It is rare enough to get two naturally opposed factions to agree on a topic that concerns both of them. In the wake of Minister for Health Mars Di Bartolomeo’s proposal last year for the prohibition of tobacco consumption in cafes, bars and nightclubs, Horesca and local tobacco industry player Heintz Van Landewyck commissioned a survey on public opinions on the subject (see paperJam, February 2010), which emerged just days before the Fédération Luxembourgeoise Contre le Cancer (FLCC) revealed the results of its own inquiry on smoking habits in Luxembourg for 2009. Clearly, there are different vested interests at the heart of the issue, but all parties involved are united in one belief: few matters of public interest are as much a topic of discussion as this one. So what is at stake for those involved?Jean Schintgen, Secretary General of Horesca, is of the belief that “any ban on smoking in cafes should be at the discretion of the proprietor, and they should have the choice on whether their establishment is smoke-free or not. If this is not acceptable to the Minister, then a compromise situation should be found whereby sections of any given establishment should be available to smokers.”

This is unacceptable to the FLCC, which counter-claims that such measures do not take into account the exposure of staff members to passive smoking, and that even ventilation systems do not remove the risk. Although not dismissive of this, François Elvinger, Sales Director at Heintz Van Landewyck, does not believe it addresses the point: “Recently, the president of the FLCC admitted, for the first time, that the ban on smoking is concerned primarily with reducing the visibility of smoking. Other factors are secondary. They just don’t want to see people smoking.”

Any ban on smoking would clearly have an effect on an already dwindling market. According to the FLCC’s survey on smoking habits in Luxembourg, the proportion of the population who are smokers has fallen from 33% in 2003 to 24% in 2009. The tobacco industry would surely seek to counteract this, right? “I’m not speaking on behalf of the tobacco industry,” insists Elvinger. “In terms of that, we are a tiny player in comparison to some of the global giants like Philip Morris or British American Tobacco. I can only speak for Heintz Van Landewyck, and in that respect I am representing approximately 700 employees here in Luxembourg. Horesca also has to protect its own members in this situation, but we have a common interest, and as a Luxembourgish family company, we had to offer support. This law will have a huge effect on them, and we have already faced some challenges of our own in the recent past.”

Marketing challenges

Of Heintz Van Landewyck’s production in Luxembourg, around ten percent is consumed in the domestic market, while the remainder is for export. Assuming foreign markets remain the same, the fall-off a ban on smoking in this country could have would not necessarily have a huge effect on the bottom-line for the company, even if it is solely interested in protecting jobs. An issue the company had to face head on was the ban in 2008 on tobacco advertising. “At the beginning we spoke about that. All our competitors abroad have the opportunity to advertise, in one way or another. Take Germany as an example. We are present in that market, but we don’t have the advertising budget to compete with the big companies I mentioned before when it comes to billboard advertising and suchlike. We suggested to the minister here, when the law was passed, that we could follow the example in Germany by banning tobacco advertising in newspapers and magazines, but not via other media. Here they went further, banning it from everything bar point of sales.” He believes that this gives international competitors an advantage over Heintz Van Landewyck. “Point of sales advertising in petrol stations is a case in point. Advertising there is allowed in Luxembourg, but the petrol companies themselves are multinationals, and the advertising is negotiated at a level above and beyond the Luxembourgish market, yet those decisions affect what is advertised here.”

Advertising changes could extend to the packaging of tobacco products themselves, designed to appeal to consumers, young and old. The floated idea of plain packaging is conceived as something that would prevent tobacco companies from marketing to young people, but Elvinger raises a legitimate concern. “Tobacco products are already the most regulated of them all, and must follow numerous and stringent guidelines. Plain packaging, where the boxes are just white with black writing and a harmonised font across all brands, opens up the problem of contraband even more, which is already emerging as cigarettes become even more expensive. Illegal tobacco products have to meet no requirements, and therefore you cannot be sure what is in them, and that is dangerous for the consumer,” he adds, without apparent irony. So can anything be done about this? “Plain packaging is only an idea at this stage. What we can do is continue to innovate, find appealing packaging and continue to produce quality products, and continue our good relationships with local distributors and businesses.” One of the reasons offered by the FLCC for the ban on smoking is that it will discourage young people from starting. Elvinger admits that certain products in Heintz Van Landewyck’s range target young people directly, most notably the Elixir range. He also states that the products nowadays are “easier” to smoke, yet unsurprisingly he categorically denies the company targets minors. Either way, the company is still suffering from the advertising ban “where certain products definitely lost some of their market share, especially our typically Luxembourgish products, like Maryland cigarettes. Although others gained slightly, overall it certainly wasn’t favourable at all.”

One true voice?

“We have to be realistic. Three quarters of the population do not smoke, even if a certain percentage of them aren’t bothered by being in a smoky venue. Wherever it’s possible, there should be separated areas. If not, the owner themselves should be allowed to make the choice,” says Elvinger, agreeing with the suggestions put forward by Horesca. Having already turned on the suggestion of separate smoking areas, the FLCC cites other countries as examples of the complete failure of leaving the choice up to owners. It states that 90% of small cafe owners in Spain kept their establishments smoke-friendly, while larger ones, spooked by the idea of losing out to the competition, tried everything to go around the law, with the result that people in Spain smoke just as much now as they did before the 2006 restriction. The law in Spain is currently being changed to a blanket ban, of the kind seen in the United Kingdom, Ireland and Italy, where the bans have been successfully implemented.Yet Elvinger believes that people from abroad see the current Luxembourgish solution as close to ideal, and that in this case “information is more important than prohibition. People need to be aware of things and make informed choices.” He feels this is backed up by the survey results, which suggest, according to certain interpretations anyway, that “a significant number of non-smokers accept things the way they are, as well as smokers.”

There is a difference between accepting something and being bothered by it: according to the FLCC survey, 55% of smokers themselves are in fact affected by passive smoking. The ban can only have a negative effect on Heintz Van Landewyck, but Elvinger does not believe it is a done deal: “When it was announced in November, my phone was hopping, with smokers and non-smokers alike looking for information and reaction. It’s clear that Horesca and ourselves have to make an effort, but this is certainly not over yet.”