BRUSSELS — The European Commission suspects that a massive tranche of pro-industry comments on the EU’s proposed tobacco tax hike was “probably” a coordinated attempt to distort public feedback. The Commission received thousands of anonymous submissions promoting pro-tobacco industry arguments in the final hours of the public feedback period on its proposal on the Tobacco Tax Directive. There were also fake submissions purporting to be from public health experts opposing the plan. “We have been looking at the submissions in the public consultation and we saw some elements that indicated, indeed, some of the submissions were probably submitted in a coordinated manner and not necessarily representing individual views,” said David Boublil from the Commission’s tax department, in response to a question from POLITICO. Boublil didn’t say who was behind the coordinated submissions but said the lobbying from the tobacco industry on the file was “gigantic.” He was speaking at an event on tobacco taxation hosted by the European Respiratory Society in Brussels. Public consultations on controversial products like tobacco have attracted suspicious activity in the past. A 2024 U.K. consultation on tobacco and vaping policies received over 90,000 fraudulent responses that the government said was consistent with the use of bots. In Europe, this year is likely to see increased industry lobbying as two pieces of tobacco legislation are slated for review. The Commission’s plan to hike tobacco taxes is likely to be a contentious political issue: It wants to raise the EU-wide minimum levy on tobacco from €90 per 1,000 cigarettes to €215, but some countries think that’s too aggressive. Cyprus, which holds the presidency of the Council of the EU until the end of June, has suggested paring that back to €200 and giving countries an extra two years to implement the directive. The Commission also plans to overhaul its rules on the marketing and sale of nicotine products to cover e-cigarettes, heated tobacco and nicotine pouches in 2026. A draft European Parliament report said the Commission should extend its tobacco control laws to all non-medicinal nicotine products, including a crackdown on marketing, flavors and packaging.

Pharmacies across the U.K. are reporting widespread shortages of aspirin, one of the most widely prescribed drugs that is used to prevent heart attacks and strokes and treat pain. From a survey of 540 pharmacies, 86 percent had been unable to supply the medication to their patients in the past week, the National Pharmacy Association said Friday. Pharmacies said they have been rationing supplies, prioritizing patients with the most acute heart conditions or in need of emergency prescriptions, with several saying they stopped selling the medication over the counter. Olivier Picard, chair of the NPA, said the association is “concerned” about these reports and its implications on patients; 51 million aspirin items were prescribed in the U.K. between January and October last year. “For those pharmacies that can get hold of supply, costs will far exceed what they will be reimbursed by the [National Health Service], yet more signs of a fundamentally broken pharmacy contract in desperate need of reform by the government,” Picard said. Earlier this month, U.S. President Donald Trump made headlines for saying he takes a high daily dose of aspirin as it’s “good for thinning out the blood, and I don’t want thick blood pouring through my heart.” He reportedly takes four times the recommended daily dose for cardiovascular disease prevention. On Thursday, Trump blamed the medication for his visible hand bruise at Davos. In the U.K., pharmacists cannot offer patients substitutions for a prescribed medication, such as a different strength or formulation, without a new doctor’s prescription. The government is looking into the possibility of changing this. “We’ve long called for pharmacists to be able to make substitutions where a medicine is not in stock and it is safe to supply an alternative,” he said. “The status quo is not only frustrating for patients, it is also dangerous.” The government added aspirin to its export ban list on Jan. 16 amid the ongoing shortage. In the EU, the Pharmaceutical Group of the European Union said Friday they “don’t have any signal regarding shortages of aspirin in the EU.” The European Medicines Agency, which monitors drugs in short supply, does not currently list aspirin.

Europeans’ world-leading drinking habits are putting their health at risk, but governments are failing to use higher taxes to help curb consumption, warned the World Health Organization. Beer has become more affordable in 11 EU countries since 2022, and less affordable in six, the WHO report revealed Tuesday. There was a similar but even more dramatic trend for spirits, which became more affordable in 17 EU countries and less affordable in two. And for wine, 14 EU countries do not tax it at all, including big producers Italy and Spain, the report found. The EU includes seven of the 10 countries with the highest per-capita alcohol consumption globally, with Romania, Latvia and Czechia among the biggest drinkers. Alcohol is a major driver of cancer, with risk scaling alongside higher consumption. It’s also linked to a wide range of illnesses including cardiovascular disease and depression, all of which are adding pressure to stretched health systems. The WHO said governments should target alcohol consumption to protect people from its ill effects. Increasing the cost of booze through taxes is one of the most effective measures governments can take, the WHO said. Yet, some EU countries have minimal or no taxes on certain types of alcohol. The fact that more than half of EU countries don’t tax wine at all is “unusual” by international standards, WHO economist Anne-Marie Perucic said. She pointed out that the more affordable alcohol is, the more people consume. “Excluding a product is not common. It’s always for political reasons, socio-economic reasons [like] trying to protect the local industry. Clearly, it doesn’t make sense from a health perspective,” Perucic told POLITICO. Those 14 countries span the EU’s northern and central regions, such as Germany, Austria and Bulgaria. “More affordable alcohol drives violence, injuries and disease,” said Etienne Krug, director of the WHO’s department of health determinants, promotion and prevention. “While industry profits, the public often carries the health consequences and society the economic costs.” The EU has touted its plans to protect its wine industry from threats including declining consumption and climate change. EU institutions agreed a package of measures to prop up the sector in December. Meanwhile, the European Commission recently backed down from proposing an EU-wide tax on alcopops; the sweet, pre-mixed alcoholic drinks that taste like sodas, as part of its Safe Hearts plan.  In a separate report, the WHO reported that sugary drinks have also become more affordable in 13 EU countries since 2022, data published in a separate WHO report found. A diet high in sugar is linked to obesity, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, fatty liver disease and certain cancers.

People who stop taking weight-loss drugs regain body mass four times faster than those who lost their excess pounds through diet and exercise, according to an analysis of the latest studies. The additional benefits from taking weight-loss drugs, such as improvements in cholesterol and blood pressure, were also reversed when patients quit the medications, the study found. The research, published in the British Medical Journal on Thursday, adds to a growing body of evidence that suggests life-long treatment of obesity is needed to maintain control of the condition. But the high cost of the latest drugs — as well as their side effects — present barriers to long-term use. “We know that obesity is a chronic relapsing condition. We know that when treatment stops, weight is regained. And so, some kind of treatment needs to be continued. What [that] treatment should be, I don’t know,” co-author Susan Jebb, professor of diet and population health at the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, told journalists. Rates of obesity and overweight are growing rapidly on the continent, with around 51 percent of people in the EU aged 16 years or over being overweight in 2022. Obesity significantly increases the risk of chronic illnesses such as diabetes, heart disease and cancers, and health systems are struggling to cope. Researchers analyzed weight gain from 37 trials of multiple weight-loss drugs, including older medications and the newer GLP-1s. The latest drugs, including Novo Nordisk’s diabetes and weight-loss drugs Ozempic and Wegovy and Eli Lilly’s Mounjaro, saw the greatest weight loss and the fastest weight regain when treatment stopped. Compared with another analysis of behavioral weight management programs supporting low energy diets and exercise, weight regain was faster after ending medication than after ending behavioral programs. THE LONG-TERM DILEMMA The newer weight-loss drugs have seen a boom in uptake across Europe and America, despite their high prices. Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro soared in popularity after demonstrating roughly 15 percent weight loss in trials, and were pounced on by celebrities and influencers. However, around half of people who take these drugs will stop them after one year. Side effects such as nausea and vomiting, costs or dissatisfaction with weight loss as it plateaus are driving decisions to halt treatment, lead author Sam West, a postdoctoral researcher also at the Nuffield department at the University of Oxford, told journalists during the briefing. Most people in the U.K. — around 90 percent — pay privately for their weight-loss medication, Jebb said. But those who access it through the National Health Service are subject to a two-year cap on access to the drugs, known as GLP-1s. Similar limits apply in other EU countries. Dimitris Koutoukidis, associate professor in diet, obesity and behavioral sciences at the University of Oxford, suggested the U.K. may not be getting the value for money it envisioned with these weight-loss drugs. The model used to assess whether Lilly and Novo’s medicines were cost-effective assumed people would regain their lost weight after two years, he told journalists — but their study shows weight is regained at around 1.5 years. “It is really hard to treat obesity and keep the weight off long-term,” Jebb said. “That should make us put even more effort into preventing weight gain in the first place. And if we could transform our food environment to make it easier for people to manage their weight it would stop them gaining weight in the first place and help people — after a successful weight loss attempt — to keep it off.” “These treatments are not a whole solution,” she added.

Faced with an ageing population and rising chronic disease rates, Europe wants to make its citizens healthier. It also needs to keep its most powerful industries happy. In the basket of health policies that EU lawmakers rushed to get across the line before Christmas, industry was the big winner: The pharmaceutical, food and drink sectors walked away with a set of major policy wins — and (potentially) healthier profits. While the pharma industry previously feared losing some of its monopoly rights on new drugs, the Commission this month offered it an extra year of patent protection for novel biotech drugs — among the most expensive treatments in the world. The food and drink sectors, meanwhile, successfully pushed back against proposals to tax ultra-processed foods and alcopops, for now. On Dec. 16 the Commission published its Biotech Act and Safe Hearts Plan, which landed just days after a long-awaited update of the pharmaceutical legislation. Taken together, they seek to incentivize industries to innovate and do business in Europe, improve access to medicines, and tackle the burden of cardiovascular disease. The pharma industry broadly celebrated the biotech proposal. The Biotech Act “reflects priorities we’ve intensively advocated to keep Europe globally competitive in life sciences,” Ognjenka Manojlovic, head of policy at European pharmaceutical company Sanofi, told POLITICO. That includes accelerating clinical trials, boosting intellectual property, and strengthening financing for Europe’s biotech ecosystem, Manojlovic said. The pharmaceutical sector had pushed for longer monopoly rights in the pharma legislation. In the end they were kept at the current standard eight years — instead of being cut by two years as the European Commission had initially proposed. For Europe’s public health insurers, who pay for drugs, the decisions taken to maintain and then extend market protections for medicines are hard to square. “We are puzzled by the Commission’s intentions,” said Yannis Natsis, director of the European Social Insurance Platform, a network of Europe’s social insurance organizations, warning that taxpayers will have to pick up the bill. Meanwhile, health campaigners are also unhappy at the Commission’s “missed opportunity” to tackle obesity and heart disease with junk food taxes — as proposed in an earlier draft of the Safe Hearts Plan. Samuele Tonello, at consumer organization BEUC, said the Safe Hearts Plan “lacks teeth” to better protect consumers from unhealthy foods, and flagged the “urgency of [cardiovascular diseases].”  A MAN ON A MISSION Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi has made no secret of his support for industry, and has championed the Commission’s competitiveness mantra since taking office in late 2024. Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi has made no secret of his support for industry, and has championed the Commission’s competitiveness mantra since taking office in late 2024. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images The standout feature of his end-of-year bonanza was the 12-month patent extension in the Biotech Act I — legislation that was split in two late in the day, allowing Várhelyi to meet his end-of-year deadline for the pharma component. The proposal came just a week after the Commission, countries and MEPs clinched a deal to reform Europe’s pharmaceutical laws, in which IP rights were among the last issues to be settled. Updates to the pharma laws were a legacy of the last Commission, whereas the Biotech Act became something of a personal mission for Várhelyi. He repeatedly stressed that there was “no time to lose” in delivering a targeted policy aimed at revitalizing Europe’s flagging biotech industry, which risks being overtaken by competition from China and the U.S. Few commissioners are more vocal than Várhelyi about the premium they place on the competitiveness of European industry.  Industry insiders had heard whispers of his plans to expand IP incentives for the biotech sector, even if Council representatives were dismayed not to have been informed in advance — especially with the ink barely dry on the Pharma Package. That’s not to say pharma is happy with its lot. Industry lobby group the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) tempered its praise of the Biotech Act, lamenting that the extra year of monopoly rights would only apply to a “limited subset of products.”  The extra year of protection is tied to the Commission’s efforts to locate more pharma research and manufacturing in Europe. It would apply only to new products, tested and at least partially made in Europe.  But the generics sector, which makes cheaper, off-patent drugs to compete with branded medicines, sees the Biotech Act as a further sweetening of what is already one of the world’s most generous IP systems. Lobby group Medicines for Europe claims each year of delayed competition for the top three biologic drugs would cost countries €7.7 billion. Longer IP “will have a dramatic impact on healthcare budgets and delayed patients’ access to essential medicines,” said Adrian van den Hoven, head of the lobby. These kinds of estimates would normally be included in an impact assessment published alongside the proposal, but in its haste to get the Biotech Act out the Commission didn’t do one. POLITICO asked the Commission for an estimate of what the extra year of patent protection would cost. A Commission spokesperson would not give a figure but said they had used the impact assessment for the pharma legislation as a reference. “It is also important to stress that the number of products eligible for an additional year of SPC will be limited to only those that are truly innovative and tested and manufactured in the EU. The approach is deliberately targeted to incentivise genuinely innovative therapies that deliver a clear added value for patients and support European innovation,” the spokesperson said. LUCKY ESCAPE FOR UPFS The big food and drink sectors are on shakier ground with Várhelyi. The commissioner has repeatedly made known his distaste for ultra-processed food, and an early leaked version of the Safe Hearts Plan included new taxes on unhealthy highly processed foods and alcopops. But the final proposal showed the Commission had undertaken a significant climbdown. Concrete targets to tax unhealthy food and drink in 2026 were gone, replaced with a much woollier commitment to “work towards” such a levy. Alcopops were excluded altogether.  Industry lobby FoodDrinkEurope took a far more measured tone on the final plan than its explosive reactions to the earlier leaks, but that may well ramp up again if and when health tax proposals emerge. The text suggests the soft drinks industry may be the Commission’s first target if it does decide to pursue new levies, while UPFs remain in Várhelyi’s sights. “In the next couple of years, we will need to tackle the issue of ultra-processed food much more,” he told MEPs in December. For now, though, the plan seems to have let industry off easy. Health NGOs saw it as a disappointment, given its lack of hard-hitting policies to reduce consumption of UPFs and other unhealthy products. While the pharma legislation is all wrapped up, the Biotech Act still needs to win the approval of EU countries and the European Parliament. For the food and pharma sectors, the proposals set out this month are confirmation they have allies in the Berlaymont.

By Kathryn Kranhold and Jason McLure of The Examination and Rory O’Neill and Antonia Zimmermann of POLITICO. This article was reported in collaboration with The Examination, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates global health threats. BRUSSELS — When the world’s largest tobacco company needed help lifting international restrictions on its products, it enlisted an unlikely ally: the European Union, a leader in tobacco control.  EU officials met with Philip Morris International representatives at least six times from September 2022 through 2024, according to documents released through public records requests. The tobacco giant’s agenda: Enlist EU officials’ help in loosening restrictions or setting favorable tax rates on its products — including IQOS, a heated tobacco device key to the company’s future — in 10 countries outside the EU. Officials with the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, took action at least three times that would have benefitted the company, The Examination and POLITICO found. They published a notice saying Mexico’s ban on new nicotine products was a possible barrier to free trade. They asked Turkish officials whether they planned to maintain the country’s requirement that cigarettes contain a minimum amount of local tobacco. And in a high-level report for EU officials, they flagged that rule and Turkey’s cigarette tax rate as issues that could affect ties between it and the EU.  The Commission’s actions regarding Turkey were “of great help for us,” a PMI representative wrote to staffers at the Commission. “We would like to express our gratitude in regard of (sic) the actions that you took.”  A Philip Morris International representative thanked European Commission trade officials for flagging Turkey’s cigarette tax and a rule on domestic tobacco as possible trade issues. (Redactions by the European Commission. Highlighting by The Examination) The revelations, contained in documents released through public information requests by the French anti-tobacco group Contre-Feu, raise questions about whether the EU breached its commitment to a global treaty to combat smoking signed by the EU and member countries. Guidelines to implement that treaty — the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) — say that when setting and implementing public health policies, governments should restrict their dealings with the tobacco industry and disclose any meetings whenever possible. None of the meetings with PMI or other industry groups cited in the documents were disclosed, according to The Examination and POLITICO’s review of the EU’s disclosure websites. The “fact that EU officials acted upon PMI’s requests signals a troubling willingness to give the tobacco industry privileged access. That is precisely what the FCTC was designed to prevent,” said Tilly Metz, a member of the European Parliament with the Greens. “It undermines both public trust and the EU’s credibility as a global leader in tobacco control.” A spokesperson for the European Commission told The Examination and POLITICO  that it “strictly follows” the treaty guidelines. But tobacco products are covered by EU trade policy, and the Commission can negotiate tariffs and trade rules, the spokesperson said.  “The Commission does not shape, influence or lobby for specific health policies in third countries on behalf of any industry,” the spokesperson said.  While industry associations and companies can share concerns on market access in non-EU countries with the Commission, and the Commission may meet with complainants to get more information, the spokesperson said such meetings are “strictly related to trade facilitation and market access.” European parliamentarians appeared divided over whether the dealings were improper.  Vytenis Andriukaitis with the Socialists and Democrats and a former EU health commissioner said the European Commission “cannot represent the interests of tobacco companies,” nor “press other countries to weaken” their tobacco controls. Barry Andrews, a member of the centrist Renew Europe Group, said: “These regular meetings with big tobacco lobbyists and the flurry of emails should not have happened.” By contrast, Stine Bosse, a member of the same political group, said: “The tobacco industry has every right to employ lobbyists.” However, Bosse added: “Morally, I stand in a very different place. While they constantly try to reinvent new products to get people hooked on nicotine and tobacco, I am fighting for precisely the opposite.”  Philip Morris International did not answer questions from The Examination and POLITICO about its dealing with EU officials. On its website, the company said it shares its perspectives with policymakers and it is “particularly active with respect to policies regarding less harmful alternatives to cigarettes, trade and fiscal matters, and intellectual property.” (The company is separate from Philip Morris USA, which is part of Altria Group.) The Examination and POLITICO have not found evidence that any of the 10 countries targeted by PMI altered their tobacco taxes or regulations following meetings with EU officials, including where the EU took action with regard to Mexico and Turkey. Most of PMI’s entreaties focused on IQOS, which it says is better than cigarettes because heating tobacco releases fewer toxins than burning it. Public health experts say the long-term risks of heated tobacco are unknown and products like IQOS could increase tobacco use. IQOS devices with heated tobacco sticks. Philip Morris International says IQOS is better than cigarettes because heating tobacco releases fewer toxins than burning it. Public health experts say the long-term risks of heated tobacco are unknown. | Roberto Pfeil/picture alliance via Getty Images Public health advocates said Commission officials’ actions were especially surprising because the EU has been one of the strongest supporters of the FCTC.  This year, the Commission proposed hiking EU-wide taxes on most tobacco products and setting minimum taxes for vapes and heated tobacco for the first time. Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi has pledged to drive e-cigarette taxes even higher; his tax counterpart, Wopke Hoekstra, has called vapes the “revenge of the tobacco industry.” The countries that PMI sought help with were outside the EU. Nearly all of them — Argentina, Brazil, India, Mexico, Singapore, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam — had banned heated tobacco. Taiwan had what PMI described as a burdensome approval process. Japanese leaders were in discussions to raise taxes on heated tobacco to the same rate as cigarettes. Philip Morris International asked for the EU’s help in loosening restrictions or setting favorable tax rates on its IQOS product in 10 countries outside the EU. (Redactions by the European Commission. Highlighting by The Examination) PMI officials wanted people in those countries to be able to buy IQOS as easily as cigarettes. The company calls IQOS part of its “dream team” of alternative nicotine products, including e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches, that are meant to offset declining cigarette consumption.  So the company sought help in the EU’s distinctive 15-story glass trade building, the Charlemagne, in Brussels. PMI SEEKS HELP IN MEXICO Mexico was the first country that PMI sought help with, according to the documents. That country was a key market for IQOS, but a ban on vapes and heated tobacco was set to go into effect in December 2022.  In an investor meeting on Sept. 6, 2022, an analyst asked about IQOS’ “lack of success” in the Americas. Emmanuel Babeau, the company’s chief financial officer, blamed “some restrictions” in Mexico but said, “it’s going to be a very successful market for IQOS once we can really sell the device really without any issue.” That same day, company staff had an online meeting with EU officials to discuss the ban. It was one of several discussions about Mexico. After the ban went into effect, PMI sought more help from EU officials. In an April 3, 2023, email, an executive at the company’s Swiss office asked for another meeting, explaining that Mexico’s “business environment is still marked by uncertainty, judicial processes, interpretations, and doubtful, temporary and unclear administrative acts.”    After a ban on vapes and heated tobacco went into effect in Mexico, Philip Morris International sought more help from EU officials. (Redactions by the European Commission. Highlighting by The Examination) Soon after the email, European trade officials issued what is known as a barrier to trade notice, reporting Mexico’s IQOS ban as a potential trade treaty violation. PMI representatives and trade officials met later that month, when the company contended similar bans in Argentina, Brazil and Vietnam were trade barriers, according to a Commission report summarizing the meeting. The Commission spokesperson said it had acted in response to a formal complaint that “involved discriminatory treatment of like products” and that it did not undertake any further action regarding Mexico. Mexico’s Supreme Court struck down the ban in November 2024, allowing PMI to continue selling IQOS there.  The correspondence shows how PMI leveraged its status as a major European employer and exporter. The company employed more than 21,500 people in Europe as of 2023 and had 20 manufacturing sites there. In one email, a PMI representative told a European trade official that a meeting would be a “good opportunity to update you [on] the most recent data on EU exports in the tobacco sector and PMI’s investments in the EU.” OFFICIALS QUESTION TURKEY’S TAXES, RULES ON LOCAL TOBACCO EU officials also assisted PMI in trying to change rules on cigarettes.  In July 2023, a company representative complained to EU officials about Turkey’s cigarette tax, saying in an email that Turkey had “one of the highest ad valorem duty levels in the world.” The representative also flagged Turkey’s “local content” rule, which required that cigarettes made and sold in the country contain a certain amount of domestic tobacco. The PMI representative wrote that the company had “prepared a few suggestions” for the Commission’s upcoming report on Turkey’s economic and diplomatic relationships with the EU.  That report, which came out in November 2023, flagged Turkey’s taxes and the local content rule. That elicited the email from PMI thanking EU officials for their help. Meanwhile, the company was pushing European Commission officials to raise the local content rule again, but in a different forum: an upcoming World Trade Organization (WTO) review of Turkey’s trade policies. PMI provided EU trade officials with questions to ask Turkey. EU officials then submitted a question prior to the review, asking whether the local content requirement for tobacco and other industries would continue, according to meeting minutes. The Commission spokesperson did not directly answer questions from The Examination and POLITICO about its actions regarding Turkey. Turkey has not changed its requirements on local tobacco or its tax rate.  MEETINGS PART OF A MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR LOBBYING EFFORT The meetings are part of an industry lobby that spends $16.2 million (14 million euros) a year in the EU, according to a report by Contre-Feu and STOP, another anti-tobacco group, released Wednesday. Contre-Feu mapped a network of 49 organizations and companies, including Philip Morris International and British American Tobacco, that lobbied the European Commission and Parliament to weaken tobacco regulations and set lower taxes on new nicotine products, both within and outside the EU. (British American Tobacco did not respond to requests for comment.) The interactions between the tobacco industry and EU officials appear to be extensive, according to the documents. They include several dozen email exchanges and refer to at least nine meetings between EU officials and tobacco companies or industry-supported groups.  In addition to the six meetings with PMI, there were three other meetings with tobacco representatives. Trade staff met with three other companies and a tobacco trade group in March 2024 to hear their requests for more favorable tariff rules for new nicotine products. In a separate video conference, British American Tobacco asked trade staff to intervene at a WTO hearing over Saudi Arabia’s proposed tax hike on e-cigarette cartridges. (The EU did not take action, according to the documents.) And in a third meeting, the EU’s former agriculture commissioner, a Polish member of the EU parliament and two tobacco farming lobby groups discussed tobacco subsidies and the Commission’s position on the global tobacco treaty. Nathalie Darge, secretary general of Tobacco Europe, the trade group included in one of those meetings, said its input focused on technical requirements and that it wanted to “ensure legal certainty for operators and customs authorities.” One European Commission report recapping a meeting with PMI was sent to 32 trade department officials and staff, including EU representatives assigned to Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Vietnam and division directors. Contre-Feu wrote that the dealings between government officials and tobacco representatives showed that “current rules to limit industry influence are falling short and European policymakers continue to be heavily lobbied by the tobacco industry and those working on its behalf.” PMI’s efforts are part of a long history of the tobacco industry using trade and investment pacts to expand markets and undermine health policies, said Suzanne Zhou, who works for the World Health Organization FCTC Knowledge Hub on Legal Challenges and a senior fellow at the Melbourne Law School in Australia. “Tobacco companies have lost the argument from a health perspective,” Zhou said. “So they are reframing the issue as a trade issue in the hopes that they can advance their interests in that forum instead.”  In the 1980s, the U.S. Trade Representative threatened sanctions if Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Thailand didn’t open their markets to U.S. cigarette companies. A study later concluded that cigarette consumption in those four markets was nearly 10 percent higher than it would have been if they had remained closed to U.S. companies.  More recently, Australia and Uruguay faced trade litigation from the industry or industry-aligned governments over their tobacco control policies.  COMMISSION CRITICIZED FOR UNDISCLOSED MEETINGS Contre-Feu contended that the documents also show that EU officials didn’t disclose meetings with the industry when they should have. To aid countries in implementing the tobacco treaty, delegates wrote a set of guidelines. They state that when setting and implementing public health policies, interactions with the tobacco industry should be limited to what is strictly necessary for effective regulation. Interactions should be conducted in public and disclosed whenever possible. And the guidelines emphasize that “all branches of government” should be made aware of industry efforts to interfere with policies. The Commission spokesperson said that’s exactly what it does: “Meetings with the tobacco industry are avoided, unless they are strictly necessary. If the applicable conditions are met, meetings are held in a fully transparent manner and are appropriately documented.” But EU trade officials did not disclose any of these meetings on the website where the trade department reports such contacts. One batch of documents was released through a request for access; another batch was obtained by Contre-Feu. One of the meetings not disclosed by trade officials occurred in July 2023. Global health leaders were scheduled to meet that November to update the FCTC. The European Commission was considering supporting strict limitations on heated tobacco products.  A Commission report summarizing a July 19, 2023, meeting with PMI said that the company had “alerted” the Commission about language “calling on WHO members to adopt import bans on heated tobacco products.” The company asserted that EU tobacco policy should take into account WTO agreements, which the company has contended would preclude countries from banning IQOS.  Philip Morris International met with European Commission trade officials in July 2023 to discuss a proposed change to a global tobacco control treaty that would have banned heated tobacco. Though such meetings are supposed to be disclosed, this one wasn’t. (Redactions by the European Commission. Highlighting by The Examination) The documents don’t say anything about whether the Commission took action, and tobacco-friendly countries in the EU such as Italy and Greece pushed back against restrictive guidelines. But in the end, the Commission took no position on heated tobacco— a victory for the industry.  During the period covered by the documents, the EU required only high-ranking Commission officials to report meetings with companies or special-interest groups. In December 2024, the Commission tightened rules to require disclosure by additional staff. It’s unclear whether those rules would’ve required disclosure of these meetings.  Former EU ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, found other instances in which the Commission didn’t disclose meetings with the tobacco industry, which she concluded failed to meet transparency rules required under international law.  Contre-Feu has urged the EU to tighten transparency guidelines even further by extending disclosure requirements to all staff, among other things. The group said in its report that the extensive lobbying and lack of disclosure “reveal either a repeated violation of the FCTC by the European Commission or, at the very least, an insufficient implementation of the treaty’s measures.” Mathieu Tourliere of Proceso contributed reporting. STOP has received support from Bloomberg Philanthropies, which also provides financial support to The Examination. The Examination operates independently and is solely responsible for its content. Correction: This story has been corrected to say that the report on tobacco industry lobbying was jointly published by Contre-Feu and STOP, and that STOP has received support from Bloomberg Philanthropies.

The World Health Organization has recommended the use of novel weight-loss drugs to curb soaring obesity rates, and urged pharma companies to lower their prices and expand production so that lower-income countries can also benefit. The WHO’s new treatment guideline includes a conditional recommendation to use the so-called GLP-1s — such as Wegovy, Ozempic and Mounjaro — as part of a wider approach that includes healthy diet, exercise and support from doctors. The WHO described its recommendation as “conditional” due to limited data on the long-term efficacy and safety of GLP-1s. The recommendation excludes pregnant women. While GLP-1s are a now well-established treatment in high-income countries, the WHO warns they could reach fewer than 10 percent of people who could benefit by 2030. Among the countries with the highest rates of obesity are those in the Middle East, Latin America and Pacific islands. Meanwhile, Wegovy was only available in around 15 countries as of the start of this year. The WHO wants pharma companies to consider tiered pricing (lower prices in lower-income countries) and voluntary licensing of patents and technology to allow other producers around the word to manufacture GLP-1s, to help expand access to these drugs. Jeremy Farrar, an assistant director general at the WHO, told POLITICO the guidelines would also give an “amber and green light” to generic drugmakers to produce cheaper versions of GLP-1s when the patents expire. Francesca Celletti, a senior adviser on obesity at the WHO, told POLITICO “decisive action” was needed to expand access to GLP-1s, citing the example of antiretroviral HIV drugs earlier this century. “We all thought it was impossible … and then the price went down,” she said.  Key patents on semaglutide, the ingredient in Novo Nordisk’s diabetes and weight-loss drugs Ozempic and Wegovy, will lift in some countries next year, including India, Brazil and China. Indian generics giant Dr. Reddy’s plans to launch a generic semaglutide-based weight-loss drug in 87 countries in 2026, its CEO Erez Israeli said earlier this year, reported Reuters. “U.S. and Europe will open later … (and) all the other Western markets will be open between 2029 to 2033,” Israeli told reporters after the release of quarterly earnings in July. Prices should fall once generics are on the market, but that isn’t the only barrier. Injectable drugs, for example, need cold chain storage. And health systems need to be equipped to roll out the drug once it’s affordable, Celletti said. 

LONDON — Milkshakes and lattes will be subject to a sugar tax for the first time, U.K. Health Secretary Wes Streeting said Tuesday. Speaking ahead of the budget, Streeting said the government would remove the exemption that milk-based products currently have from the Soft Drinks Industry Levy in January 2028. The threshold at which the levy is imposed will also be lowered from 5 grams to 4.5 grams (g) per 100 milliliters (ml). Commonly dubbed the “sugar tax,” the levy, which was introduced in 2018 under the previous Conservative government, aims to reduce obesity and improve child health.  “Obesity robs children of the best possible start in life,” Streeting told MPs Tuesday. “It hits the poorest hardest — sets them up for a lifetime of problems.” Bottles and cartons of milkshakes, flavored milk,  sweetened yoghurt drinks, chocolate milk drinks, ready-to-drink coffees and milk substitute drinks will now be eligible for the levy. Drinks prepared in cafes and bars remain out of scope. The levy requires companies producing drinks that contain between 5g and 8g of sugar per 100ml to pay 19.4 pence per liter while drinks with 8g or more of sugar must pay 25.9 pence per liter. A government document published Tuesday said ministers expect the Treasury to raise between £40 million and £45 million a year as a result of the changes. The average sugar content in drinks has fallen by almost 50 percent since the levy’s introduction. It is associated with a fall in rotten tooth extractions in kids and an estimated 8 percent relative reduction in obesity levels among young girls. Sarah Woolnough, chief executive of the King’s Fund health think tank, said the measure was “not only common sense but also a quick win for government and, most importantly, for children and young people.”

A non-alcoholic beverage may not be sold as gin, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled today in a case that could have wide-ranging consequences for a growing sector catering to health-conscious consumers. The case involved a drink being sold as Virgin Gin Alkolholfrei. The Luxembourg court ruled that wording violated an EU law that says gin should be produced with ethyl alcohol and juniper berries, with a minimum alcoholic strength by volume of 37.5 percent.  The law is meant to protect gin producers from competition and consumers against confusion, the court said in a statement. The gin judgment comes as plant-based meat products gear up for a potential labeling fight, depending on whether a controversial “veggie burger ban” makes it through inter-institutional negotiations. A German association for combating unfair competition brought the case against PB Vi Goods, which manufactures the gin copycat. A German court referred the case to the Court of Justice, which found a “clear prohibition in EU law” because the beverage does not contain alcohol. The product can be sold, but not as “gin,” regardless of whether or not it uses terms like “non-alcoholic” or “virgin.” The top EU court has upended consumer trends in the past: it ruled against calling plant-based products “milk,” “cream,” “butter,” “cheese” or “yogurt”’” in 2017.

The European Commission is set to unveil the Biotech Act I, an EU cardiovascular health plan and a simplification of the bloc’s medical devices and in vitro diagnostics rules on Dec. 16, according to the latest Commission agenda published Monday. The first part of the Biotech Act will focus on the pharmaceutical industry and is being produced without a dedicated impact assessment. The second part — covering other biotech sectors — is expected in the third quarter of 2026. The upcoming cardiovascular health plan — inspired by the bloc’s Beating Cancer Plan — will cover prevention, early detection and screening, treatment and management, and rehabilitation. Meanwhile, simplification of the bloc’s medical devices and in vitro diagnostics rules comes after the regulations drove up assessment costs, caused certification delays, and led to product withdrawals from the market. Europe’s Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi has previously said the sector needs a “major overhaul.” Additionally, the Commission’s agenda includes a “drugs package” comprising new rules on drug precursors and an EU Drugs Strategy and European action plan against drug trafficking — both scheduled for Dec. 3.