Tobacco Documents Online

TOBACCO INDUSTRY COUNCIL Zimbabwe and the World Health Assembly 1. The World Health Assembly (WHA) is due shortly (May 1986) to consider a resolution put forward by the World Health'Organisation (WHO) which has the potential of being extremely harmful to Zimbabwe. NfB. The WHA is the "parliament" to the WHO. C C 2. This resolution seeks to isolate smoking and tobacco use as a major health issue and to commit the WHO to introducing a world wide programme against smoking with the ultimate goal of eliminating the use of tobacco products on this planet. 3. The Resolution stems from a report prepared by the WHO and presented to their Executive Board by a leading anti- smoking activist in the E.E.C. who had inter alia been a member of the programme committee which initially dealt with the report. 4. Examination of the report reveals it to be a political rather than a scientific document. It is a regrettable departure from WHO traditions of scientific and political objectivity. It has been found to contain distortions, contradictions and glaring inaccuracies, while its tone is highly emotive and doctrinaire. (A short critique of the report is attached as Appendix A). 5. Where the report is accurate is in reflecting the views of the anti-smoking lobby, whose Stated purpose is to eliminate tobacco from world society as rapidly as possible. It accepts without question the pronouncements of professional anti-smoking organisations and individuals, and even repeats canards that have not been endorsed by reputable scientific opinion. In so doing, the report follows the standard practice of anti-smoking activists in quoting opinion as fact. 6. The attached critique makes it abundantly clear that the report is not fairminded, objective or scientific in its approach, nor of a standard which one would normally associate with the work of a major U.N. Agency. Thus any findings or conclusion derived from the report must be sus ect. Unfortunately, the Resolution to be put to t e WHA, in many respects merely compounds the inaccuracies and distortions of the document upon which it is based. 7. The Resolution (Paper EB 77/22 Add2) makes three main assumptions which are not supported by an objective appraisal of the facts. It maintains: a) that the causal link between smoking and a number of diseases has been proven; b) that smoking is an addiction; and c)p that "passive" smoking (environmental tobacco smoke) is dangerous to the health of non-smokers. .A1

-2- 8. The truth of the matter is that all the evidence 'in support of the alleged linkage between smoking and several diseases is epidemiological (based on statistics) and no direct causal link has been proven. Furthermore not all, the statistical evidence is as conclusive as its protagonists would maintain and some strange anomolies exist. The•claim that smoking is addictive is not even supported by recent publications of the WHO itself. The allegation that "passive" smoking is harmful to non-smokers is not supported by recent statements from prestigious bodies (including the Royal College of Physicians) who maintain that no evidence of environmental tobacco smoke damaging the health of non-smokers has been scientifically established. 9. The Resolution having made several emotive statements regarding the alleged dangers of tobacco consumption, then calls upon member states to implement an exhaustive range of smoking control strategies designed to cripple the tobacco industry. These measures would entail active participation by the member states in the anti-smoking campaign. 10. In addition to its approach to member states, the Resolution appeals for support from other United Nations organisations. (This appeal is disturbing because the WHO, having requested the FAO to produce a paper on the world tobacco economy and the contribution of tobacco cultivation to the agricultural development of producing countries, then largely ignores its conclusions. While reference is made in the report to the paper as an "unpublished FAO document", it has in_fact been published and its findings are used most selectively. Thus the WHO's approach to the financial implications of the limitation of tobacco production on the economies of countries in the Third World can only be described as evasive and unrealistic). 11. The Resolution continues by proposing that the Director- General be authorized to implement an extensive anti- tobacco programme without waitinq to follow the normal procedures for establishing its next General Programme of Work. No reason is given for the sudden urgency. 12. Finally, the Resolution outlines the financial requirements of implementing a WHO anti-tobacco programme. These are substantial and will only reduce the amount that can be spent on health issues of a higher global priority and of far greater concern to countries in the Third World. 13. It is almost presumptious to remind decision-makers in Zimbabwe of the importance of the tobacco industry to our economy. However, for the benefit of those who are not so familiar with our economic structure it is r1j necessary to point out that we export 98% of the tobacco 0 we produce and that the tobacco industry earns a fifth of our total foreign exchange and employs a tenth of our labour force. Tobacco production is thus vital to ~ our economy and, such is our dependence upon exports, ,o ..our threat to our markets is a direct threat to Zimbabwe. 29- l /3....

C C -3- 14. However, Zimbabwe is not alone among developing countries in its financial dependence upon tobacco production. To a greater or lesser degree, several of Zimbabwe's neighbours in the SADCC region rely heavily on their tobacco crops and it is even admitted by the WHO that throughout the Third World, some 35 million people depend upon tobacco production for their livelihood. 15. It is significant therefore that the Resolution makes no reference to the dependence of many Third World countries on tobacco production or what is to become of them should the market for tobacco collapse. It is even more significant that virtually all of the protagonists of the WHO anti-smoking campaign.are from the developed world, the majority from Britain, the U.S.A. and the Scandanavian countries. With the exception of the U.S.A., all the developed countries are heavy net importers of tobacco. 16. Unfortunately, the effect of the Resolution, which has largely been activated by the developed countries, will be to place the burden of solving what they perceive to be a health problem upon the developing countries whose own health riorities are of an entirel different nature. I imp ementation of t e Resolution were to prove successful, it would be the developing countries not the developed countries that would suffer. 17. Whatever: the motives of the developed countries in pushing the WHA to accept a resolution which is intemperate in its wording and far reaching in its consequences, the danger to Zimbabwean welfare in general and to the Zimbabwean tobacco industry in particular is such, that the industry is bound to do all in.its power to introduce a measure of rationality into the debate. 18. It would be wrong to infer from the fore-going that the tobacco industry in Zimbabwe is totally unconcerned or dismissive of the fears expressed by bona fide members of the medical profession on what they perceive to be a problem of importance. 19. It is accepted that statistical evidence has been produced which merits further research into a causal link between smoking and alleged tobacco related diseases. It is not accepted that a link has been rp oved and hence all further research is unnecessary. 20. The tobacco industry is also unable to accept the WHO's contentions that smoking is addictive and that environ- mental tobacco smoke is detrimental to health. Neither of these contentions can be supported by an objective scientific approach. 21. The tobacco industiy is greatly concerned that the WHO, which is rightly a most prestigous organisation, appears to have been "hijacked" by a coterie of anti-smoking activists, and that the developed countries are promoting a policy which can only be economically detrimental to the interests of less favoured nations, largely dependent upon tobacco crop production. N c-fl O ~ ~ N O 0 0 yi ! r 1"....

-4- 22. The tobacco industry believes that the WHA would be failing in its duties if it were to accept the current Resolution. It further suggests, with due respect, that the WHO should be advised: a) to adopt a more objective and less subjective approach to tobacco and health issues; b) to continue research into the causal link between smoking and alleged'tobacco related diseases; c) not to propose any further resolutions.on tobacco and health until such time as the FAO have been able to prepare and publish a complimentary paper on the economic contribution of tobacco produdtion to the economies of countries in the Third World. I i