The wording of South Africa’s proposed new tobacco control law came under close scrutiny on Wednesday, as MPs began the painstaking process of working through the legislation clause by clause.
The Portfolio Committee on Health started with the preamble and definitions of the Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill with members putting forward a range of proposed amendments and raising concerns about how the legislation would work in practice. The long title of the Bill will be dealt with at the end of the process once the committee has considered and agreed on its amendments.
Among the issues raised were illicit tobacco, the rights of smokers, the regulation of electronic nicotine products and whether the Bill sufficiently distinguishes between combustible and non-combustible products.
DA’s Dr Karl le Roux proposed changes to the definitions of smoke and aerosols and called for definitions covering non-inhaled products such as pouches and snuff.
MK Party MP Moshome Motubatse called for the reference to a “precautionary approach” to the regulation of electronic nicotine delivery systems and electronic non-nicotine delivery systems to be removed. He argued instead for a scientific approach.
“A precautionary approach is one where we don’t know what’s going to happen, we have no information, and we’re becoming too cautious to the extent that it becomes like a prohibitory approach. I would not put a precautionary approach as part of a legislative framework because legislation has to be based on evidence and on science, and not on fear.”
Motubatse also proposed new definitions for combustion and combustible products, as well as amendments relating to electronic delivery systems and non-combustible products.
DA MP Michele Clarke said the term “smoke” should not include non-combustible products and called for clearer definitions of electronic delivery systems, including distinctions between products that emit aerosol or vapor and those that do not.She also called for an aerosol definition to be included in the Bill.
ANC MP Masello Senne proposed a number of amendments to the definitions, including changes relating to characterising flavours, electronic delivery systems and combustible products.She also proposed that the Bill recognise that different products present different levels of risk and that evidence-based regulatory frameworks could take those differences into account while advancing public health objectives.
The committee was also asked to put illicit tobacco more firmly into the Bill. EFF MP Naledi Chirwa-Mpungose proposed an insertion to the preamble noting “the detrimental impact of illicit tobacco and related products on public health and the need for effective measures to address such trade”.
She said the Bill should be explicit about illicit trade to help empower institutions responsible for implementation and enforcement. This would strengthen the fight against illicit trade.
“We don’t agree that this Bill should be quiet on speaking overtly on the impact of illicit tobacco trade,” she said.
On the rights of smokers, ActionSA MP Kgosi Letlape questioned the preamble’s call to encourage existing users to quit, asking what happens to those who cannot quit.
“What about those that can’t quit? It would be irresponsible for a health board to come up with what might be assumed a quit or die approach,” Letlape said.
He suggested that the wording should also allow current users to seek help, including from healthcare professionals or for less harmful alternatives.
The clause-by-clause deliberation followed an extensive public participation process in which the committee received written and oral submissions from stakeholders and members of the public, including during hearings held across all nine provinces.
Committee chairperson Faith Muthambi said the submissions had provided the committee with valuable perspectives on the practical implications of the proposed legislation.
She said members now had to exercise their own judgment in deciding which amendments were necessary, rather than simply adopting recommendations made during the public participation process.
Members were asked to submit their proposed amendments to the secretariat, with the drafting team expected to work through the proposals as the committee continues its clause-by-clause consideration.