The Less Harmful Coalition describes itself as an “incorporated, not-for-profit organization”.¹ It was first incorporated as a business in Canada, in September 2021, under a different name.²³⁴

Its stated mission is “to advance education and awareness of pragmatic approaches to less harmful substance use, mental health, and other harms impacting people and communities in Canada.”⁵

Relationship with the tobacco industry

The organisation is supported by Philip Morris International, via its Canadian subsidiary Rothmans, Benson & Hedges.⁵

Established as “Outfox Harm Reduction Coalition”

According to Canadian government registers, the organisation was incorporated as “Outfox Harm Reduction Coalition” in September 2021.²³⁴

The website initially used the same name and stated that it welcomed “prospective members who share our vision for pragmatic approaches to substance use.” ⁶ It did not reveal its funder.⁶

Belinda Fox, one of the coalition directors, had had previously been contracted by PMI via her company Outfox Communications (see below for details).

The website domain name lessharmful.com was registered in February 2022.⁷

Renamed “Harm Reduction Coalition”

By March 2022, the name “Outfox” was no longer included in the organisation’s name or website.⁸ The site now included sections on Tobacco Harm Reduction, Alcohol Harm Reduction, Psychedelics and Cannabis.⁸

At the time, Dr Jane Foster was listed as Director of the Harm Reduction Coalition and as “a consultant with the scientific engagement team at RBH, Inc.”⁹¹⁰

The organisation held a Harm Reduction Forum in April 2022.¹¹¹²

Foster was listed as a speaker.¹¹

Foster is no longer listed on the website.⁵(See below for details of current Directors)

Renamed “Less Harmful Coalition”

By May 2022, the organisation had again been renamed, although the website URL remained unchanged.³¹³¹⁴

The website originally stated that “Our directors have clinical and research expertise in the areas of mental health and addiction”.⁶⁸ This phrase was removed between May and July 2022. ¹³¹⁵

Revealed tobacco industry funder

By mid-September 2022, the website had been redesigned. It stated clearly that it is supported by Rothmans, Benson and Hedges (RBH), a subsidiary of Philip Morris International (PMI).⁵¹⁵¹⁴

The organisation web page also featured the logos of Canada-Alberta Job Grant, a programme funded by the Government of Alberta, Canada,¹⁶ and Venture for Canada, a charity supporting entrepreneurship, which receives funding from the Canadian government.¹⁷

Staff

As of October 2022, the following were listed:

• Belinda Fox, Director.⁴ Her company Outfox Communications conducted work for PMI in 2019/2020 to “help them [RBH] engage health care researchers and practitioners in order to share scientific clinical trial data for reduced risk nicotine products (within the parameters of Canada’s tobacco policy framework).”¹⁸¹⁹
  Outfox organised an ‘Indigenous Harm Reduction Forum’ held on November 14, 2019 in Alberta, Canada, sponsored by RBH executive Jeff Gaulin gave the opening remarks, and referred to PMI’s promotional campaign ‘Unsmoke Canada’.²⁰ For more on PMI’s ‘smoke-free’ campaigns see Philip Morris International.
• Donald Makowichuk, Director.²¹
• Sumantra (Monty) Ghosh, Advisor.²²
• Chase Miller, Communications.
• Dean Paddock, Consultant.

Activities

The Nicotine Debate

This event, held online on 28 September 2022,²³ involved a “discussion on the science of reduced-risk nicotine products for adult smokers.”²³

One speaker listed was Dr Rachel Murkett, Director of Biochromex, a life sciences company which has received funds from the PMI-funded Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW).²³ For details see Foundation for a Smoke-Free World’s Tobacco Transformation Index.

Less Harmful Summit

The Less Harmful Coalition hosted a ‘Less Harmful Summit’ in Toronto, Canada, on October 26 2022.²⁴²⁵ Neither the event pages nor the Twitter profile mentioned RBH or PMI.²⁴²⁶²⁷

Earlier in 2022 the organization had approached academics to participate in a panel at the summit. An e-mail from the Speakers and Partners Lead to a UK academic, sent in July 2022, did not mention sponsorship by RBH.²⁸ At that time there was no information about this sponsorship on the organisation’s website.¹⁵

Relevant Link

• Less Harmful Coalition website

TobaccoTactics Resources

• Newer Nicotine and Tobacco Products: Philip Morris International
• Harm Reduction
• Third Party Techniques

References

The post Less Harmful Coalition appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Since the early 2000s TTCs have developed interests in e-cigarettes (also known as electronic delivery systems, or ENDS), heated tobacco products (HTPs), snus and nicotine pouches. Companies have referred to these types of products as ‘next generation products’ (NGPs) although terminology changes over time.

• See the product terminology page for more details, including terms favoured by the industry.

All of the ‘big four’ TTCs (PMI, BAT, JTI, Imperial Brands) have invested in Swedish-style snus and related products called nicotine pouches, which they have promoted as part of their harm reduction strategies.

Background

Nicotine pouches are similar to snus pouches as they are made to be placed between the lip and gum, and do not require spitting. However, nicotine pouches do not contain fresh tobacco leaf but a form of dehydrated nicotine that does not need to be kept cold.³⁰ The pouches also generally contain plant fibres, flavourings and sweeteners.³¹ Nicotine is absorbed into the bloodstream via the mucous membranes in the mouth.³⁰³¹ They are not new products and similar oral pouches with contents other than nicotine have been available in Sweden for many years, regulated as food.³¹

TTCs have identified opportunities to market these products in countries where there is either an existing market for snus, or conversely in markets where tobacco snus is currently banned.³⁰

Researchers have cautioned that nicotine pouches in particular may appeal to youth and non-smokers, as they are often sold in a variety of fruit flavours, in attractive packaging, and can be used discreetly (more so than e-cigarettes).³⁰³²  They can also contain high levels of nicotine where unregulated.³²

“Tobacco Free”

It appears that some nicotine pouches, may use synthetic, or “tobacco-free”, nicotine (rather than nicotine derived from tobacco leaf),  creating confusion and uncertainty as to how best to regulate these products.^30333435

In its 2022 annual report, BAT states that its “current portfolio contains no synthetic nicotine”.³⁶ PMI states that its pouches contain “nicotine derived from tobacco”.³⁷ JTI and Imperial Brands do not refer to synthetic nicotine and describe their pouches as “tobacco-free”.^38394041

In 2022, the UK independent scientific Committee on Toxicity (COT) noted in a discussion paper:

“the apparent variation in how manufacturers present nicotine content and strength across different products, which may be confusing for the consumer. In addition, use of the description ‘tobacco-free’ may be misleading as the nicotine may be derived from tobacco, which raises concerns regarding carry over of toxicologically relevant contaminants (e.g., metals and nitrosamines).”⁴²

COT also raised concerns around the lack of specific regulations for nicotine pouches in the UK, and the absence of data other than that produced by the industry.⁴² COT planned to produce a full report for the UK government in autumn 2023.⁴²

See below for more on regulation.

Figure 1: Images of nicotine pouch brands owned by the largest tobacco companies as of 2023. (Source: TCRG. Product images from company websites)

Cigarette Companies Investing in Nicotine Pouches

The interests of the four main TTCs are summarised below, as well as those of Altria which also sells nicotine pouches outside the US. PMI was the last to acquire this product through its purchase of Swedish Match in 2022.

British American Tobacco

In 2019, BAT introduced nicotine pouches to its portfolio, marketing them as Lyft in the UK and Velo in the US.⁴³⁴⁴⁴⁵ A July 2019 news report suggested that BAT’s nicotine pouches were also on sale in Sweden, Italy and Tanzania.⁴⁶ BAT started  promoting Lyft /Velo in “emerging markets” in LMICs (see below).

In November 2020, BAT announced that it had acquired US-based nicotine pouch company Dryft Sciences, via its subsidiary Reynolds American Inc. (RAI), with the pouches to be sold under the Velo brand.⁴⁷ According to BAT this would give them a combined share in the US nicotine pouches market of around 10%.⁴⁷

BAT distinguished Epok, Lyft and Velo from traditional snus and allocated them to a new product category, which it called “modern oral products”.⁴³ In November 2019, it announced that it would consolidate its NGPs under fewer brand names, and all its “modern oral” products would be sold as Velo.⁴⁸ It continues to market the product as Lyft in Sweden and Denmark.⁴⁹ It also sells nicotine pouches under its Niconovum brand Zonnic in Sweden.⁵⁰

BAT reported that it had sold 4 billion pouches worldwide in 2022, and held 69% of the market in Europe, although sales in the US had declined since 2021.³⁶⁵¹ It also referred to an estimate that the global nicotine pouch market would grow by 500% by 2026, and referred to the launch of new products ranges called Velo Mini and Velo Max.³⁶ In 2023, BAT said that Velo was leading the market outside of the US and contributing to revenue growth.

In 2024 BAT reported that it had opened a new “innovation centre” in Southampton, UK, to focus on the development of nicotine pouches.

• For information on BAT’s other nicotine products see Newer Nicotine and Tobacco Products: British American Tobacco

Japan Tobacco International

Japan Tobacco International sells its  Nordic Spirit brand of nicotine pouches, mainly in Europe.⁵²⁵³ In its 2020 integrated report Japan Tobacco stated that the pouch was sold in nine countries, and that it held 70% of the UK market.⁵⁴⁵⁵ In 2021, it said that it “prioritized Sweden, Switzerland and the UK”.⁵⁶ In 2022, JTI announced that it had test-launched Nordic Spirit in the Philippines and was planning to launch a new “formula” in the UK.³⁹ In 2023, new strong and extra strong spearmint flavoured pouches went on sale in the UK, to meet the “demand for stronger variants”.⁵⁷ According to the Nordic Spirit website its extra strong pouches contain 11mg per pouch (17mg per gram).⁵⁸

JTI also refers to its nicotine pouches as “modern oral” products.

• For information on JTI’s other nicotine products see Newer Nicotine and Tobacco Products: Japan Tobacco International

Imperial Brands

In May 2018, Imperial Brands announced that it had launched a version of its snus brand Skruf without tobacco leaf, called Skruf Super White, intended for sale in Sweden and Norway.⁵⁹ This product appears to have been rebranded as zoneX for the UK market in August 2019, however its direct sale in the UK was later discontinued.^{606162  63} In 2022 Imperial’s website stated that in 2021, ZoneX  had “first launched in Sweden and Austria”, further launched in “Norway, Denmark and Estonia” in 2022 and finally made available in “Iceland and duty-free Middle East” in 2023.⁴⁰⁴¹

In 2020, IMB had previously published an article on its Imperial Science website exploring what it described as “The Tobacco-Free Nicotine Pouch Opportunity”.⁶⁴They later said they had launched a “cutting edge bamboo fibre based product”.⁶⁵

Imperial’s website describes ZoneX users as:

“young adult nicotine users, typically 25+, urban and open-minded. They’re making lifestyle changes and favour a discreet way to enjoy nicotine.”⁴¹

In 2023, Imperial acquired several nicotine pouch brands from Canadian company TJP Labs, to market in the US.⁶⁶

Altria

In 2019 Altria announced that it was acquiring an 80% share in oral nicotine pouch on! from Swiss tobacco company Burger Sohne.⁶⁷⁶⁸ It set up a new subsidiary Helix Innovations, through which it would manufacture and market the product.⁶⁷⁶⁸ Altria stated that, as on! was already on sale across the US before August 2016, it did not require pre-market authorisation from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).⁶⁷ However, by mid-2020 it had submitted 35 Pre-Market Tobacco Product Applications (PMTA) for on!, it was sold in 40,000 US stores, and Helix was increasing manufacturing capacity.⁶⁹ According to Altria, by the end of 2020 the number of stores selling on! had nearly doubled.⁷⁰ A 2020 investor transcript reported that the product was “attracting female tobacco consumers due to its spitless, white and compact format” and accounted for 30% of this type of oral nicotine product.⁷¹

In 2021, Altria acquired the remaining 20% of on!.⁷² In 2022, it stated that it held over 20% of the UK nicotine pouch market, although the category was “increasingly competitive”.⁷³ It also stated that Helix operates internationally, although most of its oral products are sold in the US.⁷³ As of February 2023, the FDA had not issued marketing order decisions for any on! products.⁷³

Philip Morris International

At the beginning of 2021, PMI did not have a nicotine pouch product on the market. However, in a presentation to investors in February that year, the company noted the “attractive economics” of this small, but growing, product category.⁷⁴ CEO Andre Calantzopoulos said PMI was planning to develop a product through a “combination of partnerships and internal development”.⁷⁵

In May 2021, PMI acquired Danish snus manufacturer AG Snus, manufacturer of Shiro nicotine pouches.⁷⁶⁷⁷ For more details see Cigarette Companies investing in Snus.

In July 2021, PMI announced that it had acquired Fertin Pharma, a company specialising in nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) type products.⁷⁸ At this time, PMI also began referring to gums and nicotine pouches as “modern oral” products, as BAT and JTI do.⁷⁸

• For more information see: Tobacco Company Investments in Pharmaceutical & NRT Products

At this time, PMI began referring to gums and nicotine pouches as “modern oral” products (as does BAT).⁷⁸

In 2022, PMI acquired Swedish Match.⁷⁹ Swedish Match specialises in snus and nicotine pouches, and does not sell cigarettes. By 2023, Shiro nicotine pouches were presented on the PMI website, along with snus, as “oral smokeless products”.⁸⁰ Its nicotine pouch Zyn has been sold mainly in Sweden and some other European countries, as well as the US (since 2015).⁸¹ It also sells the Volt Pearls product in Denmark, Iceland and Sweden.³⁷

• For more information see Newer Nicotine and Tobacco Products: Philip Morris International and Swedish Match

In its 2022 annual report, PMI stated that the Zyn trademark had an “indefinite life due to the fast growth and the leading position of the brand in the market”.³⁷

The Global Market

According to a Tobacco Reporter article published in 2024, Euromonitor International values the global market at over US$10 billion and projects it to reach US$15 billion by 2027.⁸² Nearly 15 billion units were sold in 2023, but they remain a small part of the market.⁸²

In 2023, Euromonitor analysts noted that in the US, there were over US$8.5 billion of retail sales and nearly 3% of the population uses pouches. However, the most rapid increase in sales in 2023 was in Pakistan where BAT markets Velo (see below), and they expect most growth going forward to be in Asia Pacific and Eastern Europe.⁸² They also noted that most pouches were sold in the US in 2023, the other top five markets (Sweden, Denmark, Pakistan and Austria) between them sold less than a third of the units sold in the US market.⁸² Other nicotine pouch markets include UK, Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Uzbekistan, Ukraine and Indonesia.⁸²⁸³

PMI’s purchase of Swedish Match immediately gave it a 60% share of the global market in 2022, a jump from almost zero in 2021. BAT held around a sixth of the global market, and Altria and Swisher (a US-based tobacco company which also sells cigars, snus and snuff, and other nicotine products)⁸⁴ each held around a twelfth share.⁸⁵ The global market shares of other companies, including JTI and Imperial Brands, were negligible.

• For information on TTC interests in tobacco leaf snus see Cigarette Companies Investing in Snus.

Regulation of Nicotine Pouches

Nicotine pouches are subject to a variety of regulations around the world, from outright bans to partial or selective regulation, depending on how they are defined and classified by governments. In many cases no regulation is in place. The Institute for Global Tobacco Control (IGTC) tracks and reports regulatory approaches around the world (see below).⁸⁶ Although not all countries contribute to its Policy Scans for nicotine pouches, the most up to date information available on the IGTC database at the time of writing is referenced below.

In the UK, as of 2023, nicotine pouches are regulated under general consumer product safety regulations, not as tobacco products. They are widely available in shops and online.⁴²⁸⁶⁸⁷ Concerns have been raised over their availability to youth, and social media marketing.⁴²⁸⁸⁸⁹ The UK Department of Health and Social Care stated that it was aware of concerns, but as the use of pouches was low (in England) it did not plan to introduce further regulation at this time.⁸⁹

European Union

While there is an EU-wide ban on tobacco snus, nicotine pouches are not covered by current tobacco product regulations. This is subject to review in the next revision of the Tobacco Products Directive.⁹⁰⁹¹ It is however important to note that individual member countries are diverging in the way they regulate these products.

Sweden has an exemption from the EU ban on snus.⁹¹ In Sweden, pouches containing products other than tobacco and nicotine have long been regulated as food items.³¹ Zonnic oral pouches (owned by RAI from 2009,⁹² and BAT from 2017) were registered as an over-the-counter (non-prescription) drug in 2013, but only available from pharmacies and other regulated outlets.⁹³ There are a range of nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) products registered under the same brand name (see below). In 2019, the Swedish National Food Administration advised that nicotine pouches should now not be regulated as food, as they were intended to be spat out and the contents were mostly absorbed through the mouth, not the stomach.³¹

Elsewhere in Europe regulation varies widely. In France nicotine is classified as a poisonous substance, subject to regulation, but pouches can be regulated as a medicine for cessation purposes.⁸⁶ In Finland nicotine pouches are no longer classified as medicines, unless marketed as such.⁹⁴ In Norway (not in the EU but a member of the European Economic Area) a total ban on nicotine pouches and other newer products was lifted in July 2021, and replaced by a market approval scheme.⁹⁵⁹⁶ Both tobacco-derived and synthetic nicotine pouches are regulated, but advertising and sponsorship are banned.⁸⁶

In contrast, in March 2023, Belgium announced a total ban on nicotine pouches, by royal decree.⁹⁷⁹⁸ BAT were reported to be petitioning the courts to annul the decree.⁹⁹ The Netherlands announced a ban a month later.¹⁰⁰¹⁰¹

In 2021, the German Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) stated that nicotine pouches were not regulated under either the tobacco legislation or as foodstuffs and so could not be legally sold.¹⁰² BAT removed its nicotine pouches from the German market that year.¹⁰² Some federal states have withdrawn pouches, and some products have been classified as a health hazard due to high levels of nicotine.⁸⁶

North America

In the US, nicotine pouches are regulated by the FDA and subject to age restrictions, a nicotine health warning and pre-market assessment .⁹¹ There are also regulations specific to synthetic nicotine.¹⁰³ Nicotine pouches are freely available to consumers.⁸¹ US researchers have noted a “loophole”: as nicotine pouches were not included in the smokeless tobacco regulation, companies are able to advertise nicotine pouches on radio, TV and other media.¹⁰⁴

Initially the Canadian government did not authorise the sale of nicotine pouches, and issued an alert, stating that as they had not been assessed by “safety, efficacy and quality” they might contain high levels of nicotine and be harmful to health.¹⁰⁵ These products are now regulated, either classified as a ‘Natural Health Product’ or as a prescription drug, depending on the level of nicotine.⁸⁶ In July 2023, Health Canada authorized the marketing of BAT’s Zonnic nicotine pouch (with 4mg of nicotine) as a natural health product.^106107108109 Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada reported that this product contains the same ingredients as BAT’s Velo,¹⁰⁸ and noted that:

“BAT will face very few restrictions on how it can market ZONNIC nicotine pouches in Canada, other than with respect to how it represents the therapeutic benefits of the product.”¹⁰⁸

Australia & New Zealand

As with e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products, nicotine pouches are banned from sale in Australia, and only available on prescription.⁸⁶

In New Zealand, oral tobacco products (including snus) and nicotine pouches are banned, unless approved as medicines.⁸⁶ (E-cigarettes are regulated, but not banned)

New and emerging markets

In some low and middle-income countries, including Argentina, Bangladesh, Georgia, Indonesia, India, and Nigeria, only tobacco-derived products are regulated as tobacco products, but not those derived from synthetic nicotine.⁸⁶ In others, including Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Iran, and Thailand, both are regulated as tobacco products.⁸⁶ In Ukraine there are no specific regulations in place, but synthetic nicotine pouches are regulated as a food product.⁸⁶ Mauritius bans both,⁸⁶ whereas in Uruguay, nicotine pouches are categorised as a form of nicotine replacement therapy (see below).⁸⁶

At the time of writing, July 2023, nicotine pouches remain unregulated in most countries.⁸⁶

As researchers from Norway, among others, have pointed out:

“The boundaries between various tobacco and nicotine products are getting less clear, making it possible for the tobacco and nicotine industries to take advantage of the discrepancies in regulation.”³²

• The Policy Scan Project, by the Institute for Global Tobacco Control (at Johns Hopkins University), which tracks and reports regulatory approaches to nicotine pouches around the world.
• For information on tobacco regulation more broadly, see the Tobacco Control Laws website, published by the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids (CTFK).
• For countries that are parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) progress towards implementation of relevant articles, including newer products, is detailed in the FCTC implementation database.¹¹⁰

BAT Promoting Nicotine Pouches in LMICs

BAT began marketing Lyft in Kenya in 2019, and Pakistan in 2020. In 2021, BAT said that it was also test marketing its product in Bangladesh and Indonesia.¹¹¹ and “consumers are familiar with other similar oral products”.¹¹² The company has identified an opportunity to market these products in countries where electronic devices are less popular, affordable, or available due to regulatory restrictions. It also referred to markets where there is was a “pre-existing ritual of oral product consumption”.¹¹¹¹¹²

Kenya

After announcing its intention to sell nicotine pouches in Kenya, BAT launched Lyft in the country in December 2019.^46113114 In February 2020, the company announced that it was planning to build a new factory in Nairobi to produce nicotine pouches, and for Kenya to become a regional export hub for the product.¹¹⁵ BAT Kenya (BATK) managing director, Beverley Spencer-Obatoyinbo said that “Given the high incidence of oral stimulant use among smokers, we believe that this new product category will provide a viable alternative to smoking”, although she presented no evidence at the time to support this statement.¹¹⁵

In response to concerns about the potential impact on tobacco farmers, Business Daily Africa reported that BATK’s head of legal and external affairs stated that the company was “using proceeds from the tobacco portfolio to invest in the new categories. When the time comes, we will help them (farmers) transition to sustainable crops,” although this was “not a change that can happen overnight”.¹¹⁶ Spencer-Obatyoinbo confirmed that BAT switching to “non-combustibles” was “not an immediate thing”.¹¹⁶ Nevertheless, in September 2020, BAT was reported to be lobbying the Kenyan Revenue Authority (KRA) for a tax break for the product, citing its large investment and potential exports.¹¹⁷ (According to BAT the nicotine for its pouches is currently manufactured in Switzerland.)¹¹⁷ The Chief Executive of the International Institute for Legislative Affairs argued that this would be a “huge setback for tobacco control interventions in Kenya”.¹¹⁸ For more information see the Kenya country profile page.

Nicotine pouches were initially registered as a pharmaceutical product by the Kenya poisons board.¹¹⁹ This designation was challenged by local advocates.¹¹⁹ Health Cabinet Secretary Mutahi Kagwe wrote to the poisons board, arguing that the product had been wrongly designated, and stated that it was being distributed via vending machines in contravention of the law.¹¹⁹¹²⁰ Although Lyft was de-registered and effectively banned, there was a reported lack of enforcement and the product was found to still be on sale in December 2020.¹²⁰¹²¹ In February 2021, the Kenyan government said that it was intending to classify nicotine pouches as a tobacco product under the Tobacco Control Act, making the product subject to similar marketing restrictions as cigarettes and other tobacco products.¹²⁰ Concerns have been raised in Kenya over potential use by children (see below).

In February 2021, BAT told investors that “In Kenya, we have temporarily suspended sales due to local regulatory challenges and continue to engage with the local authorities.”¹¹¹ In March it told the Kenyan media that it was planning to spend Kenya Sh1 billion (US $10 million) on marketing Lyft once the product was approved.¹²² This included plans to set up distribution networks across 21 countries in the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA).¹²²

In 2022, BAT’s nicotine pouch was back on the market in Kenya, as Velo.¹²³ In its annual report, BAT stated it had “reintroduced Velo to a limited retail universe with positive early momentum, as we focus on driving guided trial.”³⁶

The introduction of Velo has not been without controversy, and politicians in Kenya are again asking for the product to be banned. Letters between BAT and the Kenyan Ministry of Health reveal that BAT had lobbied to reduce the size of warning labels on the product.¹²⁴

BAT has also lobbied against increased taxes on these products.^125126127

Pakistan

Velo was launched by BAT in Pakistan in December 2019, with a campaign run by Ogilvy Pakistan “positioned towards affluent adult consumers”.^128129130

A Freedom of Information Request submitted by Bath TCRG revealed that UK High Commission staff in Pakistan had attended a “social event” for Velo in February 2020. The FOI stated that “They were invited by the event coordinator and did not meet any Velo representatives at the event.”¹³¹

• British diplomats have previously been associated with lobbying by BAT in Pakistan, and other LMICs. See the page on UK Diplomats Lobbying on Behalf of BAT

BAT said it was “particularly proud of Velo’s performance in Pakistan”. ⁵¹ In its 2022 annual report, BAT stated that Pakistan was its third largest market for nicotine pouches. It said that the market was “enabled by powerful, consumer-centric digital activations”, and that it was selling over 40 million units a month.³⁶ These sales figures, and rapid growth, are roughly consistent with Euromonitor’s estimates.⁸⁵

South Africa

Unlike NRT products, nicotine pouches are not on the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority’s list of approved medicines, for which it would be subject to clinical trials and regular monitoring updates. Nicotine pouches are also not regulated as tobacco products because the nicotine is synthetic and does not fall under the definition of tobacco products in the Tobacco Products Control Act (2018). This means that they can be sold without health warnings and can be sold to those under the age of 18.¹³²

South Africa is also one of the target markets for PMI’s ZYN nicotine pouches. ¹³³

Indonesia

In February 2021, BAT referred to the test marketing of its nicotine pouches in Indonesia.  BAT reported “encouraging results”.¹¹¹ External statistics suggest the market remained small.⁸⁵

Concerns Around Use by Youth

Researchers in the US have identified the risk of nicotine pouches appealing to non-smokers and in particular youth, as some products come in a range of fruit flavours and are more discreet than e-cigarettes.³⁰¹³⁴ As of 2024, PMI was facing a lawsuit for ZYN in the US on the basis of the product being addictive and harmful to young people. The lawsuit states that PMI is benefiting from the promotion of the brand on social media. ¹³⁵The FDA has also issued warning letters and penalty charges to a number of retailers for the underage sale of flavoured ZYN nicotine pouches. As of April 2024, the FDA has not authorised the sale of ZYN products in the United States. ¹³⁶¹³⁷

Although they can only legally be sold to adults in the UK, concerns have been raised over potential use by children.⁴²¹³⁸

In 2020, there were reports that Lyft was being used by children in Kenya.¹¹⁵¹³⁹ Children were also reported to be using the products in schools in Scotland.¹⁴⁰

In February 2021, journalists from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism published an article describing how BAT used social media influencers to promote its nicotine pouches in multiple countries, including Australia, Kenya and Pakistan. The authors argued that this was part of a campaign targeted at young people, rather than older adults trying to quit smoking.^141142143

An investigation by The Guardian newspaper in 2023 identified further promotion in the UK via social media and music events, as well as prize draws and the provision of free samples.⁸⁹

BAT also promotes Velo through motorsport sponsorship.¹⁴⁴¹⁴⁵

• See Snus: Marketing to Youth for information on earlier tobacco company marketing of the tobacco leaf product.

Industry Alliance Lobbying in the EU

The ‘Nordic Nicotine Pouches Alliance’ (NNPA) was established in Belgium in 2020.¹⁴⁶ As of March 2024, BAT and JTI are the only partners listed on the NNPA website.¹⁴⁶

The NNPA webpage states “We engage, inform, and increase knowledge about nicotine pouches”.¹⁴⁷  However, on the EU transparency register, its stated goal is to “focus on regulation concerning nicotine pouches within the European Union”, specifically the Tobacco Products Directive and the Tobacco Taxation Directive.¹⁴⁸¹⁴⁹ Jonas Lundqvist, NNPA CEO, is listed as the accredited lobbyist on the EU register.^150148149 In 2022, the estimated cost of NNPA lobbying activities was listed as €400,000-499, 999, four times the amount listed in 2021.¹⁴⁸¹⁴⁹

NNPA also runs the online news platform ‘Pouchforum’.¹⁵¹ Articles published on the platform have accused the European Commission of misrepresenting the risk of nicotine pouches,¹⁵² and suggested that the Commission does not act in a transparent manner.¹⁵³ The site editor is Robert Casinge, also ‘Senior Partner’ in the NNPA, and previously listed as a lobbyist on the EU register.¹⁴⁹¹⁵⁴

Framing Nicotine Pouches as NRT

TTCs appear to be framing their nicotine pouches as a nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), which is designed to help smokers quit.^155156157 However, they are also marketing them as consumer products, including for use when it is not possible to smoke or use e-cigarettes, for example on a plane. ^158159160

In 2016, researchers in the US pointed to the implications for both product regulation and smoking cessation,⁹² and the:

“blurring of the lines between cessation products and novel tobacco products and potentially confusion and misuse by consumers which may result in initiation or situational and dual use of tobacco products.”⁹²

All four of the main transnational tobacco companies have conducted their own research on nicotine pouches, published on their science websites.

BAT markets Niconovum NRT products, in the US and Sweden under the brand name Zonnic; in Sweden, Zonnic products include nicotine pouches.^50161162 In 2020, BAT also rebranded its Revel nicotine lozenge as Velo – the same brand as its nicotine pouch – in the US (and submitted it for pre-market approval). ¹⁶³¹⁶⁴

In its 2022 annual report, BAT stated that “[t]he weight of evidence suggest Modern Oral nicotine pouches have a profile that is comparable to nicotine replacement therapy products”. It cited BAT’s 2021 research on Velo, which compared snus, nicotine pouches and NRTs.³⁶¹⁶⁵ However, the 2022 report then went on to acknowledge “low levels of average daily consumption and high poly-usage”, leading BAT to submit a further PMTA for a “superior” product.³⁶ As of February 2023, no Velo products had received pre-market approval in the US.³⁶ At the time of writing, it was not yet clear how BAT planned to promote its Zonnic nicotine pouch after it was approved for sale over-the-counter in Canada in July 2023.^106107109

BAT’s science website presents its research on nicotine pouches, as well as a summary of the ‘Snus and the Swedish Experience’.¹⁶⁶ For more background on this topic see The Swedish Experience.

PMI acquired Fertin Pharma in 2021, stating that Fertin was a “leading producer of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) solutions”.⁷⁸ PMI has also referred to the “medical” or “pharmaceutical” grade nicotine in its products.³⁷¹⁶⁷ (Read more about on PMI’s acquisition of pharmaceutical companies.)

PMI’s science website presents its research on nicotine pouches.¹⁶⁷ It does not refer to its snus products on these pages.^167168169

Imperial Brand’s science website has cited evidence on tobacco-leaf snus and other next generation products (NGP)s to support its statement that “these products are more satisfying – and acceptable – to adult smokers than traditional nicotine replacement products (NRTs) like patches, lozenges, and gums”.⁶⁴  However, the evidence it cites pre-dates the widespread sale of nicotine pouches by TTCs: the 2016 report from the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) refers only to Zonnic and does not discuss satisfaction of acceptability of the product.¹⁵⁷

Imperial refers to its use of “high purity pharmaceutical grade nicotine”.⁶⁴¹⁷⁰ In May 2021, Imperial published its “comprehensive scientific assessment” of its nicotine pouches, in comparison to cigarettes.¹⁷¹

Japan Tobacco‘s science website does not feature nicotine pouches, although it includes  its research on these products.¹⁷²

Environmental Impact

The impact of cigarette filters on the environment is well documented. More recently, the impact of single use, or ‘disposable’, e-cigarettes has been highlighted

As the nicotine pouch market grows the disposal of these single use products is an emerging concern.¹⁷³¹⁷⁴

On its website, BAT states that the Velo plastic cans are being upgraded to use single polymer plastics in order to “align with the group’s ESG ambitions”. ¹⁷⁵

TobaccoTactics Resources

• Snus
• Cigarette Companies Investing in Snus
• Newer Nicotine and Tobacco Products
• Harm Reduction

TCRG Research

• S. Peeters, A. Gilmore, Understanding the emergence of the tobacco industry’s use of the term tobacco harm reduction in order to inform public health policy, Tobacco Control, 2015,24(2):182-189

For a comprehensive list of all TCRG publications, including TCRG research that evaluates the impact of public health policy, go to the Bath TCRG’s list of publications.

References

The post Nicotine Pouches appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Smuggled Cigarettes Through Indigenous Reserves

Between 1989 and 1994, several tobacco companies had legally exported their cigarettes to the US for them to be smuggled back to Canada through indigenous (or First Nations) reserves, evading Canadian excise taxes.¹⁷⁹¹⁸⁰

An April 1994 internal document from BAT subsidiary ITC to BAT leadership admitted the company’s role in smuggling: “ITL [Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd] rebounded by making its major trademarks available in smuggled channels in the second half of 1993”.¹⁸¹¹⁸²

In the meantime, tobacco companies used this surge in illicit tobacco trade they were responsible for to pressure the federal government to reduce cigarette taxes. The lobbying efforts proved successful, leading to tens of thousands of additional smoking-related deaths.¹⁸⁰¹⁸³

ITC Pleads Guilty

In 2008, Imperial Tobacco Canada pleaded guilty to “aiding persons to sell and be in possession of tobacco manufactured in Canada that was not packed and was not stamped in conformity with the Excise Act.”¹⁷⁸

The company had to pay a criminal fine of C$200 million to the federal government and additional civil fines of up to C$350 million spread over 15 years.¹⁸⁴

Canada “Less Litigious”

Only a year before the 1999 smuggling lawsuit was filed by the Government of Canada, ITC’s Chief Financial Officer Luc Jobin had told CFO.com:

The level of litigation here is nowhere near what it is in the United States (…) Canadians are typically a lot less litigious, and our punitive damages are very different in magnitude. We’re also not facing the U.S. Congress”¹⁸⁵

He was referring to a US Senate bill sponsored by Senator John McCain which would have increased the price of a cigarette pack by US$1.10 within five years, increased the regulatory power of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and required the industry to pay US$516 billion over 25 years.¹⁸⁶

Luc Jobin became President and CEO of ITC in September 2003 and was appointed Chairman of BAT effective 28 April 2021.¹⁸⁷¹⁸⁸ For more information see Luc Jobin.

Relevant Links

Imperial Tobacco Canada website

British American Tobacco website

TobaccoTactics Resources

• British American Tobacco
• Illicit Tobacco Trade

References

The post Imperial Tobacco Canada: Involvement in Cigarette Smuggling appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

• Menthol cigarettes make up 10% of the global cigarette market.
• Using flavouring agents as additives is thought to establish and sustain tobacco use, particularly among young people.
• Cigarettes with flavour capsules in the filter create novelty and interactivity and are more popular among young people. Sales of capsule cigarettes are high in some countries, including South Korea and Chile.
• The tobacco industry is able to use its vast resources to extensively develop, market and promote flavoured products.
• Regulation of flavour is recommended by the WHO.
• Flavour bans have been found to reduce cigarette sales and smoking, and so are subject to industry interference. Tobacco companies advocate for bans on ‘characterizing flavours’ (rather than bans on additives) and can exploit them.
• There is little evidence that menthol bans lead to an increase in the illicit tobacco trade.

Menthol cigarettes are key products in tobacco company portfolios, representing an estimated 10% of the global cigarette market according to the World Health Organization (WHO).¹⁹¹ Using flavouring agents as additives is thought to promote and sustain tobacco use, and therefore WHO recommends banning menthol and other flavours in cigarettes.¹⁹²

Note that this page focuses on cigarettes. There are many other kinds of flavoured tobacco products, including waterpipe, smokeless tobacco, including snus.

Flavours are also used in newer nicotine and tobacco products, such as e-cigarettes (also known as electronic nicotine delivery systems, or ENDS), heated tobacco products (HTPs) and nicotine pouches.

Figure 1: Retail publication sponsored by JTI (Source: Scottish Local Retailer/Japan Tobacco International, “Making a Mint”, 2020, PDF supplied by Action on Smoking and Health)

Background

Cigarettes are produced and sold with a variety of flavours, including menthol, fruit, spice, herb, alcohol, sweet and floral.¹⁹³¹⁹⁴ Menthol, a type of alcohol that can be obtained from mint plants or manufactured, is the most widely used cigarette flavour.^195196197 Besides adding a flavour, menthol desensitises receptors that lead to irritant sensations from nicotine, making the experience of smoking less harsh.¹⁹⁵¹⁹⁸ In the United States non-menthol cigarette consumption declined by 33%  from 2009-2018 but menthol cigarette consumption only declined by 8%.¹⁹⁹

Smoking menthol may help establish smoking among young people,^{197200201202203204} and reduce the likelihood of quitting.^200201205 Banning menthol should discourage sustained tobacco use.²⁰⁰²⁰⁶

Menthol cigarettes could contribute to health inequalities: in the USA they have been found to be disproportionately smoked by those with lower incomes,^198207208 those with a lower level of education,¹⁹⁸ women,²⁰⁹ African Americans,²¹⁰²¹¹ the LGBTQ+ community,²¹²²¹³ and young people.²¹⁴

Menthol cigarettes are more commonly used by less-established or ‘novice’ smokers, and those who are experimenting with smoking.²⁰⁸²¹⁴ Research shows that the tobacco industry has manipulated the menthol content of cigarettes to promote smoking initiation and sustain tobacco use.²¹⁵²¹⁶ Menthol was found to be key to industry strategy in Singapore, to both recruit and retain young smokers.²¹⁷

Mass distribution and marketing of menthol did not start until the 1960s although a US patent for menthol flavouring was granted in the 1920s.^196197218 In 2007 a new innovation for adding flavour appeared on the Japanese market which has since become common elsewhere, often marketed as a ‘crushball’, in which flavour is added via crushing a small plastic capsule in the filter.²¹⁹²²⁰ Tobacco companies have been developing flavour capsules since the 1960s and multiple innovations have been patented, but not yet marketed.²²¹ Cigarettes with flavour capsules are popular with young people due to the interactivity, and the novelty of smoking a cigarette with two flavours.^219220222 Flavour capsule use is high in Chile, Mexico and South Korea.²²³ In some countries use is high among women.²²³ Some markets, such as the UK, only had menthol flavoured capsule cigarettes available, and not other flavours.²²⁴

Menthol can be present in tobacco products not labelled as menthol.²²⁵²²⁶ The tobacco industry has stated that this might occur as a by-product of processing, but that it is also added deliberately to improve the flavour.¹⁹⁸²²⁷

Regulation and Industry Interference

Regulation of flavours that make smoking more palatable is recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (FCTC).¹⁹¹¹⁹² According to a review conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, as of 2021, about 40 countries have active or pending policies on flavour.²²⁸ These policies differ according to whether the following are banned:

• all tobacco products
• products with flavour additives
• products with a noticeable or ‘characterising’ flavour
• flavour descriptors and images on packaging

Tobacco industry documents show that the industry favours characterising flavour bans.²²⁹

Turkey was the first country to successfully introduce a ban on flavoured cigarettes, including menthol, in 2015, to be fully implemented in 2020.²³⁰²³¹

Also in 2015, Ethiopia banned menthol flavouring for all forms of tobacco to prevent appeal to children and adolescents, a pre-emptive move as Ethiopia had no significant existing use of menthol.¹⁹¹²³² The ban was comprehensive, covering manufacture, import, distribution, and  sale. It bans aroma as well as taste, effectively banning additions to packaging.²³³

While most flavour policies mention reducing youth use, only some restrict flavour descriptors on tobacco packaging.²²⁸

For up-to-date information on regulation of tobacco products around the world see the Tobacco Control Laws website, produced by the Campaign For Tobacco Free Kids (CTFK).

For countries that are parties to the FCTC, progress towards implementation of relevant articles (9 and 10) is detailed in the FCTC implementation database.

Brazil

In 2012, in order to prohibit the addition of substances that enhance the attractiveness of tobacco products through flavour and taste, Brazil became the first country in the world to pass a law banning menthol tobacco products. However it was unable to enact the law due to industry interference and a lengthy court battle.²³⁴²³⁵

A review of academic, government and commercial documents found the tobacco industry used a range of strategies to interfere with the legislation, including instigating demonstrations by tobacco farming front groups, media articles, litigation, lobbying, and industry-commissioned studies questioning the rationales for legislation.²³⁴ Arguments used by the tobacco industry included that: a ban would threaten employment, increase illicit trade, or prevent successful growing of burley tobacco; there is a lack of evidence that a ban would reduce smoking; and that a ban would be illegal.²³⁴

Philip Morris Brasil (PMB) had challenged the ban through its membership of The National Industry Confederation (Confederação Nacional da Indústria, CNI), arguing that the ban was unconstitutional.²³⁶²³⁷ According to PMI’s 2018 annual report, “The tobacco union requested a stay of the enforcement of the ingredient ban while the appeal is pending”.²³⁷

The Brazilian government finally won the court case in February 2018, although the ban was not fully enacted due to ongoing interference.^228235234238 Researchers noted that these strategies had also been used elsewhere, and that the legislation was delayed for many years despite a lack of evidence to support industry arguments.²³⁴

Chile

The Ministry of Health in Chile, a country with high use of menthol cigarettes, particularly among women, tried to introduce a menthol ban under an existing law in 2013.¹⁹¹²³⁹ After lobbying from the tobacco industry, the ban was rejected. The industry argued that menthol products were no different to other tobacco products, and that there was a lack of evidence of increased addiction or harm.¹⁹¹²⁴⁰ A new bill was introduced in 2015, supported by data showing very high use of menthol-flavoured cigarettes by young people (66% for smokers under 18).

In response to the new bill, British American Tobacco (BAT) threatened to withdraw its operations from Chile.²⁴¹²⁴² Despite passing the law in the Senate, as of February 2020 the law had yet to be implemented.²⁴³ Although the bill stalled, BAT went ahead with the closure of some of its factories. According to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, this “can be interpreted as a decision to consolidate based on cost efficiency and not on local tobacco-control laws”.²⁴² BAT continues to manufacture and market menthol cigarettes in Chile, with sales of capsule cigarettes increasing (see below).

Canada

Menthol cigarettes were initially exempted from a flavour ban in Canada in 2010. Evidence showed that menthol cigarettes were used by nearly a third of high school aged smokers.²⁴⁴ The tobacco industry lobbied against extending the ban to non-cigarette products (cigarillos and smokeless tobacco).²⁴⁵ After implementation tobacco companies developed new variations on existing products, including small menthol cigars, to get around the ban.^191228246

A series of menthol bans were implemented in Canadian provinces, starting with Nova Scotia in May 2015, and by October 2017 menthol cigarettes had been banned across Canada.^191247248249 First Nations reserves were included, removing a potential legal route for purchasing menthol after the ban, although products may still be available.²⁴⁷²⁵⁰

Canadian legislation bans menthol’s use as an ingredient because menthol’s presence at subliminal levels reduces the negative sensations of smoking.^251252253

United States

In 2019, 18.5 million people in the US were current smokers of menthol cigarettes.²⁵⁴ On 28 April 2022 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced proposed standards for banning menthol as a characterising flavour in cigarettes and cigars.²⁵⁰²⁵⁵ In 2009 the US had previously banned characterising flavours in cigarettes (see below) except menthol.

Characterising Flavour

Factors relevant for determining whether a product has a characterising flavour as stated by the FDA include, but are not limited to, presence and amount of flavour ingredients or additives, multisensory experience, implicit or explicit flavour representations (including descriptors) on the packaging.  Industry has commented that characterising flavour requires a clear and scientifically based definition for compliance.²⁵⁴

However, there is also evidence that tobacco companies have have undermined ‘characterising flavour’ bans implemented in other countries, notably the EU and UK.

The rules were to come into effect one year after the final publication of the regulations (not yet provided).²⁵⁴²⁵⁶  The ban would also cover tribal lands.²⁵⁰

As the tobacco companies make ‘massive profits’ from menthol, legal challenges and protests from the tobacco industry and third party allies are likely.²⁵⁷²⁵⁸ 30% of British American Tobacco’s operating profit is reported to come from the sale of menthol cigarettes in the US alone.²⁵⁹

• For more information see Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco in the US

Moldova

Moldova, a non-EU country in the lower middle-income category with a high smoking rate, was due to ban menthol cigarettes in May 2020 at the same time as the EU.²³⁰²⁶⁰ In 2019, PMI increased its lobbying efforts in Moldova, to try to gain influence over tobacco control policy in the country. For more information see Swiss Diplomats Lobbying for PMI.

European Union and UK

An EU-wide ban on the sale of flavoured cigarettes was introduced in May 2016, including menthol, under the 2014 revised European Tobacco Products Directive (TPD).²⁶¹ After protests against the TPD from the tobacco industry, implementation of the ban on menthol cigarettes was postponed to 2020.²⁶²²⁶³

Many of the brands assessed by the EU Commission advisory panel on characterising flavour have been found to have a chemical profile suggestive of having a characterising flavour, and noticeable odours.²⁶⁴

• For details of the EU regulation, and the range of tactics used by tobacco companies to exploit loopholes in the legislation (figure 1) and circumvent the menthol ban, and a 2023 ban on flavoured HTPs, see Menthol Cigarettes: Industry Interference in the EU and UK

Do Bans Work?

Evidence from the US

The US flavour cigarette ban (with the exception of menthol) came into effect in September 2009. Survey data for the period up to 2017 suggested the ban reduced cigarette smoking long term among young adults (27%) and youth smokers (43%) but not older adults. Immediately post ban significant numbers of young adult and youth smokers of other flavours switched to menthol and non-flavoured cigarettes.²⁶⁵ However, by 2015 cigar sales had also increased, particularly flavoured cigars. Internet vendors, especially those based outside the US were found to be selling flavoured products in 2011, two years after the flavour ban.²⁶⁶

The 2009 ban only applied to cigarettes. In 2014, 61% of middle and high school smokers had recently used flavoured hookah and 64% had used flavoured cigars.²⁶⁷

In June 2017, the city of San Francisco, USA, banned the sale of all flavoured tobacco products including menthol. Retailers were given training, and shops were inspected. By December 2019, the comprehensive ban had reduced sales of flavoured products by 96%. Total tobacco sales declined significantly further than in neighbouring cities without bans.²⁶⁸

Evidence from Canada

The country wide Canadian ban was in place in October 2017, but several states implemented bans beforehand from 2015 onwards. In Ontario, a menthol cigarette ban was enacted in January 2017. Having a ban in place was associated with a reduction in menthol and total cigarette sales.²⁶⁶

Across Canada, state menthol bans significantly increased quit success among menthol smokers compared with non-menthol smokers.²⁶⁹  The ban also prevented relapse among smokers who had quit pre-ban. ²⁷⁰ In 2015, even though some states had already passed legislation, 15% of 15 to 19 year olds reported smoking menthol cigarettes.²⁷¹ Between 2018 and August 2020, 2-3% of  16-19 year olds were estimated to be smoking menthol or capsule cigarettes.²⁷² Most menthol smokers switched to non-menthol cigarettes, and menthol accessories (which could provide a menthol flavour) remained on sale in Canada.²⁷⁰

In 2009, Canada had banned on all non-menthol flavour additives small cigars as well as cigarette. Despite an increase in non-flavoured cigars, there was a net reduction in cigar sales by 2015.²⁶⁶

Evidence from the EU and UK

The European Union flavour ban (with the exception of menthol) came into force in May 2017. Survey data from eight EU countries suggested that between 2016 and 2018 only 11% of smokers of the banned flavours continued to smoke them, 62% moved to unflavoured cigarettes and 5% moved to menthol cigarettes. Only 9% quit completely.²⁷³

The EU menthol ban came into force on 20 May 2020. An International Tobacco Control (ITC) study in 2020-2021 surveyed the same sample of adult smokers in the Netherlands before and after the EU menthol ban.²⁷⁴ This study found that menthol use significantly decreased from 8% to 4% post-ban. Compared to non-menthol smokers, menthol smokers had higher quit attempt rates (67% vs 50%). 40% of those who smoked menthol pre-ban switched to non-menthol cigarettes while just over a third continued to smoke menthol cigarettes after the ban.²⁷⁴ Over 40% of menthol smokers  reported using flavour accessories post-ban, including filters, flavour cards, marker pens, and drops, which were not banned.²⁷⁵ 4% of all smokers used these accessories post-ban.²⁷⁵

The menthol ban was adopted into UK legislation before the UK left the EU. Results from evaluations have been mixed.  A study using the ITC Youth Tobacco and Vaping Survey found that in England, the percentage of youth smokers (age 16-19) whose usual cigarette brand was menthol declined from 12% in Feb 2020 to 3% in August 2020. This fall was not replicated in countries which did not have a menthol ban enacted during the study period. However, reported menthol smoking in the previous 30 days was still high post-ban at over 40%.²⁷²  Between July 2020 and June 2021, Smoking Toolkit Study data suggested 16% smokers in England reported smoking menthol cigarettes; women and younger smokers were more likely to report menthol smoking. There appeared to be a decline in reported menthol smoking in mid-2021.²⁷⁶ Some remaining reports of menthol smoking could be at least partly because menthol accessories and cigarillos were still available.²⁷⁷

The tobacco industry attempted to boost menthol sales after the ban was announced.²⁷⁸ Between September 2019 and February 2020, before the ban, sales of menthol cigarettes fell by 57% in UK convenience stores (as reported by the Retail Data Partnership). However, under 2% of stores had stopped selling them.²⁷⁹ The analysts did not identify any significant rise in sales of RYO tobacco, cigarillos or e-cigarettes. Therefore, it was unclear whether customers were switching to products bought elsewhere (e.g. online), or were in fact quitting.²⁷⁹

• For more on product innovation see Menthol Cigarettes: Industry Interference in the EU and UK

Flavour Bans and Illicit Tobacco

Where neighbouring countries do not implement a ban, it has been suggested that there is a risk that smuggling will increase.²⁸⁰ Tobacco companies have used this argument when lobbying against regulation, including the TPD.

However, the risk associated with the movement of illicit tobacco is often exaggerated by the tobacco industry. An evaluation of the 2015 menthol ban in the Canadian Province of Nova Scotia found no change in seizures of menthol or nonmenthol cigarettes after 3 years.²⁶⁶ In Romania there was no increase in tobacco confiscations after the EU ban.²⁸¹ Both before and after the ban, about 2% purchases in the Netherlands were illicit.²⁷⁵ Despite English smokers continuing to smoke menthol cigarettes after the menthol ban, there was no reported rise in purchasing of cigarettes from illicit sources.²⁷⁶

The Global Market for Menthol Cigarettes

Euromonitor International produces data on cigarette market share by volume of capsule cigarettes (i.e. of any flavour, including menthol) and menthol flavoured cigarettes (i.e. without capsules) for up to 78 countries. Note that Euromonitor receives project funding from Philip Morris International.²⁸²

From 2010 to 2020, capsule cigarettes experienced significant market growth, with an average increase of 0.7 percentage points per year.²⁸³   Growth occurred across all WHO regions, with the exception of Europe. Here there was an increase until 2019, then a decrease of 0.6 percentage points to 2020, likely due to the EU characterising flavour ban. Capsule cigarette market growth was most substantial for upper-middle income countries (with an average market share of 1.0% to 11.4) and the WHO region of the Americas (1.5% to 16.2%).²⁸³ The five countries with the highest average annual growth rates of capsule cigarettes  were: India (154%), Uzbekistan (122%), Uruguay (115%), Russia (84%), and Ukraine (84%). Four of these are middle-income countries.²⁸³ By 2019, capsule cigarettes made up a larger proportion of the global cigarette market than menthol flavoured cigarettes.  The overall market share of menthol cigarettes decreased by an average of 0.2 percentage points per year.²⁸³

According to Euromonitor, in 2020, capsules accounted for 3.3% of the market worldwide (by volume) and menthol flavoured cigarettes 2.4%. ²⁸⁴ However, regional distribution varies. Four of the five countries with the highest capsule market shares in 2020 were in Latin American: Chile (48%), Peru (35%), Guatemala (33%), Mexico (27%), and South Korea (25%).²⁸³

The market share of menthol flavoured cigarettes remained high in many countries, the highest being in the WHO Western Pacific region (15% in 2020) and Africa region (13%). The five countries with the largest menthol market shares in 2020 were: Singapore (47%), Dominican Republic (33%), Cameroon (30%), USA (29%) and Japan (28%).²⁸³ In contrast, in Europe the average market share for menthol flavoured cigarettes was only 1.5% across the region.

Both types of flavoured cigarette are equally popular in Nigeria and have over 40% of the tobacco market. Only two of the countries included in Euromonitor’s dataset, North Macedonia and Canada, had no measurable market for either.²⁸⁴

• For more information on the market and industry tactics in low and middle-income countries, see Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco in LMICs

Company Market Shares

Tobacco companies do not share their sales figures for menthol tobacco products, so market share needs to be calculated from different data sources.

• For details of tobacco company shares in the UK see Menthol Cigarettes: Industry Interference in the EU and UK

TobaccoTactics Resources

• Menthol Cigarettes: Industry Interference in the EU and UK
• Promotion of Newer Products Around The UK Menthol Ban
• Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco in LMICs
• Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco in the US
• Smokeless Tobacco
• Waterpipe

Relevant Links

Flavors (Including Menthol) in Tobacco Products, STOP resource (May 2022)

Case studies for regulatory approaches to tobacco products: menthol in tobacco products, World Health Organization advisory note (2018)

Partial guidelines for implementation of articles 9 and 10 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: regulation of the contents of tobacco products and of tobacco product disclosures, World Health Organization, WHO website (2012)

A global map of menthol bans is available on Tobacco Atlas: Product Sales

Public Health Law Center: Menthol and Other Flavoured Products, PHLC website (United States)

US Food and Drug Administration, Tobacco Product Standard for Menthol in Cigarettes (5 April 2022)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health Summary of Scientific Evidence: Flavored Tobacco Products, Including Menthol (United States, February 2021)

TCRG Research

• Flavour capsule cigarette use and perceptions: a systematic review, C.N. Kyriakos, M.Z. Zatoński, F.T. Filippidis, Tobacco Control, Published Online First: 04 October 2021, doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056837
• Tobacco industry tactics to circumvent and undermine the menthol cigarette ban in the UK, R. Hiscock, K. Silver, M. Zatonski, A. Gilmore, Tobacco Control, 18 May 2020, doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-055769
• A growing menace: menthol and flavoured tobacco products in LMIC, M. Zatonski, K. Silver, S. Plummer, R. Hiscock, Tobacco Induced Diseases, 2022;20(April):39, doi:10.18332/tid/146366
  STOP research summary (May 2022)

For a comprehensive list of all TCRG publications, including research that evaluates the impact of public health policy, go to the Bath TCRG’s list of publications. 

References

The post Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Ever since plain packaging for tobacco products was suggested in Canada in 1986 and New Zealand and the UK in the early 1990s, the tobacco industry has been developing arguments and tactics to oppose this legislative proposal. This pages outlines some of the main arguments used by the tobacco industry to oppose plain packaging legislation.
See TPD: Developing the Intellectual Property Argument.

“It Breaches Our Intellectual Property Rights”

As plain packaging removes tobacco companies’ ability to display their branding on tobacco products, they argue that this amounts to the illegal appropriation of their trademarks by Government, thereby breaching their intellectual property (IP) rights.

However, in the 1990s the industry received a legal opinion that they have no protection under IP right treaties and laws.²⁸⁷ Therefore, the industry has known for years that this argument is spurious and legal challenges are unlikely to succeed (see The Plain Pack Group, TPD: Trademark Claims and TPD: Challenging Legislation).
Nevertheless, two decades later, tobacco companies and their allies continue to use this argument to block and/or delay the introduction of plain packaging.

For example, in response to the proposed revision of the 2001 EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association (TMA) whose members include Imperial Brands (previously Imperial Tobacco), Japan Tobacco International (JTI) and British American Tobacco (BAT) said: “The Commission European must recognize that changes to packaging and pack labelling regulation impact fundamental legal, economic and commercial rights of tobacco manufacturers and consumers. These include… their property right in their brands (including trademarks, goodwill and brand equity).”²⁸⁸
Tobacco companies in Australia took the Australian Government to court in 2012 over the Government’s appropriation of their trademarks. Their attempt to overturn the legislation was unsuccessful on the merits of this argument.²⁸⁹

“It Infringes International Trade Agreements”

Tobacco companies also argue that plain packaging in Australia and elsewhere infringes international trade agreements. On 28th September 2012, in response to a request by Ukraine, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body agreed to set up a panel to assess whether the plain packaging law passed in Australia breaches intellectual property (IP) rules under the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement and violates the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). However, in 2015 Ukraine decided to withdraw from this dispute. Its Economic Development and Trade Minister said: “First, now we have restricted resources and we would like to send them to the direct trade interest of Ukraine. Second, economic logic is absent in this dispute, and third, the dispute has negative consequences for our country”.²⁹⁰.

On 9 June 2020, the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) issued a final ruling affirming that Australia’s plain packaging for tobacco products is entirely consistent with WTO agreements.²⁹¹ This ruling ends a long dispute against Australia’s plain packaging which started in 2012 when four countries, Honduras, Indonesia, the Dominican Republic and Cuba, filed complaints. These complaints were first dismissed in June 2018. Honduras and Dominican Republic appealed, and the June 2020 ruling finally confirmed that plain packaging laws are both scientifically and legally sound. It was reported that those countries received technical and financial support from BAT and PMI to bring their complaints.²⁹² JTI had a number of consultancies commissioned that all came with reports warning against graphic health warnings and plain packaging. Find out more about this tactic on the JTI page

Such challenges are not new. In 2008, in its response to the UK Department of Health’s consultation on the Future of Tobacco Control, BAT claimed:

“The Government’s power to introduce plain packaging is constrained by law, not only by the general principles of public law, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and EU law, but also by international law, including the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).”²⁹³

The company argued that prohibiting the use of trademarks on tobacco products’ packaging would:

* “Impose restrictions on the registration and use of trademarks based on the nature of the goods or services for which such marks are registered, contrary to the harmonised European and international system of trade mark protection (in particular under TRIPS and the ECHR);

* Be an unlawful interference with the ECHR rights to free speech of manufacturers and consumers of tobacco products;

* Constitute a barrier to the functioning of the internal market, contrary to EU law; and

* Undermine the very basis upon which intellectual property rights, which are of global commercial significance, are created and protected internationally, with implications far beyond the tobacco industry.”²⁹³

In 2012, Andrew Mitchell, an international law expert at Melbourne University told the Australian publication Lawyers Weekly that the WTO claims are unlikely to be successful. ²⁹⁴ Mitchell argued that “Tobacco companies still have the right to use their trademark and are simply prohibited from exercising a positive right to use it on tobacco products” and therefore IP rules are not breached, which was proven right with the WTO rulings in 2018 and 2020. As the Legal Claims page shows, the industry has a long history of threatening legal action.

“No Credible Evidence that Plain Packaging Will Work”

• Imperial: Following the launch of the public consultation on plain packaging in the UK, Alex Parsons, a spokesman for Imperial, which owned 43.1% of the market share in cigarettes in 2011,²⁹⁵ told BBC Radio 4’s World At One: “There is no credible evidence to substantiate what the government is saying which is that people make the decision to smoke or continue smoking because of the colour of the packs of the cigarettes they buy. Quite frankly, it is a preposterous notion.” ²⁹⁶
• JTI: Martin Southgate, the Managing Director of JTI at the time, which owned 37.1% of UK market share in cigarettes in 2011,²⁹⁵ said: “Put simply, this will not work. We hope common sense will prevail and the Government will acknowledge the lack of any credible evidence to show that this proposal will actually work.” ²⁹⁷
• TMA: The anti-plain packaging sentiment from tobacco companies was reiterated by the TMA, the industry’s trade association. The TMA’s Secretary-General, Jaine Chisholm Caunt, said: “There is no reliable evidence plain packaging will reduce rates of youth smoking. Smoking initiation in children is actually linked to a complex range of socio-economic factors including home life, peer pressure and truancy and exclusion from school.” ²⁹⁸

For a summary of the evidence in favour of plain packaging see Countering Industry Arguments Against Plain Packaging: No Evidence Plain Packaging Will Work

“Other Countries Have Dropped the Idea”

In 2010, the TMA claimed: “The UK Government decided in 2009, after a preliminary consultation, not to proceed with plain packaging as the evidence is ‘speculative’ and ‘needs to be developed’ before regulatory action should be taken.” This statement was made in December 2010. Yet the UK Government had already announced in November 2010 that it would consider introducing plain packaging in the UK.²⁹⁹

Similarly, in January 2011, Roger Jones, national account manager for BAT UK commented: “We were surprised to hear the Government proposing plain packaging for tobacco products, especially given that a number of governments around the world, including Canada, have already looked closely at this measure and have decided it wouldn’t work”. ³⁰⁰

“It Will Lead to Increased Smuggling”

The TMA has used has several variations of smuggling and counterfeit arguments against plain packaging including:

“A counterfeiters’ charter“

In September 2008, Imperial told the UK’s DH that the introduction of plain packaging “could be described as a ‘Counterfeiter’s Charter”. ³⁰¹

Imperial used the expression repeatedly in its submission to the inquiry into plain packaging in Australia.³⁰²

By March 2011, Unite, a trade union representing tobacco industry workers, was using exactly the same wording. A news release said: The government’s intention to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes would amount to a ‘Counterfeiters’ Charter’. ³⁰³

“Easier for counterfeiters“

In March 2011, the TMA responded to the UK Government’s Tobacco Control Plan: “Plain packs are also likely to lead to yet further increases in the smuggling of tobacco products and plain packs would make it so much easier for a counterfeiter to copy than existing branded packs making it even more difficult for a consumer to differentiate between genuine and counterfeit products.” ³⁰⁴

“Christmas for counterfeiters“

In January 2011 Roger Jones, national account manager for BAT UK, used a variation on the same theme, commenting: “If the Government insists cigarettes are sold in plain packs, it would be like Christmas for counterfeiters and the criminal gangs who smuggle cigarettes into the UK.” ³⁰⁰

“Handing the brands to criminals“

In February 2011, Jeremy Blackburn, head of communications at JTI, was more direct commenting that: “The government would simply be handing over the brands to criminals who would be under no obligation to use plain packs”. ³⁰⁵

Imperial‘s UK Communications Manager Iain Watkins used similar language: “Governments need to ask themselves whether they want tobacco products to be sold by responsible, legitimate businesses or criminal gangs”. ³⁰⁵

“It Will Increase Illicit Trade and Terrorism“

Imperial‘s UK General Manager in 2012, Amal Pramanik, warned that plain packaging would increase the illicit trade. He said: “We are particularly concerned about the impact plain packaging will have on illicit trade. Logic dictates that making all tobacco products available in the same generic packaging will increase the already high level of counterfeit product available in the UK, placing further pressures on retailers and government tax revenues.” ³⁰⁶

Speaking in May 2012, Imperial CEO, Alison Cooper, reiterated that plain packaging would not only be a “gift to criminal gangs”, but also “terrorists”. Cooper said: “Do we really want to hand business like this to gangs in Eastern Europe funding crime and even, in some cases, terrorists?” Reporting on Cooper’s remarks, The Sun newspaper ran a sensationalist headline, see right. It argued that “groups who benefit from such trade include al-Qaeda and Hezbollah.” ³⁰⁷ There is no independent evidence that plain packaging will increase illicit trade, increase crime or terrorism.³⁰⁸

Scaremongering coverage in such an influential national newspaper may influence public opinion on plain packaging. On average over two and a half million copies of The Sun were sold every month in 2012.³⁰⁹ As most copies of newspapers are thought to be read by two other people (i.e. family members in the household), Media UK estimate that The Sun has a readership of over 7 million adults. This is 14.4% of the adult population in the UK.³⁰⁹ Furthermore, a February 2012 Guardian news article stated that The Sun had 1,471,788 daily online browsers and 24,055,155 monthly online browsers.³¹⁰

BAT created a short advert; This is the Man which showing the victims of illicit trade (such as women and children), once again making a non-evidence based connection between plain packaging and illicit trade.
For a counter argument to the industry’s position on plain packaging and illicit trade please visit Countering Industry Arguments Against Plain Packaging: It will Lead to Increased Smuggling.

“It Will Cost”

The industry uses the illicit trade argument to rally support amongst retailers and raise concern that an increase in illicit trade will affect profits. They also suggest that tax revenues to the country will be affected by an increase in illicit brought on by plain packaging. A whistle-blower in Australia revealed how contrived such an argument is by showing how tobacco companies set up a front group to reach retailers to represent the interests of the tobacco industry while presenting themselves as an independent group.

• Tobacco companies in Australia paid a PR company (The Civic Group) to set up the Alliance of Australian Retailers (AAR) in 2010. Not only was it funded by the industry, its day-to-day running was overseen by Chris Argent from Philip Morris. Leaked documents exposed the AAR as an industry front group in September 2010.³¹¹ For the full story see Big Tobacco create retail group as a disguise.

‘It will cost jobs‘

The TMA claims plain packaging will lead to “a diminished contribution to the economy, including loss of efficiencies and business to suppliers, wholesalers, retailers, ink manufacturers, designers and packaging suppliers, and other costs caused.”

It will make cigarettes more affordable

The European Carton Makers Association (ECMA) argues that “plain packaging legislation would also remove the last differentiating factor at the point of sale, ECMA also believes that plain packaging will inevitably lead to increased price competition and therefore to reduced consumer prices, making tobacco products more affordable”. ³¹²

“Where Will it Stop?”

When considering how to combat plain packaging proposals, BAT realised that it could gain traction with the general public via the use of the so-called ‘slippery slope’ libertarian argument of “if we can have plain packaging for cigarettes what will be next?” Michael Prideaux, BAT’s Communications Director said: “There is a feeling among the general public that the theft of trademarks is a step too far in terms of tobacco regulation. Who will be next? I think the libertarian argument resonates among people who wouldn’t normally take notice of what the tobacco industry say”. ³¹³

In Australia, Imperial unrolled a nationwide PR campaign based on the “No Nanny State” theme³¹⁴ and set up a website called nonannystate.com.au and a video channel to encourage people to oppose the plain packaging legislation, in a concerted effort to depict the government as interfering. The language used was subsequently adopted by other bloggers backing the industry (see TPD: Campaigning websites).
BAT New Zealand, which owns the majority of the New Zealand cigarette market ran a print, tv and radio campaign against plain packaging in 2012. The following is a link to the tv advert arguing for personal freedom.

Imperial Tobacco UK has also utilised the slippery slope argument in an anti-plain packaging advert Britain – 2020 Vision?. The advert misleadingly suggests that by 2020 all products perceived to be unhealthy will be sold in plain packaging. It was uploaded to YouTube by the tobacco industry front group Hands Off Our Packs. The advert (which had received nearly 30,000 views on YouTube by June 2013) was promoted through the distribution of leaflets on petrol forecourts. The leaflet (see below), which amongst other products showed baked beans in plain packaging, had a smart phone bar code link to the Britain 2020 Vision advert and asked recipients to say no to plain packs by responding to the consultation. Nowhere on the leaflet did it say that the campaign was attributable to or funded by Imperial. Only at the bottom of the 2020 Vision You Tube advert itself, in very small print, did it say it was funded by Imperial.

“It Breaches EU Better Regulation Principles”

In their submissions to the UK public consultation on plain packaging, each of the big four tobacco companies in the UK argued that policy makers and the public health community were acting in a way that contravened the principles of Better Regulation.

The Better Regulation method of policy making, which was introduced in the early 2000s, has been criticised for favouring business interests and largely ignoring social (health) and environmental interests.³¹⁵³¹⁶ Furthermore, evidence shows that BAT was heavily involved in the development of Better Regulation principles so that they could use business arguments to block regulation, specifically Smokefree Legislation in indoor public places.³¹⁶

All The Arguments in 10 Minutes

In June 2011, the Head of Corporate Affairs for Imperial in Australia, Cathie Keogh, appeared on Australian radio to attack the government’s plans on plain packaging (listen to the interview on the ABC website). Keogh’s answers neatly summed up all the industry’s standard arguments in 10 minutes:

• “It has not been introduced anywhere else in the world.”
• “The government has a policy of introducing evidence-based legislation, and there is no evidence that plain packaging will stop people from smoking.”
• “We should look at what the incidental consequences are.”
• “There are international organisations who believe that their welfare is also impacted, the International Chamber of Commerce has written to the Government.”
• “Another impact is that this policy – like no other – will fund the growth of illicit tobacco in Australia.”
• “Politicians are interfering in people’s lives and lifestyles: what is going to be next? Are they going to be putting controls on soft drinks, fast-foods and alcohol?”
• “Our campaign is about if people are concerned about the government making decisions for them they have the opportunity to make a protest.” ³¹⁷

“Spinning on Behalf of the Unspinnable”

Even libertarian writers in Australia were bewildered by Imperial’s public relations offensive. After the interview, one commentator said:

“Hearing people such as the woman from Imperial Tobacco on radio, you wonder whether they have some perverse intellectual attraction to spinning on behalf of the unspinnable. There are public relations firms which have won awards within this strange industry for helping Union Carbide salvage its abysmal reputation after the Bhopal factory disaster in India, and helping to rehabilitate the Argentine military after it spent most of the 1970s chucking university students out of Cessnas and into the River Plate.“

He continued:

“This industry, which in essence is in the death business, is itself in its death throes. As it sinks further into the abyss it is thrashing about spouting nonsense in defence of its right to sell demonstrably deadly products … On listening to the radio interview, it’s not so much that the tobacco industry’s arguments are ballsy, but just boorish and banal … Someone should have taped this interview and given it to high school debaters as an example of how not to make an argument.” ³¹⁸

Countering Industry Arguments against Plain Packaging

The public health community refers to industry reactions to proposed regulations as the “scream test”. The more they protest the more the regulation will damage their business. The industry has screamed loudly in response to plain packaging proposals.

Many of the arguments discussed above are examples of well-rehearsed industry tactics, to read about the public health responses to these arguments see Countering Industry Arguments against Plain Packaging.

• It Breaches Intellectual Property Rights
• No Evidence Plain Packaging Will Work
• It will Lead to Increased Smuggling
• The Nanny State is going Too Far
• It will Cost Small Businesses

References

The post Industry Arguments Against Plain Packaging appeared first on TobaccoTactics.