There have been multiple instances of lobbying by ambassadors and other diplomats from the UK, as well as Japan and Switzerland. Much of this lobbying activity has taken place in low and middle-income countries (LMICs).² These countries are important sources of new customers for tobacco companies as markets in higher income countries where consumption is generally falling.³⁴⁵

Diplomats are also involved in activities which help promote the tobacco industry via local media, such as visiting tobacco farms or factories. Other engagement supports tobacco companies’ product promotions, or corporate social responsibility strategy. These activities help to raise the profile of tobacco companies, enhance their reputations, and support the ‘normalisation’ of the industry.¹⁶⁷

Background

Parties to the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) have an obligation to protect public health policies from the “commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry” and any contact with tobacco industry representatives, or others seeking to further their interests, must be “limited” and “transparent”.⁸ The implementation guidelines to Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC recommend that Parties limit interactions with the tobacco industry to those that are absolutely necessary to regulating the industry, and ensure the transparency of those interactions that do occur.⁸  The guidelines also recommend parties treat state-owned tobacco companies in the same way as any other tobacco company, including avoiding any “preferential treatment”.⁸

In addition, the guidelines state that “… Whenever possible, interactions should be conducted in public, for example through public hearings, public notice of interactions, disclosure of records of such interactions to the public”.⁸

However even in countries with a high level of compliance with the WHO FCTC requirements, diplomatic missions rarely achieve this level of transparency. Information on tobacco industry engagement has largely been found through media investigations and Freedom of Information requests (FOIs).

In October 2014, the 6^th Conference of the Parties (COP) decided to urge parties: “to raise awareness and adopt measures to implement Article 5.3 and its implementing Guidelines among all parts of government including diplomatic missions.”⁹ Another decision required governments to “take into account their public health objectives in their negotiation of trade and investment agreements”.¹⁰

Nevertheless, diplomats continue to lobby for tobacco companies around the world.¹

Countries whose diplomatic representatives have lobbied on behalf of tobacco companies overseas  include the UK, Germany and Japan, who are all Parties to the WHO FCTC,¹¹ as well as the United States and Switzerland. BAT, PMI and Japan Tobacco all have offices in Geneva, Switzerland, the location of the World Health Organization and other key international bodies.

UK

There are specific guidelines covering the engagement of British (UK) officials working overseas designed to limit contact with tobacco companies, and support compliance with Article 5.3. After the UK Ambassador to Panama lobbied on behalf of British American Tobacco (BAT),¹² the guidelines were revised in 2013.¹³ These guidelines state that “Posts must not…Engage with local foreign governments on behalf of the tobacco industry, except in cases where local policies could be considered protectionist or discriminatory”.¹³

Engagement and lobbying

Despite having guidelines in place to support compliance with the WHO FCTC, FOI requests and media investigations have revealed that British diplomats continue to interact with the tobacco industry more than is necessary. UK diplomats have lobbied for BAT in Bangladesh,¹⁴¹⁵ Hungary,¹⁶ and Pakistan.^1217181920

UK officials have also disclosed contact with tobacco companies in Panama and Venezuela,²¹²² Laos,²³ Cuba,²⁴ and Burundi.²⁵

In 2018, UK advocacy organisation Action on Smoking & Health (ASH) called this a “global pattern of engagement” by British officials to defend BAT’s interests.²⁶

• For more details see UK Diplomats Lobbying on Behalf of BAT.

Tobacco industry events

UK government guidelines state that staff must not:

“Attend or otherwise support receptions or high-profile events, especially those where a tobacco company is the sole or main sponsor and/or which are overtly to promote tobacco products or the tobacco industry (such as the official opening of a UK tobacco factory overseas)”.¹³

However, UK staff have attended such events, generating considerable local media coverage.

For example, in 2019 the British ambassador to Yemen opened a cigarette factory in a free trade zone in Jordan, celebrating the expansion of the tobacco company Kamaran which is part-owned by BAT.^1272829

In 2020, staff from the UK high commission in Pakistan attended a promotional event for a BAT product in Pakistan.³⁰

• See UK Diplomats Lobbying for BAT for details.

Engaging with industry allies

The links between diplomatic missions and tobacco companies can be more indirect, via funding third party allies of the industry. The UK guidelines state that diplomats should not “endorse projects which are funded directly or indirectly by the tobacco industry”.  However, a 2019 investigation by The Guardian found that the British high commission in Malaysia had given funding to a Kuala Lumpur based think tank (IDEAS) for several years. At the same time the think tank was also receiving money from tobacco companies and was lobbying against plain packaging regulation and tobacco taxes.³¹  While the UK had already implemented plain packaging regulations, tobacco control was being undermined overseas.

Attending meetings with the tobacco industry

Tobacco companies attend meetings and events organised directly by UK government departments, such as the FCO (now FCDO) or the DIT (now Department for Business and Trade).²¹  They also attend those held by regional, national or local business organisations such as chambers of commerce.

Responses to FOI requests show that when the attendance of UK government officials at such events is disclosed, there is little detail about the specific purpose or content of these meetings,¹⁴¹⁶ It may simply be described as relating to ‘doing business’ in the country.²²

Business vs public health interests?

The UK guidelines for overseas staff (last updated in 2013) allow for the communication of “basic trade, investment and political information”, although this is not defined.¹³ One of the activities used to justify interaction by UK diplomats is “resolving business problems that are potentially discriminatory”.^1214163233 This has been criticised as running counter to the WHO FCTC guidelines.¹³⁴

While transparency is required for tobacco industry interactions in 2018, the UK government told Parliament that it “does not catalogue the representations it makes on behalf of companies”.³⁵³⁶³⁷  Research by the Tobacco Control Research Group (TCRG) concluded that the stated WHO FCTC goal of “maximum transparency” is not being achieved in the UK.¹²⁹

Japan

In 2021, the Ambassador of Japan to Bangladesh lobbied the government of Bangladesh on behalf of Japan Tobacco International (JTI).  In a letter to the Bangladesh Finance Minister the Ambassador criticised 2019 taxation changes for their impact on JTI. It also complained about the activities of competitors, and licensing demands.³⁸

• For details, including the lobbying letter, see Japanese Diplomats Lobbying for JTI

The Japanese Ambassador to Ethiopia was present at the signing of a deal between the Ethiopian government and JTI in 2016,  when the Ministry of Public Enterprise sold 40% of its National Tobacco Enterprise to the Japanese company.³⁹ Japanese diplomats have also toured tobacco farms and JTI factories in Tanzania and Zambia.⁴⁰⁴¹

Japan Tobacco International is the overseas subsidiary of Japan Tobacco (JT), which is one third-owned by the Japanese government.⁴²

Germany

In May 2022, the German ambassador to Beirut visited the offices of Regie, the Lebanese Tobacco and Tobacco Inventory Administration.¹⁴³

Denmark

The Imani Centre for Policy and Education, a Ghana-based think tank,  received money from the Danish embassy while lobbying against tobacco control.³¹⁴⁴

Switzerland

Switzerland is not Party to the WHO FCTC.

In 2019, Swiss diplomats approached the government of the Republic of Moldova on behalf of Philip Morris International (PMI) seeking an opportunity to discuss new tobacco legislation.⁴⁵⁴⁶⁴⁷  The proposed legislation included significant tax increases on heated tobacco products, in which PMI has invested.⁴⁵⁴⁸

The same year, PMI helped fund an inaugural event for the new Swiss Embassy in Moscow.⁴⁹⁵⁰

• For more details see Swiss Diplomats Lobbying for PMI

USA

Although the US is not Party to the WHO FCTC, it has specific laws and guidance that prohibit its diplomats from promoting the sale or export of tobacco, or influencing non-discriminatory restrictions on tobacco marketing.^51525354 However, US diplomats have enabled meetings between tobacco companies and government representatives.

The US ASEAN Business Council organises delegations of US businesses, including Philip Morris International (PMI), which meet high level officials in the ASEAN region.⁵¹  PMI was at the time a vice chair of its Customs & Trade Facilitation Committee and used this opportunity to meet with government officials from the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Vietnam.⁵¹⁵⁵

Why it matters

The examples above illustrate contraventions of the WHO FCTC, an international treaty, and in many cases breaches of national guidelines. As TCRG research points out, all of these activities also undermine the spirit of these laws, by apparently serving the commercial interests of transnational tobacco companies and helping to ‘normalise’ the industry in the eyes of policy makers and the public.¹

The implementation guidelines of Article 5.3 urge Parties to exclude the tobacco industry completely from the public health policy arena.  The guidelines also urge them not to participate in corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities which are used by the tobacco industry and as an alternative means to access policy makers, as well as for public relations and product promotion.¹

In August 2019, in direct response to the exposure of lobbying by Swiss diplomats, the WHO released a statement urging governments to comply with Article 5.3 and to “proactively aspire to reduce the number of people starting and continuing smoking, to promote health and preserve future generations”.⁵⁶

TobaccoTactics Resources

• UK Diplomats Lobbying for BAT
• UK Diplomats Lobbying for BAT: Bangladesh
• UK Diplomats Lobbying for Tobacco: Burundi
• Swiss Diplomats Lobbying for PMI
• Japanese Diplomats Lobbying for JTI
• Third Party Techniques

TCRG Research

A “willingness to be orchestrated”: Why are UK diplomats working with tobacco companies?, R. Alebshehy, K. Silver, P. Chamberlain, Frontiers in Public Health, 17 March 2023, Sec. Public Health Policy, Volume 11 – 2023, doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.977713

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

References

The post Diplomats Lobbying for Tobacco Companies appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

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

Menthol cigarettes are key products in tobacco company portfolios, representing an estimated 10% of the global cigarette market according to the World Health Organization (WHO).⁶¹ Using flavouring agents as additives is thought to promote and sustain tobacco use, and therefore WHO recommends banning menthol and other flavours in cigarettes.⁶²

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

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

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

Background

Cigarettes are produced and sold with a variety of flavours, including menthol, fruit, spice, herb, alcohol, sweet and floral.⁶³⁶⁴ Menthol, a type of alcohol that can be obtained from mint plants or manufactured, is the most widely used cigarette flavour.⁶⁵⁶⁶⁶⁷ Besides adding a flavour, menthol desensitises receptors that lead to irritant sensations from nicotine, making the experience of smoking less harsh.⁶⁵⁶⁸ In the United States non-menthol cigarette consumption declined by 33%  from 2009-2018 but menthol cigarette consumption only declined by 8%.⁶⁹

Smoking menthol may help establish smoking among young people,^677071727374 and reduce the likelihood of quitting.⁷⁰⁷¹⁷⁵ Banning menthol should discourage sustained tobacco use.⁷⁰⁷⁶

Menthol cigarettes could contribute to health inequalities: in the USA they have been found to be disproportionately smoked by those with lower incomes,⁶⁸⁷⁷⁷⁸ those with a lower level of education,⁶⁸ women,⁷⁹ African Americans,⁸⁰⁸¹ the LGBTQ+ community,⁸²⁸³ and young people.⁸⁴

Menthol cigarettes are more commonly used by less-established or ‘novice’ smokers, and those who are experimenting with smoking.⁷⁸⁸⁴ Research shows that the tobacco industry has manipulated the menthol content of cigarettes to promote smoking initiation and sustain tobacco use.⁸⁵⁸⁶ Menthol was found to be key to industry strategy in Singapore, to both recruit and retain young smokers.⁸⁷

Mass distribution and marketing of menthol did not start until the 1960s although a US patent for menthol flavouring was granted in the 1920s.⁶⁶⁶⁷⁸⁸ In 2007 a new innovation for adding flavour appeared on the Japanese market which has since become common elsewhere, often marketed as a ‘crushball’, in which flavour is added via crushing a small plastic capsule in the filter.⁸⁹⁹⁰ Tobacco companies have been developing flavour capsules since the 1960s and multiple innovations have been patented, but not yet marketed.⁹¹ Cigarettes with flavour capsules are popular with young people due to the interactivity, and the novelty of smoking a cigarette with two flavours.⁸⁹⁹⁰⁹² Flavour capsule use is high in Chile, Mexico and South Korea.⁹³ In some countries use is high among women.⁹³ Some markets, such as the UK, only had menthol flavoured capsule cigarettes available, and not other flavours.⁹⁴

Menthol can be present in tobacco products not labelled as menthol.⁹⁵⁹⁶ The tobacco industry has stated that this might occur as a by-product of processing, but that it is also added deliberately to improve the flavour.⁶⁸⁹⁷

Regulation and Industry Interference

Regulation of flavours that make smoking more palatable is recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (FCTC).⁶¹⁶² According to a review conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, as of 2021, about 40 countries have active or pending policies on flavour.⁹⁸ These policies differ according to whether the following are banned:

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

Tobacco industry documents show that the industry favours characterising flavour bans.⁹⁹

Turkey was the first country to successfully introduce a ban on flavoured cigarettes, including menthol, in 2015, to be fully implemented in 2020.¹⁰⁰¹⁰¹

Also in 2015, Ethiopia banned menthol flavouring for all forms of tobacco to prevent appeal to children and adolescents, a pre-emptive move as Ethiopia had no significant existing use of menthol.⁶¹¹⁰² The ban was comprehensive, covering manufacture, import, distribution, and  sale. It bans aroma as well as taste, effectively banning additions to packaging.¹⁰³

While most flavour policies mention reducing youth use, only some restrict flavour descriptors on tobacco packaging.⁹⁸

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

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

Brazil

In 2012, in order to prohibit the addition of substances that enhance the attractiveness of tobacco products through flavour and taste, Brazil became the first country in the world to pass a law banning menthol tobacco products. However it was unable to enact the law due to industry interference and a lengthy court battle.¹⁰⁴¹⁰⁵

A review of academic, government and commercial documents found the tobacco industry used a range of strategies to interfere with the legislation, including instigating demonstrations by tobacco farming front groups, media articles, litigation, lobbying, and industry-commissioned studies questioning the rationales for legislation.¹⁰⁴ Arguments used by the tobacco industry included that: a ban would threaten employment, increase illicit trade, or prevent successful growing of burley tobacco; there is a lack of evidence that a ban would reduce smoking; and that a ban would be illegal.¹⁰⁴

Philip Morris Brasil (PMB) had challenged the ban through its membership of The National Industry Confederation (Confederação Nacional da Indústria, CNI), arguing that the ban was unconstitutional.¹⁰⁶¹⁰⁷ According to PMI’s 2018 annual report, “The tobacco union requested a stay of the enforcement of the ingredient ban while the appeal is pending”.¹⁰⁷

The Brazilian government finally won the court case in February 2018, although the ban was not fully enacted due to ongoing interference.^98105104108 Researchers noted that these strategies had also been used elsewhere, and that the legislation was delayed for many years despite a lack of evidence to support industry arguments.¹⁰⁴

Chile

The Ministry of Health in Chile, a country with high use of menthol cigarettes, particularly among women, tried to introduce a menthol ban under an existing law in 2013.⁶¹¹⁰⁹ After lobbying from the tobacco industry, the ban was rejected. The industry argued that menthol products were no different to other tobacco products, and that there was a lack of evidence of increased addiction or harm.⁶¹¹¹⁰ A new bill was introduced in 2015, supported by data showing very high use of menthol-flavoured cigarettes by young people (66% for smokers under 18).

In response to the new bill, British American Tobacco (BAT) threatened to withdraw its operations from Chile.¹¹¹¹¹² Despite passing the law in the Senate, as of February 2020 the law had yet to be implemented.¹¹³ Although the bill stalled, BAT went ahead with the closure of some of its factories. According to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, this “can be interpreted as a decision to consolidate based on cost efficiency and not on local tobacco-control laws”.¹¹² BAT continues to manufacture and market menthol cigarettes in Chile, with sales of capsule cigarettes increasing (see below).

Canada

Menthol cigarettes were initially exempted from a flavour ban in Canada in 2010. Evidence showed that menthol cigarettes were used by nearly a third of high school aged smokers.¹¹⁴ The tobacco industry lobbied against extending the ban to non-cigarette products (cigarillos and smokeless tobacco).¹¹⁵ After implementation tobacco companies developed new variations on existing products, including small menthol cigars, to get around the ban.^6198116

A series of menthol bans were implemented in Canadian provinces, starting with Nova Scotia in May 2015, and by October 2017 menthol cigarettes had been banned across Canada.^61117118119 First Nations reserves were included, removing a potential legal route for purchasing menthol after the ban, although products may still be available.¹¹⁷¹²⁰

Canadian legislation bans menthol’s use as an ingredient because menthol’s presence at subliminal levels reduces the negative sensations of smoking.^121122123

United States

In 2019, 18.5 million people in the US were current smokers of menthol cigarettes.¹²⁴ On 28 April 2022 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced proposed standards for banning menthol as a characterising flavour in cigarettes and cigars.¹²⁰¹²⁵ In 2009 the US had previously banned characterising flavours in cigarettes (see below) except menthol.

Characterising Flavour

Factors relevant for determining whether a product has a characterising flavour as stated by the FDA include, but are not limited to, presence and amount of flavour ingredients or additives, multisensory experience, implicit or explicit flavour representations (including descriptors) on the packaging.  Industry has commented that characterising flavour requires a clear and scientifically based definition for compliance.¹²⁴

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

The rules were to come into effect one year after the final publication of the regulations (not yet provided).¹²⁴¹²⁶  The ban would also cover tribal lands.¹²⁰

As the tobacco companies make ‘massive profits’ from menthol, legal challenges and protests from the tobacco industry and third party allies are likely.¹²⁷¹²⁸ 30% of British American Tobacco’s operating profit is reported to come from the sale of menthol cigarettes in the US alone.¹²⁹

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

Moldova

Moldova, a non-EU country in the lower middle-income category with a high smoking rate, was due to ban menthol cigarettes in May 2020 at the same time as the EU.¹⁰⁰¹³⁰ In 2019, PMI increased its lobbying efforts in Moldova, to try to gain influence over tobacco control policy in the country. For more information see Swiss Diplomats Lobbying for PMI.

European Union and UK

An EU-wide ban on the sale of flavoured cigarettes was introduced in May 2016, including menthol, under the 2014 revised European Tobacco Products Directive (TPD).¹³¹ After protests against the TPD from the tobacco industry, implementation of the ban on menthol cigarettes was postponed to 2020.¹³²¹³³

Many of the brands assessed by the EU Commission advisory panel on characterising flavour have been found to have a chemical profile suggestive of having a characterising flavour, and noticeable odours.¹³⁴

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

Do Bans Work?

Evidence from the US

The US flavour cigarette ban (with the exception of menthol) came into effect in September 2009. Survey data for the period up to 2017 suggested the ban reduced cigarette smoking long term among young adults (27%) and youth smokers (43%) but not older adults. Immediately post ban significant numbers of young adult and youth smokers of other flavours switched to menthol and non-flavoured cigarettes.¹³⁵ However, by 2015 cigar sales had also increased, particularly flavoured cigars. Internet vendors, especially those based outside the US were found to be selling flavoured products in 2011, two years after the flavour ban.¹³⁶

The 2009 ban only applied to cigarettes. In 2014, 61% of middle and high school smokers had recently used flavoured hookah and 64% had used flavoured cigars.¹³⁷

In June 2017, the city of San Francisco, USA, banned the sale of all flavoured tobacco products including menthol. Retailers were given training, and shops were inspected. By December 2019, the comprehensive ban had reduced sales of flavoured products by 96%. Total tobacco sales declined significantly further than in neighbouring cities without bans.¹³⁸

Evidence from Canada

The country wide Canadian ban was in place in October 2017, but several states implemented bans beforehand from 2015 onwards. In Ontario, a menthol cigarette ban was enacted in January 2017. Having a ban in place was associated with a reduction in menthol and total cigarette sales.¹³⁶

Across Canada, state menthol bans significantly increased quit success among menthol smokers compared with non-menthol smokers.¹³⁹  The ban also prevented relapse among smokers who had quit pre-ban. ¹⁴⁰ In 2015, even though some states had already passed legislation, 15% of 15 to 19 year olds reported smoking menthol cigarettes.¹⁴¹ Between 2018 and August 2020, 2-3% of  16-19 year olds were estimated to be smoking menthol or capsule cigarettes.¹⁴² Most menthol smokers switched to non-menthol cigarettes, and menthol accessories (which could provide a menthol flavour) remained on sale in Canada.¹⁴⁰

In 2009, Canada had banned on all non-menthol flavour additives small cigars as well as cigarette. Despite an increase in non-flavoured cigars, there was a net reduction in cigar sales by 2015.¹³⁶

Evidence from the EU and UK

The European Union flavour ban (with the exception of menthol) came into force in May 2017. Survey data from eight EU countries suggested that between 2016 and 2018 only 11% of smokers of the banned flavours continued to smoke them, 62% moved to unflavoured cigarettes and 5% moved to menthol cigarettes. Only 9% quit completely.¹⁴³

The EU menthol ban came into force on 20 May 2020. An International Tobacco Control (ITC) study in 2020-2021 surveyed the same sample of adult smokers in the Netherlands before and after the EU menthol ban.¹⁴⁴ This study found that menthol use significantly decreased from 8% to 4% post-ban. Compared to non-menthol smokers, menthol smokers had higher quit attempt rates (67% vs 50%). 40% of those who smoked menthol pre-ban switched to non-menthol cigarettes while just over a third continued to smoke menthol cigarettes after the ban.¹⁴⁴ Over 40% of menthol smokers  reported using flavour accessories post-ban, including filters, flavour cards, marker pens, and drops, which were not banned.¹⁴⁵ 4% of all smokers used these accessories post-ban.¹⁴⁵

The menthol ban was adopted into UK legislation before the UK left the EU. Results from evaluations have been mixed.  A study using the ITC Youth Tobacco and Vaping Survey found that in England, the percentage of youth smokers (age 16-19) whose usual cigarette brand was menthol declined from 12% in Feb 2020 to 3% in August 2020. This fall was not replicated in countries which did not have a menthol ban enacted during the study period. However, reported menthol smoking in the previous 30 days was still high post-ban at over 40%.¹⁴²  Between July 2020 and June 2021, Smoking Toolkit Study data suggested 16% smokers in England reported smoking menthol cigarettes; women and younger smokers were more likely to report menthol smoking. There appeared to be a decline in reported menthol smoking in mid-2021.¹⁴⁶ Some remaining reports of menthol smoking could be at least partly because menthol accessories and cigarillos were still available.¹⁴⁷

The tobacco industry attempted to boost menthol sales after the ban was announced.¹⁴⁸ Between September 2019 and February 2020, before the ban, sales of menthol cigarettes fell by 57% in UK convenience stores (as reported by the Retail Data Partnership). However, under 2% of stores had stopped selling them.¹⁴⁹ The analysts did not identify any significant rise in sales of RYO tobacco, cigarillos or e-cigarettes. Therefore, it was unclear whether customers were switching to products bought elsewhere (e.g. online), or were in fact quitting.¹⁴⁹

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

Flavour Bans and Illicit Tobacco

Where neighbouring countries do not implement a ban, it has been suggested that there is a risk that smuggling will increase.¹⁵⁰ Tobacco companies have used this argument when lobbying against regulation, including the TPD.

However, the risk associated with the movement of illicit tobacco is often exaggerated by the tobacco industry. An evaluation of the 2015 menthol ban in the Canadian Province of Nova Scotia found no change in seizures of menthol or nonmenthol cigarettes after 3 years.¹³⁶ In Romania there was no increase in tobacco confiscations after the EU ban.¹⁵¹ Both before and after the ban, about 2% purchases in the Netherlands were illicit.¹⁴⁵ Despite English smokers continuing to smoke menthol cigarettes after the menthol ban, there was no reported rise in purchasing of cigarettes from illicit sources.¹⁴⁶

The Global Market for Menthol Cigarettes

Euromonitor International produces data on cigarette market share by volume of capsule cigarettes (i.e. of any flavour, including menthol) and menthol flavoured cigarettes (i.e. without capsules) for up to 78 countries. Note that Euromonitor receives project funding from Philip Morris International.¹⁵²

From 2010 to 2020, capsule cigarettes experienced significant market growth, with an average increase of 0.7 percentage points per year.¹⁵³   Growth occurred across all WHO regions, with the exception of Europe. Here there was an increase until 2019, then a decrease of 0.6 percentage points to 2020, likely due to the EU characterising flavour ban. Capsule cigarette market growth was most substantial for upper-middle income countries (with an average market share of 1.0% to 11.4) and the WHO region of the Americas (1.5% to 16.2%).¹⁵³ The five countries with the highest average annual growth rates of capsule cigarettes  were: India (154%), Uzbekistan (122%), Uruguay (115%), Russia (84%), and Ukraine (84%). Four of these are middle-income countries.¹⁵³ By 2019, capsule cigarettes made up a larger proportion of the global cigarette market than menthol flavoured cigarettes.  The overall market share of menthol cigarettes decreased by an average of 0.2 percentage points per year.¹⁵³

According to Euromonitor, in 2020, capsules accounted for 3.3% of the market worldwide (by volume) and menthol flavoured cigarettes 2.4%. ¹⁵⁴ However, regional distribution varies. Four of the five countries with the highest capsule market shares in 2020 were in Latin American: Chile (48%), Peru (35%), Guatemala (33%), Mexico (27%), and South Korea (25%).¹⁵³

The market share of menthol flavoured cigarettes remained high in many countries, the highest being in the WHO Western Pacific region (15% in 2020) and Africa region (13%). The five countries with the largest menthol market shares in 2020 were: Singapore (47%), Dominican Republic (33%), Cameroon (30%), USA (29%) and Japan (28%).¹⁵³ In contrast, in Europe the average market share for menthol flavoured cigarettes was only 1.5% across the region.

Both types of flavoured cigarette are equally popular in Nigeria and have over 40% of the tobacco market. Only two of the countries included in Euromonitor’s dataset, North Macedonia and Canada, had no measurable market for either.¹⁵⁴

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

Company Market Shares

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

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

TobaccoTactics Resources

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

Relevant Links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TCRG Research

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

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

References

The post Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Switzerland signed the WHO FCTC in 2004 but has yet to ratify the Treaty.

In July 2019, Swiss newspaper Republik first revealed that Swiss diplomats had approached the authorities of the Republic of Moldova on behalf of Philip Morris International (PMI), to request that the tobacco company be given an opportunity to discuss new tobacco legislation being proposed in Moldova.⁴⁵⁴⁶⁴⁷

Background

The Republic of Moldova ratified the WHO FCTC in February 2009. The Republic’s tobacco excise policy between 2010 and 2013, when the average tobacco excise rate was increased ten-fold, has been hailed as an example of how tobacco tax can be an effective tobacco control measure.¹⁶² The tax policy increased government revenue but decreased tobacco smuggling, as well as tobacco affordability and consumption.¹⁶² After 2013 Moldova adopted more moderate excise increases.

In June 2019 a new administration, under the leadership of Prime Minister Maia Sandu, promised to strengthen tobacco control legislation, including raising tobacco taxes substantially.

Swiss Diplomats Lobbying Revealed

An article in Swiss newspaper Republik revealed that in July 2019 diplomatic staff at the Swiss Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine, (which looked after Swiss affairs in Moldova) had requested of Moldovan authorities that PMI be “given a voice in discussions in new tobacco regulations”.⁴⁵⁴⁶ At the time, the Moldovan government was debating new tobacco legislation, including significant tax increases on heated tobacco products like PMI’s IQOS.⁴⁵¹⁶³

PMI told the newspaper Le Temps, that it had approached the Swiss embassy in Kiev to:

“push for the possibility to contribute, like all other interested parties, to a public consultation about legislation proposals that would affect smokers and our business”.⁴⁶⁴⁷

According to the newspaper, PMI contributed to public hearings on 17 July 2019, but the tobacco legislation was adopted by the Moldovan Parliament at the end of July.

Political Justification

When asked by the newspaper why it had lobbied on behalf of PMI, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs justified its actions by stating that “one of the tasks of Swiss embassies is to represent the interests of the Swiss economy in their host country”.⁴⁷ The Swiss government does not appear to have recognised that the tobacco industry does not operate like other businesses.

The UK government has also been criticized for lobbying on behalf of the tobacco industry, and using a similar justification. See UK Diplomats Lobbying on Behalf of BAT

PMI Pays for Embassy Opening Ceremony

The Swiss government was also criticised for allowing PMI to contribute CHF45,000 (around US$46,000) towards the opening ceremony for the new Swiss Embassy in Moscow in July 2019.⁴⁹¹⁶⁴

WHO Urges Swiss Government to Ratify the FCTC

In August 2019 the WHO released a statement urging governments to comply with Article 5.3.¹⁶⁵ This was in response to the Swiss government’s withdrawal from a partnership they had previously agreed with PMI, to sponsor the country’s pavilion at the Dubai World Expo in 2020.⁴⁹

In the statement the WHO encouraged Switzerland to ratify the FCTC, and urged governments to “proactively aspire to reduce the number of people starting and continuing smoking, to promote health and preserve future generations”.¹⁶⁵

TobaccoTactics Resources

Influencing foreign tobacco legislation via diplomats is a known tobacco industry tactic.

For more background and examples see Diplomats Lobbying for Tobacco Companies

Also see:

• Third Party Techniques

TCRG Research

A “willingness to be orchestrated”: Why are UK diplomats working with tobacco companies?, R. Alebshehy, K. Silver, P. Chamberlain, Frontiers in Public Health, 17 March 2023, Sec. Public Health Policy, Volume 11 – 2023, doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.977713

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

References

The post Swiss Diplomats Lobbying for PMI appeared first on TobaccoTactics.