Photo by [The Courier Mail]
Peter Ucko, CEO of the Tobacco, Alcohol, and Gambling Advisory (TAG), has criticised the assertion that implementing the Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill would result in job losses within the country’s tobacco industry. This criticism was prompted by concerns raised by stakeholders within the tobacco sector.
According to Ucko, this claim is misleading and frequently employed by industry stakeholders whenever changes are proposed to the laws governing the packaging, sale, and usage of tobacco and related products.
“Money doesn’t disappear. It just shifts and creates jobs in other areas. The loss of jobs is a misleading statement [made by] people involved in the tobacco industry.”
The primary objective of the Tobacco Products and Electronic Systems Control Bill is to address tobacco and nicotine dependency while also regulating the sale and advertising of tobacco-related products, including their packaging and retail displays. The Portfolio Committee on Health has invited South Africans to submit written comments on the matter, with the deadline set for August 4th.
“Job Losses”, The Same Song and Dance of the Tobacco Industry
While acknowledging the bill may have a short-term impact on jobs and small businesses, Ucko contends the money currently being wastefully spent on purchasing tobacco, electronic nicotine, and non-nicotine products could be redirected to foster growth in other markets and industries.
Drawing from his experience with previous changes to tobacco laws, Ucko suggests the phrase “job loss” has become a cliché frequently employed by stakeholders and those affected in the tobacco industry.
Looking back at past instances where tobacco laws were amended, the tobacco industry consistently lamented the potential negative consequences on job security. However, Ucko asserts the actual effects were either temporary or negligible at best.
“I was in Parliament in 1997 at public hearings about the then bill, which became law on the 1st of January 2001. In those public hearings, there were dozens of advertising agencies, newspapers, magazines, radio stations, and TV stations, and all those people said, ‘Ah, we’re going to go insolvent. Jobs will be lost. It’s going to be a big catastrophe if you ban the advertising of tobacco products’ … They knew in 1997 when they were talking about job losses and insolvencies. In retrospect, they realised they were not telling the truth. There were no job losses.”
SMread| Emerging Powers Unite: Unravelling the Significance of the BRICS Summit
Criticism of the Tobacco Bill
Despite the criticisms levied against the bill, it is contended by many that, apart from potentially negative impacts on the economy, its implementation may also bolster the illicit and black market trade of tobacco products.
Another area of criticism concerns the inclusion of e-cigarettes and vaping under the purview of the tobacco bill. Some argue these alternatives are less detrimental to public health and thus should be subject to separate regulations distinct from combustible tobacco products.
Although the relative harm of these alternatives is a subject of debate, Ucko maintains the appeal of electronic devices could potentially lead to a rise in regular smoking behaviour.
“The reality of the electronic nicotine delivery systems and all these exotic flavours, and blowing huge plumes of smoke into the atmosphere, [seems] fun for kids. Those kids who are now taking up electronic devices in droves are very likely, and the science and the research indicate, are very likely to convert to combustible tobacco products. That’s why we have to get rid of electronic devices because they lead to regular smoking.”
