Image source: Storm Crypt/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 DEED

Key Points

• The Philippines is an island nation in Southeast Asia consisting of over 7,000 individual islands. It is part of the World Health Organization’s Western Pacific Region.
• Its population was 115.6 million as of 2022. The previous year, adult tobacco use prevalence was 19.5%.
• The Philippines ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in 2005. It has not signed the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products.
• PMFTC Inc. – a joint venture between Philip Morris International and the Fortune Tobacco Corporation, the tobacco business of local conglomerate LT Group – has the largest share of the Philippine cigarette market. Japan Tobacco International accounts for most other sales.
• Recent tobacco industry tactics in the Philippines include attempting to influence the committee responsible for overseeing tobacco control in the country; corporate social responsibility, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic; and establishing relationships with public officials, including at the very top of government.

The Philippines has made some progress on tobacco control, especially since the introduction of the reforms known as the Sin Taxes in 2013. These both greatly simplified tax structures and significantly increased excise on tobacco and alcohol products, with a substantial share of the new revenue being channelled into universal healthcare.¹ Tobacco use prevalence, which stood at 29.7% in 2009, had fallen to 23.8% by 2015, and again to 19.5% by 2021.²³ However, rising incomes and subsequent smaller increases in tobacco taxes have made cigarettes more affordable, slowing further progress.⁴ Other challenges include an illicit tobacco market larger than the global average;⁵ the growing popularity of newer nicotine and tobacco products (particularly e-cigarettes) amongst young people;⁶ and ongoing tobacco industry presence on the inter-agency committee responsible for implementing tobacco control regulation in the country.⁷ Philippine domestic law continues to fall short of what is required by the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) across a number of areas.⁸

Tobacco Use in the Philippines

In 2022, the population of the Philippines was 115.6 million.⁹ According to the 2021 Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS), tobacco use prevalence amongst Filipino adults was 19.5%.³ Prevalence is much higher amongst males (nearly 35%) than females (just over 4%).³ Amongst adolescents aged between 13 and 15, 12.5% were using some form of tobacco in 2019.¹⁰ Again, prevalence for males (over 18%) is higher than for females (nearly 7%).¹⁰

In the 2021 GATS, just over 2% of Filipino adults reported current use of e-cigarettes (3.6% males; 0.5% females).³ However, use of e-cigarettes is considerably higher amongst youth. In the 2019 Global Youth Tobacco Survey, the corresponding figure was over 14% – higher than for conventional cigarettes (10%).¹⁰ More than 20% of boys aged between 13 and 15 reported using e-cigarettes, compared to 7.5% of girls.¹⁰ Smokeless tobacco use in the Philippines also appears to be greater amongst the young: in 2019, 3% of young people reported current smokeless tobacco use, compared to 1.5% of adults in 2021.¹⁰³

There were an estimated 95,600 deaths attributable to tobacco use in 2019, accounting for nearly 15% of all mortality in the Philippines that year.¹¹ According to a 2018 study, the economic burden of tobacco use in the Philippines in 2012 was just under PHP₱270 billion (US$15.1 billion according to the purchasing power parity exchange rate) – equivalent to 2.5% of national GDP. This includes both direct costs resulting from tobacco use (e.g., hospitalisations and medication) as well as indirect costs (reduced productivity due to disability and mortality). The same study found that diseases attributable to tobacco use accounted for nearly 5% of total health expenditure.¹²

Tobacco in the Philippines

Market share and leading brands

PMFTC Inc. (PMFTC) dominates the Philippine cigarette market, with a market share of around 61% in 2022.¹³ PMFTC is a joint venture between Philip Morris International (PMI) and the Fortune Tobacco Corporation, the tobacco business of local conglomerate LT Group.¹⁴

Japan Tobacco International (JTI) has a market share of 38%, thanks to its 2017 acquisition of local company Mighty Corporation.¹³¹⁵ Together, PMFTC and JTI account for virtually all of the licit cigarette sales in the country.¹³

PMI’s flagship brand Marlboro is the most popular brand of cigarette, with a share of nearly 33% in 2022. In second place is another PMFTC brand, Fortune International, with a share of nearly 17%. JTI’s Winston is third, with a market share of around 14%. All other brands have market shares of less than 10%.¹⁶

• For more information on the tobacco industry in the Philippines, please see the Tobacco Supply Chain Database.

At nearly 23%, the Philippines has one of the largest market shares for menthol cigarettes in the world.¹⁷¹⁸ Menthol cigarettes have been marketed in the Philippines since at least the 1970s, including in campaigns targeting young women.¹⁹ In more recent times, the menthol market share has increased year on year since 2014. Similarly, though the market for flavour capsule cigarettes is much smaller than for menthol, it has also been growing steadily, with yearly increases since 2015.¹⁷ These products are often more attractive to youth and young adults than conventional cigarettes; menthol in particular is associated with increased smoking initiation.¹⁸

• For more information, please see the page on Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco in LMICs.

Tobacco farming and child labour

Since the early 1960s, tobacco production in the Philippines has remained roughly stable, at between 40,000 and 70,000 tonnes a year. However, between 1981 and 1993 it increased to between 74,000 and 118,000 tonnes. Conversely, between 2006 and 2009 it dipped below 40,000, to a low of 32,000 tonnes in 2008.²⁰

Figure 1: Tobacco production, 1961 to 2021.²⁰ Source: UN Food and Agriculture Organization/Our World in Data | CC BY

Research has demonstrated that tobacco growing is not a profitable enterprise for most farmers. Despite this, farmers continue to grow tobacco due to a belief in its profitability and the reliability of the tobacco market; its perceived resilience to bad weather compared to other crops; and, in particular, access to credit.²¹ Filipino farmers interviewed for a study published in 2019 stated that tobacco farming allowed them to take out loans to which they would not have had access had they been growing other crops. Loans were also used to cover non-agricultural expenses such as school fees, buying food, and paying off other loans.²¹

As part of the Sin Tax reforms, 15% of the revenue collected from tobacco taxes is allocated to tobacco-growing communities to promote economically viable alternatives.²² However, this remains a challenge. Farmers have cited lack of capital, difficulties accessing credit, an absence of technical support and a perceived lack of markets for other crops as reasons for not transitioning away from tobacco.²¹

Tobacco is also one of 13 commodities produced in the Philippines which feature on the U.S. Department of Labor’s 2022 List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor.²³ However, comprehensive and up-to-date information on child labour in Philippine tobacco farming is not available.

Tobacco and the economy

The Philippines is a net importer of raw tobacco, importing about US$243 million of raw tobacco in 2022, compared to exports of around US$184 million.²⁴²⁵ However, the country is a net exporter of cigarettes, with exports in the same year of over US$232 million, compared to about US$22.6 million in imports.²⁶²⁷

Illicit trade

Illicit tobacco was estimated to form around 16% of the market in the Philippines in 2018.⁵ Though this is above the likely global average of 11 to 12%, it has changed little since 1998.⁵²⁸ Though industry-funded studies found significant increases in the Philippine illicit tobacco trade following the introduction of the Sin Taxes in 2013, there is no independent evidence to support this.⁵

Tobacco and the environment

The WHO reports that curing in tobacco agriculture is a leading cause of demand for wood from native forests in the Philippines.²⁹

Farmers cultivating the native batek variety of tobacco in the southern Philippines have been documented as using several toxic agrochemicals to control pests. These include some listed as hazardous by the WHO, such as cypermethrin and methomyl.³⁰

It has been estimated that between 30 and 50 billion cigarette butts are littered every year in the Philippines – 12.5 million on the resort island of Boracay alone.³¹ Boracay was closed for six months in 2018 for environmental rehabilitation, resulting in billions in lost revenues for both government and the private sector.³¹³²

• For more information on the tobacco industry’s environmental impact, please see Tobacco and the Environment and the long read on Plastics, the Environment and the Tobacco Industry.

Roadmap to Tobacco Control

The Philippines ratified the WHO FCTC in 2005 and the treaty entered into force later that year.³³³⁴ WHO FCTC ratification was a catalyst for strengthening tobacco control laws in the country and reducing industry influence on policy.³⁴ However, the Philippines is not a party to the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products.³⁵

The Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003 (RA 9211) is the country’s main tobacco control law, covering areas such as smoking in public places; tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship; and sales restrictions. Subsequent legislation built on the 2003 law, introducing further regulation on issues such as designated smoking areas, advertising and the packaging and labelling of tobacco products.³⁶

However, given that RA 9211 was enacted just three months before the Philippines signed the WHO FCTC, Filipino tobacco control advocates have argued that the law was both timed and designed to pre-empt the Convention. This has resulted in tobacco control regulations which, nearly 20 years later, still fall some way short of WHO FCTC requirements.⁷³⁷ Designated smoking areas are still permitted in indoor offices and workplaces; restaurants; and cafés, pubs and bars. Restrictions on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship remain incomplete. And at 50.6% of the retail value of the most popular brand of cigarettes, tobacco taxation is significantly below the 75% threshold recommended by the WHO.⁸

The tobacco industry, led by the Philippine Tobacco Institute (PTI), has also used RA 9211 as justification for delaying the introduction of more WHO FCTC-compliant measures (such as graphic health warnings), arguing that such measures contravene existing Philippine law.³⁷³⁸

In August 2020, the joint House Committees on Trade and Industry and on Health approved a bill regulating manufacture, sale and use of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products (HTPs).³⁹ This bill reversed an earlier decision to raise the purchase age from 18 to 21 and restrict flavourings to tobacco and plain menthol. It also shifted responsibility for regulation of these products from the Food and Drug Administration to the Department of Trade and Industry. Eight days after the bill was approved, the first of four stores dedicated to PMI’s flagship HTP IQOS opened for business.⁴⁰

This bill was a precursor to the Vaporized Nicotine and Non-Nicotine Products Regulation Act, which eventually became law in July 2022. E-cigarettes in hundreds of different flavours reportedly flooded the Philippine market in the months following the passage of the law.⁴¹ Leading Filipino tobacco control advocates argue that the law has undermined recent gains in tobacco control.⁴⁰

For more details, please see the following websites:

• Legislation by country/Jurisdiction – Philippines, Tobacco Control Laws, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids
• Philippines, WHO FCTC Implementation Database, WHO FCTC Secretariat
• Country profile – Philippines, World Health Organization, WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic 2023

Tobacco Industry Interference in the Philippines

Recent tobacco industry tactics in the Philippines include attempting to influence the committee responsible for overseeing tobacco control in the country; corporate social responsibility, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic; and attempts to influence policy, including by establishing relationships at the very top of government.

Conflict of interest

The Philippines’ main tobacco control law, RA 9211, requires the government to implement a “balanced policy”, given that:

“It is the policy of the State to protect the populace from hazardous products and promote the right to health and instill health consciousness among them. It is also the policy of the State, consistent with the Constitutional ideal to promote the general welfare, to safeguard the interests of the workers and other stakeholders in the tobacco industry.”⁴²

However, the first principle of the implementation guidelines for Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC states that “There is a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the tobacco industry’s interests and public health policy interests.”⁴³ Any requirement for “balance” can only therefore hinder progress on tobacco control and undermine public health.

This may be seen in the composition of the Interagency Committee on Tobacco (IAC-T), a multisectoral body established by RA 9211 responsible for overseeing implementation of the legislation.⁴² One seat on the IAC-T is reserved for the National Tobacco Administration (NTA) – a government agency that sits within the Department of Agriculture – which has a mandate to “Promote the balanced and integrated growth and development of the tobacco industry to help make agriculture a solid base for industrialization.”⁴⁴

Another seat is reserved for a representative of the tobacco industry, specifically the Philippine Tobacco Institute (PTI), an association whose members over the years have included PMFTC and JTI, among others.^42454647 The PTI has a long history of undermining tobacco control measures, including successfully managing to reduce the size of graphic health warnings on tobacco products, opposing tobacco tax reforms and litigating over tobacco control regulations against public bodies such as the City of Balanga and the Department of Health.⁴⁶⁴⁸⁴⁹

Tobacco control advocates have called repeatedly for the removal of the PTI from the IAC-T, citing conflict of interest and alleging that it uses its position to actively weaken tobacco control policies.⁴⁶⁵⁰⁵¹ The WHO has supported this position, stating that the composition of the Philippine IAC-T “is blatantly in conflict with WHO FCTC Article 5.3”, which requires parties to protect their public health policies against the commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry.⁵²

Corporate social responsibility

As of 2023, there was still no ban on tobacco industry corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the Philippines.⁸ The tobacco industry has taken advantage of this shortcoming to try to enhance its reputation and influence both policy makers and the general public.

From 2017 to 2021, PMI spent nearly US$38 million on CSR in the Philippines. Nearly US$31 million of this total was spent in 2020 and 2021 alone.⁵³ Much of this funding is channelled through the Jaime V. Ongpin Foundation (JVOFI), a development NGO and partner of “Embrace”, PMFTC’s CSR programme.⁵³⁵⁴ During 2020, in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, JVOFI distributed ambulances, ventilators, PCR machines for COVID-19 testing, personal protective equipment, food supplies and rapid test kits throughout the country.⁵⁴

PMI was far from the only tobacco industry player carrying out this kind of work: by mid-April 2020, the LT Group – PMI’s partner in joint venture PMFTC – had spent PHP₱200 million (around US$4 million) on COVID-19 assistance.⁵⁴ The LT Group implements such initiatives in the Philippines via its CSR arm, the Tan Yan Kee Foundation.⁵⁵ Also in April 2020, Japan Tobacco International (JTI) donated 20,000 face masks to hospitals in the province of Batangas, where its manufacturing facilities are located.⁵⁴

An investigation published by the media and business intelligence organisation Eco-Business in 2021 revealed that a number of congressional representatives were involved in the distribution of COVID-19 relief donated by the tobacco industry and its associates.⁴⁰ These donations also coincided with several debates in Congress which addressed regulation for newer nicotine and tobacco products (see section “Roadmap to Tobacco Control”).⁴⁰³⁷

Both PMI and JTI also lobbied the Philippine Ministry of Finance for permission to continue their operations as normal during lockdown, though cigarettes were not considered to be an essential item.⁵⁴ In an April 2020 press release, JTI argued that lockdown restrictions were forcing smokers to buy illicit tobacco; were resulting in lower tax revenues for government; and were harming retailers, especially small and family-run businesses.⁵⁶ Restrictions on the transport and delivery of tobacco products were subsequently lifted.⁵⁷

This shows how industry arguments around the illicit trade were accepted by Filipino policy makers, allowing tobacco companies to operate even during an outbreak of a lethal respiratory disease to which smokers are more vulnerable.⁵⁸

• For more on tobacco industry activity during the pandemic, please see the COVID-19 Tobacco Tactics page and the COVID-19 monitoring database.

Unnecessary interaction with high level officials

Hailing from the Ilocos region, where tobacco is a major cash crop, President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. has met with PMI at least twice since becoming president in June 2022.⁴¹⁵⁹ The most recent of these meetings was a lunch he and First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos hosted for PMI executives – including CEO Jacek Olczak – at the Malacañang Palace in November 2022, the first time a company CEO has been received at the Philippine presidential palace. Also present were PMFTC president Denis Gorkun and LT Group CEO Lucio Tan III.⁴¹

PMFTC’s director for global communications stated that the aim of the meeting was to outline the company’s plan “to expand our economic footprint in the Philippines.”⁴¹ PMI is reportedly investing US$150 million in the expansion of a manufacturing plant in Tanauan, Batangas. The new wing of the factory is to be used for the production of BLENDS, tobacco sticks used exclusively in PMI’s BONDS, a more affordable version of its flagship HTP IQOS.⁴¹

In 2012, the then Senator Marcos was photographed during a Senate debate on the Sin Taxes speaking to a lawyer representing PMFTC.⁶⁰⁶¹

Relevant Links

• The Toll of Tobacco in the Philippines, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, 2023
• Tobacco Industry Interference Index 2022: The Philippine Report on the Implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, HealthJustice, 2023
• Global Adult Tobacco Survey, Fact Sheet, Philippines 2021, Republic of the Philippines Department of Health, Philippine Statistics Authority, WHO Philippines et al
• Global Youth Tobacco Survey, Fact Sheet, Philippines 2019, Republic of the Philippines Department of Health, Epidemiology Bureau, WHO Western Pacific Region et al
• Tobacco Industry Monitor – Philippines, Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance, 2024

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco in LMICs

References

The post Philippines Country Profile appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) is an international treaty that aims to reduce the demand and supply of tobacco. It entered into force in February 2005, and as of 2023, there are 183 Parties to the treaty.⁶²

Article 3 of the WHO FCTC establishes that “the objective of this Convention and its protocols is to protect present and future generations from the devastating health, social, environmental and economic consequences of tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke by providing a framework for tobacco control measures to be implemented by the Parties at the national, regional and international levels in order to reduce continually and substantially the prevalence of tobacco use and exposure to tobacco smoke”.⁶³

What is the endgame?

The tobacco ‘endgame’ is the concept of moving beyond a focus on tobacco control, towards implementing policies and strategies that could phase out tobacco products entirely.⁶⁴ According to Cancer Research UK, among others, this would require systemic changes, including:

“initiatives designed to change/eliminate permanently the structural, political and social dynamics that sustain the tobacco epidemic, in order to achieve within a specific time an endpoint for the tobacco epidemic.” ⁶⁵⁶⁶

This could involve the reduction of prevalence of smoking to – or very close to – zero.

Policy Options

Research conducted into potential endgame strategies has identified plausible new policies for reducing smoking to minimal levels. These include:

• A tobacco-free generation policy, which precludes the sale and supply of tobacco to individuals born after a certain year⁶⁷⁶⁸
• A ‘sinking-lid’ strategy, which involves establishing steadily decreasing quotas on the sales or imports of tobacco products⁶⁷⁶⁸⁶⁹
• Substantially reducing the number of tobacco product retailers, which could include restricting retailer density, location, type, or licensing, or restricting tobacco sales to government run outlets^67687071
• Mandating low-nicotine levels in tobacco products⁶⁷⁷²
• Banning the sale of one or more tobacco products⁷¹⁶⁷
• Shifting control of the supply and distribution of tobacco products away from tobacco companies⁶⁴⁷³

Implementation of endgame policies

National goals and policies

The first countries to propose tobacco endgame goals, and start developing legislation to achieve these targets, were Finland,⁷⁴⁷⁵ New Zealand,⁷⁶ Ireland,⁷⁷ Scotland,⁷⁸ Sweden⁷⁹ Canada,⁸⁰⁸¹ and Malaysia.⁸² Other countries that have more recently adopted endgame goals include the Netherlands,⁸³⁸⁴ Australia,⁸⁵ and the UK.⁸⁶ Typically, the goal is to have a smoking prevalence of less than 5% of the population.

As of 2023, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids (CTFK) policy database shows that 13 countries have banned the sale of waterpipe tobacco products, and 19 countries have banned the sale of smokeless tobacco products.⁸⁷ A review carried out in 2020 showed that 40 countries had active or pending flavoured tobacco product policies that ranged from banning flavoured tobacco, to banning flavour descriptors and images on packaging.⁷¹⁸⁸ No countries have yet implemented mandatory denicotinisation, substantial retailer reductions or the sinking lid strategy at a national level.

In 2010, Bhutan was the first country to ban the sale, manufacture and distribution of tobacco products.⁸⁹ However, the legislation was reversed in 2021 due to concerns that increased tobacco smuggling could result in cross-border transmission of COVID-19.⁸⁹

Subnational policies

Several US cities have also implemented endgame strategies. Brookline, Massachusetts introduced a generational tobacco ban in 2021 which prohibited the sale of tobacco products and e-cigarettes to anyone born after 1 January 2000.⁹⁰⁹¹ Despite litigation brought by retailers in Brookline, which argued that the policy was pre-empted by state law, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld the generational ban in 2024.⁹² Some cities in California have prohibited the sale of tobacco and nicotine products within their jurisdictions,⁹³ and others have restricted the number or types of retailers permitted to sell tobacco products.⁹⁴

In 2016, Balanga City in the Philippines banned the sale and use of all tobacco and nicotine products to those born after 1 January 2000. It also expanded the coverage of an existing smoking ban in the city’s University Town to cover a wider radius. However, both measures were overturned in 2018 after the tobacco industry pursued litigation.⁹⁵⁹⁶

Tobacco industry interference

As of 2023, Malaysia, New Zealand and the UK are the only countries that have announced plans to adopt a generational endgame policy. New Zealand also proposed introducing mandated denicotinisation and substantial retailer reduction.

Tobacco industry interference to prevent, delay or undermine the legislation has been observed in each of these countries, and is detailed below.

Malaysia

Proposed legislation

In 2022, Malaysia proposed the ‘Control of Tobacco Products and Smoking Bill 2022’ which aimed to phase out tobacco products and e-cigarettes by introducing a generational endgame policy, prohibiting their use and sale to everyone born on or after 1 January 2007.⁹⁷

However, when the latest version of the bill was tabled in 2023, the generational ban clause was omitted for all products.⁹⁸

Interference from industry and associated organisations

Prior to the bill being tabled, several organisations lobbied against the inclusion of e-cigarettes in the generational endgame policy.^99100101 One of these organisations, the Malaysian Vapers Alliance (MVA), is a member of the World Vapers’ Alliance,¹⁰² which has received funding from the Consumer Choice Center and BAT. The MVA urged the government to exclude e-cigarettes from the generational ban, and stated that it had conducted a survey of 5000 adult vape users, 96.6% of which did not agree with the ban.¹⁰³

When the generational endgame clause was removed from the bill, Malaysia’s former health minister stated that this was due to strong lobbying from tobacco companies.⁹⁸ According to local advocates the bill had seen an “unprecedented level of industry interference, some of which have been done in clear violation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control”.¹⁰⁴

It is not clear what actions were taken by the tobacco industry to oppose the bill, however industry interference in government activities in Malaysia is high, and has continued to rise in recent years.¹⁰⁵¹⁰⁶

New Zealand

Proposed legislation

In December 2022, as part of its ‘Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 Action Plan’,¹⁰⁷ New Zealand passed the ‘Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products’ Amendment Act’ into law, which would have implemented several tobacco endgame policies.¹⁰⁸ The legislation included three key approaches: a ban on tobacco products being sold to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009, a significant reduction in the amount of nicotine permitted in tobacco products (an 0.8mg/g nicotine limit, compared to 15-16mg/g present in full strength cigarettes), and a huge reduction in the number of retailers allowed to sell tobacco products across the country (from 6000 to 600).¹⁰⁸¹⁰⁹

The legislation was due to be implemented progressively starting with the reduction in retailer numbers from July 2024, however in November 2023, as part of an agreement between parties forming a new coalition government, it was announced that all three endgame proposals would be repealed. The new finance minister stated that the additional tobacco tax revenues resulting from repealing the smokefree legislation would be used to finance tax cuts promised during the election campaign.¹¹⁰¹¹¹ The repeal was later confirmed in February 2024.¹¹² It was reported that health officials had urged the coalition government to maintain elements of the bill and suggested compromises such as introducing a purchase age of 25, however the Associate Health Minister, Casey Costello, rejected this.¹¹³

In February 2024, public health experts published a briefing pointing to channels of potential tobacco industry influence on the new coalition government.¹¹⁴ The briefing highlighted past connections between coalition politicians and tobacco companies or industry linked organisations, and noted that the arguments used by the coalition government against tobacco endgame policies aligned with those used by tobacco companies.¹¹⁴¹¹⁵ It also called for all government members to declare any past and current industry connections.¹¹⁴¹¹⁶

Interference from industry and associated organisations

In 2021, following the release of the Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 Action Plan, Imperial Brands, BAT and JTI all submitted responses to the government consultation opposing the major endgame policies.¹¹⁷ Industry linked organisations and individuals also submitted responses opposing the legislation. These included submissions from Centre for Research Excellence: Indigenous Sovereignty and Smoking (COREISS),¹¹⁸ which is funded by the Foundation for a Smoke Free World, and The New Zealand Initiative,¹¹⁹ a think tank whose members include BAT and Imperial Brands.¹²⁰

In June 2021, BAT reportedly facilitated a protest amongst convenience store owners to contest the proposed tobacco product restrictions.¹²¹ BAT supplied the dairy owners with postcards which opposed the measures, including the comment “If nicotine is slashed, filters banned and price goes up, many people will go to the black market – these will badly hurt my business, increase risk of robbery to personal safety and could force store to close.” Thousands of these postcards were reportedly delivered to the New Zealand Parliament.¹²¹

In August 2023, the ‘Save our Stores’ campaign, another seemingly grassroots initiative supported by convenience store owners,¹²² called for users to sign a petition urging the government to repeal the latest Smokefree 2025 laws. The campaign website stated that it was “supported by” BAT New Zealand and Imperial Brands New Zealand. The campaign website argued that “A ban on normal strength cigarettes will just mean the illicit trade in tobacco products will boom and be controlled by criminal networks”. It also stated that the legislation would destroy small businesses, and that taking away the tax revenue raised by tobacco sales would “hurt families who are already struggling to make ends meet”.¹²³ These narratives were repeated in a series of Facebook adverts published as part of the campaign between August and November 2023, with one advert also stating “tobacco taxes pay for 35,000 police officers”.¹²⁴

This kind of astroturfing is a well-documented industry tactic.

UK

Proposed legislation

In October 2023, the UK Prime Minister announced plans to introduce a generational endgame policy. The new legislation would prohibit the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after 1 January 2009. All tobacco products, cigarette papers, waterpipe tobacco and herbal smoking products were included in the proposal.⁸⁶¹²⁵ Later that month, the Westminster government opened a four nations consultation on the tobacco endgame policy, as well as on potential measures to curb the rise in youth e-cigarette use.¹²⁶

The consultation closed on 6 December 2023.¹²⁷ In response to the submissions, the Westminster government confirmed its plans to introduce a generational tobacco ban, ban disposable e-cigarettes and bring forward new powers which would allow the government to restrict e-cigarette flavours, packaging and retail display.¹²⁸ The Scottish and Welsh governments stated that they would also be introducing the new legislation.¹²⁹¹³⁰

Interference from industry and associated organisations

After the generational policy was announced, tobacco control researchers outlined arguments that they anticipated the industry would use to in an attempt prevent or undermine the UK legislation, based on previously used tactics. These included invoking libertarianism and arguments around personal freedom; claiming that the policy would be unworkable and impossible to police; and that it would have unintended consequences, such as increasing cigarette smuggling.¹³¹

In December 2023, there were reports that the tobacco industry was lobbying the government to increase the age of smoking to 21, instead of introducing the new generational endgame legislation.¹³² An industry source quoted by The i newspaper stated that the generational ban was “unenforceable, and the inevitability of such a ban leading to a black market run by dangerous criminal gangs, there’s a large number of libertarian Tory MPs that do not like the idea the government is limiting people’s free choice…if the Prime Minister does cancel the plan, then [the industry] won’t object to him raising the smoking age to 21”.¹³² The illicit tobacco trade has often been used by tobacco companies to promote key misleading narratives that advance their own business goals.  See also Arguments and Language.

The i also revealed that the tobacco industry had been “inundating MPs with lobbying material in a bid to persuade them to oppose the changes”. It also reported that a letter was sent to MPs, seemingly from constituents, but in fact drafted by employees of tobacco companies, which called the generational ban “ridiculous” and “impractical, illiberal and untested”.¹³² Andrea Leadsom MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department of Health and Social Care, warned that the industry was working behind the scenes to block the policy.¹³³

Tobacco company lobbying

Tobacco companies lobbied the UK Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) directly, using many of the same arguments, although only Philip Morris International (PMI) went as far as to issue a legal threat.

In November 2023, PMI sent a pre-action protocol (PAP) letter to the DHSC.¹³⁴¹³⁵ The PAP letter argued that the consultation was predetermined and that it failed to give adequate reasons regarding the inclusion of heated tobacco products (HTPs). It also argued that  the consultation period was not long enough did not allow the submission of sufficient additional evidence.¹³⁴ In a preliminary response (December 2023), the government stated that it was already possible for organisations to upload supporting documents, but to make this clearer, this instruction had been added to the consultation landing page.¹³⁶

The government’s full response a week later stated that the legal challenge was “misguided and wholly without merit” and would be “an unjustified attempt to delay or derail important legislative change”.¹³⁷ With regard to HTPs, it stated that some of PMI’s claims were “highly subjective and lack supporting independent evidence”. The response concluded that:

“The Government does not intend to enter into any negotiations with the tobacco industry…and will not as you propose “discuss, on an urgent basis, the potential removal of HTP from the scope of the proposed legislation”…the proposed claim has no merit and your client is urged to reconsider its intention to pursue the claim”.¹³⁷

The Telegraph newspaper reported that PMI later withdrew the threat, stating “We notified the government of procedural flaws in the consultation process. They subsequently amended the consultation procedure to allow substantive responses and answered other enquiries. As such, we withdrew the claim on 15^th January”.¹³⁵ PMI told the newspaper  that it agreed with the UK’s smoke-free 2030 plans, but did “not believe that reduced-risk smoke-free products—including heated tobacco—should be included alongside combustible cigarettes in any potential legislation”.¹³⁵ In December 2023, PMI reportedly held roundtable events with UK MPs in to lobby for its heated tobacco products (HTPs) to be exempt from future smoking bans.¹³²

In November 2023, a law firm acting on behalf of British American Tobacco (BAT) contacted the DHSC, arguing that  the proposals would “materially impact the rights of our clients and others”. It also argued that there was not enough information “regarding the impacts and costs and benefits of the proposals to permit intelligent consideration”, and – as had PMI – stated that consultation period was not long enough, and did not allow the submission of sufficient supporting evidence.¹³⁸ BAT were reported to be sponsoring a roundtable due to be hosted by MP Graham Brady on behalf of the Centre for Policy Studies in December 2023 to “discuss the Government’s smokefree ambitions, what policies could support the goal, and what a Conservative approach to public health should look like.”¹³²¹³⁹ BAT stated that the proposed legislation would be difficult to enforce, and risked creating a new category of “under-age adults”.¹⁴⁰ It also published briefing in response to the consultation, which outlined its stance on e-cigarette restrictions.¹⁴¹

Imperial Brands and the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association also reportedly engaged with MPs and government officials regarding the proposals, with a spokesperson for Imperial Brands stating “We understand the Government’s desire for new tobacco control measures, because of the health risks associated with smoking. But, like any prohibition, the proposal to ban the legal sale of cigarettes over time threatens significant unintended consequences.”¹³²

In December 2023, Imperial also wrote to the DHSC, arguing that the consultation was “materially deficient and unfair in several important respects”. As with PMI and BAT, Imperial stated that the consultation period was not long enough, and did not allow the submission of sufficient supporting evidence. It also argued that the evidence base for the proposal should be shared.¹⁴² Imperial published a summary of its response to the government consultation. It said it opposed the generational ban, as it would be “unworkable and unenforceable, and would see an explosion of illicit trade in tobacco”. It also argued that it would not reduce smoking rates.¹⁴³ Imperial’s UK head of corporate and legal affairs stated in the retail press in January 2024 that it was having “direct conversations with government” and talking to MPs “to make them aware of illicit trade that is already a problem in their constituencies” including highlighting “loss of revenue for the average retailer”. Imperial also stated that it did not support e-cigarette restrictions including plain packaging, device standardisation, or flavour bans.¹⁴⁴

In November 2023, Japan Tobacco International (JTI) carried out a survey of 1000 convenience retailers in the UK, and reported concerns that a smoking ban would harm business, increase illicit trade, make ID checks more complicated for retailer staff and impact staff training around underage sales.¹⁴⁵¹⁴⁶ A JTI feature in Talking Retail, ‘The Generational Ban: Explained’, described the ban as “an experimental policy not supported by evidence”, and encouraged retailers to respond to the government consultation.¹⁴⁷

Lobbying by industry-linked organisations

The Institute of Economic Affairs, a British think tank with a history of tobacco industry funding, published a briefing paper in November 2023 titled ‘Prohibition 2.0: Critiquing the Generational Tobacco Ban’.¹⁴⁸ The report echoed the industry narrative that a smoking ban would drive illicit trade and “bolster criminal gangs”. It also stated that a ban would “lead to a grey market in sales between friends” and that it “infantilises one cohort of adults, discriminates on the basis of age and raises issues of intergenerational unfairness.”¹⁴⁸ The report disregarded figures published in a review commissioned by the UK’s Department of Health in 2022 relating to the cost of smoking to the NHS, and stated “The reality is that smokers pay far more in tobacco duty than they cost the state in healthcare, while nonsmokers cost the state more, on average, in both healthcare and social security payments”.¹⁴⁸ Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) published an analysis in December 2023 which found that smoking costs England £49.2 billion each year in lost productivity and service costs, plus an additional £25.9 billion lost quality adjusted life years due to premature death from smoking – far outweighing the money brought in from tobacco taxes.¹⁴⁹

The Consumer Choice Center (CCC), a US lobby group with a history of tobacco industry funding and links to the Atlas Network, launched a campaign titled ‘No2Prohibition’ which urged the public to contact their MP to oppose the new legislation.¹⁵⁰ The campaign used the argument that the legislation would result in an increase in illicit trade and stated “Discriminating against adult consumers, depending on what year they were born, is unheard of and would set a dangerous precedent for future regulations. What’s next? Alcohol? Sugar? Fat? We can only imagine”.¹⁵⁰ The campaign included a series of social media adverts centred on messages of freedom of choice and prohibition.¹⁵¹ These ads were removed by Meta as they did not include verified “paid for by” disclaimers.¹⁵¹

Forest, a British based Smokers’ rights group with a history of tobacco industry funding, stated that it had urged the government not to introduce a generational ban, ahead of the government consultation deadline in December 2023. It also commissioned a consultancy to carry out a survey, which it states found that “58% of respondents think that if a person can vote, drive a car, buy alcohol, or possess a credit card at 18, they should also be allowed to purchase tobacco”.¹⁵²

The Association of Convenience Stores (ACS) is an organisation that represents local stores in the UK. Its “Premier Club” members include BAT, JTI, PMI, Imperial Brands and JUUL.¹⁵³ ACS stated in December that it had responded to the government consultation, and in its submission “set out a number of concerns about the practical implications of the [generational endgame] policy”. It also stated that it did not support a ban on disposable e-cigarettes.¹⁵⁴

The Scottish Grocers Federation (SGF), a trade association for convenience stores with tobacco company members, published an article opposing several possible new retail regulations, which included the generational tobacco policy and restrictions on the sale and visibility of e-cigarettes, stating that it would harm retail businesses.¹⁵⁵ Regarding the disposable e-cigarette ban, the SGF Chief Executive warned against “unintended consequences such as an increase in illicit trade” and said that it would “engage with both governments to ensure the best outcome for retailers and their communities”.¹⁵⁶ SGF also protested its exclusion from the government’s response to the consultation, due to SGF’s connections with the tobacco industry.¹⁵⁷

The World Vapers Alliance (WVA), which has links to BAT, criticised the generational smoking ban. It argued that the UK should instead be “doubling down on its harm reduction strategy”.¹⁵⁸ WVA also urged the public to respond to the government consultation to oppose e-cigarette flavour restrictions, the disposable e-cigarette ban and inclusion of heated tobacco products in the generational smoking ban.¹⁵⁹ After the consultation closed, WVA published a press release which urged the government to reconsider its stance on banning disposable e-cigarettes.¹⁶⁰

The UK Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) published a press release opposing the e-cigarette regulations, stating “the tobacco industry and illicit markets will be the only winners from bans on disposables and flavoured vapes”.¹⁶¹ (UKVIA stated in September 2023 that all of its tobacco company memberships had ended. For details see the UKVIA page).

Relevant Links

• Sunset Plans: Progress on Tobacco Endgame Around the World, ASH (US) website
• Tobacco endgames, ASH Scotland website

TobaccoTactics Resources

• Tobacco Industry Tactics
• Illicit tobacco trade
• Price and Tax
• Menthol and Flavoured Tobacco

Tobacco Control Research Group (TCRG) Research

Sunak’s smoke-free generation: spare a thought for the tobacco industry, G. Hartwell, A.B. Gilmore, M.C.I . van Schalkwyk, M. McKee, BMJ, 2023; 383 :p2922 doi:10.1136/bmj.p2922

References

The post Tobacco Industry Interference with Endgame Policies appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Image source: © Guillaume Piolle/CC BY 3.0

Key Points

• Lebanon is located on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. It is served by the World Health Organization’s Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean (EMRO).
• It has a population of 5.5 million, with an estimated tobacco use prevalence for those aged 15 and over of 39%.
• Lebanon ratified the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) in 2005. It has not ratified the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products.
• Lebanon has a state-owned tobacco monopoly, the Regie Libanaise de Tabacs et Tombacs, known as the Regie, which controls the domestic market. Transnational tobacco companies only have access to the Lebanese market through the Regie.
• In recent years, tobacco industry lobbying has prevented the introduction of graphic health warnings; the Regie has sought to influence Lebanon’s delegation to the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the WHO FCTC; and the industry has conducted extensive corporate social responsibility activities, some of which have involved Lebanese state institutions.

Lebanon has some of the highest rates of tobacco use in the world. It is ranked third in the world for cigarette consumption per capita.¹⁶⁶ A 2019 survey also suggested that waterpipe use prevalence is particularly high, and higher amongst women than men.¹⁶⁷ Tobacco products were easily affordable until the start of Lebanon’s economic crisis in 2019.¹⁶⁶ Though they have become less affordable since then, the decline in affordability has been weaker compared to that for other goods.¹⁶⁸ At just 9.9% of the retail price, the tax imposed on tobacco products falls well short of the 75% recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO).¹⁶⁹¹⁷⁰ Though a comprehensive tobacco control law was introduced in 2011, there have been major challenges with implementation and enforcement.¹⁷¹

Tobacco Use in Lebanon

In 2022, the population of Lebanon was 5.5 million.¹⁷² In 2019, the WHO estimated overall tobacco use prevalence to be 39% amongst the population aged 15 and over, based on all national survey data from 1990.¹⁷³ An academic study carried out in 2019 found similar results. Based on a cross-sectional household survey, it found prevalence of cigarette smoking among adults aged between 18 and 69 of just over 35% (49% males; 21.5% females).¹⁶⁷ It also found overall waterpipe use prevalence of 39.5%, and at over 46%, prevalence for women was higher than for men (nearly 33%).¹⁶⁷ Almost half of current cigarette smokers reported smoking more than 20 cigarettes per day, while most waterpipe users smoked at least three sessions per week.¹⁶⁷

In 2017, Lebanon reported tobacco use among boys aged 13-15 of 35% – the highest amongst the 19 EMRO countries which carried out the Global School-based Student Health Survey between 2001 and 2018.¹⁷⁴ The corresponding figure for Lebanese girls that year was 28%.¹⁷⁴ A study carried out amongst Lebanese adolescents aged 11 to 18 between 2016 and 2017 found ever use of waterpipe of 34%.¹⁷⁵

There were an estimated 7,810 deaths attributable to smoking in 2019, accounting for over 23% of all mortality in Lebanon for that year.¹⁷⁶ A study published in 2014 put the economic burden of tobacco use in Lebanon in 2008 at US$326.7 million, or 1.1% of national GDP.¹⁷⁷

A 2019 study on e-cigarette use amongst school and university students aged from 17 to 23 found that 14.5% reported ever use, with 8% reporting current use.¹⁷⁸ However, at the time of writing, data on e-cigarette use amongst Lebanese adults remains scarce.

Tobacco in Lebanon

The Lebanese state tobacco monopoly

The Lebanese tobacco industry is controlled entirely by a state-owned company, the Regie Libanaise des Tabacs et Tombacs (referred to here as “the Regie”).¹⁷⁹¹⁸⁰ The Regie has exclusive rights to tobacco manufacturing and distribution, tobacco imports and exports, and to the purchase of locally grown tobacco leaf. It also oversees an anti-smuggling unit.¹⁸¹ The Regie distributes local and imported tobacco products to licensed wholesalers, at prices it determines with the Ministry of Finance (MoF).¹⁸¹¹⁸² These wholesalers then sell the tobacco products to retailers across Lebanon.¹⁸¹ Though these retailers are also licensed by the Regie, they are not under its direct control and largely depend on the wholesalers for their tobacco supply.¹⁸¹ The Regie sets the profit margin and weekly quota of sold tobacco for both wholesalers and retailers.¹⁸¹

Overseen by the MoF, the Regie’s performance has a direct impact on the public treasury.¹⁸¹ Not only does this provide the Regie with significant access to policy makers, it also creates conflict with other government departments (such as Health), as the MoF may oppose measures which damage the Regie’s profitability.¹⁸¹¹⁷¹

Market share and leading brands

As of 2022, the Regie had a share of over 55% of the tobacco market, up from 45% in 2017.¹³ The leading transnational tobacco company (TTC) in Lebanon was Philip Morris International (PMI), with a market share of nearly 15%, followed by Japan Tobacco International (JTI) on over 11%, Imperial Brands on almost 10%, and British American Tobacco (BAT) on 6.5%.¹³

Transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) only have access to the Lebanese market via the Regie. In return for purchasing Lebanese tobacco leaf, the Regie imports manufactured tobacco products to sell on the Lebanese market and buys Virginia tobacco leaf for the manufacture of local brand cigarettes.¹⁸¹ Since 2016, international brands have also been made in Lebanon at Regie manufacturing facilities, as per agreements with the Big Four TTCs.^183184185186

The Regie brand Cedars is by far the most popular brand of cigarettes in Lebanon, with a market share of 55% in 2022.¹⁸⁷ PMI’s Marlboro is in second place with a share of around 14%.¹⁸⁷ JTI’s Winston is third (8%), followed by BAT’s Kent and Imperial Brands’ Gitanes (both around 5%).¹⁸⁷ All other brands have a market share of 3% or less.¹⁸⁷

Tobacco farming and child labour

In 2020, tobacco was being cultivated on 1.32% of Lebanon’s agricultural land.¹⁸⁸ In 2021, tobacco production was just over 10,000 tonnes, down slightly from a high of 12,800 tonnes in 2001.¹⁸⁹ This makes Lebanon the fifth-largest tobacco producer amongst the 14 EMRO countries for which data is available.¹⁹⁰

Lebanese tobacco leaf is purchased exclusively by the Regie via a price support programme, under which the Regie purchases from farmers at a given yearly price and quantity which is determined by the MoF.¹⁸¹ According to Hamade (2014), the price paid is well over the average paid to farmers in other sectors in Lebanon; essentially, it is a subsidy which reinforces farmers’ dependence on tobacco growing and disincentivises any transition towards other crops.¹⁷⁹¹⁸¹

Lebanese tobacco featured on the 2022 List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor produced by the U.S. Department of Labor.¹⁹¹ Tobacco production is very labour intensive and involves all or most members of the household, which includes women and children.¹⁷⁹ On top of enduring poor wages and working conditions, female workers are also at risk of sexual violence in tobacco-growing communities.¹⁹²

• For information on tobacco industry responses to accusations of complicity in child labour, please see the pages on CSR: Child Labour and the Eliminating Child Labour in Tobacco-Growing Foundation (ECLT).

Tobacco and the economy

Lebanon is a net importer of raw tobacco. According to Comtrade data, in 2022, it imported over US$40.5 million in raw tobacco, compared to under US$16.4 million in exports.¹⁹³¹⁹⁴

Lebanon is also a net importer of cigarettes. In 2022, Lebanese cigarette imports were nearly US$16.5 million, compared to less than US$1 million in exports.¹⁹⁵¹⁹⁶

It is also a net importer of waterpipe tobacco. Its imports were worth US$17.3 million in 2022, compared to exports of under US$70,000.¹⁹⁷¹⁹⁸

Illicit trade

Industry documents suggest that illicit trade was used by the TTCs as a means of building market share and furthering regional expansion during the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990).¹⁹⁹ With governance weak and legal cigarette production in decline, the TTCs flooded the Lebanese market with cheap contraband products.¹⁹⁹ Though the government made direct appeals to these companies, requesting that they stop supplying distributors involved in this illicit trade, it had little effect.¹⁹⁹ The documents also show that the TTCs sought to use the issue of illicit trade as leverage in negotiations on establishing manufacturing presence in the country.¹⁹⁹

Today, reliable data on the scale of the illicit trade in Lebanon are not available. An industry-funded report by the consultancy Oxford Economics (OE) indicated that by the first quarter of 2019 the illicit trade accounted for 28.1% of the market in tobacco products.²⁰⁰²⁰¹ However, this data may not be reliable given OE’s long relationship with the tobacco industry. Not only was this particular study funded by PMI, BAT and JTI, but also prepared according to terms of reference agreed with all three companies.²⁰¹ These terms of reference are not disclosed, while the methodology used is highly susceptible to industry interference.²⁰²

Exaggerating the scale of illicit trade is a well-documented tactic which has been used by the tobacco industry all over the world as a means of opposing tobacco control regulations. See Illicit Tobacco Trade for further details.

• For more information on the tobacco industry in Lebanon, please see the Tobacco Supply Chain Database.

Roadmap to Tobacco Control

Lebanon ratified the WHO FCTC in 2005.²⁰³ It has yet to ratify the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products.²⁰⁴

In August 2011, Lebanon passed Law No. 174, its first ever tobacco control law.¹⁷¹ This was the result of years of advocacy led by the National Tobacco Control Program (NTCP) (a government organisation within the Ministry of Public Health), alongside academics, tobacco control advocates, civil society organisations, local and international NGOs, and policy makers.¹⁷¹ Law No. 174 banned smoking in all indoor public spaces; banned tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship; and introduced larger text warnings on tobacco products, with the potential to add graphic health warnings at a later date.¹⁷¹

However, enforcement remains a challenge, particularly regarding the provision for smokefree spaces. This measure was properly enforced for just three months, thanks in part to strong lobbying from restaurants and other establishments offering waterpipe.¹⁷¹ There has also been a lack of political will to enforce the law.¹⁷¹ In late 2012, the then Minister of the Interior implied that the police would be flexible about enforcing the law during the holiday period.²⁰⁵ The Ministry of Tourism also stopped enforcing the law, alleging a negative impact on Lebanon’s tourist industry and stating that it did not have the resources necessary to monitor implementation.¹⁷¹²⁰⁶

For more details, please see the following websites:

• Legislation by country – Lebanon, Tobacco Control Laws, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids
• Lebanon, WHO FCTC Implementation Database, WHO FCTC Secretariat
• Country profile – Lebanon, World Health Organization, WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic 2021

Tobacco Industry Interference in Lebanon

Tobacco industry tactics in Lebanon include lobbying, which has prevented the introduction of graphic health warnings; attempting to influence Lebanon’s delegation to the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the WHO FCTC; and corporate social responsibility.

Portraying tobacco as a symbol of resistance

Part of the revenue the Regie collects from imported tobacco products is used to cover the subsidies given to tobacco growers in rural areas, particularly in the south of the country.¹⁸¹¹⁷¹ Given that this area was previously occupied by Israel, keeping farmers on this land is seen by the state as an important geopolitical objective.¹⁷¹ Indeed, both Nassif Seklaoui, Chairman and General Manager of the Regie, and the speaker of the Lebanese parliament, have explicitly linked tobacco growing to the struggle of the Lebanese people and their resistance to foreign occupation.²⁰⁷ Such strategies aim to instil the belief that tobacco is a strategic industry and a source of national pride. As the opening statement of a Regie pamphlet from 2011 reads, “The tobacco crop has become a symbol of resilience, resistance and people’s attachment to the Nation’s land.”¹⁷⁹

Influencing policy: health warnings

Law 174 significantly increased the size of the textual health warnings on tobacco products in Lebanon, from 15% to 40% of the principal surface areas.¹⁷¹²⁰⁸ A further decree in 2012 defined the text of the warnings, though implementation was delayed, reportedly due the Regie lobbying the Minister of Finance.²⁰⁹²¹⁰ Since then, the larger text warnings have been widely implemented – though the measure still falls short of the 50% or more coverage recommended by the WHO FCTC.²¹¹²¹²

Law 174 did also allow for the introduction of graphic health warnings (GHWs) at a later date, subject to the signing of an implementation decree by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Finance.²¹¹ According to Lebanese tobacco control advocates, of all provisions in Law 174, this was the hardest to obtain, due to fierce opposition from the tobacco industry, including the Regie.²¹⁰ During discussions on Law 174 in 2011, some members of the Lebanese parliament objected to the inclusion of GHWs, echoing industry positions on the issue.²¹⁰ Though the implementation decree for GHWs was elaborated in 2011 and updated in 2016, it has still not been approved, reportedly due to industry interference and lobbying.²¹¹ As of 2021, GHWs had yet to be implemented.²¹³

Interacting with the Lebanese delegation to the COP

In 2018, the Regie hosted a meeting attended by six government officials at its headquarters, ahead of the Eighth Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP8) to the WHO FCTC. In the Regie’s own words, the meeting aimed to define a position that “addresses the threats that the items on COP8 agenda for next October pose to tobacco sector”.²¹⁴ There was also a presentation laying out the Regie’s positions on decisions made at the previous COP, as well as the proposals to be discussed at COP8.²¹⁴

Delivering this presentation, Mariam Hariri, the Regie’s Head of General Management, stated:

“We cannot look at tobacco sector only from the perspective of health damage; we must rather look at it with a comprehensive and impartial view. We must take into consideration the economic benefits it offers and the specificity of Lebanon.”²¹⁴

This meeting contravened the implementation guidelines for Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC, which urge parties to limit interactions with the tobacco industry to those strictly necessary for effective regulation of the industry and its products.²¹⁵

The Regie has also lobbied foreign diplomats. In May 2022, the German ambassador to Beirut visited Regie headquarters in Hadath. He was briefed on “the Regie’s achievements in agricultural, industrial, and commercial fields, among others, as well as about the societal role that it had played during the recent years.”²¹⁶

• For more on the relationship between diplomats and the tobacco industry, please see Diplomats Lobbying for Tobacco Companies.

Corporate social responsibility

In 2016, the Regie launched its sustainable development plan, entitled “Development Vision for a Brighter Tomorrow”. Its stated aim was “promoting economic development, environment protection, fighting illicit trade & child labor, and improving the living of workers & farmers and the communities where we operate.”²⁰⁷ The plan was launched at a ceremony which was supported by the speaker in the Lebanese parliament, and attended by notable figures from business, politics, finance and the trade union movement.²⁰⁷ These included senior civil servants from government departments including the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Economy and Lebanese customs.²⁰⁷

Since then, the Regie has conducted extensive CSR activities, including some directed at or involving Lebanese state institutions. For example, it donated US$2.6 million to the Lebanese Army in 2021.¹⁸¹ It also engaged in CSR during the COVID-19 pandemic, donating US$1 million to the Lebanese government to support repatriating Lebanese students abroad and to buy ventilators for COVID-19 patients.²¹⁷

The Regie has also organised “women empowerment training sessions” for the daughters of tobacco farmers in different areas of Lebanon. These sessions had the support of local authorities; for example, some were held in municipal buildings or involved the participation of local councillors.²¹⁸²¹⁹

The Regie has also carried out CSR in partnership with TTCs. In 2017, in an initiative financed by PMI Lebanon, the Regie offered scholarships to 136 children of tobacco farmers in the north of the country – the fourth consecutive year it had done so.²²⁰

• For more on tobacco industry activity during the pandemic, please see the COVID-19 Tobacco Tactics page and the COVID-19 monitoring database.

Relevant Links

• AUB tobacco researchers and Lebanese activists press conference on economic impacts of Law 174: The tobacco control law is good for the economy and public health, American University of Beirut
• Prevalence of cigarette and waterpipe tobacco smoking among adults in three Eastern Mediterranean countries: a cross-sectional household survey, R. Nakkash, Y. Khader, A. Chalak, R. Abla, N. M. E. Abu-Rmeileh, A. Mostafa, M. Jawad, J. H. Lee and R. G. Salloum, BMJ open, 2022, 12(3), e055201
• The passage of tobacco control law 174 in Lebanon: reflections on the problem, policies and politics, R.T. Nakkash, L. Torossian, T. El Hajj, J. Khalil and R.A. Afifi, Health Policy and Planning, 2018, Volume 33, Issue 5, pp. 633–644
• K2P COVID-19 Series: Prompting Government Action for Tobacco Control in Lebanon during COVID-19 Pandemic, R. Saleh, R. Nakkash, A. Harb and F. El-Jardali, 2020, Knowledge to Policy (K2P) Center, Beirut, Lebanon
• The Economics of Tobacco in Lebanon: An Estimation of the Social Costs of Tobacco Consumption, Salti, J. Chaaban and N. Naamani, Substance Use & Misuse, 2014, 49:6, 735-742

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• Eastern Mediterranean Region
• Oxford Economics
• Tobacco Farming

TCRG Research

• The Lebanese Regie state-owned tobacco monopoly: lessons to inform monopoly-focused endgame strategies, H. Alaouie, J.R. Branston and M.J. Bloomfield, 2022, BMC Public Health, 22, 1632.
• Developing more detailed taxonomies of tobacco industry political activity in low-income and middle-income countries: qualitative evidence from eight countries, B.K. Matthes, K. Lauber, M. Zatoński, L. Robertson, A.B. Gilmore, BMJ Global Health 2021;6:e004096.
• Tobacco industry commissioned reports on illicit tobacco trade in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: how accurate are they? Sandberg, A.W.A. Gallagher and R. Alebshehy, 2020, Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, 26(11):1320–1322.

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

References

The post Lebanon Country Profile appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Key Points

• Bangladesh is a country in South Asia, part of the World Health Organization’s South-East Asia Region.
• It has a population of 171.2 million, with tobacco use prevalence of 43.7%.
• Smoking prevalence is high, at 23.5%. However, smokeless tobacco (SLT) use prevalence is even higher, at 27.5%.
• Bangladesh ratified the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) in 2004. It has not ratified the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products.
• The Bangladeshi cigarette market is dominated by British American Tobacco Bangladesh, followed by Japan Tobacco International’s local subsidiary United Dhaka Tobacco Company Limited. There are also local cigarette, bidi and SLT producers.
• Recent tobacco industry tactics in Bangladesh include direct lobbying of civil servants, which successfully obtained an exemption to lockdown restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic; using diplomats to lobby in its interests; and the mobilisation of third-party organisations against tobacco control.

In 2016, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina declared her intention to make Bangladesh tobacco free by 2040.²²⁵ Bangladesh has in recent years increased its compliance with the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), created a dedicated tobacco control cell and introduced a health surcharge on all tobacco products.²²⁵²²⁶ However, according to a study published in 2022, no measures have been adopted to implement Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC.²²⁷ Industry interference in public policy – particularly by British American Tobacco Bangladesh (BATB), in which the state holds a share of over 9% – is an ongoing challenge.²²⁷²²⁸ The study’s authors argue that progress in minimising such interference is essential if the commitment to a creating a tobacco-free Bangladesh by 2040 is to be met.²²⁷

Tobacco Use in Bangladesh

In 2022, the population of Bangladesh was 171.2 million.²²⁹ Among adults aged from 18 to 69, overall tobacco use prevalence was nearly 44% as of 2018 (almost 60% of men and over 28% of women).²³⁰

As of 2018, 23.5% of Bangladeshi adults smoked.²³⁰ Cigarettes were the most popular product: amongst current tobacco smokers, over 99% reported using cigarettes, compared to 32.5% who reported smoking bidis (cigarettes rolled by hand in a dried leaf of the tendu tree).²³⁰ There was a major gender difference, with nearly 47% of men reporting current smoking at the time of the survey, compared to 1% of women.²³⁰

At 27.5%, smokeless tobacco (SLT) use is even more common than smoked tobacco.²³⁰ This is due in part to the high prevalence of SLT use amongst Bangladeshi women. Over 28% of Bangladeshi women used SLT, compared to nearly 27% of men.²³⁰Most female tobacco users in low- and middle-income countries are SLT users in India and Bangladesh.²³¹ Popular SLT products include betel quid with zarda, betel quid with sadapata, pan masala with tobacco and gul.²³⁰

Amongst adolescents aged from 13 to 17, nearly 10% used tobacco in some form as of 2014, with almost 14% of boys using tobacco compared to 2% of girls.²³² The rate for cigarette smoking was nearly 8%, with 11% of boys smoking compared to 1.5% of girls.²³²

There were an estimated 106,000 deaths attributable to smoking in 2019, accounting for over 12% of all mortality in Bangladesh that year.²³³ The total annual cost of tobacco use in Bangladesh was estimated at BDT৳305.6 billion (US$3.6 billion) in 2018, which was equivalent to 1.4% of GDP in 2017-18.²³⁴ Direct healthcare costs accounted for BDT৳83.9 billion, of which 24% was covered by public health expenditure. This is a significant outlay, representing 8.9% of the healthcare budget in 2018-19.²³⁴ However, most of the costs attributable to tobacco use – both direct and indirect – are borne by tobacco users and their families.²³⁴ While the economic contribution of the tobacco industry to Bangladeshi GDP was estimated at BDT৳229.11 billion ($US2.7 billion) in 2018, this was still BDT৳76.54 billion (US$911 million) less than the annual costs attributable to tobacco use. Tobacco therefore results in a net loss to the Bangladeshi economy.²³⁴²³⁵

Tobacco in Bangladesh

Market share and leading brands

In 2022, market research company Euromonitor International estimated the Bangladeshi tobacco market to be worth nearly BDT৳420 billion – over US$4.5 billion.²³⁶²³⁷

British American Tobacco Bangladesh (BATB) dominates the Bangladeshi tobacco market, with a market share of over 84.5% in 2022.¹³ Its portfolio includes the three bestselling brands of cigarette in the country: Royal, Derby and Hollywood.¹⁸⁷ The Bangladeshi state holds a stake of more than 9% in BATB, both directly, and through two state-owned assets.²²⁸

BATB’s closest competitor is Japan Tobacco International (JTI), which has a market share of over 9% following its 2018 acquisition of the United Dhaka Tobacco Company Limited (UDTCL), the tobacco business of the Akij Group conglomerate.^13238239 Its leading brands are Sheikh and Navy.¹⁸⁷

Smaller domestic companies include Abul Khair Tobacco Company, Alpha Tobacco Manufacturing Company and Nasir Tobacco Industries Ltd.²⁴⁰

• For more information on the tobacco industry in Bangladesh, please see the Tobacco Supply Chain Database.

Smokeless tobacco and bidis

Accurate, up-to-date information on the SLT industry in Bangladesh is scarce. SLT producers are mostly home based and work informally, which makes for a fragmented market.²⁴¹²⁴² However, larger companies include Kaus Chemical Works, which sells Hakimpuri Zarda, one of the most popular zarda products (made of dried and boiled tobacco leaves, lime, areca nut, additives, tannins and spices) in the country; and Baba Al-Tajer Dhaka.^241243244

Similarly, reliable and up-to-date information about bidi production is not available. However, a 2012 investigation found 117 bidi factories spread throughout the country.²⁴⁵ The leading bidi company in Bangladesh is the Akiz Bidi Company; others include Aziz Bidi, Maya Bidi and Bangla Bidi.²⁴⁶

Tobacco farming

Large-scale tobacco agriculture began in Bangladesh following independence in 1971, when BATB began growing in the greater Rangpur area.²⁴⁷ Today, tobacco is grown throughout the country, with significant tobacco-growing regions including Lalmonirhat, Nilphamari, Kushtia, Manikganj, Tangail, Bandarban and Cox’s Bazar.²⁴⁷

Bangladeshi tobacco production was steady at around 40,000 tonnes annually from the late 1970s until 2009, at which point it began to increase rapidly, peaking at just under 130,000 tonnes in 2019.²⁴⁸ In 2020 Bangladesh declared nearly 86,000 tonnes, making it the 12^th largest tobacco producer in the world.²⁴⁸²⁴⁹

Child labour

Human rights organisations have documented child labour in tobacco fields in Bangladesh.²⁵⁰ In 2020, a video report published by Unfairtobacco and Bangladeshi NGO UBINIG showed children missing school in order to help their families with the tobacco harvest.²⁵¹ Another video report documented the impacts of tobacco farming on Bangladeshi women, including the challenge of combining long hours working on the harvest with domestic tasks; negative health effects, including respiratory problems, fevers, and loss of appetite; as well as poor economic returns.²⁵²

In 2016, the Swedish NGO Swedwatch published a report based on research in three leaf cultivation areas which supply BATB.²⁵³ It documented widespread child labour and negative impacts on the health and wellbeing of farm labourers, both children and adults.²⁵³ It also showed how the use of flawed contracts and uncertain promises contributed to over-indebtedness and trapped many farmers in poverty.²⁵³ In response, BAT conducted an internal review which, according to the company, “did not raise any significant concerns and indicated that the report as a whole is not representative of the reality on the ground.”²⁵⁴ A subsequent investigation BAT commissioned to consulting firm DNV GL supported its internal review.²⁵⁵

Bangladeshi bidis feature on the U.S. Department of Labor’s 2022 List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor.²⁵⁶ It is estimated that at least half of the workforce in the Bangladeshi bidi industry is aged between 4 and 14; average wages are between US$0.77 and US$1.57 per day.²⁴⁶ A 2012 investigation found that most bidi workers were women and children.²⁴⁵ According to several workers, managers and people in communities around the bidi factories surveyed, this is because their labour is much cheaper and they are less capable of organising for higher wages or better working conditions.²⁴⁵

• For information on tobacco industry responses to accusations of complicity in child labour, please see the pages on CSR: Child Labour and the Eliminating Child Labour in Tobacco-Growing Foundation (ECLT).

Tobacco and the economy

Bangladesh is a net exporter of tobacco. In 2015, the last year for which data is currently available from UN Comtrade (as of September 2023), Bangladesh exported US$43.5 million in raw tobacco, compared to just over US$8 million in imports.²⁵⁷²⁵⁸ However, it is a net importer of factory-made cigarettes. The same year, it imported over US$3 million in cigarettes, compared to just over US$354,000 in exports.²⁵⁹²⁶⁰

Illicit trade

A World Bank report published in 2019 found that Bangladesh had a low estimated incidence of illicit trade in cigarettes (2%), compared to estimated global rates of 10-12%.²⁶¹ According to the report, annual revenue losses from the illicit cigarette trade are about US$100 million, around 4% of total tobacco revenues.²⁶¹ Bangladesh has strong legal and institutional structures to combat illicit trade, including a cigarette stamp and banderol system to ensure compliance with taxation, robust law enforcement and stiff penalties for smuggling.²⁶¹

Though the illicit bidi trade is likely to be larger than that for cigarettes, revenue loss has so far been low given that bidis were barely taxed at all until recently.²⁶¹ The illicit trade in smokeless tobacco is also likely to be significant, though in the absence of any track and trace system or even tax stamps on SLT products, it is impossible to estimate the illicit share of the SLT market accurately.²⁴¹ A 2022 study found that “Almost all ST [smokeless tobacco] products bought in Bangladesh (…) were non-compliant with the local packaging requirements and hence potentially illicit”.²⁴¹

Tobacco and the environment

A 2020 study found various forms of contamination due to tobacco growing in Bangladesh, both in the soil and in nearby water sources. The most important parameter found to be significantly higher in tobacco-growing land was the pesticide aldicarb.²⁴⁹ Classified as “extremely hazardous” by the WHO, this chemical is banned in 125 countries, though its use remains widespread.²⁶² The same study calculated the environmental cost of tobacco curing (due to carbon emissions) at US$310 per acre used for tobacco cultivation.²⁴⁹

Another report stated that contamination of water and soil by tobacco farming is endangering the livelihoods of nearly 800,000 people in the Bandarban and Cox’s Bazar districts who depend on the Matamuhuri river for fishing and cultivation of food crops.²⁶³ Swedwatch also documented deforestation and forest degradation linked to farms in Bandarban and Chakoria which supply BATB.²⁵³ It alleged that BATB has contributed to these problems by failing to prevent sourcing of fuel wood from natural forests and by supporting the construction of kilns in forest areas.²⁵³

• For more information on the tobacco industry in Bangladesh, please see the Tobacco Supply Chain Database.

Roadmap to Tobacco Control

Bangladesh was the first country to sign the WHO FCTC on 16 June 2003.²⁶⁴ It ratified the treaty a year later.²⁶⁵ However, it has not signed the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products.²⁶⁶

The Smoking and Tobacco Products Usage (Control) Act (2005) is the principal law governing tobacco control in Bangladesh. The Act is comprehensive and covers smokefree spaces; tobacco advertising; the sale of tobacco to and by minors; and the packaging and labelling of tobacco products, among other areas.²⁶⁷ However, the law had some major limitations. For example, it mandated only textual health warnings on smoked tobacco products, which is problematic in Bangladesh given the popularity of smokeless tobacco.²⁶⁸ Similarly, although it banned advertising of tobacco products, it did not comprehensively cover sponsorship.²⁶⁸

The Act was amended in 2013 and implementation rules were introduced in 2015, increasing compliance with the WHO FCTC. However, the industry was given a 12-month transition period to fully comply.²⁶⁸ Even then, industry interference – principally by British American Tobacco Bangladesh (BATB) – has succeeded in delaying full implementation of the Amendment.²⁶⁸ For example, though the Amendment mandated graphic health warnings (GHWs) on the upper half of all tobacco packaging, as of May 2022 – over seven years since the implementation rules were first published in the country’s official gazette – GHWs were still printed on the lower half of tobacco products.²⁶⁸ Though this is considered a complete measure by the WHO, it means that the GHWs may be less visible to many Bangladeshi consumers. This is because tobacco products are often sold by mobile sellers out of steel trays which cover the lower half of the products.²⁶⁸

Other major loopholes remain. Designated smoking areas are still permitted in certain public places; there are no restrictions on the sale of individual cigarettes (single sticks), small packets of cigarettes, or tobacco products via the internet; and there are no restrictions on use, advertising, promotion and sponsorship, or packaging and labelling of e-cigarettes.²⁶⁷

However, as of June 2022, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) was preparing a new amendment to the Smoking and Tobacco Products Usage (Control) Act, which contains a number of global best practices.²⁶⁹ If passed, it would eliminate designated smoking areas; ban corporate social responsibility (CSR) by tobacco companies; ban the sale of single sticks; ban the display of tobacco products at points of sale; and increase the size of graphic health warnings (GHWs) on tobacco products from 50% to 90%.²⁶⁹ It also aims to ban the sale of e-cigarettes.²⁶⁹

In 2015, the Bangladeshi government began to levy a 1% Health Development Surcharge (HDS) on all tobacco products, which brings in around US$71 million a year, designed to support key government health initiatives including tobacco control.²⁷⁰ However, this funding has not always been easily accessible to the MoHFW. As of March 2021, the National Tobacco Control Cell (NTCC), which sits within the MoHFW, was working on a long-term tobacco control programme which would have smoother access to HDS funding.²⁷⁰

For more details, please see the following websites:

• Legislation by country – Bangladesh, Tobacco Control Laws, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids
• Bangladesh, WHO FCTC Implementation Database, WHO FCTC Secretariat
• Country profile – Bangladesh, World Health Organization, WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic 2021

Tobacco Industry Interference in Bangladesh

Recent tobacco industry tactics in Bangladesh include direct lobbying of civil servants, which successfully obtained an exemption to lockdown restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic; using diplomats to lobby in its interests; and the mobilisation of third-party organisations against tobacco control.

Influencing policy: conflicts of interest

According to a study published in 2022, no measures have been adopted to implement Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC in Bangladesh.²²⁷ The tobacco industry continues to influence policymaking, particularly BATB, in which the government holds a share of over 9%.²²⁷²²⁸

This incident also demonstrates how much the tobacco industry (particularly BATB) is connected with government in Bangladesh.²²⁷ The Secretary at the MoI, who granted the lockdown exemptions to BATB and UDTCL, simultaneously had a seat on the BATB board as a non-executive director.²²⁷ This arrangement between the MoI and BATB appears to date back to at least 2010.²⁷⁶

Several other senior civil servants also sit as independent or non-executive members on the BATB board, including a secretary at the Prime Minister’s Office.^277278279276

A study published in 2022 stressed that the presence of senior government officials on the BATB board leads both to individual and institutional conflicts of interest.²²⁷ However, a former Secretary at the MoI has denied this, stating that tobacco control is not discussed at BATB board meetings.²⁸⁰

• For more on tobacco industry activity during the pandemic, please see the COVID-19 Tobacco Tactics page and the COVID-19 monitoring database.

Influencing policy: lobbying by diplomats

There have also been cases of lobbying of Bangladeshi authorities by foreign diplomats on behalf of the two main transnational tobacco companies operating in the country. In 2017, the British High Commissioner in Bangladesh intervened on behalf of BATB in a tax dispute between BATB and the NBR. Similarly, in 2021, the Japanese Ambassador sent a letter to the Bangladeshi Finance Minister criticising tax reforms which had impacted JTI, as well as restrictions on the marketing and sale of certain JTI products. The letter also complained of “anti-competitive” behaviour, alluding to BATB’s domination of the Bangladeshi tobacco market.

• For more information, please see the pages on UK Diplomats Lobbying for BAT: Bangladesh and Japanese Diplomats Lobbying for JTI.

Use of third parties

In June 2022, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) published another draft amendment to the Smoking and Tobacco Products Usage (Control) Act (2005) – Bangladesh’s main tobacco control law – and asked for input from relevant stakeholders (see section Roadmap to Tobacco Control).²⁸¹

In response, the MoHFW received letters criticising the amendment from various trade associations, including the Federation of Bangladesh Chamber of Commerce and Industries (FBCCI) and the Foreign Investors’ Chamber of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), both of which have tobacco industry links.²⁸²²⁸³

In July 2022, a “policy dialogue” event – widely reported in the press – was held at a five-star hotel in Dhaka by the Intellectual Property Association of Bangladesh (IPAB). Speakers argued the amendment would reduce tax revenue, increase illicit trade and threaten livelihoods, reportedly describing it as “unrealistic”, “unimplementable” and “counterproductive”.²⁸⁴ On its website, IPAB lists BATB among its corporate members, from which it acknowledges receiving “extensive support”, and two members of IPAB’s executive committee also hold senior positions at BATB.^285286287288

Another participant at the event was the executive director of FICCI, which lists BATB, Philip Morris Bangladesh and United Dhaka Tobacco Company Ltd (UDTCL) as member organisations.^284289290291 FICCI also includes tobacco industry executives on its board of directors, including the managing director of UDTCL, author of the letter to the Ministry of Industries requesting an exemption from COVID-19 restrictions in 2020 (see Influencing policy: conflicts of interest).²⁷³²⁹²

A 2018 investigation by the public health NGO PROGGA concluded that BATB’s infiltration of influential business and trade organisations constituted a major barrier to greater tobacco control in Bangladesh.²⁹³

• For more information on business organisations in Bangladesh and neighbouring countries see Trade Associations.

Relevant Links

• Live: Tobacco Industry Interference on Amendment of Tobacco Control Law 2022, Center for Research and Advocacy to Fight Tobacco
• National STEPS Survey for Non-communicable Diseases Risk Factors in Bangladesh 2018, National Institute of Preventive and Social Medicine (NIPSOM)
• The economic cost of tobacco use in Bangladesh: A health cost approach, Bangladesh Cancer Society

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• South East Asian Region
• Trade Associations
• Greenwashing

TCRG Research

• Tobacco industry interference to undermine the development and implementation of graphic health warnings in Bangladesh, M.H. Shahriar, M.M. Hasan, M.S. Alam, B.K. Matthes, A.B. Gilmore, A.B.M. Zubair, Tobacco Control, 2023, doi: 10.1136/tc-2022-057538
• Achieving a tobacco-free Bangladesh by 2040: a qualitative analysis of the tobacco advertising environment and prohibitions in Bangladesh, A. Tselengidis, S. Adams, B. Freeman, S.M. Alam, P.A.S. Astuti, J. Cranwell, BMJ Open 2023;13:e069620, doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069620
• Advancing whole-of-government approaches to tobacco control: Article 5.3 and the challenge of policy coordination in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India and Uganda, R. Barry, S.M. Abdullah, A. Chugh, S. Hirpa, P. Kumar, D. Male, R. Ralston, T. Wagner-Rizvi, J. Collin, Tobacco Control, 2022;31:s46-s52
• Developing more detailed taxonomies of tobacco industry political activity in low-income and middle-income countries: qualitative evidence from eight countries, B.K. Matthes, K. Lauber, M. Zatoński, L. Robertson, A.B. Gilmore, BMJ Global Health 2021;6:e004096.
• Estimating the magnitude of illicit cigarette trade in Bangladesh: protocol for a mixed-methods study, S. Abjullah, R. Huque, L. Bauld, H. Ross, A. Gilmore, R.M. John, K. Siddiqi, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(13), 4791

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

References

The post Bangladesh Country Profile appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Image source: eltpics/CC BY-NC 2.0

Key Points

• Viet Nam is a country located in South East Asia, part of the World Health Organization’s regional office for the Western Pacific (WPRO).
• It has a population of 98.2 million, with tobacco use prevalence of 24.9%.
• Viet Nam ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) in 2004. It has not joined the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products.
• The Vietnam National Tobacco Corporation (Vinataba), a state-owned company, has the largest share of the national cigarette market, at nearly 58% in 2022.
• Of the transnational tobacco companies (TTCs), British American Tobacco (BAT) has by far the largest share of the market in Viet Nam, with Imperial Brands in second place. Philip Morris International (PMI), Japan Tobacco International (JTI) and others have smaller market shares.
• The tobacco industry has deployed a range of tactics to protect its interests in Viet Nam, including lobbying policy makers, use of third parties, complicity in the illicit trade in tobacco products, and spreading misleading information.

Although Viet Nam has made significant progress on tobacco control in recent years, it continues to face major challenges. Tobacco prevalence amongst men remains very high.⁸ There is ongoing industry influence on policymaking, particularly on issues such as price and tax of tobacco products.²⁹⁸ The state-owned company Vinataba enjoys special privileges from the Vietnamese state, and has long claimed a position as an affected stakeholder on matters of tobacco control.²⁹⁹³⁰⁰ There has also been interaction between the transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) and the Vietnamese state, including during the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the WHO FCTC.³⁰¹

Tobacco Use in Viet Nam

In 2022, the population of Viet Nam was 98.2 million.³⁰² According to a WHO age-standardised prevalence estimate, based on all national survey data between 1990 and 2019, overall prevalence of current tobacco use was just over 25%.⁸ There is a major gender difference, with current male tobacco use at over 48%, compared to just over 2% for females.⁸ Smoking has been an important aspect of social behaviour amongst Vietnamese men for many decades; offering cigarettes is considered to be a show of good manners.²⁹⁸

As of 2019, less than 3% of adolescents aged 13 to 17 were current tobacco users (i.e. they had either smoked cigarettes or used waterpipe on at least one day of the 30 days prior to the survey).³⁰³

In the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) 2015, overall prevalence for traditional bamboo waterpipe was 6.7%. This was higher for people aged between 45-64 (8.9%) and those living in rural areas (8.3%).³⁰⁴ Smoke from Vietnamese waterpipes tends to have very high nicotine content: the tobacco typically used is Nicotiana rustica, known locally as thuốc lào, which can contain up to 9% nicotine compared to 1-3% in standard tobacco leaves.³⁰⁵

There were an estimated 97,100 deaths attributable to smoking in 2019.³⁰⁶ This means that smoking accounted for over 15% of mortality in the country for that year.³⁰⁶ In 2011, the last year for which figures are available, the cost of tobacco use to the Vietnamese economy was estimated at nearly US$1.2 billion.³⁰⁷ This was almost 1% of national GDP that year and around US$425 million more than the tax revenue the government received from the industry.³⁰⁷

A 2022 study suggested that use and awareness of e-cigarettes in Viet Nam is relatively low.³⁰⁸ However, the Vietnamese market for newer nicotine and tobacco products is expanding. According to market analysis by Statista, in 2022 the e-cigarette market was worth around US$22 million, up from US$7.7 million in 2014, and projected to reach US$24.7 million by 2027.³⁰⁹ Research conducted in June 2020 indicated that e-cigarettes were being sold mainly by speciality retailers and most of the brands available were Chinese imports. Brands popular in Western countries – such as BAT’s Vuse, Imperial Brands’ Blu and JUUL – were rare.³¹⁰

According to Tobacco Control Laws – an archive of global tobacco control legislation maintained by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids – as of May 2023, there were no restrictions on use; advertising, promotion and sponsorship; or packaging and labelling of e-cigarettes.³⁰⁹³¹¹ This lack of regulation, combined with Viet Nam’s relatively large population and high tobacco prevalence, make it an extremely attractive target for transnationals selling e-cigarettes and other newer nicotine and tobacco products.³¹¹³¹⁰

Tobacco in Viet Nam

Market share and leading brands

In 2022, market research company Euromonitor International estimated the Vietnamese tobacco industry to be worth VND₫104,094.9 billion – approximately US$4.4 billion.³¹² The state-owned Vietnam National Tobacco Corporation (Vinataba) has the largest market share, accounting for nearly 58% of the cigarette market in 2022.¹³ Vinataba’s range of brands includes Vinataba, Viet Nam’s most popular cigarette.¹⁸⁷ Established in 1985, Vinataba has long enjoyed special privileges and recognition from the Vietnamese government.²⁹⁹ In addition, the government retains the right to appoint Vinataba’s chair and CEO.³⁰⁰

Transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) producing and distributing tobacco products in Viet Nam are required to establish joint ventures with Vinataba.³⁰⁰ Amongst the TTCs, British American Tobacco (BAT) has by far the largest market share, accounting for nearly 29% of the cigarette market in 2022.¹³ BAT has more than doubled its share of the market since 2001, and dominates the mid-range and premium market sectors with brands such as Craven A, White Horse and State Express 555.^187313314 Imperial Brands has a market share of 7% with one brand, Bastos. Similarly, Philip Morris International (PMI) has a share of 3% with one brand, Marlboro. The remaining companies account for another 3.5% of the market.¹³¹⁸⁷

• For more information on the tobacco industry in Viet Nam, see the Tobacco Supply Chain Database.

Tobacco farming and child labour

From 2000 to 2020, the area of land dedicated to growing tobacco in Viet Nam fell by nearly 49%.³¹⁵ However, crop yield per hectare has more than doubled, meaning that in 2020 Viet Nam produced over 29,000 tonnes of tobacco leaf – around 200 tonnes more than in 2000.³¹⁵ Nonetheless, this is a steep drop from 2010, when Viet Nam harvested 56,530 tonnes of tobacco from an area of 31,484 hectares.³¹⁵

Viet Nam’s most recent National Child Labour Survey, conducted in 2018, identified more than a million children in a situation of child labour.³¹⁶ Of these, more than half were working in the agriculture sector – though the report does not mention tobacco growing specifically.³¹⁶ However, Vietnamese tobacco was one of the products identified in 2022 by the U.S. Department of Labor as having been produced by child labour, in violation of international standards.³¹⁷

• For information on tobacco industry responses to accusations of complicity in child labour, please see the pages on CSR: Child Labour and the Eliminating Child Labour in Tobacco-Growing Foundation (ECLT).

Tobacco and the economy

Viet Nam is a net importer of tobacco leaf. According to UN Comtrade, in 2021, it imported US$242 million in unmanufactured tobacco, compared to just over US$9 million in exports.³¹⁸³¹⁹ Comtrade data also states that Viet Nam is a net exporter of cigarettes: US$182 million in 2020, compared to just over US$63,000 in imports.³²⁰³²¹

However, these figures differ significantly from customs declarations found on Datamyne, which suggest that Viet Nam is a net importer of cigarettes. According to Datamyne, the value of Vietnamese cigarette imports in 2020 was nearly US$537 million, compared to exports of nearly US$270 million.³²² The import and export figures for raw tobacco are also different: according to Datamyne, Viet Nam imported close to US$337 million in raw tobacco in 2021, compared to around US$17.6 million in exports.³²²

Illicit trade

According to the Vietnamese government, 54.7 million packs of illicit cigarettes were seized between 2013 and 2018.³²³ It estimates that the illicit tobacco trade accounts for 15% of the national market.³²³ This is roughly consistent with research conducted in late 2017 by the Development and Policies Research Center, which concluded that illicit cigarettes accounted for nearly 14% of total cigarette consumption in Viet Nam.³²⁴

By far the most popular illicitly traded cigarettes in Viet Nam are the brands Jet and Hero, which together account for around 85% of the illicit market. Both are manufactured by the Indonesian company Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company and then smuggled to Viet Nam.³²⁵²⁹⁸ Both Jet and Hero sell for significantly higher prices – between 30% and 60% – than the average legal brand of cigarettes in Viet Nam.²⁹⁸

• For more information on the tobacco industry in Viet Nam, please see the Tobacco Supply Chain Database.

Roadmap to Tobacco Control

Viet Nam ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) in 2004.³²⁶ However, it has not yet joined the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products.

The main tobacco control law in Viet Nam is the Law on Prevention and Control of Tobacco Harm, passed in 2012. It is the country’s first ever comprehensive tobacco control law and a major public health milestone.³²⁷ It established smokefree spaces; increased the size of graphic health warnings on tobacco products; restricted tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship; and set up the Tobacco Control Fund, a sustainable source of funding for tobacco control initiatives paid for by a dedicated tax on tobacco.³²⁷³²⁸ More than ten subsequent decisions, decrees and joint circulars have built on this law and further strengthened tobacco control.³²⁹ This includes the National Strategy on Tobacco Harm Prevention and Control, which set specific targets to reduce tobacco use prevalence from 2013 to 2020.³³⁰

For more details, please see the following websites:

• Legislation by country – Viet Nam, Tobacco Control Laws, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids
• Viet Nam, WHO FCTC Implementation Database, WHO FCTC Secretariat
• Country profile – Viet Nam, World Health Organization, WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic 2021

Tobacco Industry Interference in Viet Nam

Tobacco industry tactics used in Viet Nam include lobbying policy makers, use of third parties, complicity in the illicit trade in tobacco products, and spreading misleading information.

Influencing policy

For the Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance (SEATCA), the Vietnamese state’s majority ownership of Vinataba clashes with its duty to regulate the tobacco industry.³⁰⁰ Vinataba has long claimed a position as an affected stakeholder on tobacco regulation, allowing it a seat at the table in discussions on issues such as taxation and illicit trade.³⁰⁰

There has also been some exchange of personnel between the government and Vinataba, with high-ranking executives at Vinataba appointed to powerful positions in government – particularly at the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT) – and vice-versa. Several senior officials left government to subsequently assume roles in Vinataba.³³¹ Vinataba’s General Director (as of August 2023) was formerly deputy director of the Department of Light Industry, which is controlled by the MOIT.³³² Vinataba’s Secretary of the Party Committee and Chairman of the Member’s Council is a former vice director of the Industrial Policy and Strategy Institute, a government entity.³³²

Vinataba’s influence is most obvious when it comes to price and tax. Cigarettes in Viet Nam are among the cheapest in the world: as of 2020, the price of a 20-pack – even of a premium brand – was less than one U.S. dollar.⁸ In 2021, taxes accounted for under 39% of the retail price of the most popular brand of cigarettes – well short of the 75% recommended by the WHO.⁸ Research by the World Bank has concluded that Viet Nam’s tobacco taxation policies have made cigarettes more affordable. Per capita income in Viet Nam has risen considerably in recent decades, outpacing the increase in the price of cigarettes, and increases in tobacco taxes have not been sufficient to close the gap.²⁹⁸

In 2017, the Ministry of Finance proposed switching to a mixed excise tax system, with a flat rate of VND₫1,000 – around four U.S. cents – imposed on top of the usual ad valorem tax on the factory price of tobacco products.²⁹⁸ This would have made little difference to the affordability of cigarettes; health officials had argued for increase of between VND₫2,000 and VND₫5,000.²⁹⁸ Vinataba, along with the Vietnam Tobacco Association, opposed the move, claiming it would lead to difficulties in tobacco production and business operations and increase the risk of smuggling.²⁹⁸ At the time of writing, Viet Nam had yet to introduce the mixed tax regime.³³³

The industry has also lobbied for the diversion of funding away from the Tobacco Control Fund – which is supposed to be used for public health purposes – and towards combatting illicit trade. Vinataba has made requests of this nature to various ministries and local governments.³⁰⁰ In 2017, the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (The Union) sent a letter to the U.S. Ambassador in Viet Nam, urging him to reconsider the Embassy’s facilitation of meetings between Philip Morris International (PMI) and Vietnamese government ministers, on the grounds that PMI would attempt to raise fears over illicit trade and seek diversion of funds away from the Tobacco Control Fund and towards anti-smuggling measures.³³⁴ SEATCA reported the same year that the MOIT had endorsed a recommendation from the tobacco industry to divert half of the Tobacco Control Fund towards enforcement activities against illicit trade.³³⁵

The tobacco industry has also interacted with the Vietnamese delegation to the Conference of the Parties to the WHO FCTC.³⁰¹ During COP6, held in Moscow in October 2014, PMI executives met with the Vietnamese delegation. Analysis of the delegation’s interventions by tobacco control groups observing the COP showed that they frequently mirrored positions held by PMI.³⁰¹ For example, they argued that higher tobacco taxes would fuel the illicit trade and that the FCTC should be excluded from trade disputes, as well as opposing uniform parameters on legal liability for tobacco companies.³⁰¹ Likewise, at COP7, held in Delhi in November 2016, PMI held meetings with members of the Vietnamese delegation away from the conference venue.³⁰¹

Use of third parties

In June 2020 the R Street Institute, an American public policy thinktank, sent a letter to the Vietnamese prime minister and deputy prime minister urging them “to consider pragmatic regulations that allow Vietnamese citizens broad access to reduced-risk products.”³³⁶ It also argued that inserts in cigarette packets should be permitted in order to market such products to current smokers; that it should be possible to place “relative-risk labels” on these products; and that maximum nicotine levels should be high enough “to achieve nicotine delivery similar to combustible cigarettes”.³³⁶

Endorsing the use of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products (HTPs) as cessation tools, the letter refers specifically to IQOS – PMI’s flagship HTP brand (though PMI has also sold e-cigarettes under the IQOS brand).³³⁶ From 2014 until at least 2022, R Street received funding from Altria – the primary asset of which is Philip Morris USA, the largest tobacco company in the United States.^{337338339340341}

In the same month, Factasia also sent a similar letter to the Vietnamese prime minister.³³² Factasia describes itself as “an independent, not-for-profit, consumer-oriented advocate for rational debate about – and sensible regulation of – the rights of adult citizens throughout the Asia-Pacific region to choose to use tobacco or other nicotine related products.”³⁴² It acknowledges receiving funding from PMI, as well as the Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association (TVECA), an e-cigarette trade association. However, it denies acting as a mouthpiece for the tobacco industry.³⁴³

Complicity in smuggling

There is evidence that the tobacco industry has smuggled its own products into Viet Nam. Internal British American Tobacco (BAT) documents from the 1990s show how BAT and its subsidiary smuggled State Express 555 (SE555) cigarettes manufactured in the UK into Viet Nam.³⁴⁴³⁴⁵

BAT had been attempting to establish a presence in Viet Nam since the late 1980s, though with considerable difficulty. Negotiations on the terms of a joint venture with Vinataba were extremely slow, while a ban on foreign imports in 1990 meant that BAT would either have to license a Vietnamese company to manufacture its products locally or purchase equity in a local factory.³¹³

Smuggling facilitated BAT’s entry into the Vietnamese market in two ways.³¹³ Firstly, by circumventing the import ban, BAT managed to create brand awareness amongst Vietnamese smokers and obtain a competitive advantage prior to any opening of the market.³¹³ Secondly, by highlighting loss of tax revenue due to illicit trade, BAT was able to use smuggling as leverage in its negotiations with Vinataba.³¹³ An internal BAT document from 1993 states “We have the high ground [in negotiations with Vinataba] given the excellent quality of distribution, presence, and value of the GT [i.e. smuggled] product.”³⁴⁶

The same BAT document states that “Both versions [i.e. licit and illicit cigarettes] will have a role to play in the further building of the brand and the ‘system’ profitability”.³⁴⁶³⁴⁷ Indeed, BAT continued to smuggle its own products into Viet Nam even after signing an agreement in 1994 which licensed Vinataba to manufacture SE555 locally.³¹³ BAT carefully controlled the price of both the licit and illicit SE555, with the smuggled cigarettes fetching higher prices because they were perceived to be of higher quality.³⁴⁴ BAT finally signed a US$40 million joint venture with Vinataba in 2001, for construction of a brand new leaf-processing plant in Dong Nai province.³¹³³⁴⁸ This was followed by a further agreement in 2006, under which 150 million packs per annum of Pall Mall and Viceroy would be manufactured for the domestic market, as well as another 50 million packs per annum for export.³¹³ Even then, illicit BAT products did not disappear from the Vietnamese market. As recently as 2017, illicit SE555 were still selling at 169% of the value of the licit version.³²⁴

Spreading misleading information

Most existing estimates of the illicit tobacco trade in Viet Nam are based on industry data and rely on methods which are opaque, undisclosed or difficult to replicate over time.²⁹⁸ While the government estimated in 2020 that illicit trade accounted for 15% of the national market, and independent research from 2017 put that figure at 13.72%, tobacco industry estimates are significantly higher.³²³³²⁴ Japan Tobacco International Vietnam, for example, states that “the rate of smuggled cigarettes is quite high (more than 20%) on the market”.³⁴⁹

Oxford Economics (OE) put the share of total illicit consumption at 23.4% in 2017.²⁹⁸ An economic advisory agency with links to the tobacco industry going back to the early 2010s, OE produced yearly reports on the illicit trade in Asia between 2012 and 2017 which were funded by PMI and based on PMI-approved terms of reference.^{350351352353354355}

These reports have been criticised in the strongest terms by Dr Hana Ross of the University of Cape Town, writing for the Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance (SEATCA):

“The common denominator to all pieces of this study is PMI and its TORs [terms of reference] with all of the multiple parties in the report’s chain of production. This is a way for PMI to control the final results—by controlling the input, the data analysis, as well as publication, distribution, and promotion.”³⁵⁶

This exaggeration of the scale of illicit trade is a well-documented means of fighting tobacco control measures such as graphic health warnings, plain packaging and increased tobacco taxes. However, there is no evidence to show that tax increases have led to an increase in the illicit trade in Viet Nam; on the contrary, the illicit trade declined even after a 5% increase in the ad valorem tax rate in January 2016.³²⁴

• For more information see Illicit Tobacco Trade

Relevant Links

• Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) Viet Nam 2015, GATS Viet Nam Working Group
• Vietnam 2023 Tobacco Industry Interference Index, Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control
• Vietnam 2021 Tobacco Industry Interference Index, Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control
• Asian State-Owned Tobacco Enterprises: Challenges & Opportunities in Implementing WHO FCTC Article 5.3, Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance (SEATCA)
• Vietnam: Overview of tobacco control legislation, use and taxation, World Bank Group
• Evidence Matrix: Vietnam, Tobacconomics
• Inside Philip Morris’ campaign to subvert the global anti-smoking treaty, A. Kalra, P. Bansal, D. Wilson, T. Lasseter, The Philip Morris Files, Reuters

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• Western Pacific Region
• Waterpipe
• Price and Tax
• Tobacco Smuggling
• Oxford Economics
• R Street Institute
• Factasia

TCRG Research

• Developing more detailed taxonomies of tobacco industry political activity in low-income and middle-income countries: qualitative evidence from eight countries, B.K. Matthes, K. Lauber, M. Zatoński, L. Robertson, A.B. Gilmore, BMJ Global Health 2021;6:e004096.
• Gaining access to Vietnam’s cigarette market: British American Tobacco’s strategy to enter ‘a huge market which will become enormous’, K. Lee, H.V. Kinh, R. Mackenzie, A.B. Gilmore, N.T. Minh & J. Collin, 2008, In: Global Public Health. 3, 1, p. 1-25.

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

References