A Slow Burn

The Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill saw additional progress towards the end of June this year. Specifically, the Portfolio Committee on Health adopted a motion of desirability of the bill in an almost unanimous vote at a recent meeting.

This means that the committee acknowledged that the legislation is required in principle and must progress towards becoming law. This will see a clause-by-clause consideration of the bill going forward.

Based on minutes of the meeting, a common thread is the concern whether the proposed law is proportionate to the harm it seeks to address against the country’s socio-economic landscape.

In a media statement on Parliament’s website, it is stated that the committee, through its own deliberations and based on scientific representations, recognises that combustible and non-combustible products are not the same, with the former presenting the greatest public health risk. The committee also endorses the need for differentiation between these goods, but stresses that this differentiation does not imply less strict laws, but an improvement which is genuinely risk-proportionate, protecting against harm caused by smoking and which distinguishes between different goods.

A legal framework distinguishing between goods that burn and those that do not is not unheard of and has been adopted in different measures in countries like Singapore, Australia and the UK.

Whichever way South Africa swings, regulatory reform relating to, inter alia, the promotion of combustible and non-combustible goods, is ongoing.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.