<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Does tobacco deserve trade protection?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/2012/08/20/does-tobacco-deserve-trade-protection/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/2012/08/20/does-tobacco-deserve-trade-protection/</link>
	<description>TC News and Views Online</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:02:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: True Tobacco</title>
		<link>http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/2012/08/20/does-tobacco-deserve-trade-protection/comment-page-1/#comment-473</link>
		<dc:creator>True Tobacco</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 00:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/?p=352#comment-473</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have no problem with this. I just hope they unify the system and make it manageable for smaller exporters. It seems every new rule is designed to be passable by big business, but not by smaller ones...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have no problem with this. I just hope they unify the system and make it manageable for smaller exporters. It seems every new rule is designed to be passable by big business, but not by smaller ones&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Davidson</title>
		<link>http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/2012/08/20/does-tobacco-deserve-trade-protection/comment-page-1/#comment-470</link>
		<dc:creator>John Davidson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2012 02:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/?p=352#comment-470</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Marita the rules say PROOF must be shown in order to change brands or change any trade agreement!

There are no studies prooving brand removal or plain packs reduces smoking rates,further there is no PROOF smoking causes anything in any smoker much less in non-smokers!

Read the following as your TC world collapses around you:

JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS&quot; 7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18 November 2004. 

cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/tox201208.pdf
&quot;5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.&quot; 
In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can&#039;t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don&#039;t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does. 
The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Marita the rules say PROOF must be shown in order to change brands or change any trade agreement!</p>
<p>There are no studies prooving brand removal or plain packs reduces smoking rates,further there is no PROOF smoking causes anything in any smoker much less in non-smokers!</p>
<p>Read the following as your TC world collapses around you:</p>
<p>JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS&#8221; 7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18 November 2004. </p>
<p>cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/tox201208.pdf<br />
&#8220;5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke &#8211; induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.&#8221;<br />
In other words &#8230; our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can&#8217;t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact &#8230; we don&#8217;t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.<br />
The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Davidson</title>
		<link>http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/2012/08/20/does-tobacco-deserve-trade-protection/comment-page-1/#comment-469</link>
		<dc:creator>John Davidson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2012 02:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/?p=352#comment-469</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Its funny you make me laugh!

I suppose you can provide a study that proves the end points to any claim made against tobacco! 

I thought not as none exist.......]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Its funny you make me laugh!</p>
<p>I suppose you can provide a study that proves the end points to any claim made against tobacco! </p>
<p>I thought not as none exist&#8230;&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Davidson</title>
		<link>http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/2012/08/20/does-tobacco-deserve-trade-protection/comment-page-1/#comment-468</link>
		<dc:creator>John Davidson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2012 02:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/?p=352#comment-468</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thats where you come in correct along with whatever UN muscle you can swing! Now how about posting the rest of my post!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thats where you come in correct along with whatever UN muscle you can swing! Now how about posting the rest of my post!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marita Hefler</title>
		<link>http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/2012/08/20/does-tobacco-deserve-trade-protection/comment-page-1/#comment-467</link>
		<dc:creator>Marita Hefler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/?p=352#comment-467</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[See comment above - states still have the right to determine the level of health protection they deem appropriate. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>See comment above &#8211; states still have the right to determine the level of health protection they deem appropriate. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Davidson</title>
		<link>http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/2012/08/20/does-tobacco-deserve-trade-protection/comment-page-1/#comment-466</link>
		<dc:creator>John Davidson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 23:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/?p=352#comment-466</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You better check pg 25 out in your link,Intellectual property has PROTECTION! ie brands and packs!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You better check pg 25 out in your link,Intellectual property has PROTECTION! ie brands and packs!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marita Hefler</title>
		<link>http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/2012/08/20/does-tobacco-deserve-trade-protection/comment-page-1/#comment-465</link>
		<dc:creator>Marita Hefler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 23:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/?p=352#comment-465</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is not about ending free trade, it&#039;s about restricting how companies with a uniquely dangerous product trade. Ironic that you raise life expectancy as an issue... the tobacco epidemic has a profound impact on life expectancy, not to mention the impact of illness and death it causes to families.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is not about ending free trade, it&#8217;s about restricting how companies with a uniquely dangerous product trade. Ironic that you raise life expectancy as an issue&#8230; the tobacco epidemic has a profound impact on life expectancy, not to mention the impact of illness and death it causes to families.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marita Hefler</title>
		<link>http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/2012/08/20/does-tobacco-deserve-trade-protection/comment-page-1/#comment-464</link>
		<dc:creator>Marita Hefler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 23:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/?p=352#comment-464</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So no company should face restrictions on its trade, ever - no matter how dangerous the product? Let&#039;&#039;s go back to using asbestos and lead-based paint. Sure, they might kill a few people but company profits are the most important objective.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So no company should face restrictions on its trade, ever &#8211; no matter how dangerous the product? Let&#8221;s go back to using asbestos and lead-based paint. Sure, they might kill a few people but company profits are the most important objective.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marita Hefler</title>
		<link>http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/2012/08/20/does-tobacco-deserve-trade-protection/comment-page-1/#comment-463</link>
		<dc:creator>Marita Hefler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 23:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/?p=352#comment-463</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The WTO specifically makes provision for states to place public health above trade: &quot;...WTO Agreements recognize that there are cases where Members may wish to subordinate trade-related considerations to other legitimate policy objectives and constraints, such as health. WTO jurisprudence, on several occasions, has confirmed that WTO Members have the right to determine the level of health protection they deem appropriate. Human health has been recognized by the WTO as being &quot;important in the highest degree.&quot; See &#039;WTO agreements and public health&#039; available at http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/who_wto_e.pdf]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The WTO specifically makes provision for states to place public health above trade: &#8220;&#8230;WTO Agreements recognize that there are cases where Members may wish to subordinate trade-related considerations to other legitimate policy objectives and constraints, such as health. WTO jurisprudence, on several occasions, has confirmed that WTO Members have the right to determine the level of health protection they deem appropriate. Human health has been recognized by the WTO as being &#8220;important in the highest degree.&#8221; See &#8216;WTO agreements and public health&#8217; available at <a href="http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/who_wto_e.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/who_wto_e.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Davidson</title>
		<link>http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/2012/08/20/does-tobacco-deserve-trade-protection/comment-page-1/#comment-461</link>
		<dc:creator>John Davidson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/?p=352#comment-461</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Australian High court broke WTO rules:

In any event, such legislation would appear to be in breach of World Trade Organisation rules, which state that ‘the use of a trademark in the course of trade shall not be unjustifiably encumbered by special requirements’. Therefore, the tobacco industry – like it or loathe it – has reason to be dismayed at the loss of its brand property.

These rules are dictated by international treaties.................In essence no treaty is worth the paper its written on any longer if the DOMINO EFFECT happens like ASH and the WHO so desperately want. In fact an investigation should be held of the Aussie high court as they gave no reasons for their rash decision last week. Sayying instead theyd deliver reasons for judgement at a later date!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Australian High court broke WTO rules:</p>
<p>In any event, such legislation would appear to be in breach of World Trade Organisation rules, which state that ‘the use of a trademark in the course of trade shall not be unjustifiably encumbered by special requirements’. Therefore, the tobacco industry – like it or loathe it – has reason to be dismayed at the loss of its brand property.</p>
<p>These rules are dictated by international treaties&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..In essence no treaty is worth the paper its written on any longer if the DOMINO EFFECT happens like ASH and the WHO so desperately want. In fact an investigation should be held of the Aussie high court as they gave no reasons for their rash decision last week. Sayying instead theyd deliver reasons for judgement at a later date!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
