The law that seeks to prohibit smoking for minors and ban consumption on beaches and terraces has already entered the parliamentary circuit. The Government approved the draft of the norm on Tuesday and it will now have to be debated in Congress. While waiting to see how it materializes and if it finally goes ahead, Armando Peruga (Zaragoza, 70 years old), researcher at the Tobacco Unit of the Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO) and former manager of the Tobacco Free Initiative of the World Health Organization, values the regulation as “a step forward, but not definitive.”
Read more Zapatero’s explanations leave a “bittersweet” taste in the PSOE despite Ferraz’s closing ranks
In a telephone conversation with EL PAÍS from Zaragoza, the epidemiologist, who holds a doctorate in Public Health from Johns Hopkins University and is one of the leading figures in the global fight against tobacco, confronts the arguments of the tobacco industry and the hospitality sector —which have already positioned themselves against it— and also criticizes the lack of commitment from other government ministries, beyond Health, in the fight against smoking. “We are waiting. The draft bill contains good intentions, but it must be materialized with parliamentary approval. We want to see if this will be a joint effort by the Government to secure the necessary votes to approve it, or if it will simply be an empty gesture,” he says.
Question. What do you think of the norm?
Answer. It’s a step forward, but there are things that were going to be in the law and are not, such as generic packaging. And there are things that depend on other ministries, such as the Ministry of Finance, which turn a blind eye to the issue. For example, we continue to be Europe’s tobacco shop because taxes on tobacco and nicotine remain extremely low. And we also forget that the Ministry of Finance has the mandate to establish the number of points of sale, that is, tobacco shops. And these increased. Reducing points of sale is a very important issue for lowering tobacco consumption. And I don’t forget the autonomous communities because, sometimes, they act as if this doesn’t concern them, but Spanish law allows the autonomous regions to go beyond what the national norm says, and they don’t do it.
Q. Regarding generic packaging, why is it not in the norm? Is it due to industry influence?
A. The industry has mobilized with tendentious arguments about job losses and the increase in illicit trade. One of Spain’s problems is that the Ministry of Health controls many of the demand reduction mechanisms, but not the most effective of them, taxes on tobacco and nicotine, nor those related to supply, which depend on the Ministry of Finance. So, as long as there isn’t a joint government policy, Spain will remain hobbled on the issue of tobacco control. And it’s very good that we continue to advance in demand reduction, which is basically what this law does, but as long as we don’t raise tobacco taxes or control supply, we will remain hobbled.
Q. The new norm equates tobacco-related products, such as vapers, with traditional cigarettes. How do you evaluate this measure?
A. The intention is good, but let’s see how the fine print is exactly materialized. The only specific thing that has been said is that its use will not be allowed in the same places where smoking is prohibited. Excellent. Exposure to the aerosol from vapers, heated tobacco, etc., is harmful, perhaps not as much as tobacco smoke, but it is still harmful. But what does it mean that it will be equated? It says it will be sold in specialized stores: What does this mean? Does it mean tobacco shops or does it go further? And third, the issue of taxes, which depends on the Ministry of Finance: Will they also equate it in terms of taxes?
Q. The industry says that prohibiting smoking on terraces constitutes “an exception in Europe.”
A. The industry’s complaint has no basis. The EU recommendation states that [the prohibition] should be extended to terraces. And, furthermore, in Spain there was already a ban on terraces during the pandemic and no one tore their clothes, it worked perfectly.
Q. Why is it important to prohibit smoking on terraces? What are the health risks?
A. It is true that in some spaces, and depending on the air currents, smoke is diluted to certain sides and the concentration of some toxins decreases. But smoke currents are also created that circulate in specific lanes depending on the ventilation in each place, and there are people who are exposed to higher levels than inside indoor spaces. In these spaces where smoke currents form, the concentration can be significant and greatly affect the people who are there, especially if they are minors. And we are also concerned about workers, because this is an occupational health issue: people who work on terraces are exposed and cannot leave like customers.
Q. The industry argues that there is evidence of harm reduction from electronic cigarettes.
A. It’s one thing to compare one product with another, and another thing is how it’s used in reality. If you compare the harm of electronic cigarettes with that produced by traditional ones, it can be less, yes. The evidence is that it produces fewer toxins, but we still don’t know the long-term consequences. And another issue that greatly concerns us is that most people, smokers and vapers, use both. And it has been scientifically proven that the dual use of both increases health risk.
Q. What is expected from this norm? Detractors say that consumption will not decrease, but rather shift to other spaces.
A. The forecast is that consumption will decrease. What the industry says about consumption shifting [to other spaces] is a lie. And the reason is that most smokers want to quit, so incentives to stop smoking are welcome.
Q. Regarding the economic impact, with the 2010 law, the industry said that the law would be “devastating for the hospitality sector.” This time they have also warned about the effects on tourism and employment.
A. A cataclysm was going to occur with the previous law, and all studies on the economic impact show that there were no negative consequences: the number of bars that closed was exactly the same as expected. Some studies indicate that, if anything, there was a small but positive economic effect. Why? Because 80% of the population does not smoke, and when you insist on defending the 20% who do smoke, you forget the 80% who don’t. If you prohibit smoking on terraces, perhaps 80% of the population will go to them a little more.
Q. Someone might say: if smoking is so bad, why isn’t it completely banned?
A. The problem is that tobacco is an addiction, and if you ban it overnight, addicts will remain addicts and will obtain the product through other mechanisms. So, to avoid a larger illicit market than there is now, the process has to be gradual. The fundamental element is to make a transition that allows agricultural businesses and workers to plan their future and that smokers do not have more problems with the addiction they already have.
