• April 18, 2024

Menthol battle heats up in Canada

 Menthol battle heats up in Canada

Imperial Tobacco has launched a legal challenge to parts of a tobacco-control law introduced in Quebec, Canada, by asking a judge to strike them down on constitutional grounds, according to a story by Sidhartha Banerjee for The Globe and Mail.

The company is said to have filed an application for judicial review with Quebec Superior Court, saying various elements of the legislation are punitive.

Imperial contends that a section of the law dealing with health warnings on packaging goes beyond federal government requirements.

It says that ‘prohibiting advertising to tobacco retail outlets only serves to undermine their ability to sell their products’.

And it contends that a prohibition on flavored tobacco, including menthol cigarettes, will help fuel the contraband trade.

The Quebec law came into effect at the end of November, though some provisions, including the menthol ban, are not due to come into force until later this year.

In addition to banning flavored tobacco, including menthol, the legislation covers smoking on restaurant patios, smoking inside vehicles with minors present and selling electronic cigarettes.

Three Canadian provinces – Nova Scotia, Alberta and New Brunswick – have banned menthol cigarettes; Quebec is due to join that group in November and Ontario is due to follow suit in 2017. Prince Edward Island is working on a menthol cigarette ban.

The Canadian Cancer Society’s Rob Cunnigham called Imperial Tobacco’s legal action a public relations exercise.

“Menthol is very popular among youth and it makes it easier for kids to experiment and get addicted so, for us, a ban on menthol is an essential strategy to help reduce smoking – especially youth smoking,” Cunningham was quoted as saying.

Imperial vice-president Tamara Gitto said in a statement the company recognized the health risks associated with smoking and supported fact-based regulation, but he said it would oppose anything deemed excessive regulation that infringed on the company’s constitutional rights.