While health
departments have been gripped with the challenge of cannabis reform, another
recreational-drug market has also become caught up in legal and market changes.
After years of
turning a blind eye to illegal vape shops, the federal government has
introduced legislation to legalize electronic cigarettes and other nicotine
vaping devices. Bill S-5 (the proposed Tobacco
and Vaping Products Act) was introduced in the Senate last November, and is
now waiting for a decision by the House of Commons.
This law addresses
only one of the new categories of nicotine delivery systems – those which use
the nicotine which is derived from tobacco, but which do not use tobacco in its
natural form. It does not respond to many of the new nicotine delivery systems
which are under development, including the tobacco-heating mechanisms which
have been launched by both British American Tobacco (i-glo) and Philip Morris
International (IQOS) in the months since Bill S-5 was introduced.
Philip Morris
International and its main competitor, British American Tobacco (BAT) recently
had their new products analyzed by the same Canadian laboratory (Labstat) that
developed the cigarette toxicity testing standards now written into Canada’s tobacco
regulations. When tested for over 40 toxic chemicals, the heat-not-burn
products still yielded dangerous amounts of carcinogens and other toxic
substances, but at substantially lower levels than regular combustible
cigarettes.
The head of Philip
Morris International describes these products as “better choices” for
smokers. While it is a stretch to call
them “better choices,” they are, for smokers, less bad choices than continuing
to smoke.
But for the moment
these products lie in a kind of legal limbo – they are subject to the federal
laws that apply to all tobacco products (like restrictions on advertising), but
are not captured by the regulations which are more product-specific (like
health warnings and bans on flavourings). They also reveal a vulnerability in
Canada’s health laws. Unlike the United States, Australia, New Zealand and many
other developed countries, there is no requirement for them to be approved by
any government before they can be marketed in Canada.
The manufacturers of
these new types of cigarettes are using private visits with policy-makers, news
events and other means to encourage regulators that the health of Canadian
smokers would benefit if S-5 were changed to set (less stringent) rules for marketing
heated tobacco products.
We agree with the
companies that Bill S-5 should be opened to respond to these new products. In return
for the opportunity to sell e-cigarettes and heat-not-burn cigarettes, the
Canadian government could and should oblige the tobacco industry to phase out
its most harmful products.
If tobacco and
nicotine companies are offering less bad choices, why should they continue to
be allowed to market the worst choice – the combustible cigarettes that kill
125 Canadians a day? It’s time to stop exempting tobacco manufacturers from
consumer protection laws that ensure products are no more dangerous than
necessary.
We propose that no
combustible or heated tobacco product should be sold unless it meets the
emission standards of these new products. This could not be done overnight, but
it could be done. We suggest tobacco manufacturers have five years to improve
their products or remove them from the market.
This would give the marketing
edge that the companies claim they need to encourage smokers to switch to a
less bad option. It is a much more prudent approach than granting their request
to be able to use the tools of modern advertising and marketing to promote
these brands– tools we know they would use to grow the number of people who use
tobacco or other forms of nicotine.
It has been argued
that forcing conventional cigarettes off the market will open the floodgates to
contraband smokes. Contraband tobacco is a political and economic problem that
has festered in the absence of political leadership. Phasing out combustible
cigarettes could also be a springboard for the meaningful negotiation and
effective enforcement necessary to wind down the contraband market.
Parliament has an
opportunity in S-5 to ensure that nicotine, like gasoline and paint, is
regulated so that most harmful products are phased out when better options
become technically feasible.
