Letter: Economic dangers of tobacco subsidies
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Following the Veronica Bland passive smoking case, it is worth reminding your readers of the problems that the tobacco sector still causes in the Common Agricultural Policy.
This year, tobacco will still account for more than pounds 1bn in the CAP which is 1.84 per cent of the total EC budget. The planned McSharry reforms are to reduce this figure to pounds 720m next year, which some claim to be progress.
The Council of Ministers, including the United Kingdom government, has just agreed to transfer almost pounds 38m to the tobacco sector to cover its overspend in last year's budget.
The irony is that of the 390,000 tonnes grown in Europe each year, 210,000 tonnes is dumped on the poorer countries, because European cigarette manufacturers import 75 per cent of their tobacco.
On 1990 figures, the CAP subsidised cereals to the amount of pounds 104 per hectare and tobacco was subsidised 35 times more than this at pounds 3,622 per hectare.
On these figures, for each full- time employed person in the tobacco-growing sector the EC was spending pounds 5,563, which is double the 1986 figure.
If the argument is that it is the poorer countries that benefit from this, then the EC would be far better converting these amounts into structural funds to find alternatives to tobacco or alternative forms of employment.
One final comment: US agricultural subsidies to tobacco over the past 60 years have still not totalled the amount the EC pays in one year.
Yours sincerely
TERRY WYNN
MEP for Merseyside East (Lab)
St Helens, Merseyside
29 January
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments