The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) is an international treaty that aims to reduce the supply and demand of tobacco. The WHO FCTC includes a specific obligation, Article 5.3, requiring Parties to protect public health policies from commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry.¹

• More information on Article 5.3, and tobacco industry attempts to undermine the WHO FCTC, can be found on the TobaccoTactics FCTC page.
• A summary and timeline of the relevant WHO FCTC regulations can be found on FCTC Regulations on the Need to Protect Public Health Policies from Tobacco Industry Interference.

The Parties to the WHO FCTC usually meet every two years at the Conference of the Parties (COP). In 2023, the 10^th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 10) was due to take place from 20 to 25 November in Panama, immediately followed by the third Meeting of the Parties (MOP 3) from 27 to 30 November, to oversee the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products. This treaty was adopted at COP 5 and addresses means of countering the illicit tobacco trade. However, both events were postponed to February 2024. COP 10 took place from 5 to 10 February in Panama, immediately followed by the MOP 3 from 12 to 15 February.

COP 10 and MOP 3 provisional agendas are available on the website of the Convention Secretariat of the WHO FCTC.

In August 2023, the WHO released a statement indicating its concern that the tobacco industry and others working in its interest have approached some Parties. Accordingly, the statement calls for Parties to “remain vigilant” in preparation for COP 10 and MOP 3.²

This page summarises activities and interference by the tobacco industry and its allies in relation to COP 10 and MOP 3, as well as highlighting criticism aimed at the WHO and COP.

• See History of Interference by the Tobacco Industry and its Allies During COP and MOP for incidents of documented interference at previous COPs.

Tobacco Industry Activities

Discussion of COP 10 by the tobacco industry, industry associates, and industry media, began several months before the conference was due to take place. It focused largely on the topic of tobacco harm reduction, in addition to some lobbying activities documented in tobacco growing countries. Some examples are detailed below.

British American Tobacco

In April 2023 (during the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum GTNF’s ‘In Focus’ online series), James Murphy, director of research and science at British American Tobacco (BAT), highlighted COP as an opportunity to discuss tobacco harm reduction.³

In May 2023 (at industry event TabExpo), Flora Okereke, head of global regulatory insights and foresights at BAT,  reportedly said that the nicotine industry should work together to fight for harm reduction and send a single message to governments ahead of COP 10: that newer nicotine and tobacco products have a role to play in smoking cessation.⁴ She added:

“I think it is time for you to use your access to your government …Remember, the parties are the ones mandated to make decisions at this meeting. Countries have the mandate to raise their voice and their opinion.”⁴

Philip Morris International

In October 2023, The Guardian newspaper published an article based on a leaked internal email, sent the previous month by Philip Morris International (PMI) senior vice-president of external affairs Grégoire Verdeaux.⁵ The article points to a widespread PMI lobbying campaign against stronger regulation of “smoke-free”  products ahead of the COP. Verdeaux said that for the previous 18 months his company had worked to “leverage the right support” at the meeting but added: “At this stage we are not where we would like to be – in terms of intelligence, positions and delegations”.⁵

Verdeaux described the COP 10 agenda as “nothing short of a systematic, methodical, prohibitionist attack on smoke-free products”. He said that PMI would be at the event in Panama and intended to protest its exclusion, adding that it could be “the most helpful private partner the WHO could have in the fight against smoking”.⁵

During the week of COP 10, Verdeaux attended the launch event of a campaign by Crime Stoppers International that highlighted illicit tobacco trade in Panama.⁶⁷ Verdeaux stated “We can learn from examples in Europe where sensible regulations have been introduced to control, regulate, and tax alternatives to cigarettes. So, you don’t corner smokers into the black market”.⁶

Tobacco industry associations meet with government in Brazil

In June, a public hearing was held at the Chamber of Deputies, Brazil’s lower house of Congress, to clarify the country’s position at COP 10.⁸ It was attended by representatives from various government departments, as well as representatives of the Tobacco Growers’ Association of Brazil (AFUBRA), the Brazilian Tobacco Industry Association (ABIFUMO) and the Interstate Tobacco Industry Union (SindiTabaco).⁹ The Ministry of Health reportedly declined to attend.¹⁰

During the meeting, the president of SindiTabaco described the WHO FCTC as “the worst dictatorship” for not allowing the “the parties with the greatest interest to take part in the debates”. “We should monitor Brazil’s position in the next COP and warn of the consequences of a misguided approach”, he added.¹⁰

In July, representatives from several industry associations including SindiTabaco met with the Minister of Agriculture to ask for his support ahead of COP 10.¹¹ A similar meeting was held with the Minister of Agrarian Development a few days later, in which the minister reportedly criticised initiatives to replace tobacco as a cash crop.¹²

In October there was a further meeting between industry associations and representatives of various government departments.¹³ In the meeting, industry representatives called for transparency on the Brazilian position at the COP and the inclusion of tobacco growers at every stage of the discussions.¹⁴

In February 2024, the Brazilian parliamentary committee, consisting of state and federal representatives from tobacco-growing regions in Southern Brazil, was denied entrance to COP 10.¹⁵ The committee held daily debriefing sessions that were moderated by the head of the Brazilian delegation, Carlos Henrique Abreu e Silva.^{16 17} Abreu e Silva also met with the Tobacco Growers’ Association of Brazil (Afubra) and the International Tobacco Growers Association (ITGA) during one of the meetings.¹⁸

Tobacco Industry Media and Events

Filter magazine

In July and August 2023, Filter magazine published articles on COP 10. Filter is owned by The Influence Foundation, which receives direct and indirect tobacco industry funding, from tobacco companies and the PMI-funded Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW).

Written by the pro-tobacco blogger Martin Cullip, one article, titled “Time Short to Stop the WHO’s Assault on Tobacco Harm Reduction”, he described “threats” which could be posed by the COP 10 meeting, including prohibition of non-tobacco e-liquid flavours, and the extension of regulations on tobacco products to newer nicotine and tobacco products. He called upon “the public, the safer nicotine trade and tobacco harm reduction advocates” to petition key policymakers and national delegates.¹⁹

In another article, he stated that the WHO was “dishonestly railroading delegates toward a preordained outcome of heavy restrictions and prohibition” and that parties “make their decisions based on robust evidence, rather than a steady stream of propaganda”.²⁰

Around COP, Filter magazine published several articles by Lindsey Stroud of the Taxpayers’ Protection Alliance (TPA), which criticised the WHO.²¹²²²³ The Influence Foundation declared that it had received funds from the TPA “to support travel to Good COP”, a parallel meeting run by the TPA during COP 10.²⁴

See below for more on the TPA.

Tobacco Reporter

Industry publication Tobacco Reporter, which is owned by the Tobacco Merchants Association (TMA), has a dedicated section on its website called ‘Special Report: COP 10’, where it published articles before, during and after COP. The stated aim was to examine COP 10 closely, arguing that the decisions to be made at the COP could have far reaching implications for the tobacco industry, suppliers, tobacco farmers, smokers and users of e-cigarettes.²⁵

Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum 2023

The Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum (GTNF) is an annual tobacco industry-funded event, sponsored by major transnational tobacco companies including PMI, BAT and Imperial Brands.²⁶²⁷

On the final day of the 2023 conference, a session titled ‘Talking about COP 10’ was led by Derek Yach, former FSFW president and board director, and Flora Okereke of BAT.²⁸ The discussion focused on the topic of tobacco harm reduction.²⁹

• For more information on the GTNF, please see the page on the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum.

Tobacco Industry Allies’ Activities

Knowledge-Action-Change

In April 2023, Knowledge-Action-Change (KAC), a FSFW grantee, published a COP briefing paper on the website of its Global State of Tobacco Harm Reduction (GSTHR) project. The brief stated that the COP lacked transparency and accountability, and included instructions for how to engage with the COP and lobby officials.³⁰

In October 2023, KAC published a further briefing on the COP 10 agenda, which described “The principal threats to THR [tobacco harm reduction] and consumer access to SNP [safer nicotine products]”.³¹

The following month, KAC published another briefing paper focused on tobacco harm reduction consumer advocacy groups, criticising their exclusion from COP 10.³²³³ This briefing has been referred to in industry media.³⁴³⁵³⁶

Institute of Economic Affairs

The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), a “free market” UK think tank, has a history of collaboration with the tobacco industry, including receiving financial support from tobacco companies.

The Director of the IEA’s “Lifestyle Economics” unit, Christopher Snowdon, authored an article published by The Sun criticising the WHO’s stance on e-cigarettes as “unscientific and fanatical”, described it as a threat to global health, and said the UK had an opportunity to oppose proposals relating to e-cigarettes during COP 10. He also described the WHO as a “fundamentally corrupt and incompetent organisation”.³⁷

Snowdon attended the Taxpayers Protection Alliance’s ‘Good COP’ event (see below for more information).³⁸

• For more information see Institute of Economic Affairs: COP 10.

International Tobacco Growers Association

The International Tobacco Growers’ Association (ITGA) is a front group set up and run by the major cigarette manufacturers.

ITGA held several meetings in the year leading up to COP 10 in which the COP featured as a discussion point, and ITGA criticised the WHO FCTC for “excluding” farmers from discussions.³⁹⁴⁰⁴¹ After its ‘Africa Regional Meeting’ in June, ITGA’s report of the event stated “ITGA President is in a crusade to raise awareness of the false claims raised by WHO about tobacco farming and about the economic viability of alternatives crops”.⁴⁰

According to Mercedes Vázquez, ITGA CEO, the organisation applied for observer status at COP 10, though as of November 2023, it had received no reply.⁴²⁴³ ITGA’s applications to observe previous COPs were refused.⁴² It later released a statement ahead of COP 10 in February arguing for publicly attended sessions at COP, and for tobacco growers to be able to participate in the discussions.⁴⁴

During of the week of COP 10, ITGA continued to criticise the WHO and FCTC.⁴⁵ ITGA also met with the Brazilian ambassador to Panama, head of the Brazilian delegation.⁴⁶¹⁸

• For more information see International Tobacco Growers Association: COP 10.

Tobacco Institute of India

The Tobacco Institute of India (TII) was founded in 1992 by ITC Limited, Godfrey Phillips India and VST Industries Ltd. All three companies have affiliations with either BAT or PMI.⁴⁷

At an awards ceremony for tobacco farmers, Sharad Tandan, TII director, said that he hoped that COP 10 would not take “ill-conceived policy measures on issues like tobacco crop diversification etc, which will have a devastating impact on India’s export performance and on the livelihood of millions of farmers, farm workers, and their families”.⁴⁸

World Vapers Alliance

The World Vapers Alliance (WVA) is a US-based organisation funded by the Consumer Choice Center, which in turn receives funding from tobacco industry, and by BAT directly.⁴⁹⁵⁰

In September 2023, WVA published an article, arguing that “the WHO has neglected evidence” for the use of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid because “it has already taken a side in the vaping debate”. It also argued that prohibition would lead to “irreversible illicit trade”.⁵¹

During the week of COP 10, WVA then criticised the “exclusion of consumers from the decision-making process”.⁵²

• For more information see World Vapers’ Alliance: COP 10.

Center of Excellence for the Acceleration of Harm Reduction

In October 2023, the Center of Excellence for the Acceleration of Harm Reduction (CoEHAR), a FSFW grantee, sent a letter to the European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, Stella Kyriakides. It stated:

“Our hope is that, in light of scientific evidence, the FCTC and the European Union conduct a careful, balanced, and transparent review of the available scientific evidence regarding non-combustible products, compared to conventional cigarettes, to provide indispensable information for making decisions in the interest of millions of smokers.”⁵³

We Vape

We Vape was founded in 2020 by Mark Oates, a fellow at Adam Smith Institute, a UK think tank that has a history of collaboration with the tobacco industry, including accepting funding.

In an article published in August 2023, Mark Oates highlighted what he called “big issues” with the WHO’s recommendations approaching COP 10, and stated that We Vape was running its “Back Vaping Save Lives campaign, to educate and embolden the millions of vapers in the UK whose freedom to use a life-saving tool is under attack”.⁵⁴ He called upon “the vaping community and beyond” to write to their local MPand provided a template letter.⁵⁵

In October 2023, Oates called for readers to oppose tax increases on e-cigarettes during COP 10.⁵⁶

New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is a lobby group which has previously received funding from BAT.⁵⁷ It ran a campaign entitled “Clear The Air” to promote newer nicotine and tobacco products, and has repeatedly opposed tobacco control measures, including plain packaging.⁵⁷⁵⁸⁵⁹

In January 2024, it called upon New Zealand’s delegates to COP 10 to reject the WHO’s call to action on e-cigarettes which called for strong regulation and enforcement.⁶⁰.⁶¹

Other Criticism of the WHO and COP

Taxpayers Protection Alliance

The Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) is a US-based not-for-profit which lobbies on tobacco related topics, including outside the US. (The US is not a party to the FCTC)

TPA announced that they would be running a parallel meeting called “Good COP” to counter the WHO’s “Bad COP”.³⁸ It described the meeting as “a rapid response and fact checking conference in Panama City” that would “bring in experts and consumers, often ignored by WHO, to be heard during the discussion of tobacco and tobacco harm reduction”.⁶² The National Taxpayer’s Union and the Tholos Foundation, an affiliate of Americans for Tax Reform, were listed as partners of the event. See Lobby Groups for information on these ‘taxpayer’ organisations.⁶³

Event speakers listed on the agenda included representatives from the TPA, JCIC International Consultancy, the Institute of Economic Affairs, We Vape and the Centre of Excellence for the Acceleration of Harm Reduction (CoEHAR).⁶⁴⁶³

In the run up to COP 10, International Fellow of the TPA, Martin Cullip, and Director of the TPA’s Consumer Center, Lindsey Stroud, authored several articles criticising the WHO. One  stated that “permitting commercial tobacco harm reduction products costs governments nothing” and urged them to “roundly reject the WHO’s advice”.⁶⁵⁶⁶⁶⁷

• For more information see Taxpayers’ Protection Alliance: COP 10.

Global Britain

Campaigns ‘Say No To WHO’ and ‘Save My Vape’ have similar objectives. Their websites invite visitors to sign a petition, though the websites and associated Facebook pages contain no details about the organisations or their funders.⁶⁸⁶⁹ Both campaigns have been linked to Global Britain Ltd, run by PR consultant Brian Monteith. Monteith has a long history of opposition to tobacco control.⁷⁰

Smoke Free Sweden 2023

Health Diplomats, a health consulting company set up by Delon Human, a South African doctor with a history of collaboration with BAT, set up the Smoke Free Sweden 2023 campaign. Human is described as the “leader of the Smoke Free Sweden movement”.⁷¹

In November 2023, following the postponement of COP 10, Smoke Free Sweden published a press release, urging the FCTC to use the delay “to consider smoke-free success stories like that of Sweden.”⁷¹

UK All-Party Parliamentary Group for Vaping

UK Member of Parliament Adam Afriyie, vice chair of the UK’s All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Vaping, spoke at the industry-sponsored Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum (GTNF) in South Korea in September 2023, where he warned against handing over control of UK policy to the WHO.⁷² Afriyie was a member of a panel moderated by David Bertram from EUK Consulting, which has worked for BAT since 2000.⁷³⁷⁴

Afriyie’s expenses were paid, as in 2022, by the GTNF trust.⁷⁵⁷⁶ Afriyie has been accused of having a conflict of interest because of his connections to Elite Growth, a firm that sells disposable vapes, of which his wife is a shareholder.⁷⁶ He has been closely associated with the UK Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) while the Big Four transnational tobacco companies were members (UKVIA stated in September 2023 that it no longer has tobacco company members).⁷⁷⁷⁸⁷⁹ For more information see the UKVIA page.

Afriyie has argued in Parliament that the UK should work more closely with the tobacco industry,⁸⁰ and has lobbied for the legalisation of snus in the UK, on behalf of Swedish Match.

Other APPG members have also been critical of COP.⁸¹⁸² Mary Glindon MP, another vice chair of the APPG, called COP 10 “the biggest threat to the U.K.’s world-beating harm reduction strategy” with its “singular mission focused on actively encouraging countries to ban vaping as part of its tobacco control approach, purposefully flouting the evidence of vaping’s success.”³ Glindon was speaking at the GTNF’s In Focus webinar in April 2023. Other keynote speakers included Delon Human, James Murphy of BAT, and Derek Yach, former FSFW president.³⁸³

The APPG for Vaping closed down in November 2023, reportedly because no-one was able to take over Mark Pawsey’s position as chair.⁸⁴

Relevant Links

• World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)
• FCTC COP website
• The Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products
• FCTC MOP website

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• COP & MOP
• Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
• Protocol to Eliminate Illicit trade in Tobacco Products
• Illicit Tobacco Trade

References

The post Interference around COP 10 & MOP 3 appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

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

This page covers flavoured tobacco, including menthol cigarettes, in low and middle-income countries (LMICs).⁸⁷⁸⁸

Background

Flavoured tobacco products are available in various forms around the world, including products previously only used in particular regions or countries. For example in Indonesia, the vast majority of smokers use kretek, clove-flavoured cigarettes,⁸⁹⁹⁰ and they are now available in other countries.⁹¹⁹²

Flavoured tobacco is used in waterpipe, a device which originated in middle-eastern countries and is increasingly popular elsewhere, including among young people.⁹³

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

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

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

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

Specific challenges for LMICs

LMICs with no ban often have other major tobacco control policy gaps that are not necessarily menthol/flavour related but worsen the negative impact of menthol/flavours.⁹⁴ One such policy is plain, or standardised, packaging,  which can include restrictions on flavour descriptors as well as colours on packaging which are known to signify flavour (e.g. green for menthol).⁹⁵ However, plain packaging policies have yet to be implemented in many countries, including some high-income countries, so this would be a significant challenge in LMICs. Another relevant policy is the prohibition of marketing, especially near schools.⁹⁶

Governments have more conflicts of interest in tobacco growing areas as they receive much needed foreign currency for tobacco exports,  and multinational companies can threaten this income stream if governments attempt to put tobacco controls in place.⁹⁴⁹⁷  However, apart from rare exceptions the tobacco industry contributes little overall to the balance of payments.⁹⁸⁹⁹

Regulatory challenges

The WHO published brief guidance on the regulation of menthol and flavoured tobacco which summarised some regulatory options including restrictions on: the sale of menthol branded products,  the use of menthol at noticeable levels (giving a ‘characterising flavour’),  or banning any menthol ingredients.¹⁰⁰  The report points to likely opposition from the tobacco industry in countries or regions with an established menthol market.¹⁰⁰ This was the case with the European Union (EU) menthol ban which only came into full force in 2020, after the tobacco industry had successfully lobbied for a delay. Testing for characterising flavour is more difficult and expensive than a ban on ingredients; this makes banning menthol as an ingredient particularly efficient for LMICs.

The WHO noted that:

“A ban on all flavour agents that increase tobacco product attractiveness, rather than focusing on menthol exclusively, can provide an alternate route to restricting menthol, and may prevent the unwanted introduction of menthol substitutes.”¹⁰⁰

Research and data

As of 2021, when TCRG researchers conducted a review of evidence on menthol/flavour in LMICs,¹⁰¹ there were very few research papers from countries in Eastern Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean region, and Africa.

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

More research is needed on menthol and flavour in LMICs to help governments monitor the tobacco industry and its products, as recommended by the WHO: “An evidence base using data collected from the region of interest can provide more direct support for regulation.”¹⁰⁰

Market in LMICs

Evidence suggests menthol and flavoured tobacco products are widely used in LMICs.  Data from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Policy Evaluation Project suggests that menthol is smoked by more than 20% of smokers in several middle-income countries. Although the dates vary (see the note above on data challenges) this research gives an indication of the scale of the problem. The highest rates were found in Zambia (42% in 2014) and Thailand (35% in 2012). Kenya and India also had over 20% menthol smokers, with China just under just under that level.¹⁰²

A study from Johns Hopkins University, between 2015 and 2017, found a range of flavoured and capsule cigarettes on the market in those LMICs with the highest number of smokers: Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Russia, Thailand, and Vietnam.¹⁰³

The main TTCs operating in these countries (PMI, JTI, and BAT) mostly sold menthol or mint flavours. China National Tobacco Corporation (CNTC) sold  a mix of flavours.¹⁰³

There is also evidence from a number of studies that menthol and flavour tobacco use is rising, either as a proportion of the market or substantively.  Evidence from TCRG research shows that after the implementation of the European Union (EU) menthol ban in 2020, there was a marked increase in the share of menthol/flavoured products in some LMICs.¹⁰¹ A study of cigarette packs in Brazil, Indonesia, the Philippines, Russia, Thailand, and Vietnam, between 2013 and 2016, found that the number of flavour capsule variants on the market was growing.¹⁰⁴ Most were mint and menthol flavour but with others the flavour was unclear from the product name.¹⁰⁴

A number of studies have identified related marketing activities.  Marketing strategies for flavour capsules are likely driving their global growth particularly among young people in LMICs.¹⁰⁵

TCRG’s review  of tobacco industry strategies underpinning the growth of menthol/flavoured tobacco use in LMICs  highlighted widespread marketing in stores (including retailers near schools), on billboards, on TV, online and via brand ambassadors. The packaging of flavoured and menthol products, legally displayed in stores, was  found to be colourful with non-conventional, appealing names for flavours.¹⁰¹

Tobacco companies also use symbols on cigarette sticks to indicate that they contain capsules.¹⁰⁶ Researchers studying this form of marketing in LMICs have described the space on a cigarette as “valuable communicative real estate” for tobacco companies, which could be better used to display public health messages.¹⁰⁶

Research and data from specific regions and countries is summarised below. We refer in many places to TCRG research based on 2019 cigarette market data from Euromonitor. In this data ‘high market share’ means 20% or more of the total cigarette market in that country in 2019. ‘High market share growth’ means that the share doubled between 2005-19 and was growing from 2017.¹⁰¹ We link to regional and country profile pages on TobaccoTactics, where available.

Africa

Nigeria has high menthol/flavour market share and high market share growth.¹⁰¹

Cameroon has high market share, the only other country in the region for which this data was available. (For Egypt see Eastern Mediterranean region below.)¹⁰¹

Tanzania

JTI sells a menthol cigarette called Sweet Menthol through its subsidiary in Tanzania. It describes this product as “the leading local mainstream menthol brand”.¹⁰⁷

Zambia

JTI owned brand Sweet Menthol is the third most popular cigarette in Zambia.  It is cheap and is usually sold as single sticks.¹⁰⁸  On its webpage for Zambia, JTI describes itself  as a leaf farming company, and does not mention that it sells cigarettes in the country. A locally owned company, Roland Imperial,  also sells menthol cigarette brands.¹⁰⁹

ITC survey data showed a high prevalence of menthol smokers in Zambia, with 43% of smokers choosing the product.¹¹⁰ Menthol was most commonly used among younger smokers, those with a middle income, and those that don’t smoke every day. Over a third of smokers indicated that they thought menthol cigarettes were less harmful than non-menthol.¹¹⁰

Kenya

ITC survey data from Kenya also suggests a high prevalence of menthol smokers.¹¹⁰¹¹¹ In 2018, 21% of smokers with a regular cigarette brand smoked menthol or sweet menthol (although Euromonitor estimates that only 7% of cigarette sales are menthol).¹⁰¹  More women smoke menthol than men in Kenya, and two thirds of smokers believed that menthol is less harmful than other cigarettes.¹¹⁰¹¹¹

Ethiopia

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

• For details see Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco

This was a pre-emptive ban as flavour sales were low. However there has been a lack of enforcement at the retail level.⁹⁴ Flavoured products are not made in Ethiopia and more collaboration with customs is needed to prevent illicit importation.⁹⁴ There is also a lack of awareness that the ban includes waterpipe products.¹⁰⁰

Since 2017, two years after the ban was enacted, JTI has owned 70%  the state owned tobacco company, NTE.¹¹²

Latin America

Menthol cigarettes are popular in Latin America, and increasingly so in some countries.¹⁰¹ Guatemala and Peru have high market share and high market share growth. There is high market share in Columbia and the Dominican Republic, and high market share growth in Argentina, Bolivia and Costa Rica.¹⁰¹

Use of flavour capsule cigarettes is particularly high in Chile and Mexico.¹¹³  According to BAT’s annual report in 2014,  sales of  flavour capsule cigarettes had increased in the region despite price rises, while overall cigarette sales were down.¹¹⁴

A study of over 1,000 retailers located close to schools in Latin American cities (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile and Peru) found that the majority (85%) sold flavoured cigarettes, and most (71%) sold capsule versions.⁹⁶ (Similar findings were reported in Uruguay, a high income country, immediately before the implementation of plain pack regulations in 2020.)¹¹⁵

These products were frequently displayed near the point of sale, or confectionary. Some stores also had advertisements and price promotions.⁹⁶ Unconventional flavour descriptors such as “fusion blast” and “ruby ice” were very common.¹¹⁶

Brazil

Survey data from 2016-2017 among adult smokers in Brazil found that over 50% supported a ban on menthol and over 60% supported a ban on all additives.¹¹⁷ Support did not vary across sociodemographic groups. When menthol smokers were asked what they would do if menthol cigarettes were banned, a third reported they would quit, around 20% would reduce the amount they smoked and a similar number would switch to non-menthol cigarettes. Slightly fewer said they would still find a way to get menthol cigarettes.¹¹⁷

ITC survey data from the same period suggested that 8% of smokers with a regular cigarette brand smoked menthol.¹¹⁸ 13% believed that menthol cigarettes were less harmful than non-menthol cigarettes, and over a third reported that they were smoother on the throat and chest.  Nearly two thirds  of surveyed smokers supported a complete ban on all cigarette additives, including flavourings.¹¹⁸

An online sample of women aged 16- 26 (smokers and non-smokers) preferred packs with flavour descriptors.¹¹⁹

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

Chile

In 2013, Chile sought to implement a law banning substances that cause higher levels of addiction, harm or risk, leading to tobacco industry resistance and interference.¹⁰⁰

• For details see Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco

Mexico

Studies of retailers in Mexican cities, found that the majority sold menthol and flavoured products, and more than half of stores situated near schools sold flavour capsule cigarettes.¹²⁰¹²¹ Many flavoured cigarettes have descriptors which suggest there is a flavour, but the type of flavour is unclear: chemical analysis of dual flavoured cigarettes suggested flavours were menthol and another flavour, for example fruit.¹²²

A study in Mexico City found that colour and flavour descriptors on cigarette packs made the products more appealing, and some smokers believed they would taste better.¹²³

Guatemala

A study of convenience store retailers in Guatemala found that all sold flavoured tobacco products.¹²⁴

The majority (88%) of indoor tobacco advertisements in Guatemala were found to be for capsule cigarettes.¹²⁴

South East Asia & Western Pacific

There is high market share of menthol/flavour in India, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand, and high market share growth in Vietnam.¹⁰¹  A 2010 study noted that governments in the region had no legislation banning exotic flavours of cigarettes and cigarettes with new flavours had appeared in Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines.¹²⁵

Philippines

Menthol has been advertised to appeal to young women in the Philippines since the 1970s with menthol brands common for many decades.¹²⁶ PMI, JTI, BAT and Korea Tobacco & Ginseng (KT&G) all sell flavoured capsule cigarettes in the Philippines.¹²⁷

Menthol packs studied in the Philippines were harder than non-menthol (for capsule protection) giving a quality feel. Flavoured capsule brands had a greater technological appeal,¹²⁷ and packs were rated as more attractive by young adults.¹²⁸

Blue and white packs were perceived to be less harmful than other colours, as were the descriptors ‘light’ and ‘cool’, whereas the term ‘strong’ was perceived as more harmful.¹²⁸  Researchers called for greater action and support for banning flavour additives.

Malaysia

In Malaysia, menthol cigarette marketing has been aimed at young people and women.  In the 1980s Brown and Williamson’s Newport menthol cigarettes were marketed in Malaysia with youthful American images and were sold at a cheap price point.¹²⁹ An internal document from 1993 reveals how the company was developing sweet and fruit flavours for the Malaysian market. ¹²⁹¹³⁰ A 2003 study noted that the menthol variant of Cartier Vendome (a BAT brand at the time) was described as ‘pearl tipped’ so likely to appeal to women.¹³¹

In 2013, vanilla, mint and fruit flavoured cigarettes were on sale, and strawberry cigarette packs with pink packaging were documented.¹³²

China

In China ‘flavour capsule’ was found to be one of the most common cigarette terms used in online tobacco marketing.  One website explicitly linked flavour capsules with female smokers.¹³³

Indonesia

In Indonesia the dominant cigarettes are kreteks which are flavoured with cloves.  Industry attempts to introduce their own cloved flavoured products had failed at least to 2004.¹³⁴  In 2009 PMI and BAT acquired two domestic manufacturers which allowed them access to the kretek market.¹³⁵ In 2009 PMI launched the first super slims kretek for women and Marlboro black menthol for young men.  By 2012 BAT had launched several kretek brands. Both companies were aware that kreteks  are particularly carcinogenic due to the presence of toxic chemical compounds: Anethole, Coumarin and Eugenol.¹³⁵

In Indonesia the flip lid of the cigarette packet was used by Esse (owned by Korean Tobacco & Ginseng, KT&G) to promote the brand with phrases evoking flavour, like “sweet surprise” and “its honey”.  Research found seven cigarette brands with capsules.  Flavours included mint, menthol, berry and honey.¹³⁶

Eastern Mediterranean

There is high market share growth in in Pakistan and Egypt .¹⁰¹

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

Eastern Europe

Data shows that in Russia menthol/flavour has both a high market share and high market share growth.¹⁰¹

Other LMICs in the region with high market share growth are Ukraine, Bosnia Herzegovina, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.¹⁰¹

Relevant Links

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

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

WHO FCTC decision on banning waterpipe flavour (2016)

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

TobaccoTactics Resources

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

TCRG Research

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

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

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

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

References

The post Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco in LMICs appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) is an international treaty that aims to reduce the demand and supply of tobacco.¹³⁹ The WHO FCTC includes a specific obligation, Article 5.3, requiring Parties to protect public health policies from commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry.¹⁴⁰

• More information on Article 5.3, and tobacco industry attempts to undermine the FCTC, can be found on the TobaccoTactics FCTC page.
• A summary and timeline of FCTC regulations can be found on: FCTC Regulations on the Need to Protect Public Health Policies from Tobacco Industry Interference

FCTC parties usually meet every two years at a Conference of the Parties (COP).¹⁴¹

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 9^th session, or COP 9 as it is called, was postponed from 2020 to November 2021, to be held virtually.

Immediately following COP 9 is the second Meeting of the Parties (MOP 2). This oversees the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products. This treaty was adopted at COP 5 and addresses means of countering illicit trade in tobacco products.¹⁴²

This page summarises interference by the tobacco industry and its allies around the 9^th Conference of the Parties (COP 9).  It also covers the second session of the Meeting of the Parties (MOP2).

Incidents of documented interference at previous COPs are can be found in a timeline on:
History of Interference by the Tobacco Industry and its Allies During COP and MOP

Grants from the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World

The Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW) is wholly funded by Philip Morris International (PMI). Details of grants noted below can be found in FSFW’s tax returns.¹⁴³¹⁴⁴

INNCO

• In 2020, the International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations (INNCO) received a grant of US$65,000 to: “assist the organization in its work to garner consensus and support for COP 9 to consider harm reduction as integral to tobacco control”.¹⁴³ INNCO received a further US$52,000 for this grant in 2021.¹⁴⁴ During COP 9, INNCO organised some lobbying activities:
  • Published a report titled “Misinfodemic Dossier” criticising the WHO and Bloomberg Philanthropies.¹⁴⁵¹⁴⁶
  • Organised a demonstration outside the UK Parliament.¹⁴⁷
  • Participated in a parallel event organised by CAPHRA.¹⁴⁸

INNCO again had its application rejected for observer status at COP.¹⁴⁹

Knowledge Action Change

• Another major FSFW grantee,¹⁴³¹⁴⁴  Knowledge-Action-Change (K-A-C), publisher of the Global State of Tobacco-Harm Reduction (GSTHR) reports, has criticised the FCTC and COP. K-A-C  released a GSTHR report titled “Fighting the Last War: The WHO and International Tobacco Control” on 27 October 2021.¹⁵⁰ Fellow FSFW grantees, and now ex-President of the FSFW Derek Yach, spoke at the launch event. Ahead of the launch, GSTHR released a set of briefing papers that criticise the WHO FCTC and sought to use the UK’s stance on harm-reduction to influence international discussions at COP 9.¹⁵¹

Analysis of FSFW’s 2020 tax return shows it awarded specific COP 9-related grants to two organisations, in Pakistan and Argentina, in addition to INNCO.¹⁴³

Alternative Research Institute – Pakistan

• Pakistan’s Alternative Research Institute, received US$176,400 in 2020 to “build a momentum to include smokers’ concern in tobacco efforts before the COP 9”.¹⁵² It received a further US$193,760 in 2021.¹⁴⁴

Asociación Argentina de Servicios Médicos de Avanzada – Argentina

• In 2020, the Argentinian Asociación Argentina de Servicios Médicos de Avanzada, received US$128,850 from FSFW for a project to “garner consensus and support for the ninth session of Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (COP 9) to consider harm reduction as integral to tobacco control”.¹⁴³ It received a further US$11,699 in 2021.¹⁴⁴

Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey – Turkey

• In September 2021, the Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey (TEPAV), another FSFW grantee, ¹⁵³ launched a report titled “The Economics of Curbing Smoking in Turkey: A Scoping Review”.¹⁵⁴ The report argues that the effectiveness of the implementation of WHO FCTC measures in the countries that adopted them have not all been up to expectations.

Tobacco Industry Meeting with Government in Brazil

• In August 2021, there was a collaboration meeting between members of the Brazilian government and the tobacco industry in preparation for COP 9. During this meeting, the tobacco industry asked for the support of the Brazilian government.¹⁵⁵ A summary of tobacco industry positions was sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to “ensure that the government takes into account the views of the tobacco supply chain and act to ensure that COP 9 does not result in harm to their interests”.¹⁵⁶Civil society organisations denounced the industry’s attempts to interfere with the preparations for COP 9. As a result, the Brazilian National Commission for the Implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (CONICQ), called for an open meeting in September. During this meeting, Federal Deputy for Rio Grande do Sul Marcelo Moraes and other government representatives, dismissed CONICQ efforts to discuss the Brazilian positions towards COP 9, arguing that CONICQ’s existence was under legal challenge.¹⁵⁶¹⁵⁷CONICQ was created in 2003, within the scope of the Ministry of Health, and has achieved international acclaimed for its achievements in tobacco control policies. However, along with other institutional spaces, the Commission was extinguished by the Decree No. 9,759/2019, during President Bolsonaro´s administration. The issue was taken to the Federal Supreme Court, where the measure was declared unconstitutional. After this decision, the Ministry of Health reinstated CONICQ´s legitimacy and existence. Over 70 organizations working in tobacco control in Brazil, Latin America and the world supported CONICQ and requested “the urgent and necessary formal reconstitution of the Conicq, by means of a presidential decree” ¹⁵⁷ to prevent the tobacco industry undermining of the institution and any setbacks to the implementation of the FCTC.

COP Enquiry run by UK All Party Parliamentary Group

• In February 2021, the UK All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Vaping, which is made up of MPs with a common interest in the issue but has no legislative power, set up an inquiry into COP 9. The consultation report was published in March 2021 listing several recommendations, including that the UK should consider its options in relation to future funding of WHO and WHO FCTC, and that it should consider withdrawing funds if WHO continues to discourage vaping as a form of smoking cessation.¹⁵⁸ It also called for the UK to include harm reduction public health experts in its delegation to COP 9 and to encourage other member states to follow suit.¹⁵⁸ Submissions to the inquiry included one from a tobacco company, Japan Tobacco International (JTI); and other individuals and organisations with industry links: the Adam Smith Institute, the International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations (INNCO), Mark Pawsey MP, JUUL Labs, the Reason Foundation, the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), the UK Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA), and The Federation of Philippine Industries, which has tobacco company members including Philip Morris International (PMI) and JTI.¹⁵⁹

COP 9 highlights

Held virtually in 2021, COP 9 provided the opportunity for Parties to meet and for some decisions to be made before 2023. However, most key discussions were postponed until COP10. Tobacco industry interference was detected, as the tobacco control community and several parties had warned.¹⁶⁰

Interference Within the Conference of Parties

Statements by the delegations of some parties argued for the  inclusion of “all” stakeholders in tobacco control discussions.¹⁶¹ and for investment in harm reduction efforts. Delegations that were more actively using pro-industry statements were mostly coming from low-and middle-income countries (LMICs),¹⁶²¹⁶³ and from non-parties to the FCTC.¹⁶⁴ Evidence shows that the tobacco industry puts even higher pressure into LMICs, where the FCTC implementation is often in its initial phases.¹⁶⁵¹⁶⁶

Noise around COP

Tobacco industry allies that could not attend COP 9 sessions, did not miss the opportunity to advocate on behalf of the industry´s interests on social media and through small scale street demonstrations¹⁶⁷¹⁶⁸ Attacks on WHO, COP and FCTC by tobacco industry allies aimed at undermining the importance of the work of WHO, the COP and the relevance of the FCTC, while at the same time requesting observer status to officially join COP.^169170171 Side events were organized to discuss what was happening at COP including parallel stream called “sCOPe” broadcast on YouTube.¹⁷²

More detail on FSFW grantee activities during COP 9 can be found in the STOP FSFW COP 9 Monitoring Brief

Relevant Links

• World Health Organization’s (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)
• FCTC COP website
• WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products
• FCTC MOP website
• The tobacco epidemic has not gone away (WHO news, 1 November 2021)

TobaccoTactics Resources

• COP & MOP
• Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
• Protocol to Eliminate Illicit trade in Tobacco Products
• Illicit Tobacco Trade

References

The post Interference around COP 9 & MOP 2 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).¹⁰⁰ Using flavouring agents as additives is thought to promote and sustain tobacco use, and therefore WHO recommends banning menthol and other flavours in cigarettes.¹⁷⁵

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.¹⁷⁶¹⁷⁷ Menthol, a type of alcohol that can be obtained from mint plants or manufactured, is the most widely used cigarette flavour.^178179180 Besides adding a flavour, menthol desensitises receptors that lead to irritant sensations from nicotine, making the experience of smoking less harsh.¹⁷⁸¹⁸¹ In the United States non-menthol cigarette consumption declined by 33%  from 2009-2018 but menthol cigarette consumption only declined by 8%.¹⁸²

Smoking menthol may help establish smoking among young people,^{180183184185186187} and reduce the likelihood of quitting.^183184188 Banning menthol should discourage sustained tobacco use.¹⁸³¹⁸⁹

Menthol cigarettes could contribute to health inequalities: in the USA they have been found to be disproportionately smoked by those with lower incomes,^181190191 those with a lower level of education,¹⁸¹ women,¹⁹² African Americans,¹⁹³¹⁹⁴ the LGBTQ+ community,¹⁹⁵¹⁹⁶ and young people.¹⁹⁷

Menthol cigarettes are more commonly used by less-established or ‘novice’ smokers, and those who are experimenting with smoking.¹⁹¹¹⁹⁷ Research shows that the tobacco industry has manipulated the menthol content of cigarettes to promote smoking initiation and sustain tobacco use.¹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹ Menthol was found to be key to industry strategy in Singapore, to both recruit and retain young smokers.²⁰⁰

Mass distribution and marketing of menthol did not start until the 1960s although a US patent for menthol flavouring was granted in the 1920s.^179180201 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.²⁰²²⁰³ Tobacco companies have been developing flavour capsules since the 1960s and multiple innovations have been patented, but not yet marketed.²⁰⁴ Cigarettes with flavour capsules are popular with young people due to the interactivity, and the novelty of smoking a cigarette with two flavours.^202203205 Flavour capsule use is high in Chile, Mexico and South Korea.²⁰⁶ In some countries use is high among women.²⁰⁶ Some markets, such as the UK, only had menthol flavoured capsule cigarettes available, and not other flavours.²⁰⁷

Menthol can be present in tobacco products not labelled as menthol.²⁰⁸²⁰⁹ 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.¹⁸¹²¹⁰

Regulation and Industry Interference

Regulation of flavours that make smoking more palatable is recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (FCTC).¹⁰⁰¹⁷⁵ According to a review conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, as of 2021, about 40 countries have active or pending policies on flavour.²¹¹ 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.²¹²

Turkey was the first country to successfully introduce a ban on flavoured cigarettes, including menthol, in 2015, to be fully implemented in 2020.²¹³²¹⁴

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.¹⁰⁰²¹⁵ The ban was comprehensive, covering manufacture, import, distribution, and  sale. It bans aroma as well as taste, effectively banning additions to packaging.⁹⁴

While most flavour policies mention reducing youth use, only some restrict flavour descriptors on tobacco packaging.²¹¹

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.²¹⁶²¹⁷

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.²¹⁶ 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.²¹⁶

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.²¹⁸²¹⁹ 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”.²¹⁹

The Brazilian government finally won the court case in February 2018, although the ban was not fully enacted due to ongoing interference.^211217216220 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.²¹⁶

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 2013.¹⁰⁰²²¹ 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.¹⁰⁰²²² 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.²²³²²⁴ Despite passing the law in the Senate, as of February 2020 the law had yet to be implemented.²²⁵ 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”.²²⁴ 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.²²⁶ The tobacco industry lobbied against extending the ban to non-cigarette products (cigarillos and smokeless tobacco).²²⁷ After implementation tobacco companies developed new variations on existing products, including small menthol cigars, to get around the ban.^100211228

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.^100229230231 First Nations reserves were included, removing a potential legal route for purchasing menthol after the ban, although products may still be available.²²⁹²³²

Canadian legislation bans menthol’s use as an ingredient because menthol’s presence at subliminal levels reduces the negative sensations of smoking.^233234235

United States

In 2019, 18.5 million people in the US were current smokers of menthol cigarettes.²³⁶ 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.²³²²³⁷ 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.²³⁶

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).²³⁶²³⁸  The ban would also cover tribal lands.²³²

As the tobacco companies make ‘massive profits’ from menthol, legal challenges and protests from the tobacco industry and third party allies are likely.²³⁹²⁴⁰ 30% of British American Tobacco’s operating profit is reported to come from the sale of menthol cigarettes in the US alone.²⁴¹

• 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.²¹³²⁴² 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).²⁴³ After protests against the TPD from the tobacco industry, implementation of the ban on menthol cigarettes was postponed to 2020.²⁴⁴²⁴⁵

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.²⁴⁶

• 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.²⁴⁷ 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.²⁴⁸

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.²⁴⁹

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.²⁵⁰

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.²⁴⁸

Across Canada, state menthol bans significantly increased quit success among menthol smokers compared with non-menthol smokers.²⁵¹  The ban also prevented relapse among smokers who had quit pre-ban. ²⁵² In 2015, even though some states had already passed legislation, 15% of 15 to 19 year olds reported smoking menthol cigarettes.²⁵³ Between 2018 and August 2020, 2-3% of  16-19 year olds were estimated to be smoking menthol or capsule cigarettes.²⁵⁴ Most menthol smokers switched to non-menthol cigarettes, and menthol accessories (which could provide a menthol flavour) remained on sale in Canada.²⁵²

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 2015.²⁴⁸

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.²⁵⁵

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.²⁵⁶ 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.²⁵⁶ Over 40% of menthol smokers  reported using flavour accessories post-ban, including filters, flavour cards, marker pens, and drops, which were not banned.²⁵⁷ 4% of all smokers used these accessories post-ban.²⁵⁷

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%.²⁵⁴  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-2021.²⁵⁸ Some remaining reports of menthol smoking could be at least partly because menthol accessories and cigarillos were still available.²⁵⁹

The tobacco industry attempted to boost menthol sales after the ban was announced.²⁶⁰ 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.²⁶¹ 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.²⁶¹

• 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.²⁶² 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.²⁴⁸ In Romania there was no increase in tobacco confiscations after the EU ban.²⁶³ Both before and after the ban, about 2% purchases in the Netherlands were illicit.²⁵⁷ Despite English smokers continuing to smoke menthol cigarettes after the menthol ban, there was no reported rise in purchasing of cigarettes from illicit sources.²⁵⁸

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.²⁶⁴

From 2010 to 2020, capsule cigarettes experienced significant market growth, with an average increase of 0.7 percentage points per year.²⁶⁵   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%).²⁶⁵ 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.²⁶⁵ 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.²⁶⁵

According to Euromonitor, in 2020, capsules accounted for 3.3% of the market worldwide (by volume) and menthol flavoured cigarettes 2.4%. ²⁶⁶ 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%).²⁶⁵

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%).²⁶⁵ 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.²⁶⁶

• 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.

Article 17 of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) encourages parties to promote sustainable alternatives to tobacco farming.²⁶⁹ There is a consensus that diversification programmes, designed for the local context, can improve farmers’ livelihoods.

Despite a global trend of decreasing tobacco consumption from 2000 to 2020,²⁷⁰ and an overall worldwide decline in tobacco leaf production during the same time period,²⁷¹ tobacco remains a popular cash-crop choice for many farmers, especially in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs) where the vast majority of tobacco farming takes place.²⁷²²⁷³  The global fall in tobacco leaf production has been accompanied by a production shift from Europe and other high income countries, towards lower income countries like Malawi, Kenya, Uganda and Zambia^271274275

The tobacco industry portrays tobacco farming as economically advantageous for governments and especially for farmers. Other claims include that it helps improve resilience, empowers low-income populations and strengthens communities, while the industry also tends to minimise the risks of tobacco growing for health and the environment.^276277278

In reality, tobacco farming often leads to economic hardships, labour exploitation, environmental degradation, and health problems for farmers. Farmers often have less influence within the political process than non-tobacco growers in the same area.²⁷⁹

Image 1: Tobacco leaf drying (Source: Shutterstock)

The myth of economic prosperity

According to the tobacco industry, tobacco cultivation promises high rates of return for investing in tobacco crops and long-term benefits to smallholder farmers.^276277278

However, tobacco growing is often less profitable for farmers than other crops, and tobacco-growing families are poorer than comparable non-tobacco-growing households.²⁷⁴²⁸⁰ In Lebanon, research has shown that small scale production is so unprofitable that it would not be possible without government subsidy.²⁸¹

Evidence shows that the labour costs of growing tobacco are enormous, as much as double the labour needed to produce other similar crops. For example, tobacco is amongst the most labour-intensive crops in Kenya, requiring over 1,000 hours of unpaid labour to produce one acre of tobacco.²⁸² The number of hours needed for tobacco growing stops families spending time attaining educational qualifications or developing skills that might lead to more lucrative livelihoods.

Tobacco growing also creates specific vulnerabilities for farmers:  they depend on tobacco companies for inputs and technologies, and are exposed to fluctuations in the price of tobacco leaf.²⁸³

In its reporting, the tobacco industry minimises the low rates of return on investment for tobacco growing and downplays the financial risks for the farmers. For example, BAT reported that in Kenya, tobacco farmers can either grow food for their families’ needs or have sufficient profits to purchase food.²⁷⁶ A 2020 study of tobacco farming in Kenya instead shows that most tobacco farmers are stuck in unprofitable ‘contract farming’ systems and 10-15% are food insecure.²⁸²

Contract farming

Most tobacco farmers work under a contract system with leaf buying-companies or directly with transnational tobacco companies like BAT.²⁸²²⁸⁴

Under these systems, farmers receive inputs like plants, fertiliser and machinery at the start of the season from leaf-buying companies, without having to pay for these upfront. In return, they commit to selling their tobacco to the leaf merchant. However, leaf prices are dictated by the buying companies, who often set these very low or reduce them during the contract period. Leaf buyers often use tobacco grading, or the classification of leaf quality, to reduce the offer price, often in disagreement with farmers.^282285286 Leaf buying companies can also deduct unfairly high costs from the payment they offer farmers, to pay back the inputs they initially provided.²⁸²

Contract farming rarely produces the high returns promised by tobacco and leaf-buying companies. Instead, contract farmers remain stuck in ‘bonded labour’: debt cycles where they never earn enough to repay their debts.^282284286287 Contracted farmers often have to rely on the unpaid labour of family members and children in fields in order to meet contract requirements.²⁸⁴

Farmers often understand that this contract system for tobacco farming is risky but agree to this work because they lack the credit to pursue other economic opportunities. Contract tobacco growing guarantees them the income, however low, that they need in order to pay for basic necessities like healthcare and education.²⁷⁴

The COVID-19 pandemic and profitability

The COVID-19 pandemic worsened the struggle of farmers to find fair prices for their tobacco leaf. In Malawi, farmers reported receiving less than half of the expected rate for their tobacco leaf at auction.²⁸⁸ Fears that crowded auction floors and direct contact between growers and buyers would promote transmission of the virus prompted Zimbabwean authorities to delay the opening of the tobacco market selling season.²⁸⁹²⁹⁰ Once the markets did open, new regulations stated that individual farmers would not be allowed onto auction floors where they could observe buyers; tobacco association representatives would instead sell leaf on behalf of farmers.²⁹⁰

• For more information on the tobacco industry and COVID-19, see our page on COVID-19

The climate crisis and profitability

The climate crisis in tobacco-growing regions makes profits from tobacco growing more unreliable.

In Zimbabwe, shorter and more erratic rainy seasons decrease the quality and quantity of tobacco crops, especially for smallholder farmers who can’t afford irrigation systems and rely on rainfall instead.²⁹¹

In the tobacco-growing region of Temanggung, Indonesia, the phenomenon of late tobacco harvesting seasons has become increasingly common. In this region, farmers have been losing income, as companies purchase tobacco leaf from other regions where harvesting happens earlier in the year.²⁹²

Farmers in tobacco growing regions that are heavily impacted by the climate crisis have been developing adaptation and mitigation strategies to maintain the profitability of their tobacco crops, such as irrigation systems and later harvesting. However, research indicates that “even with these adaptations tobacco and maize are riskier crops to grow than traditional grains.”²⁹¹²⁹³ soil degradation,²⁹⁴²⁹⁵ biodiversity loss,²⁹⁶ the use of pesticides,²⁹⁷²⁹⁸ and adverse effects on farmers’ health.²⁹⁹ Despite this, tobacco companies use ESG rankings and accreditations to clean up their image.³⁰⁰

• For more information, see the page Tobacco and the Environment

Image 2: A farmer carrying a bundle of tobacco leaf (Source: Shutterstock)

Vulnerable communities

Together with the narrative of economic prosperity comes the myth that impoverished and vulnerable communities are empowered. Philip Morris International (PMI) published a report in April 2020, focusing on the empowerment of women for change in its supply chain. In this report, PMI argued that it works to “empower women to play an active role in improving the household economic condition but also in enhancing the overall wellbeing of their children and maintaining a safe work environment” on tobacco farms.³⁰¹ However, a study in Zimbabwe concluded that women in households growing cash crops, in particular tobacco, were more likely to be disempowered.³⁰² A study conducted in China, Tanzania and Kenya concluded that few women in tobacco growing households in Tanzania and Kenya had any financial decision-making power. Women also face particular harmful effects to their health while working on tobacco farms, including the risk of miscarriage while pregnant.³⁰³

All four transnational tobacco corporations present a strong and compelling narrative around tobacco farming: that it will improve livelihoods, strengthen communities, provide good working conditions and deliver financially stable futures for farmers.^304305306307 For example, Japan Tobacco International (JTI) states on its website that “Growers know they will receive meaningful support that not only leads to improved yields and profits, but that also help improve the social conditions and quality of life in their communities.”³⁰⁸

However, a WHO report on tobacco and the environment published in 2017 found that the long-term consequences include “increased food insecurity, frequent sustained farmers’ debt, illness and poverty among farmworkers, and widespread environmental damage”.²⁸⁵ Tobacco farmers end up having to dedicate intensive labour hours to produce tobacco leaf, in inadequate working conditions, with low wages and unfair conditions that include child labour (see below).

• For more information on the tobacco industry narratives around farming see International Tobacco Growers Association

Health risks to farmers

Tobacco leaf production has many health risks, which are frequently underreported by the tobacco industry.

According to the World Health Organization, “each day, a tobacco worker who plants, cultivates and harvests tobacco may absorb as much nicotine as found in 50 cigarettes”.²⁷³ Nicotine poisoning, also known as green tobacco sickness, occurs as a result of exposure to wet tobacco leaves during tobacco cultivation. Children are more likely to develop green tobacco sickness, not only because they have a relatively smaller body size, but also because they have not yet built up the nicotine tolerance which is needed protect them from these side effects.²⁷⁶ Avoiding nicotine poisoning when working with tobacco plants is difficult, even when wearing protective equipment. BAT reported several cases of green tobacco sickness in its Brazilian farming operations, despite workers having worn protective equipment.²⁷⁶

Another risk resulting from tobacco farming is the exposure to agrochemicals, including pesticides. Researchers found that in Kenya, 26% of tobacco workers showed symptoms of pesticide poisoning;³⁰⁹ in Malaysia, this number was higher than a third.³¹⁰ In Bangladesh, where weed killer is frequently used in tobacco fields, significant levels of chemicals were also detected in local water sources, killing fish and soil organisms needed to maintain soil health.³¹¹

The risk of exposure to agrochemicals is generally lower for tobacco farmers in high-income countries than in LMICs, where the regulation of chemicals tends to be weaker.²⁹⁴ Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) plus eleven other persistent organic pollutants used in agrochemicals are banned in high income countries, but not in some LMICs.²⁹⁴³¹² Pesticides are often sold to tobacco farmers in LMICs without proper packaging or instructions.²⁹⁴³¹² The health effects that derive from chronic exposure range from birth defects and tumours to blood disorders, neurological diseases and depression.²⁹⁴³¹² Even tobacco workers who do not directly mix or spray chemicals, like harvesters, can be exposed to significant levels of toxins and are susceptible to pesticide poisoning.²⁸⁵

Child Labour

Child labour is a prevalent and long standing issue in the tobacco farming sector.³¹³

Children involved in the growing stages of tobacco farming take part in labour-intensive activities,³¹⁴ which poses risks to their health,³¹⁵³¹⁶ and limits their access to education.³¹⁷³¹⁸

Children working in tobacco farms are also more vulnerable to the health risks than adults, including the impacts of absorbing nicotine.³¹⁹

Many of the children working in tobacco fields in Kenya report handling fertilisers and chemicals, endangering their health.²⁸²³¹⁹

Tobacco farming and the FCTC

The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) is an international treaty that aims to reduce the demand and supply of tobacco.

It recognises that as countries and governments adopt measures to reduce the demand of tobacco products, they must also address the consequences of this demand reduction on tobacco farmers who rely on these crops for their livelihoods.³²⁰

Specifically, article 17 recognises the need to:

“promote economically viable alternatives to tobacco production as a way to prevent possible adverse social and economic impacts on populations whose livelihoods depend on tobacco production.”²⁶⁹

The tobacco industry argues that tobacco control policies threaten the economic benefits  that it claims tobacco growing brings to local farmers.²⁶⁹However, other crops can provide much more sustainable alternatives. In addition, demand reduction happens slowly, allowing farmers to diversify their crops gradually, reducing the economic impact.²⁶⁹

Parties to the WHO FCTC also have an obligation to:

“have due regard to the protection of the environment and the health of persons in relation to the environment in respect of tobacco cultivation and manufacture within their respective territories.” ³²⁰

• For more information see the page on Tobacco and the Environment

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental, Social and Governance

In response to increasing scrutiny over environmental degradation and the use of child labour in the tobacco supply chain, transnational tobacco companies have invested in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives which they describe to their shareholders in their Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) reports.³⁰⁰

• For more information, see the pages on CSR: Child Labour, and the Eliminating Child Labour in Tobacco-Growing (ECLT) foundation

The tobacco industry has also been involved in CSR programmes supporting farming diversification in tobacco growing regions, despite the FCTC specifically recommending that “policies promoting economically sustainable alternative livelihoods should be protected from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry”.²⁶⁹³²¹

• See Greenwashing in Malawi and the Centre for Agricultural Transformation (CAT)

PMI’s ‘Agricultural Labour Practices’ (ALP) Programme

On 10 December 2020, PMI published an article seeking to celebrate the International Day of Human Rights by promoting its achievements around its Agricultural Labour Practices (ALP) program. This programme was created by PMI in 2011, seemingly aiming to end child labour and protect workers’ rights and livelihoods.³²²

According PMI’s ALP 2020 report, the key principles of the programme include “no child labor, no forced labor or human trafficking, fair treatment, safe working environment, fair income and work hours, freedom of association, and terms of employment”.³²³ However, the timeline below (Image 3) from the same report, shows how, despite the programme having run for 9 years, PMI continues to use child labour in its supply chain. The company has given itself a further 5 years to end the practice.³²³

Image 3: Timeline of the ‘Agricultural Labor Practices Program’ (Source: Philip Morris International, ALP program 2020 report)³²³

• For more information on PMI’s ALP programme, and how tobacco companies fail to properly measure or manage the effectiveness of this type of initiative, see CSR: Child Labour

TobaccoTactics Resources

• Greenwashing
• Tobacco and the Environment
• CSR: Child Labour
• Tobacco Supply Chain Database: addressing the supply side of the tobacco epidemic

Relevant Links

• TCRG blog Supplying the deadly tobacco industry
• WHO World No Tobacco Day 2023: Grow food, not tobacco includes a myth buster on Tobacco growing
• WHO report: “Tobacco and the environment”
• Tobacco Atlas

TCRG Research

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 Tobacco Farming appeared first on TobaccoTactics.