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.

• Menthol and flavoured cigarettes are widely available in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) many of which have high smoking rates
• LMICs have young populations – flavours appeal to young people, who may not understand the harms of flavoured tobacco
• Recently high-income countries have put bans in place; at the same time there has been marked growth of menthol market share in some LMICs
• There is a lack of regulation to reduce the appeal of flavours e.g. plain packs and advertising bans at point-of-sale or near schools
• Targets for new and improved bans include flavour capsules, and flavour references on packaging and cigarette sticks
• A ban on all flavourings may be easier and more effective in preventing product substitution
• A lack of data, especially in low-income countries, hinders the development of good regulation
• Multinational tobacco companies can threaten income from tobacco exports if governments attempt to put tobacco controls in place

This page covers flavoured tobacco, including menthol cigarettes, in low and middle-income countries (LMICs).⁶²⁶³

Background

Flavoured tobacco products are available in various forms around the world, including products previously only used in particular regions or countries. For example in Indonesia, the vast majority of smokers use kretek, clove-flavoured cigarettes,⁶⁴⁶⁵ and they are now available in other countries.⁶⁶⁶⁷

Flavoured tobacco is used in waterpipe, a device which originated in middle-eastern countries and is increasingly popular elsewhere, including among young people.⁶⁸

Here we focus on what are often called ‘conventional’ products, like cigarettes and cigarillos, which are sold by large transnational tobacco companies (TTCs): Philip Morris International (PMI), British American Tobacco (BAT), Imperial Brands (IMB, previously Imperial Tobacco) and Japan Tobacco International (JTI) (JTI also owns Nakhla in Egypt, which produces flavoured waterpipe) We summarise findings from Tobacco Control Research Group (TCRG) research on the extent of flavoured and menthol cigarette use in LMICs and the development of the market for ‘capsule’ products (cigarettes with flavour capsules in the filter).

We describe specific challenges for LMICs, including flavour regulation and evidence gathering. We then summarise flavour market evidence and research, first relating to LMICs in general and then by World Health Organization (WHO) region and individual countries (where available).

• For general background and evidence, including information on the global market, and details of specific bans and associated industry interference, see Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco.

For details of product regulation at country level, see the searchable database on the Tobacco Control Laws website, published by the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids (CTFK). For countries that are parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) progress towards implementation of relevant articles, including newer products, is detailed in the FCTC implementation database

Specific challenges for LMICs

LMICs with no ban often have other major tobacco control policy gaps that are not necessarily menthol/flavour related but worsen the negative impact of menthol/flavours.⁶⁹ One such policy is plain, or standardised, packaging,  which can include restrictions on flavour descriptors as well as colours on packaging which are known to signify flavour (e.g. green for menthol).⁷⁰ However, plain packaging policies have yet to be implemented in many countries, including some high-income countries, so this would be a significant challenge in LMICs. Another relevant policy is the prohibition of marketing, especially near schools.⁷¹

Governments have more conflicts of interest in tobacco growing areas as they receive much needed foreign currency for tobacco exports,  and multinational companies can threaten this income stream if governments attempt to put tobacco controls in place.⁶⁹⁷²  However, apart from rare exceptions the tobacco industry contributes little overall to the balance of payments.⁷³⁷⁴

Regulatory challenges

The WHO published brief guidance on the regulation of menthol and flavoured tobacco which summarised some regulatory options including restrictions on: the sale of menthol branded products,  the use of menthol at noticeable levels (giving a ‘characterising flavour’),  or banning any menthol ingredients.⁷⁵  The report points to likely opposition from the tobacco industry in countries or regions with an established menthol market.⁷⁵ This was the case with the European Union (EU) menthol ban which only came into full force in 2020, after the tobacco industry had successfully lobbied for a delay. Testing for characterising flavour is more difficult and expensive than a ban on ingredients; this makes banning menthol as an ingredient particularly efficient for LMICs.

The WHO noted that:

“A ban on all flavour agents that increase tobacco product attractiveness, rather than focusing on menthol exclusively, can provide an alternate route to restricting menthol, and may prevent the unwanted introduction of menthol substitutes.”⁷⁵

Research and data

As of 2021, when TCRG researchers conducted a review of evidence on menthol/flavour in LMICs,⁷⁶ there were very few research papers from countries in Eastern Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean region, and Africa.

Lack of data means that it is hard to monitor markets and company shares in specific countries.  Market research service Euromonitor (which receives project funding from Philip Morris International) includes no low-income countries and is proprietary, making it expensive and hard to access even for the middle-income countries which are included.

More research is needed on menthol and flavour in LMICs to help governments monitor the tobacco industry and its products, as recommended by the WHO: “An evidence base using data collected from the region of interest can provide more direct support for regulation.”⁷⁵

Market in LMICs

Evidence suggests menthol and flavoured tobacco products are widely used in LMICs.  Data from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Policy Evaluation Project suggests that menthol is smoked by more than 20% of smokers in several middle-income countries. Although the dates vary (see the note above on data challenges) this research gives an indication of the scale of the problem. The highest rates were found in Zambia (42% in 2014) and Thailand (35% in 2012). Kenya and India also had over 20% menthol smokers, with China just under just under that level.⁷⁷

A study from Johns Hopkins University, between 2015 and 2017, found a range of flavoured and capsule cigarettes on the market in those LMICs with the highest number of smokers: Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Russia, Thailand, and Vietnam.⁷⁸

The main TTCs operating in these countries (PMI, JTI, and BAT) mostly sold menthol or mint flavours. China National Tobacco Corporation (CNTC) sold  a mix of flavours.⁷⁸

There is also evidence from a number of studies that menthol and flavour tobacco use is rising, either as a proportion of the market or substantively.  Evidence from TCRG research shows that after the implementation of the European Union (EU) menthol ban in 2020, there was a marked increase in the share of menthol/flavoured products in some LMICs.⁷⁶ A study of cigarette packs in Brazil, Indonesia, the Philippines, Russia, Thailand, and Vietnam, between 2013 and 2016, found that the number of flavour capsule variants on the market was growing.⁷⁹ Most were mint and menthol flavour but with others the flavour was unclear from the product name.⁷⁹

A number of studies have identified related marketing activities.  Marketing strategies for flavour capsules are likely driving their global growth particularly among young people in LMICs.⁸⁰

TCRG’s review  of tobacco industry strategies underpinning the growth of menthol/flavoured tobacco use in LMICs  highlighted widespread marketing in stores (including retailers near schools), on billboards, on TV, online and via brand ambassadors. The packaging of flavoured and menthol products, legally displayed in stores, was  found to be colourful with non-conventional, appealing names for flavours.⁷⁶

Tobacco companies also use symbols on cigarette sticks to indicate that they contain capsules.⁸¹ Researchers studying this form of marketing in LMICs have described the space on a cigarette as “valuable communicative real estate” for tobacco companies, which could be better used to display public health messages.⁸¹

Research and data from specific regions and countries is summarised below. We refer in many places to TCRG research based on 2019 cigarette market data from Euromonitor. In this data ‘high market share’ means 20% or more of the total cigarette market in that country in 2019. ‘High market share growth’ means that the share doubled between 2005-19 and was growing from 2017.⁷⁶ We link to regional and country profile pages on TobaccoTactics, where available.

Africa

Nigeria has high menthol/flavour market share and high market share growth.⁷⁶

Cameroon has high market share, the only other country in the region for which this data was available. (For Egypt see Eastern Mediterranean region below.)⁷⁶

Tanzania

JTI sells a menthol cigarette called Sweet Menthol through its subsidiary in Tanzania. It describes this product as “the leading local mainstream menthol brand”.⁸²

Zambia

JTI owned brand Sweet Menthol is the third most popular cigarette in Zambia.  It is cheap and is usually sold as single sticks.⁸³  On its webpage for Zambia, JTI describes itself  as a leaf farming company, and does not mention that it sells cigarettes in the country. A locally owned company, Roland Imperial,  also sells menthol cigarette brands.⁸⁴

ITC survey data showed a high prevalence of menthol smokers in Zambia, with 43% of smokers choosing the product.⁸⁵ Menthol was most commonly used among younger smokers, those with a middle income, and those that don’t smoke every day. Over a third of smokers indicated that they thought menthol cigarettes were less harmful than non-menthol.⁸⁵

Kenya

ITC survey data from Kenya also suggests a high prevalence of menthol smokers.⁸⁵⁸⁶ In 2018, 21% of smokers with a regular cigarette brand smoked menthol or sweet menthol (although Euromonitor estimates that only 7% of cigarette sales are menthol).⁷⁶  More women smoke menthol than men in Kenya, and two thirds of smokers believed that menthol is less harmful than other cigarettes.⁸⁵⁸⁶

Ethiopia

In 2015, Ethiopia enacted a total flavour ban on all forms of tobacco.

• For details see Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco

This was a pre-emptive ban as flavour sales were low. However there has been a lack of enforcement at the retail level.⁶⁹ Flavoured products are not made in Ethiopia and more collaboration with customs is needed to prevent illicit importation.⁶⁹ There is also a lack of awareness that the ban includes waterpipe products.⁷⁵

Since 2017, two years after the ban was enacted, JTI has owned 70%  the state owned tobacco company, NTE.⁸⁷

Latin America

Menthol cigarettes are popular in Latin America, and increasingly so in some countries.⁷⁶ Guatemala and Peru have high market share and high market share growth. There is high market share in Columbia and the Dominican Republic, and high market share growth in Argentina, Bolivia and Costa Rica.⁷⁶

Use of flavour capsule cigarettes is particularly high in Chile and Mexico.⁸⁸  According to BAT’s annual report in 2014,  sales of  flavour capsule cigarettes had increased in the region despite price rises, while overall cigarette sales were down.⁸⁹

A study of over 1,000 retailers located close to schools in Latin American cities (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile and Peru) found that the majority (85%) sold flavoured cigarettes, and most (71%) sold capsule versions.⁷¹ (Similar findings were reported in Uruguay, a high income country, immediately before the implementation of plain pack regulations in 2020.)⁹⁰

These products were frequently displayed near the point of sale, or confectionary. Some stores also had advertisements and price promotions.⁷¹ Unconventional flavour descriptors such as “fusion blast” and “ruby ice” were very common.⁹¹

Brazil

Survey data from 2016-2017 among adult smokers in Brazil found that over 50% supported a ban on menthol and over 60% supported a ban on all additives.⁹² Support did not vary across sociodemographic groups. When menthol smokers were asked what they would do if menthol cigarettes were banned, a third reported they would quit, around 20% would reduce the amount they smoked and a similar number would switch to non-menthol cigarettes. Slightly fewer said they would still find a way to get menthol cigarettes.⁹²

ITC survey data from the same period suggested that 8% of smokers with a regular cigarette brand smoked menthol.⁹³ 13% believed that menthol cigarettes were less harmful than non-menthol cigarettes, and over a third reported that they were smoother on the throat and chest.  Nearly two thirds  of surveyed smokers supported a complete ban on all cigarette additives, including flavourings.⁹³

An online sample of women aged 16- 26 (smokers and non-smokers) preferred packs with flavour descriptors.⁹⁴

• The tobacco industry has used a range to tactics to undermine and delay Brazil’s menthol ban. For details see Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco

Chile

In 2013, Chile sought to implement a law banning substances that cause higher levels of addiction, harm or risk, leading to tobacco industry resistance and interference.⁷⁵

• For details see Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco

Mexico

Studies of retailers in Mexican cities, found that the majority sold menthol and flavoured products, and more than half of stores situated near schools sold flavour capsule cigarettes.⁹⁵⁹⁶ Many flavoured cigarettes have descriptors which suggest there is a flavour, but the type of flavour is unclear: chemical analysis of dual flavoured cigarettes suggested flavours were menthol and another flavour, for example fruit.⁹⁷

A study in Mexico City found that colour and flavour descriptors on cigarette packs made the products more appealing, and some smokers believed they would taste better.⁹⁸

Guatemala

A study of convenience store retailers in Guatemala found that all sold flavoured tobacco products.⁹⁹

The majority (88%) of indoor tobacco advertisements in Guatemala were found to be for capsule cigarettes.⁹⁹

South East Asia & Western Pacific

There is high market share of menthol/flavour in India, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand, and high market share growth in Vietnam.⁷⁶  A 2010 study noted that governments in the region had no legislation banning exotic flavours of cigarettes and cigarettes with new flavours had appeared in Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines.¹⁰⁰

Philippines

Menthol has been advertised to appeal to young women in the Philippines since the 1970s with menthol brands common for many decades.¹⁰¹ PMI, JTI, BAT and Korea Tobacco & Ginseng (KT&G) all sell flavoured capsule cigarettes in the Philippines.¹⁰²

Menthol packs studied in the Philippines were harder than non-menthol (for capsule protection) giving a quality feel. Flavoured capsule brands had a greater technological appeal,¹⁰² and packs were rated as more attractive by young adults.¹⁰³

Blue and white packs were perceived to be less harmful than other colours, as were the descriptors ‘light’ and ‘cool’, whereas the term ‘strong’ was perceived as more harmful.¹⁰³  Researchers called for greater action and support for banning flavour additives.

Malaysia

In Malaysia, menthol cigarette marketing has been aimed at young people and women.  In the 1980s Brown and Williamson’s Newport menthol cigarettes were marketed in Malaysia with youthful American images and were sold at a cheap price point.¹⁰⁴ An internal document from 1993 reveals how the company was developing sweet and fruit flavours for the Malaysian market. ¹⁰⁴¹⁰⁵ A 2003 study noted that the menthol variant of Cartier Vendome (a BAT brand at the time) was described as ‘pearl tipped’ so likely to appeal to women.¹⁰⁶

In 2013, vanilla, mint and fruit flavoured cigarettes were on sale, and strawberry cigarette packs with pink packaging were documented.¹⁰⁷

China

In China ‘flavour capsule’ was found to be one of the most common cigarette terms used in online tobacco marketing.  One website explicitly linked flavour capsules with female smokers.¹⁰⁸

Indonesia

In Indonesia the dominant cigarettes are kreteks which are flavoured with cloves.  Industry attempts to introduce their own cloved flavoured products had failed at least to 2004.¹⁰⁹  In 2009 PMI and BAT acquired two domestic manufacturers which allowed them access to the kretek market.¹¹⁰ In 2009 PMI launched the first super slims kretek for women and Marlboro black menthol for young men.  By 2012 BAT had launched several kretek brands. Both companies were aware that kreteks  are particularly carcinogenic due to the presence of toxic chemical compounds: Anethole, Coumarin and Eugenol.¹¹⁰

In Indonesia the flip lid of the cigarette packet was used by Esse (owned by Korean Tobacco & Ginseng, KT&G) to promote the brand with phrases evoking flavour, like “sweet surprise” and “its honey”.  Research found seven cigarette brands with capsules.  Flavours included mint, menthol, berry and honey.¹¹¹

Eastern Mediterranean

There is high market share growth in in Pakistan and Egypt .⁷⁶

• See also Waterpipe for information on the role of flavours in promoting these products.

Eastern Europe

Data shows that in Russia menthol/flavour has both a high market share and high market share growth.⁷⁶

Other LMICs in the region with high market share growth are Ukraine, Bosnia Herzegovina, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.⁷⁶

Relevant Links

WHO Advisory note: banning menthol in tobacco products (2016)

WHO Case studies for regulatory approaches to tobacco products: menthol in tobacco products (2018)

WHO FCTC decision on banning waterpipe flavour (2016)

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

TobaccoTactics Resources

• Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco
• Menthol Cigarettes: Industry Interference in the EU and UK

TCRG Research

A growing menace: menthol and flavoured tobacco products in LMIC, M. Zatonski, K. Silver, S. Plummer, R. Hiscock, Tobacco Induced Diseases, 2022;20(April):39, doi:10.18332/tid/146366
STOP research summary (May 2022)

Marketing of flavour capsule cigarettes: a systematic review, C. Kyriakos, M. Zatonski, F. Filippidis, Tobacco Control, Published Online First: 18 January 2022, doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-057082[/ref]

Flavour capsule cigarette use and perceptions: a systematic review, C.N. Kyriakos, M.Z. Zatoński, F.T. Filippidis, Tobacco Control, Published Online First: 04 October 2021, doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056837

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 Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco in LMICs appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Crime Stoppers International (CSI) says it is a “global non-profit organization representing seven regions committed to support law enforcement efforts to prevent and solve crime by mobilizing citizens to anonymously report illegal activity”.¹¹²

Links to the tobacco industry

Senior tobacco industry staff have been invited to speak at Crime Stoppers International Conferences, and some have profile pages on the CSI website.

Links with Philip Morris International

Alvise Giustiniani, Vice President Illicit Trade Prevention, Philip Morris International (PMI), was invited to give a presentation at the CSI conference in October 2018.¹¹³ Mr. Giustiniani has a profile page on the CSI website, summarizing his 25 years of work at PMI. ¹¹⁴. Nicolas Otte, Director Illicit Trade Strategies & Prevention ( Latin America & Canada) for PMI was listed as a speaker at the conference in 2017. ¹¹⁵¹¹⁶

Links with British American Tobacco

In 2018, Thomas Compernolle, former Senior Global Engagement Manager and current EU affairs Director of British American Tobacco (BAT), was invited to speak at the 39th Crime Stoppers International conference. John Padgett, BAT Government Affairs Manager, Tax, Trade and Anti-Illicit Trade (Caribbean and Central America), was listed on the programme the previous year.¹¹⁷

Links with Japan Tobacco International

Ian Monteith, Japan Tobacco International (JTI) Senior Global Director for Anti Illicit Trade ( Diversion, and Seizure Investigations) was invited to speak at the conference in 2018 and has his own profile page on the website of CSI. ¹¹⁸

Global Activities with the Tobacco Industry

Representatives of tobacco companies have attended ‘capacity building’ workshops run by CSI and the organisation has collaborated with the industry on illicit trade initiatives. The organisation is also a partner with TRACIT, a non-governmental organisation with extensive tobacco industry links and campaigns on illicit trade at a government and international level.

Asia

In October 2018, CSI and Crime Stoppers Australia (CSA) ran an “Anti-Illicit Trade Business Summit and Capacity Building” training course, attended by Philip Morris International and Japan Tobacco International. As well as the Philippine National Police, National Bureau of Investigations, and local intellectual property organisations, attendees included the UK Intellectual Property Office, Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC, UK), and United States Homeland Security Investigations. CSI also announced that they would be “commencing operations” in the Philippines in 2019.¹¹⁹

Europe

In 2015, CSI collaborated with Japan Tobacco International to provide a helpline to report illegal tobacco trade across the UK.¹²⁰

Latin America

On Crime Stoppers International’s website, under the section on illicit trade, it describes a collaboration in 2016 between Crime Stoppers and the tobacco industry in Latin America as a “success story”. This initiative, called ‘Denuncie Hoy’ (Report Today), focused on illicit cigarette trade in El Salvador, Central America, and was expected to expand to Guatemala.¹²¹

Africa

South African journalist Yusuf Abramjee has been collaborating with CSI since 2007, when he was working, and later heading, the initiative called Crime Line.¹²² This consists of an online platform for anonymous tips on crime in South Africa. ¹²³ Abramjee became Head of Global Communications for CSl in 2015 and later, in 2018, was promoted to Vice-President.¹²⁴

Yusuf Abramjee is also the spokesperson for the social media initiative #TakeBackTheTax in South Africa, seeking to reduce the tax for tobacco. This initiative has been funded by The Tobacco Institute of Southern Africa (TISA), whose tobacco company members include Japan Tobacco International, Philip Morris International, Imperial Brands (previously Imperial Tobacco) and British American Tobacco offices in South Africa. The International Tobacco Growers Association, an industry front group, is also a member of TISA.¹²⁵

TobaccoTactics Resources

• Tobacco Smuggling
• Yusuf Abramjee
• Japan Tobacco International
• Philip Morris International
• British American Tobacco
• Imperial Tobacco

References

The post Crime Stoppers International appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

The Centre for Research Excellence: Indigenous Sovereignty and Smoking (COREISS) is a private registered company based in Auckland, New Zealand. It was established in June 2018 by Dr. Marewa Glover, with a grant from the tobacco industry-funded Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW).¹²⁶ FSFW calls itself an independent scientific organisation aimed at “accelerating the end of smoking,” but is solely funded by tobacco giant Philip Morris International (PMI). COREISS is one of multiple “Centres of Excellence” set up with Foundation funding as hubs for research on tobacco control and harm reduction.

• For more information on the Foundation, see our pages on the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World and its Centres of Excellence.

The stated aim of COREISS is to focus on reducing tobacco-related harms among indigenous peoples worldwide.¹²⁷¹²⁸

People

COREISS Director, Dr Marewa Glover, describes herself as “an indigenous behavioral scientist who has worked on reducing harms from smoking for over 25 years.”¹²⁹ She is a former chair of End Smoking NZ (2009-18), a charitable trust that lobbies for tobacco harm reduction, and was a Professor of Public Health at Massey University (2016-2018) and Director of the Centre for Tobacco Control Research at the University of Auckland (2006-2015). She has a PhD in Behavioural Sciences and is the Tobacco Section Editor of the Harm Reduction Journal¹³⁰¹³¹ Glover is also a scientific advisor to the International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations (INNCO), organising committee member of the Global Forum on Nicotine¹³² and associate member of the New Nicotine Alliance (NNA).¹³³

As of October 2020, the COREISS website “About Us” section listed only Glover, with no details of any other staff, directors, partners or advisory board.¹²⁷ NZ Companies Office records show that COREISS Limited was previously named Amoss Limited until February 2018. It was first registered as a New Zealand company in July 2005 by Glover and Stephen Piner. The company is categorised as “Scientific research institution operation – except university”.¹³⁴ Piner’s LinkedIn profile states that he became Director of Operations at COREISS in July 2018.¹³⁵

Set Up with Tobacco Industry-Linked Funding

On 30 May 2018, COREISS was awarded a US$978,449 grant from the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW), whose purpose is to “fund scientific research designed to eliminate the use of smoked tobacco around the globe”.¹³⁶ The Foundation’s tax documents reveal that COREISS was its third largest grantee in 2018.¹²⁶ FSFW President, Derek Yach, described the opening of the NZ Centre of Excellence with Dr Glover, “a world-renowned tobacco control expert”, as a personal highlight in the Foundation’s 2019 annual report.^137138139 The Foundation’s 2017 launch video also contains footage and interviews from New Zealand,¹⁴⁰ including with Glover in her former role as chair of End Smoking NZ.¹⁴¹

Since then COREISS has continued to be awarded more than US$1.7m annually from the Foundation.

In 2019, COREISS received nearly US$1.8 million (figures rounded) in funding from FSFW, according to FSFW 2019 tax return. An additional US$7.3m was committed by FSFW in future funding.¹⁴²¹⁴³

The funding pledge was maintained. The 2020 FSFW tax return showed COREISS spent just over US$1.1m of a US$1.8m grant for that year. A further US$3.1m was committed for the future.¹⁴⁴ In 2021 COREISS received a further US$410,104 from FSFW.¹⁴⁵

COREISS’s website does not disclose the amount of the grant awarded by the Foundation, only a disclaimer that it receives funds from it and that it is “fully independent”.¹⁴⁶ FSFW’s tax documents show that US$489,225 of a total US$978,449 was awarded to COREISS in the 2018 calendar year.¹²⁶

• For more information on other Foundation for a Smoke-Free World grant recipients, see our page on its grantees.

In August 2019, according to press reports, New Zealand’s Ministry of Health warned district health boards that it preferred them not to work with COREISS¹⁴⁷ – a move Glover has described as blacklisting¹⁴⁸ and part of a wider harassment campaign akin to a “public lynching”.¹⁴⁹

Also in 2019, it was reported that Glover had put in a funding bid for “millions more” from the FSFW to fund COREISS.¹⁵⁰

In July 2020, Glover published a paper with Pooja Patwardhan, a director of a UK based private company, also funded by FSFW: the Centre for Health Research and Education.¹⁵¹¹⁵²

Critics: “Co-optation of Indigenous Culture”

Marewa Glover has been criticised by the NGO, Hāpai Te Hauora Māori Public Health and a group of Indigenous public health experts from New Zealand, Canada, the US and Australia for indirectly accepting tobacco industry money.¹⁵³

Writing in Tobacco Control, the indigenous health leaders argued that the tobacco industry would “use the Foundation to meet its agenda which is in stark contrast to the health and well-being agendas of Indigenous peoples” and that “co-optation of Indigenous culture” must be resisted. They added that the tobacco industry has a history of exploiting and appropriating Indigenous culture to sell and promote commercial tobacco. They also asserted that the debate around newer nicotine and tobacco products and their potential to improve Indigenous health should be led by Indigenous peoples and not be influenced by organisations linked to the tobacco industry. They contended:

“By serving the interests of PMI, the Foundation is complicit in commercial tobacco use and the associated absolute and disproportionate tobacco-related harms to Indigenous peoples.”¹⁵³

Hāpai Te Hauora, which holds New Zealand’s national tobacco control contract, told Radio NZ that while it respects Glover’s expertise on Maori smoking cessation, it had no choice but to cut ties to COREISS due to the Centre’s source of funding.¹⁴⁷

Glover has strongly refuted accusations by some critics that COREISS has acted as “a mouthpiece” for Philip Morris International (PMI) and the tobacco industry. In September 2019, she consulted lawyers over comments made by the Public Health Association (PHA) of New Zealand’s chief executive,¹⁵⁴ which resulted in a formal unreserved apology and retraction being issued by PHA.¹⁵⁵ Glover remains resolute that her Centre is neither compromised,¹⁵⁴ nor influenced by its Foundation funding, arguing that the bylaws of its benefactor as “an independent nonprofit organisation” ensures it has “complete autonomy” from PMI.¹⁵⁶

Furthermore, the COREISS website states:

“The research produced by the Centre of Research Excellence: Indigenous Sovereignty & Smoking, the contents, selection and presentation of facts, as well as any opinions expressed on the Centre’s website, or in its presentations and publications are the sole responsibility of the Centre and its authors and under no circumstances shall be regarded as reflecting the position of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, Inc.”¹⁴⁶

COREISS Reports and Government Submissions 2019

In its first 20 months of operation between May 2018 and December 2019, COREISS published two research papers, one illustrated essay booklet, one flyer and four submissions to government inquiries related to smoking and e-cigarettes in New Zealand, the Philippines and Greenland. Its submission to the Philippines Government in December 2019 argued that electronic nicotine devices “should not be taxed initially, or a tax relative to risk could be considered” and that “[it] is important that the acceptability of the products is not undermined by unnecessary restrictions on the nicotine levels or the flavours.”¹⁵⁷

Quantifying Māori Spend on Tobacco, Alcohol and Gambling

The first FSFW-funded COREISS output was an externally-commissioned report, published in May 2019 and entitled “Quantifying Māori spend on tobacco, alcohol & gambling”.¹⁵⁸ This report summarised the tobacco, alcohol and gambling tax burden of the Māori population. Glover has long argued that tobacco tax increases unfairly target Māori and Pasifika groups,¹⁵⁹¹⁶⁰ “take money from the poor”,¹⁵⁹ do not work,¹⁶¹ and push smokers to the illicit market.¹⁵⁹

New Zealand Health Select Committee Hearing: Argued Against Ban on Smoking and Vaping in Cars

In August 2019, Glover presented COREISS’s submission “Do We Really Need Another Law? The cost to New Zealand of banning smoking in cars”¹⁶² to a Health Select Committee hearing on a proposed Smoke Free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carry Children) Amendment Bill.

In her oral evidence, Glover described the Bill as “extreme”, “punitive” and “discriminatory”, given the much higher smoking rates of Maori and Pasifika groups (32.7% and 23.2% compared with the national average of 12.5% regular adult smokers).¹⁶³¹⁶⁴

Banning smoking in cars, she told the committee, would do nothing to protect children and “was a waste of time”; money could be better spent on cessation programmes to help parents stop smoking. She argued that exposure to secondhand smoke was “far greater in the home” compared with “fleeting” time spent in cars.¹⁶³¹⁶⁵ She also dismissed one MP’s question about toxins building up in enclosed spaces such as cars:

“That’s junk science that the toxins are first of all harmful and that they build up. As I said there’s no evidence that nicotine or the particles in cigarette smoke, the residue delivers any ill health to anybody… obviously it’s damaging for the person who’s smoking. But ah, it’s, as I say in my submission, the dose makes the poison. Children are not in the car all day long every day.”¹⁶⁶

Glover added that “what gets missed is that our bodies heal, so even if we are temporarily exposed, we heal from that”.¹⁵⁴ Her statement was criticised by some Committee members, one of whom described it “outrageous”, as well as other public health experts at the hearing.¹⁶³ According to Glover:

“the scientific studies have not proven that exposure to cigarette smoke in the car causes disease, it’s not a causal relationship and most of the studies it’s actually exposure in the home that the association is with. And in tobacco control we have extrapolated that out to exposure in the car, so the evidence is not there for that. So I really urge you to… basically I say, “show me the evidence””.¹⁶⁶

Glover told the Committee that: “In tobacco control over 35 years, we have exaggerated the effects deliberately to scare people off smoking.”¹⁶³

Glover’s views are at odds with other public health officials. “Children are especially vulnerable to the harmful effects of secondhand smoke due to their smaller lungs, higher respiratory rate and immature immune systems,” NZ Associate Health Minister, Jenny Salesa had said when she first announced the Bill in February 2019, arguing it was important to safeguard their health, with Māori and Pasifika children most vulnerable to secondhand smoke in vehicles.¹⁶⁵ In October 2019, Salesa dismissed Glover’s controversial stance against the ban “as her opinion”, reiterating that the Government was standing up for children’s rights.¹⁵⁴

“Vaping Has No Health Effects on Bystanders”

Glover also told the Health Select Committee that she believed that vaping in cars poses no risk:¹⁶³

“Vaping has no health effects on bystanders, so it’s a totally different animal. You know, the smoke is, there’s gas, there’s actual particles and vapour is, uh it evaporates very quickly, it’s not carrying any of those particles at all that are toxic. And there is minimal nicotine residue. The whole third-hand, fourth-hand, fifth-hand smoke thing is made up to scare people off smoking, there is no associated harm with nicotine residue on things. So I think you know if we really want people to stop smoking in cars, why ban those alternatives? …” ¹⁶⁶

Glover’s comments also run contrary to the WHO’s January 2020 advisory on e-cigarette second-hand emissions, as well as other scientific evidence. In January 2020, WHO stated that e-cigarettes, also known as electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) “expose non-smokers and bystanders to nicotine and other harmful chemicals. …The aerosols in ENDS typically contain toxic substances, including glycol which is used to make antifreeze. ENDS pose risks to users and non-users.”^{167168169170171172}

Non-Disclosure

Following the hearing, Glover’s non-disclosure of COREISS’s tobacco industry-linked funding was also criticised by some commentators.¹⁷³¹⁷⁴

Published Booklet Written by Academic with Ties to the Tobacco Industry

In October 2019, COREISS produced a short booklet titled, “Preventing risk of smoking-related disease among adults versus preventing initiation to vaping: Simplistic lifeboat thinking not applicable”. It featured a cartoon drawn by Glover and an essay by harm reduction advocate Carl V Philips, whose research has been funded by the tobacco industry, included a USD$1.5million grant from the U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company and further funding from British American Tobacco. In their booklet’s disclosure statement, Glover and Philips wrote that “…neither PMI nor the Foundation exercises any influence over the presentation of our findings, and they will not be aware of this paper until it is published”.¹⁵⁶

Submission to Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland) Government: “Adopt a Harm Reduction Approach”

In December 2019, COREISS published a submission to Greenland’s Ministry of Health draft parliamentary Act on tobacco products and non-smoking environments (the Smoking Act).¹⁷⁵

Written by Marewa Glover and also posted on the Foundation’s website, COREISS’s submission recommended that the Government of Greenland (the Naalakkersuisut) adopt a harm reduction approach to reduce the extremely high (60%) tobacco smoking prevalence among Greenland’s indigenous Kalaallit Nunaat people.

Noting the government’s public health programme (Inuuneritta) goal to cut smoking to 40% of the adult population, Glover argued “this figure could quickly be achieved by allowing smokers in Kalaallit Nunaat access to any or all of the greatly risk-reduced alternatives to smoking that now exist”. She gave examples of how smokeless tobacco products, such as snus, have led to dramatically reduced rates that make traditional tobacco control measure rates look “shockingly slow”.¹⁷⁵

She added that Greenland “has the chance to leapfrog over the inefficient tobacco control methods of the past by adopting a tobacco harm reduction approach today”.¹⁷⁵ Greenland, which is a self-governing autonomous Danish dependent territory, is not a party to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), a global treaty that aims to reduce the demand and supply of tobacco.¹⁷⁶

Similar to COREISS’s December 2019 submission to the Philippines Government (see below), its Greenland submission included a section on “Understanding the anti-vaping hysteria” which referred to “anti-vaping lobbyists” as deliberately exaggerating teenage vaping prevalence. Glover stated that “Kalaallit Nunaat specific research should be encouraged to identify locally effective approaches”.¹⁷⁵

The COREISS Greenland submission made no mention of whether Glover consulted local indigenous groups, researchers or politicians, which would be consistent with COREISS’s pledge in 2018 “that indigenous worldviews will underpin the research methods”.¹⁷⁷ Authors cited in the submission include harm reduction advocates Carl V Phillips and Harry Shapiro (the latter is a staff member of Knowledge Action Change) as well as the Foundation’s Derek Yach.¹⁷⁵¹⁷⁸

Submission to Philippines Government: “No Unnecessary Restrictions on ENDS and HTPs”

In December 2019, COREISS published a submission to a Philippines Congressional Joint Committee inquiry into Regulating Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems and Heated Tobacco Products. This submission heralded harm reduction as the solution to helping the country achieve its stated goal of reducing smoking prevalence to 15% by 2022. In her submission to the House of Representatives committees on Trade and Health, Glover wrote:

“I strongly recommend that the Philippines Government adopt a harm reduction approach to tobacco smoking. Relative risk regulation that encourages people who cannot quit smoking to switch to risk-reduced alternatives such as vaping or using tobacco heating devices or oral nicotine pouches could cause smoking rates to plummet.”¹⁷⁹

Arguing that “regulation rather than a ban is needed”, Glover appealed to the Government not to ban flavours or impose any “unnecessary restrictions” on nicotine levels.¹⁷⁹

Despite the COREISS pledge “that indigenous worldviews will underpin the research”,¹⁷⁷ its Philippines submission¹⁷⁹ did not contain references to the country’s numerous indigenous communities that make up nearly 12% of the Philippines population, among them some of the poorest and most disadvantaged sectors of society.¹⁸⁰

Submission to New Zealand Government on “Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill”

In April 2020, Glover published a submission to the New Zealand Government in response to its consultation on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill.¹⁸¹ In her submission, Glover argued that there would be a “disproportionately negative impact of the proposed Bill on groups with higher smoking and vaping rates, such as Māori, Pacific and lower socioeconomically disadvantaged groups”.¹⁸¹ She argued that the policy was based on a colonialist  “denormalization” of tobacco, which was inconsistent with Maori perspective.

In addition to arguing against many of the proposals for increased controls over e-cigarette manufacturers and retailers, Glover also said that the ban on Swedish style snus should be overturned.¹⁸¹

Opposed tobacco endgame 

In 2021, Glover published a submission to the Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 Action Plan consultation in her capacity as Director of COREISS. The submission opposed the proposed tobacco endgame policies in New Zealand.¹⁸² See Tobacco Industry Interference with Endgame Policies. 

Global Forum on Nicotine: Committee Member and Speaker

Glover sits on the Programme Organising committee of the Global Forum on Nicotine (GFN), an annual conference held in Warsaw, Poland since 2014. The forum is run by London-based Knowledge Action Change Limited (KAC), which is headed by Professor Gerry Stimson. At the 2018 GFN conference, Glover received an Outstanding Advocate award from the International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organizations (INNCO), another FSFW grantee. She is also listed as “scientific adviser” to INNCO.¹³²

Speaker at Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum 2018-2020

Marewa Glover, in her capacity as Director of COREISS, was a speaker at the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum. This annual tobacco industry-funded networking forum was held in August 2018 in London and in September 2019 in Washington. She was listed as both as a keynote speaker and panellist at the latter event.¹⁸³¹⁸⁴ In 2020, the event was held online due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Glover was again listed as a keynote speaker.¹⁸⁵

Speaker at Asia Harm Reduction Forum

After setting up COREISS, Glover spoke at two Asia Harm Reduction Forum events, alongside several other international speakers and panellists who have also received Foundation for a Smoke-Free World funding.¹⁸⁶ The first Forum was in the Philippines capital Manila in November 2018, which was held at the same time as legislators were drawing up laws on e-cigarettes.¹⁸⁷

Glover spoke about “The New Zealand Approach to Tobacco Harm Reduction”.¹⁸⁶ She also spoke at the 2019 event held in Seoul in August.¹⁸⁸

Relevant Links

• Website: https://www.coreiss.com

TobaccoTactics Resources

• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World
• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World People
• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World Grantees
• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World Centres of Excellence
• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World: How it Frames Itself
• Harm Reduction
• Heated Tobacco Products
• E-cigarettes
• E-cigarettes: Philip Morris International
• Next Generation Products: Philip Morris International
• Snus

TCRG Research

10. Robertson, A. Joshi, T. Legg, et al., Exploring the Twitter activity around the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, Tobacco Control Published Online First: 11 November 2020, doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-055889

References

The post Centre for Research Excellence: Indigenous Sovereignty and Smoking (COREISS) appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Modelled on International Smokers’ Rights Groups

Among ProYosi and NCUP’s shared Facebook content are posts from tobacco companies and tobacco-industry funded international smokers’ rights groups such as Forest (Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco) in the UK. Like such groups, ProYosi positions smokers as the victims of tobacco control advocates who infringe upon their right to enjoy a legal product. ¹⁹⁹ A rallying cry to its Facebook followers (2,492 as of mid-October 2019) states:

“Smokers, it’s high time we unite and uphold our rights. Proyosi was created to protect the interests of tobacco consumers and balance the unwarranted impacts of ‘hate’ campaigns against us by intolerant anti-smoking groups”.

“Smokers have given-up enough. Still, the smoking ban pushers want even more. Now is no longer about health, but a liberty issue”.

NCUP’s Facebook page (which had 542 followers in October 2019) meanwhile focuses on “Freedom of Consumer Choice” with straplines like “Come on, Let’s Fight Hard”. Since NCUP was created in 2018, ProYosi’s content and messaging has moved beyond a traditional cigarette smoker focus to embrace consumers of other tobacco products: “Smokers, vapers and all nicotine lovers, let’s unite and fight”. Three months before the 2nd Asian Harm Reduction Forum was due to be held in Manila, a special ProYosi episode on 30 August 2018 focused on “Exploring the potential of uniting all nicotine-based consumers”. ²⁰⁰

Echoing Tobacco Industry Arguments

Against Public Smoking Bans and Designated Smoking Areas

A major focus of concern for ProYosi has been President Rodrigo Duterte’s Executive Order No 26 (EO 26), which in May 2017 banned smoking and vaping in enclosed public places and indoor venues across the country. ²⁰¹ ProYosi campaigned hard for self-regulation and against “misinformation” amid initial confusion this was an “absolute” public smoking ban, and carefully praised Duterte for “striking a balance” between the rights of smokers and non-smokers. ²⁰²
ProYosi sees its role as “correcting misinformation on smoking in public places” ²⁰³ and maintains a watch on cases of what it views as “excessive” interpretations and strict enforcement of EO26 by local government units (LGUs). One episode, for example, examined what it called the “Nannyism of the Quezon City Government” as the city stepped up an anti-smoking drive in June 2018. ²⁰⁴ Anton Israel has also spoken at congressional public hearings, for example in March 2018 on proposals to amend the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003, ²⁰⁵ and in February 2019 at the Senate Ways and Means Committee Hearing on Excise Tax on Tobacco Products. ²⁰⁶

Arguments Against “Sin Taxes” Rises

Smokers and the Tobacco Industry Deserve Equal Rights as Taxpayers

In 2019, ProYosi joined tobacco growers and the Federation of Philippines Industries in opposing the Philippines government’s latest rise in taxes on cigarettes from P45 to P90 a pack as part of Bill No.1074. This also aimed to raise the tax on e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products (HTPs) in parity with cigarettes. ²⁰⁷ Since 2012, taxes on tobacco and alcohol have been used to fund 85% of the country’s health care system costs, with 15% earmarked for tobacco farmers and workers’ livelihood programmes. ²⁰⁸
In February 2019, ProYosi’s Anton Israel spoke at the Senate public hearing on Excise Tax on Tobacco Products.²⁰⁹ ProYosi’s submission to the Senate Ways and Means Committee argued that – as taxpayers – tobacco consumers and the tobacco industry “deserve equal protection under the law” ²¹⁰
and that it was time to stop hitting them disproportionately to raise money for the health service:

“From 2013 to 2018, there have been seven consecutive increases on tobacco products. No other product has been taxed this many times as tobacco. Not even alcohol, mining or gambling,” Pro-Yosi President Anton Israel said.

“The tobacco industry also deserves equal protection under the law. Tobacco consumers are also taxpayers who deserve the same protection as those who consume alcohol or sweetened beverages.”

Promoting Harm Reduction and Vaping

ProYosi has increasingly covered vaping and harm reduction since setting up NCUP in 2018. This has included the addition of pro-vaper Ahdrian Reyes to the team, and a number of dedicated Facebook Live episodes on topics such as “Harm Reduction: What is It?” (Sept 2019).
In October 2019, NCUP dedicated a 25-minute episode²¹¹ to a legal injunction filed by private vaping companies challenging the constitutionality of the Department of Health’s and Food and Drug Administration’s July 2019 administrative order (AO 2019-007), which aims to regulating electronic cigarettes and vaping devices. ²¹²

TobaccoTactics Resources

• Third Party Techniques
• Lobbying Decision Makers

Relevant Resources

• Facebook ProYosi
• Facebook Nicotine Consumers Union of the Philippines

References

The post ProYosi appeared first on TobaccoTactics.