British American Tobacco boosted profits last year despite cigarette smoking declining and the recession forcing people to trade down to cheaper brands or rely on smuggled or counterfeit products.

The multinational, which is the world’s second-largest tobacco firm after Philip Morris, is rewarding shareholders with a bumper dividend, up nearly 20%, after last year’s numbers were lifted by acquisitions and a weaker pound – allowing it to make more money overseas.

Richard Burrows, who took over as chairman from Jan du Plessis at the end of 2009, said there were signs that the global economy was beginning to improve but warned that unemployment may continue to rise in developed markets.

Underlying volumes fell 3% as the recession forced consumers to cut spending, particularly in eastern Europe and Japan. But BAT increased revenue by 17% following acquisitions in Indonesia, Turkey and Scandinavia and by increasing prices.

BAT’s main premium brands – Dunhill, Pall Mall and Lucky Strike – increased their market share but Kent fell 4% because of weak trading in Russia.

The tobacco industry has proved relatively resilient to the recession, with strong pricing power and a wide range of brands that appeal to smokers in developing countries, where western cigarettes are viewed as trophy products. But the global picture is one of overall decline, with volumes falling annually by about 2% as people give up for health reasons or because cigarettes have become too expensive as governments in western countries increase excise duties.

In the City, there has been speculation that BAT could bid for its US rival Reynolds but these stories were dismissed as “rumour” by the company yesterday.

BAT did well in the Americas, where profit rose by £134m, mainly due to a strong performance in Brazil, an improved product mix and exchange rate benefits. But volumes were down 6%, illustrating how the company is having to work harder to deliver improved earnings. In 2008, it closed a factory in Denmark in an efficiency drive that is saving £250m a year.

Last year there was controversy over Burrows’ appointment after he resigned under a cloud at Bank of Ireland, where he was governor. He presided over mounting losses and a government bailout and was forced to apologise to shareholders.

Guy Jubb, head of corporate governance at Standard Life Investments, said then: “When stewardship is in sharp focus, it is questionable whether this appointment will enjoy unanimous support.”

But others were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt after successful stints at Pernod Ricard and Irish Distillers, where he is credited with turning Jameson whiskey into an international brand.

Philip Morris International unveiled a joint venture today in the Philippines that will see it team up with Fortune Tobacco, a domestic cigarette maker owned by the business tycoon Lucio Tan, to create a company that would control 90% of the local cigarette market.

Richard Wachman, Guardian

MANILA, Philippines–Tobacco control advocates on Thursday called the merger of leading cigarette companies Fortune Tobacco Corp and Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing Inc (PMPMI) a “kiss of death blown to many Filipinos.”

Health Justice, a non-government organization that aims to bridge the gaps between health science and law, said it expects the 2 cigarette manufacturers to also combine their resources in lobbying to weaken tobacco control measures.

“The government can expect more tobacco-industry backed leaders or policy makers, more organized lobbying techniques, more corruption, more smuggling, less tax collection, and less compliance with tobacco control laws,” said lawyer Deborah Sy, executive director of Health Justice.

She specifically reacted to news reports that, “When asked which group (Philip Morris or Fortune) initiated the [merger] talks, PMPMI Chris Nelson said: ‘We kissed at the same time.’”

Early Thursday, reports said that PMPMI and Fortune “concluded an agreement to form a new company, Philip Morris Fortune Tobacco Corporation.”

“Each contributed selected assets and liabilities into the new company, with each party holding an equal economic interest,” reports quoted PMPMI’s Nelson.

Fortune Tobacco, owned by business tycoon Lucio Tan, will control the finances and the distribution, while multi-national PMPMI and maker of top-selling brand Marlboro, will focus on manufacturing, operations and management of the cigarettes.

Fortune, which produces leading local cigarette brands Fortune and Hope, corners 60% of the industry share in the country. PMPMI, which operates a large cigarette manufacturing plant in Batangas, has a 30% share.

With the union of the two companies, 90% of the cigarette market will be in the hands of a single group.

This is not the first time that PMPMI had bought into a local cigarette company in a country where it’s operating. In 2005, Switzerland-based Philip Morris International (PMI) acquired majority of Indonesia’s largest tobacco company, PT HM Sampoerna Tbk. Sy said that PMI’s move had resulted to a more “aggressive tobacco industry.”

With PMI’s using a local name, it has the chance to effectively market its own brands. At the same time, PMI is able to lobby systematically against anti-tobacco laws in Indonesia.

Newsbreak earlier reported that tobacco companies, through its group Philippine Tobacco Institute, allegedly distribute lobby money to congressmen, and sometimes contribute to their campaign kitties, to block tobacco control proposals, like putting graphic health warning on tobacco products and increasing its taxes.

The bills, which were not approved before the 14th Congress went on recess, sought to discourage the public from smoking. The World Health Organization recorded some 90,000 smoking-related deaths every year worldwide that can be attributed to high cigarette consumption.

by Lilita Balane, Abs-cbnnews

The online open-access journal PLoS Medicine said this week that it would no longer accept for publication reports of research sponsored by tobacco companies. The journal joins two of its sister publications, PLoS Biology and PLoS One, in formally adopting this position, but the announcement might be viewed as self-serving in that the journal has never published such a paper. In fact, PLoS One has published only two.

The decision highlights a dispute among journal editors. The leading tobacco-control journal, Tobacco Control, does not ban industry-sponsored research, in part because it does not wish to appear biased.

The BMJ, formerly the British Medical Journal, argues that such a decision is an unacceptable form of censorship.

The editors of PLoS Medicine cited two reasons for their decision. “First, tobacco is indisputably bad for health. Half of all smokers will die of tobacco use. . . . Tobacco interests in research cannot have a health aim — if they did, tobacco companies would be better off shutting down business — and therefore health research sponsored by tobacco companies is essentially advertising.”

Because publication in journals like PLoS Medicine is funded by research sponsors, “we believe it would be irresponsible to act as part of the machinery that enhances the reputation of an industry producing health-harming products.”

Second, “we remain concerned about the industry’s long-standing attempts to distort the science of and deflect attention away from the harmful effects of smoking. . . . We do not wish to provide a forum for companies’ attempts to manipulate the science of tobacco’s harms.”

Not everyone agrees with the editors. Jeff Stier of the American Council on Science and Health said, “By deciding to no longer allow for research funded in any part by the tobacco industry, they’re acknowledging that they’re no longer able to evaluate science.”

By Thomas H. Maugh, Latimes

Debate about the Board of Health’s decision to ban smoking in private clubs ignited last night during a meeting in the Police Department.

Representatives from two of the seven private clubs that allow smoking questioned the board, whose 2-1 vote on Feb. 1 forbids smoking in private establishments effective Monday.

Michael A. Stelmack, manager of TSKK Club on Harris Street, and Carl A. Paglione, commander and bar manager of the American Legion Post 184 on Houghton Street, were concerned about the possibility that a member might simply refuse to comply.

“It’s your jurisdiction to have them removed from the club,” Health Agent Thomas Purcell said. “Do what you have to do.”

There might be accidental violations or belligerence, Mr. Purcell acknowledged, and managers could consult with the health office. An individual violator could be ticketed, he said.

Board Chairman Francis E. Carbonneau Jr. suggested, “The easiest thing to do is not serve him (alcohol) to discourage him” from smoking.

Area towns that have banned smoking in private clubs include Athol, Grafton, Marlboro, Millville, New Braintree and Templeton. Forty-five communities voluntarily reported to the state that they do not allow smoking in private clubs, according to the Department of Public Health.

The Board of Health last night adopted a set of fines for violations. The regulation is similar to Athol’s statute, which prevailed in the state Supreme Judicial Court in a lawsuit brought by that town’s private clubs. Mr. Carbonneau and Vice Chairman Kenneth J. Gikas voted yes; member David Zalewski voted no.

A first offense will result in a $100 fine, a second offense within 24 months of the first will cost $200, and three or more violations within 24 months will cost $300, the regulation says.

Under state general law, five offenses within two years are grounds for enforcement agencies such as the board, building inspector, fire and police or state Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission to yank a club’s liquor license, Mr. Purcell said.

“I don’t expect it to be like that,” Mr. Gikas said. “I think once this is put in effect, the clubs will abide by it. Everything will be nice.”

“You have educated, smart businessmen running these clubs,” added Mr. Zalewski, “and they will make sure that nothing happens.”

Mr. Purcell said he wasn’t recommending that officials “camp outside the door waiting for the first violation.”

“We gave them a month’s head start to get their constituents used to it,” he said.

At 5 p.m. Monday in the Town Hall auditorium, club representatives will have the opportunity to persuade the board to reverse its decision.

Mr. Paglione began his case last night. “If I’m working the bar and I have a member that walks into the post and he has a Silver Star and Purple Heart hanging over his heart, and he lights up a cigarette, I’m supposed to tell this man put that out or leave?” he said with emotion. “He’s in his house.”

By Brian Lee, Telegram

Think smokers are sexy? Think again.
In one of the first columns I wrote four years ago I stated that being a cigarette smoker lowered a single person’s Dating Quotient more than any other factor. I guess it’s OK to plagiarize myself, so I will paraphrase two statements that I wrote in 2005.

I repeat that the absolute hardest person to match in the singles’ marketplace is someone who smokes cigarettes on a regular basis, every day. Moreover, if that person identifies himself as a pack a day (or more) smoker, the resulting stigma is somewhat equivalent to being at least 100 pounds overweight or, even worse, being a Yankees fan looking for love in the bleachers at Fenway Park.

Yet many people continue to smoke. Today adult cigarette smokers in the dating world tend to fall into two categories. The first group consists of single men and women in their 20s who (like many people) started smoking to look cool and grown up as teenagers and have been unable to break the habit.

The second group consists of divorced adults who also started smoking in their adolescence and eventually did quit. But owing to the stress surrounding their divorce, fell off the non-smoking wagon.

The purpose of this column is not to preach to smokers that they should quit to improve their chances of meeting someone. Although just for the heck of it, I suggest that anyone who belongs to online dating service do the following.

Complete a profile in which you state that you are a non-smoker. Then after a while change your profile to read that you are a moderate to heavy smoker. The difference both in the number and quantity of your matches will amaze you.

But this column is not aimed at cigarette smokers. Rather it is aimed at people who have started to date or who are considering dating someone who is a cigarette smoker.

I have one question for you. Are you nuts? What are you thinking? (OK that is two questions.)

If you are looking to meet a partner with whom you can have a long-term relationship, you should be aware that most studies indicate that cigarette smoking will reduce one’s life expectancy anywhere from an average of 12 to 15 years! (If you doubt that statement because you have an uncle who is 95 and has smoked for 80 years, just Google, as I did, “life expectancy of smokers versus nonsmokers.”)

That doesn’t count those years when you would have to be a full-time caregiver to a partner suffering from emphysema, lung cancer, or any of the other smoking-related ailments.

Or perhaps you are looking to meet someone with whom you can start a family. I suggest you research studies by the American Council on Science and Health or the Centers for Disease Control. If you are a man, such studies show that “Women who smoke cigarettes are three times likelier than nonsmoking women to have difficulty conceiving; and the higher the average number of cigarettes a woman of reproductive age smokes, the smaller her chances are of becoming pregnant.”

Moreover, these studies also show that “Of the approximately 140,000 cases of miscarriage per year in the United States, about 19,000 have been attributed to cigarette smoking.”

If you are a woman, you should be aware of studies that indicate “evidence has increasingly suggested that cigarette smoking adversely affects the male reproductive system as well. Cigarette smoking damages sperm, affects hormone concentrations in men, and reduces blood flow to the penis. This reduction in blood flow can result in erectile dysfunction, or impotence.”

But let’s say that you are an admittedly shallow man just looking for a hot gal to “hook up with” for a while. Putting aside the obvious and distasteful odor of cigarettes that permeates one’s skin, breath and clothing, studies have also shown that smoking discolors teeth and lessens the skin’s elasticity, which results in increased cellulite accumulation.

The same is true in the case of men who smoke. Remember the old Marlboro Man commercials that purported that cigarette smoking brings out a manly, rugged, macho appearance?

Research shows that of the nine men who predominantly appeared over the years in these commercials, at least three died of lung cancer, including Wayne McLaren, a professional rodeo rider who succumbed at the ripe old age of 51. Just before he died, a withered McLaren appeared in a television ad in a hospital bed with tubes sticking out of him.

Yet many movies depict cigarette smoking even today as looking cool and hip. (We can forgive period pieces like “Mad Men” and the recently released “Shutter Island” in which cigarette smoking appears in almost every scene.)

The Centers for Disease Control has stated that “smoking in the movies is the most powerful pro-tobacco influence on kids today.”

Yet with all the anti-smoking health evidence, I know that some of you still walk into a bar, spot a man or woman holding a cigarette and think he or she looks sexy.

Before you approach that person, I suggest you close your eyes for a minute and picture that same person in a few years with yellow teeth and wheezing after a half mile stroll on the beach.

Then look around for someone else.

By Steve Penner, Seacoastonline

The 2008 WI Youth Tobacco Survey found that 7 percent of high school students and 3 percent of middle school students use chewing tobacco. Its use is more common among boys than girls.
With the numbers doubling in the years from middle school to high school, it is very important that our youths are educated about chewing tobacco, its effects on their bodies, and the products and advertising aimed at them by the tobacco companies.

Many people have the incorrect assumption that because chewing tobacco is smokeless, it is also harmless, since the poisons and chemicals are not released into the air. However, that is not the case. Chewing tobacco contains 28 cancer-causing agents, all of which are absorbed into the bloodstream during its use. In fact, chewing tobacco is more addictive and harder to quit than cigarettes. Using spit tobacco eight to 10 times a day can put as much nicotine into the body as smoking 30 to 40 cigarettes, since the nicotine content of spit tobacco is two to three times greater than a single cigarette. Nicotine is more addictive than cocaine or heroin (“About Spit Tobacco,” ETR Associates, 2007).

With the smoking bans that are being implemented around the nation, tobacco companies are changing the focus of their advertising — turning more to promotion of smokeless products as discreet alternatives to cigarettes in places where smoking is not allowed (www.cancer.org). This is creating a new tobacco user — one who smokes in their home, and uses smokeless products in public, posing even more serious health threats to their bodies.

Additionally, the smokeless products that the tobacco companies are advertising have an increasing appeal to teenagers, due to the variety of candy flavors that are available. A recent study by Portland State University Chemistry Professor James Pankow found that smokeless tobacco products have up to 700 percent more flavor additives than candy! The high levels of flavorings are used to cover the taste of the tobacco, luring kids into using it because of the good taste, and not forcing them to think about the health risks associated with its use.
Anti-tobacco advocates state that parents who don’t smoke are not aware about the new threat coming from smokeless flavored tobacco, as they simply have no idea that such products exist. The landmark Tobacco Control act adopted last June, and put into effect in November, prohibits the sales of cigarettes with any flavoring besides menthol; however, the ban doesn’t cover other flavored tobacco products.

Chewing tobacco users face a multitude of health risks, including cancers of the lip, tongue, cheeks, gums and floor and roof of the mouth, nicotine addiction, oral leukoplakia, gum disease and gum recession, heart attack and stroke . According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, oral cancer is the sixth-leading cancer in men, and almost 75 percent of people diagnosed with oral and pharyngeal cancer use tobacco. Additionally, only 56 percent of people diagnosed with mouth or throat cancers live longer than five years.

Feb. 14 to 20 was Through With Chew Week. Established in 1989 by the American Academy of Otolaryngology — Head and Neck Surgery Inc., the week serves as an educational campaign to decrease spit tobacco use and increase awareness of the negative health effects of using these products . Locally, our Youth Initiatives group organized a number of events to increase awareness of the dangers associated with chewing tobacco. These kids have taken a stand to not use tobacco products, to educate their peers about the risks associated with the use of tobacco and to fight against the tobacco companies and their deceptive marketing practices. Join the kids in their efforts: Educate yourself about the dangers of chewing tobacco, and consider developing an action plan to quit if you are a current user.

Wendy Young is a Marshfield Clinic AmeriCorps Member serving the Inner Wisconsin Coalition for Youth (IWCFY), working on prevention activities with students in the local schools, including Wisconsin Rapids public and parochial, Immanuel Lutheran, Nekoosa, Pittsville and Auburndale. IWCFY is a network of community members promoting and facilitating healthy lifestyles.

When the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act was enacted in 1970, it was aimed primarily at organized crime. Today it’s aimed at the tobacco industry. The Associated Press reports: “The Obama administration asked the Supreme Court Friday to allow the government to seek nearly $300 billion from the tobacco industry for a half-century of deception that ‘has cost the lives and damaged the health of untold millions of Americans.’

“Both sides in a landmark, decade-long legal fight over smoking took their case to the high court Friday.

“The administration, joined by public health groups, wants the court to throw out rulings that bar the government from collecting $280 billion of past tobacco profits or $14 billion for a national campaign to curb smoking.

“Leading tobacco companies want the justices to wipe away court holdings that the industry illegally concealed the dangers of cigarette smoking. If they succeed, the attack on their profits also would be halted.”

Now there is a provision in the RICO statutes that allows for civil lawsuits, however, the plaintiff must prove the existence of a “criminal enterprise.” While we’re more than willing to concede that the tobacco companies are often far from warm and cuddly, they also are not what most fair-minded people would consider an ongoing criminal enterprise.

What would the ramifications be if the tobacco companies were deemed a criminal enterprise? Wouldn’t shareholders in these firms be co-conspirators? And wouldn’t the government itself be an accomplice after the fact for all the taxes they collected over the years?

Big Tobacco committed several sins over the last 50 years, and they settled with the states for billions of dollars. That’s where the Tobacco Commission funds come from.

Now the federal government wants its pound of flesh.

Never mind that Uncle Sam helped get a large segment of the population addicted to cigarettes in the first place by distributing them to our military personnel during many of this county’s wars.

So, if the government wants to take Big Tobacco’s profits away because they deem it to be blood money, then what would be the morally right thing to do with all the corporate taxes the tobacco companies have paid to the federal government over the years?

The truth is Uncle Sam and the states have no problem with smoking as long as the money is flowing in their direction. Illinois, which is facing a financial meltdown, has a wide array of tax increases proposed, and you guessed it, one of the proposals is to hike the cigarette tax by $1 a pack.

I’m sorry but I’ve never put a lot of stock in the whole “tobacco companies lied” argument. I remember the first time I took a drag off a cigarette when I was a teenager, and the first thought that went through my head was, “this can’t be good for you.”

Not rocket science people.

Did Big Tobacco hide data on just how bad and addictive its products are? I think they did.

Did Toyota hide data on the seriousness of the design flaws in its cars? I think they did too. The list of companies that have hidden damaging data over the years is darn near endless.

Companies are in the business of turning a profit and protecting their livelihoods. I have much more sympathy for people who are hurt or killed by a defective product like a gas pedal that sticks to the floor than I do for people who kill themselves using a product they know is bad for them.

And I have zero respect for a government that helped get people hooked on cigarettes in the first place, profited every step of the way, and now wants to claim the moral high ground.

by Jeff Humber, Gazettevirginian

About the only places smokers can light up are at home and outside, since the state’s indoor smoking ban took effect in 2003.
But now they can strike the outdoors — at least the parts owned by the Town of Orchard Park — from that list.

The town has become the first in Erie and Niagara counties to ban tobacco in its parks, beach and recreation areas.

“It’s just a very bad habit. I feel for people,” said Town Supervisor Janis Colarusso, who quit smoking five years ago. “It’s a very hard drug to get off.”

She said smokers should not impose their tobacco use on those who don’t smoke.

The town is taking a smoking ban a step further by making the town parks tobacco-free, not just smoke-free.

The designation was made in conjunction with the Erie-Niagara Tobacco-Free Coalition, which is providing signs for the town areas. The sign was designed by local graphics artist Michael Margolis and entreats park and beach visitors not to smoke or litter.

“We’re looking for more opportunities to restrict smoking,” said coalition coordinator Anthony Billoni.

Billoni said the coalition is seeking more areas that will be smoke-free to help make smoking less prevalent in the community. It’s also trying to help the parks stay clean from dropped cigarette butts, while creating a better space for children.

“We’d just like there to be one more place where they don’t see people smoking,” Billoni said, adding that the less often children see others smoke, the smaller chance they have of taking it up.

The issue of secondhand smoke exposure remains, he said, but is less of a problem outside.

Smoking was banned in virtually all indoor public places in New York State in July 2003. And last August, the University at Buffalo became smoke-free inside buildings, outside buildings and in green space on campus.

While the signs will go up in Orchard Park, there are no penalties for smoking in the parks, beach and recreation areas.

“I believe the Town Board is hoping the residents of Orchard Park obey by seeing the signage,” Colarusso said.

“I think it’s a positive step,” Orchard Park Recreation Director Ed Leak said. “It’s more self-policing. The awareness will come.”

Billoni said that starting out with a nonbinding policy helps move a community in the direction of being smoke-free.

“The state loves to see local precedence,” he said, noting it was after Erie and Nassau counties put smoking bans into effect that New York State adopted its law banning smoking in public buildings.

By Barbara O’Brien, Buffalonews

Ghana has been selected to host the second working group meeting on World Health Organisation (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) in April this year.
The meeting is to, among other things, identify and develop opportunities for practical cooperation with competent intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations in the promotion of sustainable alternatives to tobacco growing.

It is also to help achieve the FCTC’s objective of protecting present and future generations from the devastating health, social, environmental and economic consequences of tobacco consumption and exposure to smoking, as well as the reduction of demand for tobacco products.

At the inauguration of a nine-member Local Planning Committee to plan for the meeting scheduled for April 20 to 23, outgoing Deputy Minister of Health, Dr Oakley Quaye-Kuma, said the WHO convention on tobacco control was the first treaty negotiated under the auspices of WHO, which is an evidence-based treaty that reaffirmed the right of all people to the highest standards of health.

The objectives of the working group meeting is among other things to interact with other global players and to deliberate and strategise on alternative livelihoods to tobacco growing in order to protect the environment and the health of persons in the production and manufacturing of tobacco products.

About 40 participants from 18 member countries would be attending the meeting.

The FCTC treaty adopted in 2003 by the World Health Assembly, is the world’s first treaty devoted to health to get people to quit smoking and to reduce the estimated five million deaths annually caused by smoking.

He said tobacco smoking was unhealthy and caused chronic diseases that could lead to death, adding that smoke damaged the lungs and was the principal cause of lung or bronchial cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

“What many people, smokers and non-smokers alike, may not know is that tobacco use increases risks of cancer of many sites in the body in addition to the lungs.

“These include the head and neck (covering cancers of the oesophagus, larynx, tongue, salivary glands, lip, mouth and pharynx) urinary bladder and kidneys, uterine cervix, breast, pancreas and colon,” he said.

The Deputy Minister said people who cultivated and handled tobacco leaves were equally at risk of tobacco related diseases, such as green tobacco sickness, pesticide intoxication, respiration and dermatological disorders and other types of cancers.

To this end, the FCTC called on all parties to the Convention to raise awareness about the addictive and harmful nature of tobacco products and about industry interference with tobacco control policies, as well as avoid conflict of interest from government officials and employees.

According to the Deputy Minister, Article 17 and 18 of the Framework Convention deals with provision of support for economically viable alternative activities and protection of the environment and the health of persons.

Parties to the Convention were, therefore, required to promote economically viable alternatives for tobacco workers, growers and, as the case may be, individual sellers, he said.

In order to make progress in the promotion of sustainable alternatives to tobacco growing at the district, regional, national and international levels, Mr. Quaye-kuma said, there was the need to increase the participation of specialized local and international agencies which are recognized experts in this process.

The Chairman of the local Planning Committee, Dr Akwasi Osei, Chief Psychiatrist at the Ministry of Health, said issues to be discussed at the meeting would be adopted by the General Assembly towards the end of the year as a guide for the world towards the control of tobacco production, marketing and consumption.

He said Ghana was in the good books of WHO, hence the choice for the second meeting and pledged the committee’s readiness to ensure a memorable and very productive meeting.