The New Straits Times, May 27, 2001
By Professor Dzulkifli Abdul Razak
With a few more days to the 2001 World No-Tobacco Day on May 31, tobacco-related news continue to make headlines.
Last week the New South Wales Cancer Council reported that the number of women 'dying from lung cancer is increasing' by more than 20 per cent in contrast to the death rate for men which decreased by 15 per cent, described as 'a 30-year low'. (The Australian, May 17).
Dr Andrew Penman, the chief executive of the council, was quoted as saying: 'What is worrying is that lung cancer is one of the most preventable cancers, as is seen in men where the death rate is decreasing as more of them are giving up smoking'.
In other words, some women are taking risks by being involved in tobacco-related activities, including smoking.
While some measures to curb smoking such as ban on smoking in public places are having an impact, more would need to be done to further protect women.
According to Penman, in California a smoking ban in public places had resulted in a 'one-off cut in smoking rates'. By combining it with mass media campaigns against cigarettes aimed at women, it has resulted in 15 per cent reduction in California's smoking rate.
Whatever the merit of the situation, the European Union is not taking any chances. The European Parliament passed legislation requiring cigarette packets sol in EU to be covered by health warnings and carry gruesome pictures illustrating the hazards of smoking.
Under sweeping new rules approved in Strasbourg, all cigarette packets sold after September 2002 must carry warnings covering 30 per cent of the front and 40 per cent of the back.
Thus by the end of 2002, individual EU governments would be able to enforce the use of photographs on cigarette packets showing rotting gums, stained teeth and diseased lungs.
Other similar warnings would be about cancer, heart disease, reduced blood flow, impotence, sperm damage, fertility and addiction. Similar stern action was first initiated by Canada earlier this year (NST, Poison Control, Dec 31, 2000).
Such requirements are a far cry from what conventional smoking health warning used to be, normally placed on the side of the packet covering in small and inconspicuous prints.
The bold decisions by the European Parliament truly signal a strong commitment 'to wage a crusade against smoking, which have long been tolerated by European governments', more so because their members earned immense tax revenues from the sale of tobacco products.
Indeed in its continued commitment, the EU is also allegedly taking a number of other measures such as to cut the level of tar and nicotine in cigarettes, listing all the ingredients, and banning the use of deceiving terms such as 'mild' and 'low tar'.
Other plans include severely restricting tobacco advertising. Significantly still, from 2007 the requirements will also apply to cigarettes exported from EU countries.
In less than 20 years, Malaysia will achieve a fully developed nation status like those in the EU. In many instances our Government was courageous enough to take the difficult path in dealing with many issues. Why not against tobacco and smoking?
Our Deputy Prime Minister once quoted that Malaysia is a world-class nation in terms of infrastructure and facilities, but in habit and behavioural-wise we far lagging gar behind. Smoking is one of those habits. Indeed, we should begin inculcating new habits, including having tobacco-free lifestyles.
It is significant that the EU legislation was passed by an overwhelming majority. It was in fact hailed as a milestone in the fight for awareness of the dangers of smoking. The EU made a commitment to higher standards of health protection of its citizens - through at the risk of losing jobs for some countries.
Malaysians too have the right to expert such a level of commitment from its elected representatives.
The question is then should not these genuine concerns expressed by the European Parliament be emulated by the Malaysian Parliament as well?
Should not Malaysians be entitled to just as much protection as the Europeans with respect to the dangers of smoking? How much longer must Malaysia hold out and compromise on its citizens' health?
To all these questions there would be no need for heckling among the Parliamentarians since it is clear that the health benefits clearly override any economic consideration over the long-term period.
The only question is are they as committed and concerned as their European counterparts?
Recommended website: http://tobacco.who.int/en/advocacy/wntd2001b.html
