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.

In 2019, INNCO described itself as a global coalition of non-profit consumer advocate organisations and stated that its aim was to “represent consumers of low-risk, alternative nicotine products and to promote tobacco harm reduction (THR) on the global stage”.⁶³⁶⁴ It says it seeks the adoption of “risk-relative and balanced harm reduction strategies”, and comprises 34 organisations from around the world that predominantly describe themselves as consumer-led vaping associations.⁶⁴ See below for a list of members and affiliates.

INNCO has had a direct relationship with the Philip Morris International (PMI)-funded Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW), and its grantees. Knowledge Action Change, a recipient of FSFW funding, also had a key role in establishing INNCO as a lobbying organisation and framing its position on harm reduction. However, in March 2023, INNCO published a statement on its website saying that “it is no longer funded by the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW).”⁶⁵ As of June 2023 the FSFW grants website shows the INNCO grant as closed.⁶⁶

Funded by Foundation for a Smoke-free World

In 2018, INNCO was awarded a grant of US$100,300 from the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW). FSFW is funded entirely by Philip Morris International (PMI). The purpose of the grant, as described by the Foundation, was “strengthening nicotine consumer organizations”.⁶⁷ In 2019, INNCO received US$159,900 from FSFW to “develop a business plan”.⁶⁸ In 2020,  INNCO received funding from FSFW for the third year in a row.⁶⁹ The four grants to INNCO, totalling US$458,005 were for “General support to INNCO to assist the organization in its work as an advocate for tobacco harm reduction” and “Support to INNCO to assist the organization in its work to garner consensus and support for COP9 to consider harm reduction as integral to tobacco control”.⁶⁹ INNCO received a further US$453, 555 for these activities in 2021.⁷⁰ In 2022 INNCO received a total of US$769,208 from FSFW.⁷¹ For details see Foundation for a Smoke-Free World Grantees.

In 2018 and 2019, INNCO’s website did not disclose its FSFW funding.⁶⁴ As of October 2020 there was still no visible disclosure of FSFW funding on its website, in its public LinkedIn profile, or in its Twitter bio.⁶⁴⁷²⁷³

In late 2020, INNCO added the following statement to its website:

“INNCO was established in 2016, well before seeking funding from our current funder, the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (the Foundation). The Foundation is at present funded with a 12-year-no-strings-attached grant from Philip Morris International (PMI). Our grant from the Foundation is equally arms-length, to be used to fund work decided by our own independent Governing Board and General Assembly of full members, while overseen by its auditors and other internal working groups.”⁷⁴

It also added a longer statement arguing that taking a grant from FSFW was not the same as being funded by the tobacco industry, and that “INNCO has nothing to do with PMI, and PMI has absolutely no control over INNCO”.⁷⁵

Set up with help from Knowledge Action Change

INNCO was set up following a meeting held at the Global Forum on Nicotine (GFN) meeting in Warsaw on 17th June 2016 (see Figure 1). This meeting was convened by the organisers of the GFN – Gerry Stimson and other members of Knowledge-Action-Change (KAC), an organisation that was granted over US$4 million by FSFW between 2018 and 2020.⁶⁷⁷⁷ The notes of the meeting are published on the GFN web archive, with Paddy Costall of KAC named as the relevant contact.⁷⁷.

Among the meeting’s listed attendees were Stimson, Julian Morris of the Reason Foundation, and ex-Institute of Economic Affairs, and Jeannie Cameron of JCIC International.

Created to influence WHO FCTC

In October 2016, the INNCO website stated that “The immediate objective for INNCO was to gain civil society consumer organisation stakeholder status and have a voice at the WHO FCTC COP7 conference in New Delhi”, to be held in November.⁷⁸
At the June 2016 GFN meeting, Clive Bates of Counterfactual Consulting Ltd had introduced a discussion paper titled “The Case for an International Organisation to Represent the Interests of Nicotine Consumers”.⁷⁹⁸⁰ It stated that “The idea to produce the paper came initially from the New Nicotine Alliance UK and the New Nicotine Alliance Australia and it is now supported in principle by a number of other organisations”.⁷⁹ The document properties state that the author was Patrick Costall, a director of KAC.⁷⁹⁸¹ The paper acknowledged that “most consumers do not belong, or wish to belong, to formal organisations” and argued the need for a new international nicotine consumer organisation as a way of “tackling issues at an international level, in particular with the UN system and WHO”. It identified the WHO FCTC Conference of Parties (COP) meetings as a “big ticket” measure that INNCO should target, stating:

“In 2016 there will be a meeting, in India, of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)… The COP will consider how new nicotine products, most specifically e-cigarettes, should be regulated… The resolutions of the COP are adopted by consensus, so it is important that pressure is brought to bear on delegations to prevent a consensus being reached on prohibitionist measures”.⁸⁰

Bates also shared a document outlining the processes and requirements for obtaining official observer status by the WHO FCTC, with certain text highlighted in red to show the WHO FCTC’s acceptance of “consumer groups”.⁸²

Co-opted Language of Public Health Movements

The 2016 discussion paper proposed a next step was to “seek recognition by UN and WHO agencies”, and suggested a way of achieving this was to adopt the slogan Nothing About Us Without Us, a phrase which has been widely used in community development and public health movements.⁸⁰⁸³⁸⁴.
The paper stated:

“there are lessons that can be learned from other areas… the whole notion of ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ came from the activities of HIV/AIDS activism in the 1990s… it has also become accepted as a principle for engagement by most agencies within the UN and WHO.”⁸⁰

This slogan was indeed subsequently adopted by INNCO, appearing prominently on their website.(see Figure 2) It was also used by members when protesting outside WHO FCTC COP8 in 2018 (see Figure 3).⁸⁵

Used ‘Harm Reduction’ to Attempt to Engage with WHO FCTC

The discussion around INNCO that occurred during the 2016 GFN meeting shows that INNCO’s strategy of using ‘harm reduction’ to advance its advocacy goals was based on advice from Jeannie Cameron from JCIC International. Cameron proposed that, “a strategy to engage with FCTC to promote harm reduction would seem the best and most promising avenue to pursue”, according to the meeting notes.⁷⁷ She highlighted how harm reduction was “one of the key elements of tobacco control via Article 1 (d)…”.⁷⁷.

Those recommendations were adopted by INNCO. In a public letter to WHO shortly before COP8, Nancy Sutthoff, the President of the Governing Board and the Asia Pacific Region Coordinator for INNCO, called on the WHO to:

“…reject prohibition and acknowledge ‘tobacco harm reduction’ and risk-proportionate regulation of tobacco and nicotine products that do not involve combustion as part of an effective harm reduction strategy, which is required and defined by Article 1(d) of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Treaty.”⁸⁶

Denied FCTC COP8 Observer Status

As of November 2019, INNCO’s attempts to achieve FCTC COP observer status had so far been unsuccessful. Its application to attend as an observer in 2018 was rejected by the FCTC Secretariat.⁸⁷ In November 2019, INNCO released a press release in which they accused the WHO FCTC Secretariat of “zero” transparency.⁸⁸

Lobbied COP8 via Twitter

Researchers from the Tobacco Control Research Group (TCRG) analysed Twitter data to gain insights into activity of the tobacco industry and its allies in the run up to COP8, and their attempts to influence the FCTC.⁸⁹⁹⁰⁹¹ The analysis found that INNCO, its members, affiliates and associates made up a significant proportion of the total Twitter activity relating to newer nicotine and tobacco products (so called “Next Generation Products”, or NGPs) and harm reduction.⁸⁹ Specifically, they found that over half of the 50 identified as advocating for newer products were affiliated in some way with INNCO, either directly or with an INNCO member organisation, and that they were responsible for 63% of the tweets from that group.⁸⁹ The researchers concluded that:

“The extensive activity by NGP advocates with links to organisations funded directly and indirectly by PMI … as well as a substantial online presence by PMI executives themselves, suggests a strategic approach by PMI to influence COP8 debates.”⁸⁹

Mixed with Tobacco Industry Allies at COP8

Following their rejection from COP8, INNCO members participated in a side meeting hosted by Christopher Snowdon from the tobacco industry-funded Institute of Economic Affairs.⁹² Other attendees included Martin Cullip; Heneage Mitchell of Factasia.org, a group that claims to represent consumers of nicotine products, but receives funding from Philip Morris International (PMI); Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association (TVECA); and Simon Clark the Director of the tobacco industry front group Forest.⁹³⁹⁴

A video posted by Chris Snowden of the IEA in his blog dated 8 October 2018, revealed that INNCO Board Member, Kim Petersen, had also attended the UN High-Level Meeting on Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) in New York in September 2018.⁹²⁹⁵

Received funding from FSFW to influence COP9

In 2020, INNCO received US$65,000 from FSFW to engage in activities around the 9^th Conference of Parties of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (see below). The purpose of the grant was to “Support INNCO to assist the organization in its work to garner consensus and support for COP9 to consider harm reduction as integral to tobacco control”.⁶⁹ The outcomes of the grant included the dissemination of research outputs developed by FSFW and its partners.⁹⁶

New Nicotine Alliance UK leaves INNCO

On 12 July 2019, the UK affiliate of the New Nicotine Alliance (NNA UK), which had described itself as “a founder member of the International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations (INNCO)”, announced it had ceased membership of INNCO “due to differences concerning future strategy, including funding arrangements”.⁹⁷

According to a NNA UK newsletter dated 6 August 2019, Gerry Stimson – who had been a Board member of NNA UK since at least 2015 – stepped down from the Board shortly after it announced it was leaving INNCO.^9899100 As of November 2019, Stimson was no longer listed on the NNA website as being part of NNA UK.

NNA Australia was also no longer listed as a member of INNCO in October 2020 (see below).

Criticised WHO around COP9

COP9 was held virtually in November 2021. Although substantive discussions and decisions on nicotine products were postponed to COP10, INNCO organised some lobbying activities:

• Published a report titled “Misinfodemic Dossier” criticising the WHO and Bloomberg Philanthropies.¹⁰¹¹⁰²
• Organised a demonstration outside the UK Parliament.¹⁰³
• Participated in a parallel event organised by CAPHRA.¹⁰⁴

INNCO was again rejected for observer status at COP.¹⁰⁵

Key People

Samrat Chowdhery was appointed to the new role of President of INNCO in July 2020.¹⁰⁶¹⁰⁷ A former journalist, Chowdhery is the founder director of the Council for Harm Reduction Alternatives (CHRA) and the Director of Association of Vapers India (AVI).¹⁰⁷ According to press releases “CHRA and AVI have been advocating for risk reduction in tobacco use since 2016, stating that access to less harmful alternatives such as vaping, snus and heated tobacco can help mitigate the high tobacco burden in India”.¹⁰⁷

The INNCO website stated that Chowdhery was “working on a project that evaluates the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of lower-risk options for bidi smokers and smokeless tobacco users, which involves opening cessation clinics across the country”.¹⁰⁶ Chowdhery had previously been one of the board members of INNCO.¹⁰⁸

Chowdhery was no longer listed as a board member by September 2021 and was replaced by Angeles Muntadas-Prim, chair of ANESVAP (Spain), was listed as President. INNCO’s website states that she is “co-founder/organiser of the THR Summit Spain (2018)” and was involved in setting up AHL Provape “a network of organisations in Latin America focused on vaping and THR.”¹⁰⁹

In February 2023, INNCO Executive Director Charles Gardner left the organisation.¹¹⁰

A full list of board members and other staff can be found on the INNCO website: https://innco.org/about-us/.

Member Organisations

INNCO’s members, as listed on its website as of November 2019, included:¹¹¹ NB Notes are added where organisations were no longer listed on the website.

• A.C.E.A.F. Vape – Association de la Cigarette Electronique pour Arreter de Fumer (Tunisia)
• Acvoda – Actief Vor Dampen (Active for Vaping, Netherlands)
• AIDUCE – Association Indépendante des Utilisateurs de Cigarette Électronique (Independent association of electronic cigarette users, France)
• ANESVAP – Association Espanola de Usarios de Vaporizadores Personales (Association of Spanish Users of Personal Vaporisers)
• ASOVAPE – Association Colombiana de Vapeodores (Colombian Vaping Association)
• ODC – Österreichischer DampferClub (Austrian Vapers Customer Association)
• AVCA -Aotearoa/New Zealand Vaping Consumer Advocacy Association [no longer listed as a member in January 2021]¹¹²
• AVI – Association of Vapers India
• CASAA – Consumer Advocates for Smoke free Alternatives (US)
• CVA – Cyprus Vaping Association
• DADAFO – Dansk e-damper Forening (Danish Vapers Association)
• ECST – End Cigarette Smoke Thailand [no longer listed as a member in 2023]¹¹³
• EU for Snus (Sweden)
• GVC – Greek Vapers Club
• Helvetic Vape (Switzerland)
• IG-ED – Interessengemeinschafft E-Dampfen (German E-cigarette Interest Group)
• M.O.V.E. (Medical Organizations Supporting Vaping and E-cigarettes)[no longer listed as a member in October 2022]¹¹⁴
• New Nicotine Alliance (NNA) Australia [no longer listed as a member in October 2020]¹¹⁵
• NNA Suitsuvaba Eesti (Estonia)
• New Nicotine Alliance (NNA) Sweden
• NDS – Norse Damselskap (Norwegian Union of Vapers)
• NBS – Not Blowing Smoke (US)
• Provapeo Mexico
• RDTA – Asociación Argentina de Reducción de Daños por Tabaquismo (Argentine Association for Tobacco Harm Reduction)
• The Vapers (Philippines)[no longer listed as a member in 2023]¹¹³
• THR Brasil – Tobacco Harm Reduction Brasil
• THRA Canada – Tobacco Harm Reduction Canada
• UBV-DBD – Union Belge pour la Vape/ Belgische Damp Bond (Belgian Union for Vaping)
• Vapers Finland
• Vapers in Power (UK)
• ZVS – Zdruzenje Vejperjev Slovenije (Slovenian e-cigarette consumer advocacy group)

The following organisations joined INNCO after 2019, and were still members as of June 2023:¹¹⁶¹¹⁷

• ARDT Iberoamerica, South America
• ASOVAP Chile, ASOVAP Costa Rica, ASOVAP Peru
• CASA (Africa)
• THR Malawi, THR Nigeria, THR Kenya,
• Veipum Lifum (Iceland)
• Vallanpara Egyesulet (Hungary)

Affiliate Organisations

The following are, or have been, listed as affiliates of INNCO:

• Vapers.org.uk¹¹¹¹¹⁷
• Taiwan Tobacco Harm Reduction Association (TTHRA)¹¹⁵¹¹⁷
• MOVE – Malaysian Organisation of Vape Entity [no longer listed in February 2023] ¹¹⁸
• CAPHRA – Coalition of Asia-Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates [no longer listed in February 2023]¹¹⁸

Current lists of members and affiliates can be found on the INNCO website.

Relevant Links

• International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations (INNCO) website

TobaccoTactics Resources

• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World
• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World Grantees
• Philip Morris International

TCRG Research

L. 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

Stopping Tobacco Organizations and Products, Tweetable Influence: The Tobacco Industry’s Attempt to Engage in COP8, STOP blog, 12 November 2020, available from: exposetobacco.org

References

The post International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations (INNCO) appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Relationship with the Tobacco Industry

LALIVE has worked for Philip Morris International (PMI).¹²⁵¹²⁶

2010-2016: Represented Tobacco Company in Lawsuit Against Uruguay

In 2010, LALIVE was one of three law firms that represented PMI in its lawsuit against the government of Uruguay for allegedly breaching the 1991 Switzerland-Uruguay Bilateral Investment Treaty by introducing tobacco policies affecting tobacco packaging and trademarks.¹²⁵¹²⁷ LALIVE laywers who worked on the case included Veijo Heiskanen, Franz Stirnimann, and Samuel Moss.¹²⁸ The case was dismissed in 2016.¹²⁷

• For more information on this case, visit our page on Philip Morris vs the Government of Uruguay.

2009: Prepared Report Arguing Against Tobacco Plain Packaging

In July 2009, two years before Australia became the first country to introduce the mandatory requirement for the plain packaging of tobacco products, PMI commissioned LALIVE to prepare a report summarising alleged legal concerns with this tobacco policy. The result was a report titled ‘Why Plain Packaging is in Violation of WTO Members’ International Obligations under TRIPS and the Paris Convention”,¹²⁶ which claimed that plain packaging was a severe breach of intellectual property (IP) rights, and warned that those countries imposing this measure would expose themselves to World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute settlement proceedings.
LALIVE’s report was used by PMI to undermine legitimate independent evidence on plain packaging and lobby decision makers in the Netherlands¹²⁹¹³⁰, Australia, and the the UK against plain packaging. The report was also cited by other tobacco industry-funded research on plain packaging, including a paper written by law firm Bird and Bird LLP.¹³¹
LALIVE’s report was one of many third-party reports opposing plain packaging. Specifically it was used to voice one of the tobacco industry’s main arguments against plain packaging – that the policy breached IP rights.

• Evidence that debunks the tobacco industry’s argument that the plain packaging policy breaches IP right, can be found on the page Countering Industry Arguments Against Plain Packaging: It Breaches Intellectual Property Rights.

Other Affiliations

UNITAR

In 2012, Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) criticised LALIVE for making money by pitting corporations against governments, whilst at the same time running e-learning courses on investment arbitration for UNITAR, the United Nations Institute for Training and Research.¹³² In September/October 2016, LALIVE and UNITAR ran the course ‘Introduction to Investment Arbitration’.¹³³

TobaccoTactics Resources

• Philip Morris International
• Philip Morris vs the Government of Uruguay
• Third Party Techniques
• Countering Industry Arugments Against Plain Packaging: It Breaches Intellectual Property Rights
• Plain Packaging in the UK: Tobacco Industry Funded Research, Expert Opinion and Public Relations
• Australia: Funding Think Tanks and Hiring Independent Experts
• Bird and Bird LLP

Relevant Link

LALIVE’s website

References

The post LALIVE 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.¹⁴¹ The tax policy increased government revenue but decreased tobacco smuggling, as well as tobacco affordability and consumption.¹⁴¹ 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.⁴⁵¹⁴²

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 2019.⁴⁹¹⁴³

WHO Urges Swiss Government to Ratify the FCTC

In August 2019 the WHO released a statement urging governments to comply with Article 5.3.¹⁴⁴ 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”.¹⁴⁴

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.

The Foundation now also includes a list of awarded grantees and associated grants on its website,¹⁵⁴ with each grant being assigned to one of three categories: Health and Science Research (HSR) (previously Health Science & Technology (HST)); Agricultural Diversification (AgL); or Industry Transformation.¹⁵⁵ However, this list of grantees is not always comprehensive, see section below for details.

In July 2020, FSFW uploaded a set of documents to report on its progress on its 2019-2021 Strategic Plan.¹⁵⁶ These included an overview of the grants process,¹⁵⁷ a mid-year report on operating expenses;¹⁵⁸; updated lists of grantees in both Health, Science & Technology (HST) and research streams;¹⁵⁹¹⁶⁰; and a list of published, pre-print and future FSFW-funded reports and publications.¹⁶¹

In 2022, FSFW published its 2022-2024 Strategic Plan, which includes further details of its grant focus areas over this period.¹⁶²

Visit the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World: Research Database to find out more about its research outputs

FSFW Grantees

The following spreadsheet collates information from the FSFW tax returns from 2018 to 2021, plus the 2020 strategy update, to provide a comprehensive list of grantees.^{149150151152153}

To view and download the spreadsheet, click HERE.

Grantees for 2022

In May 2023, the Foundation released its 2022 tax return, which listed grants awarded in 2022.¹⁵³ Grants for projects that appeared in the 2022 tax return, but did not appear in previous tax returns are listed below, with the title of their grants.

New grant projects for existing grantees

• Alternative Research Initiative: Office # 31, 1st Floor, Al- Anayat Mall, Islamabad, Pakistan Support capacity of PANTHR (Pakistan Alliance for Nicotine and Tobacco Harm Reduction) to increase access to tools that support cessation and tobacco harm reduction in Pakistan, including engaging with health professionals to reduce impediments to access
• Analytisch- Biologisches Forschungslabor GmbH: Conduct a literature review of nicotine’s role in human health & Research the efficacy of tobacco harm reduction products as tools for smokers to quit combustible tobacco products
• M Group, Inc: Conduct nonpartisan analysis and research and disseminate to the public regarding risk proportionate taxation of tobacco products in Malaysia. Specifically, how tobacco excise taxes impact illicit trade and public health
• Michigan State University (MSU): Support FSFW grantee’s work at the MwAPATA Institute, an independent think tank, which focuses on research in areas such as economics policy, to promote agricultural transformation in Malawi
• Yayasan Pembangunan Indonesia: Prepare and disseminate reports analyzing economics, economic policies, and health costs of tobacco products (cigarettes, e- cigarettes, and heated tobacco products) in Indonesia

New grantees

• Blue T-Matrix, LLC: Engage in a three- part project focusing on China including: (i) a critical review of the importance of offering help to smokers to quit or switch; (ii) a study estimating the health and economic benefits of reduced harm products, and the factors affecting initiation, cessation, and switching rates; and (iii) the creation of a reduced- harm products tracking system
• Cyntax Health Projects PVT LTD: Develop protocols for a randomized, double-blind, two-arm parallel, clinical trial to compare the effectiveness of different tobacco harm reduction products in general adult population in low- and middle- income countries
• Faculty of Medical Sciences University of Kragujevac Serbia: Research the effects of electronic nicotine delivery systems on phenotype and function of immune cells of patients with chronic inflammatory diseases
• Innovative Development Solutions: Develop tools to study the needs of marginalized smokers and other tobacco users
• OX1ST LTD: Researching intellectual property and technological innovation to promote smoking cessation and tobacco harm reduction in low- and middle-income countries
• Physicians Research Institute: Develop a web-based presentation on tobacco harm reduction for distribution to state medical societies and member physicians
• South Asian Forum for Environment: Study the behavioral dynamics of tobacco smokers in India, Bangladesh and Nepal
• Strategic Health Research Limited: Develop a study protocol for comparing the efficacy of tobacco harm reduction products to nicotine replacement therapy as tools for smokers in Pakistan to quit combustible tobacco products
• Tel Aviv University: Sponsor scholarships for Malawian students to attend a one-year program at the Nitsan Lab to gain skills and education around smallholder innovation at Tel Aviv University so these students may return to Malawi and contribute to agricultural diversification

Grantees for 2021

In May 2022, the Foundation released its 2021 tax return, which listed grants awarded in 2021.¹⁵² Grants that appeared in the 2021 tax return, but did not appear in the 2020 tax return are listed below, with the title of their grants. Some organisations appear for the first time in the 2021 tax return, meaning they had never received FSFW grants before.

Out of all the new grants paid in 2021, nearly all fell under the FSFW category of “Health and Science Research”, with only 4 out of 17 falling other categories: a new grant for Euromonitor International, categorised under “Industry Transformation”, and two grants to Malawi (Opportunity International and the Rotary Club of Lilongwe), categorised under “Agriculture and Livelihoods”. A grant for Pakistani organisation QBAL SMC PVT LTD seemed to also be categorised as “Agriculture and Livelihoods”, despite the aim of the grant being research into tax policies and newer nicotine and tobacco products.¹⁶³

New grant projects for existing grantees

• BOTEC Analysis, LLC: Further develop the drivers of smoking cessation in five countries with legalized alternative nicotine delivery systems (ANDS) through a series of additional journal articles, econometric studies, and a full-length book on optimal nicotine regulation and Conduct an investigation and analysis and develop recommendations regarding the (i) literature addressing the relationship between COVID-19 and tobacco and nicotine products; (ii) the impact of various tobacco/nicotine-related COVID restrictions around the world on smoking and alternative nicotine delivery system (ANDS) use.
• Cambridge Design Partnership Ltd: Disseminate findings of scoping work related to key impediments to mass adoption of RRPs in low- and middleincome countries
• Cornell University: Develop empirical evidence to help provide education around public policies to end smoking in this generation.
• ECLAT srl: Bridge the gaps and build accountability in media communications around tobacco harm reduction science and Establishment of a Center of Excellence for the Acceleration of Harm Reduction.
• Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey, The (TEPAV): Research and disseminate findings relating to the policies and economics around ending smoking in Turkey.
• Euromonitor International Inc: Conduct the Tobacco Marketing Study in support of the Tobacco Transformation Index to establish a framework for tobacco companies’ marketing practices to support transition away from High-Risk Products while preventing uptake of Reduced-Risk Product alternatives by non-smokers and youth.
• QBAL SMC PVT LTD: Provide and disseminate a comprehensive research study on tax and health policies in Pakistan, focusing on health benefits, and optimal tax policies for noncombustible nicotine products to help smokers quit and stem the sales of illicit harm reduction products.
• Rose Research Center, LLC: Examine the acceptability and outcome of a harm reduction approach to tobacco use for individuals with serious behavioral health disorders and determine the association with decrease in smoking.
• Yale University: Conduct cohort study and perform real-world data analysis to inform development of online interventions aimed at stimulating engagement for smokers unable to quit; Conduct research on misinformation on social media on tobacco harm reduction and COVID-19 and interventions to correct misinformation about tobacco harm reduction and Explore the relationship between COVID-19 and discourses around tobacco products, including ecigarettes, acknowledging that information about tobacco use (and harm reduction products) during the pandemic comes from varying sources.

New grantees

• ASCRA Consulting Inc.: Conduct and disseminate research focused on policies around cessation and tobacco harm reduction in the Philippines. Develop a network of stakeholders including tobacco harm reduction advocates, medical professionals, and others.
• Foundation for Professional Development: Research to determine the effects of tobacco use and smoking on long-term recovery from mild COVID-19 in South Africa. Disseminate results, including by publishing a manuscript(s) in a peer-reviewed scientific journal(s).
• M Group, Inc.: Conduct an analysis of tobacco excise policy and opportunities for risk-proportionate reform in Indonesia
• Movimiento Pro Vecino: Promote multi-sectoral engagement and awareness in Mexico, and Latin American region.
• Opportunity International, Inc.: Develop innovative financial products to help foster agricultural transformation in Malawi.
• Rotary Club of Lilongwe: Sponsor the travel of Malawian graduate students to study at Tel Aviv University’s Nitsin Lab so they may gain skills and education around smallholder innovation and return to Malawi and contribute to agricultural diversification.
• SERMO INC: Conduct global survey of physicians to develop actionable insights to drive smoking cessation and harm reduction success worldwide.
• Synergeia Foundation, Inc: Assess results of the tobacco cessation program of government in Philippines relative to its objectives and conduct an exploratory study of the market and policy environment for non-tobacco products.

Grantees for 2020

In May 2021 the Foundation released its 2020 Tax return, which listed grants as of May 2021.¹⁵¹Some of these grants had previously been listed in a Mid-Point Strategy Update the Foundation released in July 2020. Grants that appeared in the 2020 Tax Return but did not appear on the 2019 tax return are listed below, with the title of their grants.¹⁵⁹¹⁶⁰ The names of new grantees for 2020 (i.e. organisations that have not previously received a grant from FSFW) are in bold.

The Foundation appears to have created a new category to encompass all of its “Health, Science and Technology” (HST) grants on its website: “Health, Science and Technology (Research, Education, and Awareness)” and eliminated the previous “Presidential Grants” category.¹⁶⁴

In its 2020 Midpoint Strategic update, FSFW further divides the HST category into HST and HST+: those grants under HST+ include advocacy and non-scientific research.¹⁵⁹

The 2020 Tax Return featured several grants awarded to charitable organisations and for humanitarian purposes. Some of these are linked to COVID-19 relief funds and may represent a new Corporate Social Responsibility strategy.

Health, Science & Technology (HST)

• AF Development Care LLP: Alternative livelihood Options for Women Bidi Rollers- Primary Research and Policy Mapping of home-based Women bidi rollers of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka
• Alternative Research Institute: COP9 – Increasing Awareness
• American Masala: 51 Shades of Smokey Grey
• Asociación Argentina de Servicios y Estudios Médicos de Avanzada: COP9 – Increasing Awareness
• Biochromex: Nicotine product relative risk assessment
• Centre for Health Research and Education: Evaluating the feasibility and establishment of a multi-center network for tobacco research and cessation in India
• Child Sight Foundation: Economics of cessation and THR in South Asia: A Scoping Study and Situation Analysis
• COHRED USA – Council on Health Research for Development: Strengthening national research system capacity in Low- and Middle-Income countries in support of tobacco control, health, equity and development. Brief Title: NRS for FCTC20-21-22
• Child Sight Foundation: Review of progress in tobacco control in five countries in Southeast Asia including identification of gaps in policy relevant research
• Conrad Foundation: Conrad Challenge winners 2019 and 2020
• Cornell University: Economic Analysis of Harm Reduction, Hyperbolic Discounting, and Menthol
• Cornell University: An Economic Study of Risk Perceptions and Consumer Demand for Harm Reduction Products
• Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey (TEPAV): Economic analysis of tobacco, tobacco products, and their alternatives in Turkey and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
• Ernst & Young AG: Synthesize and formulate lessons learned from countries with ANDS availability which have seen drastic drops in number of smokers. A separate project: Identification of observable smoker characteristics that are linked to cessation success
• Etheim Biotics, LLC: Multi-regional study to examine the impact of smoking and vaping on the human microbiome
• Euromonitor International Inc: EU Menthol Ban Impact Analysis
• FP Group: Sponsorship of Her Power Summit
• Healthy Initiatives: Economics of ending smoking epidemic by evaluating the status and the gaps in existing TC policies in Ukraine, the Russian Federation and number of developing Former Soviet countries in East and Central Asia (ECA) region
• Institute for Human Development: Study legal protections impacting Beedi workers in India
• International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations: Strengthen and build capacity for Tobacco Harm Reduction as a tool to reduce incidence of smoking
• International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations: COP9 and NCDs
• Just Managing Consulting: Public Health and Government Investment in Tobacco – Phase 1
• Just Managing Consulting: Public Health and Government Investment in Tobacco – Phase II
• The Lung Foundation (established by Oncimmune Plc): Investigate the nexus of COVID-19 and nicotine use.
• Oncimmune Ltd: Characterization of COVID-19 outcomes in a high-risk cohort: Assessment of background levels of autoantibodies in an at risk population of smokers as a prognostic marker for severe COVID-19 infection.
• Oncimmune Plc: Establishment of a trust (the “Lung Trust”) suitable for e the application, receipt, and administration of future grant awards
• Patras Science Park: Scoping work for development of an Institute for Research and Innovation on THR
• Qbal (Quality Belligerence): Situation analysis and development of a comprehensive report on tobacco economics in Pakistan
• Sustainability Inc: Tobacco Transformation Index stakeholder engagement, development and facilitation of Advisory Panel, and post-publication project review
• Yale University: Support Yale University to work with Signals Analytics as Signal Adapts a platform already in use for FSFW to help in humanitarian efforts around COVID-19
• Yayasan Pena Bulu: Build capacity to share stories that present facts about THR and nicotine use to all stakeholders

Agriculture & Livelihoods (AgL)

• Causal Design: Advisory service work stream to support programming and implementation along the ATI theory of change
• LTS International Limited: Advisory Service for M&E and Programming
• LTS International Limited: Working Paper Series – How can Gender inequalities in the Tobacco Value Chain inform interventions towards inclusive livelihood diversification
• Thanthwe Holdings Limited: Contribute to the expansion of protected cultivation in Malawi and neighboring countries.
• Palladium Group Global: Bamboo as A Solution
• University of Illinois: Feed the Future Soybean Innovation Lab for Value Chain Development [PENDING]
• University of Minnesota: Data Revolution for Agricultural Markets (DRAM) Validation Exercise [PENDING]

Charitable Donations

In May 2021, the FSFW’s tax return revealed a number of organisations which had received grants for charitable and humanitarian purposes.¹⁵¹ In some cases these were connected to COVID-19 but in other cases the purpose was obscure.

• Caritas Italiana: Grant for charitable, humanitarian purposes. Grant went on to fund COVID-19 relief in Sicily.¹⁶⁵
• Hartford Foundation for Public Giving: US$500,000 grant for charitable, humanitarian purposes to this American organisation
• International Rescue Committee: US$500,000 grant for charitable, humanitarian purposes to this American organisation
• Lega Italiana Anti Fumo (LIAF): Grant for charitable, humanitarian purposes. No further information available about outcomes of this grant. The Chief Scientific Advisor (previously President) of LIAF is Riccardo Polosa.
• Merkos L’Inyonei Chinuch: A US$100,000 grant for charitable, humanitarian purposes was made to this Jewish educational charity based in Italy.
• National Smallholders Farmers Association of Malawi (NASFAM): Grants for charitable, humanitarian purposes. No further information available about outcomes of this grant. Current FSFW board member, Dyborn Chibonga, served as CEO of NASFAM for 18 years.¹⁶⁶
• Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations (PM CARES): US$18,000 grant for charitable, humanitarian purposes to this Indian charitable trust chaired by the Prime Minister to alleviate the impact of COVID-19
• Zodiac Broadcasting Station Limited: This Malawi based media organisation received US$42,842 in 2020 for charitable and humanitarian purposes.

Problem of transparency around the Foundation grantees

FSFW grantees do not always disclose Foundation funding in publications, reports and news media. The statement in the Grants Process Overview document, published by FSFW in July 2020, reads:¹⁵⁷

“Grantee shall take all necessary measures to publicize this Grant and disclose that FSFW is the source of the Grant in any resulting publications and shall acknowledge the Grant in its internal and annual reports, and in any exchanges with the media. Any publication relating or referring to FSFW, in whatever form or by whatever means or medium, including internet, must include the following statement: ‘Produced with the help of a grant from the Foundation for a Smoke- Free World, Inc. The contents, selection and presentation of facts, as well as any opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the authors and under no circumstances shall be regarded as reflecting the positions of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, Inc.’”

TobaccoTactics has identified several occasions on which grantees have failed to consistently and openly disclose their FSFW funding. For examples, see our page on Riccardo Polosa and the Centre for Health Research and Education (CHRE).

Both the 2018 and the 2019 tax returns from the Foundation showed several discrepancies with the “Awarded Grants” section of the Foundation´s website. Included on the spreadsheet of FSFW grantees is a column that notes discrepancies between the publication of grantee names and purposes on the FSFW grantee webpage and its tax returns. On the “Awarded Grants” page, grantees are organised by which of the Foundation’s three “core pillars” funding was awarded through. The “Presidential Grants” category appeared to be a fourth classification of grant unexplained by the Foundation’s website.¹⁶⁴ It was then eliminating and the new HST category introduced (see above).

The following are new grantees were included on the strategic update, but do not appear on the FSFW website as of August 2020:¹⁶⁴

• AF Development Care LLP
• FP Group
• Oncimmune Ltd
• Oncimmune Plc
• Yayasan Pena Bulu

The following grantees have received grants from FSFW, as documented by its tax returns, but do not appear on the FSFW website as of August 2020:¹⁶⁴

• BRAC: This grantee returned its FSFW funding (see below).
• Clinivantage Healthcare Technologies
• Medical University of South Carolina Foundation
• N. Srivastava Foundation for Scientific Education & Research
• Telenor Health ASA: This grantee returned its FSFW funding (see below).
• University of California San Francisco
• University of Cape Town: UCT has put in place a policy not to accept tobacco industry funding (see below). 

Notes on grantees

• The Influence Foundation, which owns and operates Filter magazine, has received funding directly from PMI in 2018, 2019 and 2020.¹⁶⁷
• Law Enforcement Action Partnership, a fiscal sponsor of the Influence Foundation, which in turn is a sponsor of Filter magazine, has received FSFW grants.¹⁶⁷. By September 2020 it had spent all its US$2220,000 grant to “share stories” about harm reduction.¹⁶⁸
• Jed Rose, President and CEO of Rose Research Center has received funding from Philip Morris.¹⁶⁹ Rose is also on the Science Advisory Board of Embera Neurotherapeutics, Inc., another FSFW grantee.¹⁷⁰
• In July 2019, it was revealed that BRAC was returning this funding.¹⁷¹
• The University of Cape Town has put a policy in place to not accept further tobacco industry or FSFW funding.¹⁷²
• In September 2020, TCRG received confirmation that Telenor Health had returned its funding.¹⁷³

Relevant Links

• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World homepage
• Tobacco Free Kids’ Industry Watch on the Foundation
• Stopping Tobacco Organizations and Products (STOP) Analyses of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World’s Tax Returns

TobaccoTactics Resources

• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World
• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World: People
• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World: Centres of Excellence
• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World: How it Frames Itself
• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World: Research Database
• Philip Morris International
• Front Groups
• Ogilvy
• Kantar
• Influencing Science
• Influencing Science: Funding Scientists
• Knowledge-Action-Change (KAC)
• Centre for Research Excellence: Indigenous Sovereignty and Smoking (COREISS)
• NOSMOKE Institute
• Centre of Excellence for the Acceleration of Harm Reduction (CoEHAR)
• Centre for Health Research and Education (CHRE)
• Centre for Agricultural Transformation
• International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations (INNCO)
• Centre for Substance Use Research (CSUR)
• Alternative Research Initiative (ARI)
• Jed E. Rose

TCRG Research

• The Philip Morris-funded Foundation for a Smoke-Free World: tax return sheds light on funding activities, T. Legg, S. Peeters, P. Chamberlain, A. Gilmore, The Lancet, 6 June 2019
• Big Tobacco is funding the anti-smoking lobby but leaked documents reveal the real reason why, A. Rowell, The Conversation, 13 March 2018

References

The post Foundation for a Smoke-Free World Grantees appeared first on TobaccoTactics.