made a special contribution to reducing the societal harms caused by tobacco. The ACS says “the recipients of the Luther L. Terry Awards are among the very best in the world at what they do”.

Download your Personal guide to stop smoking

Change your life for the better

Download our Quit Booklet today

GENEVA, 27 MARCH 2012 - The World Health Organization (WHO) welcomes the announcement that Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City, will contribute US$220 million to the Bloomberg Initiative for the global fight against tobacco. This money will go towards reducing the toll of tobacco in low- and middle-income countries, home to almost 80% of the world’s smokers.

“This generous donation by Mayor Bloomberg is visible proof of the worldwide anti-tobacco movement’s shared determination to fight every effort by the tobacco industry to strengthen its grip in developing countries,” said Dr Margaret Chan, Director-General of WHO.

WHO is a partner in the Bloomberg Initiative, along with the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Foundation, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and the World Lung Foundation/International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. Since it was founded in 2006, the Bloomberg Initiative has supported work to implement tobacco control policies in at least 30 countries, covering 1.3 billion people and saving as many as 3.7 million lives. It has reinforced the work of leading nongovernmental organizations and governments, attracted major new philanthropic investments and media attention to the cause of tobacco control, and aligned stakeholder activities around effective interventions.

Tobacco use currently kills about six million people every year. If left unchecked, tobacco will kill one billion people in this century.

GENEVA, March 27 – Civil society is urging Parties to the global tobacco convention, which are preparing to conclude an agreement on fighting illicit trade of tobacco products, to ensure that the deal includes measures to support low-income countries.

“The illicit trade protocol (ITP) will only be effective if it can be applied in developing as well as developed countries, as it is a myth that the illicit tobacco trade operates only in countries where prices are high,” said Laurent Huber, Director of the Framework Convention Alliance (FCA).

The Alliance includes over 350 non-governmental organisations in more than 100 countries.

The fifth round of talks of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body on a Protocol on the Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products (INB5) opens on March 29 in Geneva. It is expected to produce an agreement that will be adopted at the Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) in November.

“Parties negotiating the future protocol next week must also ensure that it is protected from tobacco industry interference, a principle that is a cornerstone of the FCTC,” added Huber.

The tobacco industry, which in the past has been complicit in the illicit trade of tobacco products, has recently worked relentlessly to insert itself into the fight against the illicit tobacco trade, by signing deals with governments to train their Customs officials, for example. Governments must be watchful of such agreements, as they open the door for the tobacco industry to interfere with public health policy.

Indeed, WHO has made tobacco industry interference the theme of World No Tobacco Day 2012, marked on 31 May.

Illicit trade in cigarettes costs governments $40.5 billion in lost revenue yearly, with losses falling disproportionately on low and middle-income countries. It also undermines attempts to reduce tobacco consumption by raising prices – proven to be the most effective measure to curb tobacco use – and fuels organised crime and terrorism.

Since coming into force in 2005, the FCTC has become one of the most ratified international conventions. It now has 174 Parties, representing 87.4 percent of the world’s population.

The Finance Ministry mechanically calculates the level of excise duty on cigarettes using a dated formula that no longer serves the public good.   In 1997, it set the total taxes on cigarettes at 50% of the retail price. This increased marginally to 52% in 2004. At each Budget, treasury officials simply look at the recommended retail price of cigarettes and then calculate by how much the tax has to change to keep the rate at 52%. A hackneyed method, which fails to optimally tax tobacco so as to increase government revenues, reduce cigarette smoking and cut future health care costs.

The tax incidence in South Africa, at 52% (VAT plus excise taxes), is also well below the World Health Organization’s recommendation that excise taxes should be at least 70% of the retail price.

The World Bank has concluded that making cigarettes less affordable is the single best way of deterring young people from starting to smoke and to get smokers to quit or cut down. Higher taxes also mean higher government revenues.

South Africa’s tobacco tax policy is thus in urgent need of review. The National Council Against Smoking (NCAS) recommends that the aim should be to progressively reduce the affordability of tobacco products by changing the tax in line with increases in income and inflation.

“We have a crazy situation where the finance ministry is apparently more concerned about the illicit trade in tobacco than about raising revenue or reducing tobacco consumption”, says Dr Yussuf Saloojee of the NCAS. “The government must increase the tax on cigarettes and if the cigarette companies seriously think that this will increase the illegal trade in cigarettes then they can always reduce their profit margins to keep prices lower”.

. . . . . . /ends . . . . .

For more information please call

Dr Yussuf Saloojee.  011 725 1514  or  076 622 5322

or

Peter Ucko 011 725 1514  or  082 454 9889

In his budget speech on Wednesday Finance Minister, Mr. Pravin Gordhan, is expected to announce an estimated increase in cigarette excise duty of 58 cents per pack of 20.  This modest increase will delight the cigarette manufacturers but do harm to public health and the fiscus.

The industry has reason to be pleased because it has determined the amount by which the excise duty will rise. It is government policy to passively maintain the cigarette excise tax level at 39.7% of the retail price. Since last year the manufacturer’s have hiked the recommended retail price of a packet of 20 Peter Stuyvesant by R1.50 (from R24.50 in February 2011 to R26 now. Accordingly, the excise duty on cigarettes will have to rise by 58c in the budget to catch up with the industry’s higher prices.

The impact of these modest tax rises compared to bigger tax increases, will be to reduce the incentive for people to quit or children not to start, and increase the health harms from smoking.

The Treasury’s current tax model is hopelessly outdated — the percentage tax incidence on tobacco products has not changed since 2004.  The model also gives the tobacco industry complete power to determine the amount by which excise duties will alter in the budget.  If the industry had not increased prices in 2011, the amount to be paid in excise taxes would not have changed.

The effect of the manufacturers pricing strategy on retail prices (and smuggling) has attracted little attention from the Treasury, the media or the public.  The cigarette makers are aggressive in increasing prices so as to increase profits. After each budget the manufacturer’s pass on the full amount of the tax rise plus an additional price hike of its own to the customer. For instance in 2011 the excise tax on cigarettes increased by 80c but the manufacturer’s increased prices by R1.50. Yet the industry complains that higher prices stimulate the illicit trade in tobacco, and completely ignores its own role in setting retail price.

In handing over excise tax policy to the tobacco companies the Treasury is failing the country. Compared to other African and European countries South Africa has a low rate of tax. Research shows that increasing tobacco tax rates not only increases government revenues but also reduces the prevalence of tobacco use. Smokers are more likely to quit when cigarettes are expensive. South Africa’s tobacco tax policy is thus in urgent need of review, especially since cigarettes kill over 44000 of our citizens every year.

For more Information please contact:

Dr Yussuf Saloojee, Executive Director

011 725 1514       or             076 633 5322      .

Outline

• Introduction – Health promotion definition and Functions

• Current Situation – Major risk factors and key determinants (tobacco, alcohol and key determinants) and

• Opportunities

• Challenges

• Required actions

• Way forward and Conclusion

Download Full Presentation

Types of evidence needed in South Africa

• Current challenges in developing evidence

• The role of a health promotion foundation in addressing challenges

• Suggested research functions of a health promotion foundation

• Types of research

• Examples from the alcohol area

• Conclusion

  Download Full Presentation

DEFINITION of HP
“HP is any event, process or activity that facilitates the
protection or improvement of the health status of
individuals, groups, communities or populations. The
objective is to prolong life and to improve quality of life,
that is to prevent or reduce the effects of impaired
physical and/or mental health in those individuals who
are directly (e.g. patients) or indirectly (i.e. carers)
affected. Health promotion includes both environmental
and behavioural interventions”
(Marks et al, 2004)

Download Full Presentation