In 2009, several retail groups and tobacco companies operating in Hong Kong came together to establish the Tobacco Control Concern Group (TCCG).¹²³

TCCG has lobbied the government on tobacco control issues, and has echoed well known industry arguments against taxation, including that increased tax fuels illicit tobacco trade.⁴¹

TCCG retail association members include the Coalition of Hong Kong Newspaper and Magazine Merchants.³

Relationship with the tobacco industry

Tobacco companies reported to be part of TCCG include British American Tobacco, Philip Morris International, Hong Kong Federation of Tobacco Industries Limited, and Pacific Cigar Company.³

Lobbying against tobacco tax increases

In 2009, TCCG lobbied the government to lower tobacco taxes, claiming that recent tax increases had failed to stop people from smoking and instead promoted the sale of illicit cigarettes, causing a drop in tobacco business.¹ However, a customs spokesperson noted that cigarette seizures had dropped, and there was no evidence of a growing trend in the sales of illicit cigarettes.¹ The tobacco industry often uses the argument that increases in tobacco tax will result in an increase in illicit trade.

In 2011, it was reported that TCCG had urged the government to reduce cigarette tax to a “more reasonable level”, stating that “Raising cigarette taxes has been proved to be an ineffective way to help people to quit smoking” and again citing a supposed risk of illicit trade.⁴¹

TCCG also submitted a document to the legislative council on this issue.² This stated that an independent survey had found that the public “strongly opposed the raising of tobacco tax”[translation],² and again repeated the argument that tax increases would not prevent youth smoking, and instead would lead to increases smuggling:

“it is unpractical to push them to give up smoking by substantially raising tobacco tax…poorer students will smoke illicit cigarettes”[translation].²

Research has shown that smoking rates in Hong Kong declined between 2009 and 2011, after tobacco tax increases in 2009.⁵ Other research has shown that the industry inflated its estimates of the level of the illicit cigarette trade in Hong Kong.⁵

TCCG presence on the Legislative Council Health Panel

In October 2015, Clear the Air, a tobacco control advocacy group in Hong Kong, highlighted that two TCCG consultants were sitting on the Health Panel of the Legislative Council. In a letter to the panel, Clear the Air questioned why this was permitted, given TCCG’s connection to the tobacco industry.³

Earlier that year in May 2015, those consultants had urged the Government to consult with the tobacco industry regarding a proposal to introduce new tobacco control measures, including an increase in the size of graphic health warnings on cigarette packaging, and suggested extending the ‘grace period’ for new package design.³⁶

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• The Coalition of Hong Kong Newspaper and Magazine Merchants
• Illicit Tobacco Trade
• Countering Industry Arguments Against Plain Packaging

References

The post Tobacco Control Concern Group (TCCG) appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

The Coalition of Hong Kong Newspaper and Magazine Merchants (CHKNMM) is a retail association representing over 35,000 newsstands in Hong Kong.⁷ It has lobbied against tobacco control policies including tobacco tax increases and graphic health warnings.

Relationship with the tobacco industry

CHKNMM members are newspaper vendors. Many of which sell tobacco products as part of their business.⁸

CHKNMM joined other retail groups and tobacco companies to establish the Tobacco Control Concern Group (TCCG) in 2009.¹³ Tobacco companies and trade associations reported to be part of TCCG include British American Tobacco, Philip Morris International, Hong Kong Federation of Tobacco Industry Limited, and Pacific Cigar Company.³

TCCG has lobbied against tobacco control policies, in particular tobacco tax increases, using the industry argument that increases in tax will result in an increase in illicit trade.⁴¹

Activities

Lobbying against tax policies

In 2011, CHKNMM and TCCG lobbied against tobacco tax increases. TCCG urged the government to reduce cigarette tax to a “more reasonable level”, stating that “Raising cigarette taxes has been proved to be an ineffective way to help people to quit smoking”, and citing a supposed risk of illicit trade.⁴¹ CHKNMM added “Our business has seriously shrunk since the tobacco tax increase…we observed people buying illicit cigarettes instead of actually quitting smoking”.⁴

In 2023, CHKNMM again campaigned against tobacco tax increases, stating that it would not help reduce smoking rates at the expense of the vendors’ interests. It also stated that “around 20 percent of cigarette consumers convert to buy illicit tobacco”.⁸

Research has found that previous tobacco tax increases did not lead to an increase in illicit cigarette consumption in Hong Kong,⁹ and has noted that the tobacco industry has a history of inflating estimates of illicit trade in Hong Kong.¹⁰

TCCG has also used this argument to oppose tobacco control policies.

• See the TCCG page for more details.

Lobbying for newer nicotine and tobacco products

In June 2018, proposals were released by the government for newer nicotine and tobacco products to be regulated in the same way as conventional tobacco products. Later that month, CHKNMM submitted a response to the proposal (not publicly available).¹¹¹²

The government then proposed amendments and submitted the Smoking (Public Health) (Amendment) Bill 2019 to the Legislative Council. This aimed to prohibit the import, manufacture, sale, distribution and advertisement of newer products, including e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products (HTPs). In April 2019, CHKNMM made written and oral submissions to the bill (not publicly available).¹³¹⁴¹²

In May 2020, CHKNMM held a press conference asking the government to allow policy relaxations that, it argued, would support an improvement in newspaper business trade. One of the requests was that heated tobacco products (HTPs) be included in the existing tobacco control framework, allowing newspaper vendors to sell these products. CHKNMM argued that a ban on HTPs would lead to an illicit market.¹⁵

In September 2020, CHKNMM argued that changes to HTP regulations were required to increase vendor’s income, due to business being severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and the smuggling of illicit cigarettes, citing a decrease in business of more than 50 percent.¹⁶

The Smoking (Public Health) (Amendment) Ordinance 2021 bill, was ultimately passed on the third reading in October 2021, coming into effect August 2022.¹²

Lobbying against graphic health warnings

In May 2015, the Food and Health Bureau in Hong Kong proposed new tobacco control measures, including increasing the size of graphic health warnings on cigarette packaging.⁶ The chairperson of CHKNMM, reportedly met with legislators and stated in a media report “We are against how the Government has handled the issue…Without differentiation in packaging, it will become easier to manufacture illicit cigarettes, and more difficult for consumers to tell the difference.” CHKNMM also cited the implementation of plain packaging in Australia, claiming that smoking did not decline but instead allowed illicit cigarettes to flood the market,⁶ although research does not support this.¹⁷ In July 2015, CHKNMM attended a legislative council meeting regarding bill, where it formally opposed the changes. It suggested that instead, the Administration should improve public education on the health effects of smoking.¹⁸

Government discussions took place throughout 2016 and 2017.¹⁹ During this time, the CHKNMM made a joint submission to the legislative council with I Smoke Alliance and the Hong Kong Smokers’ Rights Concern Group (not publicly available).²⁰ Both organisations are smokers’ rights groups which campaign against tobacco control laws.²¹²²²³

In 2017, CHKNMM threatened to protest, and said that they would lobby officials if the government tried to go ahead with the plan to increase the size of graphic health warnings.²⁴ Ultimately the bill was successful, and the law implemented in December 2017.²⁵

Professor Judith Mackay, a Hong Kong-based senior policy adviser to the World Health Organisation (WHO) was quoted in local media:

“I’ve never, in the last three decades, seen such opposition, lobbying or filibustering of a tobacco bill in Legco…An army of tobacco executives, lawyers and their allies have descended on Hong Kong to try to obstruct, delay and prevent the legislation going through”.²⁶

Smoking (Public Health) (Amendment) Bill 2005

In 2005, CHKNMM lobbied against a tobacco control bill which introduced a number of new regulations to protect the public from second hand smoke, and restrict tobacco advertising.²⁷²⁸²⁹

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• Tobacco Control Concern Group (TCCG)
• Illicit Tobacco Trade
• Countering Industry Arguments Against Plain Packaging

References

The post Coalition of Hong Kong Newspaper and Magazine Merchants appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Factasia.org is a Hong Kong based organization, founded in 2013, which promotes newer nicotine and tobacco products, including e-cigarettes (also known as electronic nicotine delivery systems, or ENDS) and heated tobacco products, and campaigns for their use in tobacco harm reduction. It is registered as a company, Fact Asia Consultants Ltd, in Hong Kong.³⁰³¹

As of October 2020, Factasia´s website stated:

“factasia.org seeks to represent the rights of adults in Asia who choose to enjoy smoking or other related forms of consumption of nicotine. factasia.org aims to protect their interests and to provide independent and unbiased data on the issues surrounding smoking – and related issues – in Asia.” ³²

According to the tobacco industry publication Tobacco Reporter, Factasia.org was formed to represent the rights and interests of smokers who choose to smoke or consume tobacco, and to provide data on the issues surrounding smoking in Asia.³³

Factasia.org receives funding from Philip Morris International, as well as the Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association (TVECA) and other companies providing services to the tobacco industry, according to its website.³⁴

However, Factasia.org states that it does not work for the tobacco industry. ³³

Activities

Factasia.org conducts its activities under three main themes that it describes as: “consumer choice, rational debate and sensible regulation”.³² It states that “Factasia.org aims to communicate with consumers as well as politicians, legislators and appropriate law enforcement officials”.³² According to Tobacco Reporter, Factasia “aims to lobby on behalf of the millions of growers, distributors and retailers throughout the region whose livelihoods are under threat from bad legislation and excessive taxation” ³³

Commissioned Surveys to Argue for Reduced Regulation

The organisation conducted several opinion surveys of smokers in Asia-Pacific markets through the polling company IPSOS. One survey conducted in 2015-2016 included responses from nine countries (Mecau, India, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Philippines, and New Zealand) and over 4,200 smokers.³⁵ This survey evaluated awareness, use and perception towards e-cigarettes. A similar survey was conducted in Hong Kong in 2018 with 1,000 respondents.³⁶ Results of these surveys were presented in global pro-vaping conferences and used to develop support for reduced regulations and restrictions on e-cigarettes.³⁷

In 2015, Factasia.org held an E-cigarette Symposium with speakers from the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA). ³⁸

Lobbied at COP8

Factasia has lobbied against the Conference of the Parties (COP) of WHO FCTC. Heneage Mitchell, cofounder and director of Factasia.org, was among the group who protested outside COP8 in Geneva in 2018, arguing that the WHO should accept harm reduction as a “basic human right” (Image 1).³⁹⁴⁰

Heneage Mitchell was present with Martin Cullip, a pro-tobacco blogger and Simon Clark, the Director of the tobacco industry front group Forest at a COP8 side event, hosted by the tobacco industry-funded, representing the Institute of Economic Affairs. The International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations (INNCO) was also present, after being denied FCTC observer status. For more information see the page on INNCO.

Image 1.”Heneage Mitchell from Factasia (second from left) was part of a group protesting outside FCTC COP8 event in Geneva, 2018 (Source factasia.org)

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, including Factasia.org, in the run up to COP8, and their attempts to influence the FCTC.⁴¹⁴²

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”.⁴¹.

For more details see International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations (INNCO)

Factasia.org is a supporter of the “Smoke Free for Life” (SF4L) campaign, organised by Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA).See below for details.⁴³⁴⁴

Relationship with the tobacco industry

According to Factasia.org’s website, Philip Morris International and Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association (TVECA),  an e-cigarette trade association, are among its supporters.³⁴

Other supporters listed on their website, as of October 2020, were are:³⁴

• Axiom Select LLC – Service provider to tobacco industry from machinery to services which include “regulatory issues, product development, harm reduction, cost / project management and sourcing.”.³⁴⁴⁵
• Cerulean – Provider of test and measuring equipment for the tobacco industry. As a provider, it has presented at several tobacco industry events as the Global Tobacco & Nicotine Forum, World Tobacco Middle East, Tobacco Science Research Conference, among others. ⁴⁶
• Moisttech – Provider of moister & measurement control products, that provides services to the tobacco industry.
• Primary Engineering (Thailand) Ltd – Provide service & maintenance for tobacco industry equipment

As stated on the Factasia.org website, its cofounder and director Heneage Mitchell has commentated on the tobacco industry across the Asia region for over 15 years.⁴⁷ His LinkedIn profile states, he was the former managing editor/co-publisher at October Multimedia from 2009-2013 and managing editor of Lockwood Publications from 2002 –2009. ⁴⁸  Lockwood publications was the publisher of industry publication Tobacco Asia.⁴⁹.

John Boley, the other cofounder of Factasia.org was a speaker at the Global Forum on Nicotine (GFN) in 2016 and 2017. GFN is an event organised by Knowledge-Action-Change (K-A-C) which is funded by PMI-funded Foundation for a Smoke-Free World.

The panel of speakers at the Factasia.org E-cigarette Symposium 2015 included;  e-cigarette researcher Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos, representatives of TVECA and the Asian Vape Association (AVA), and Terry Barnes representing Institute of Economic Affairs(IEA) (see image 2) ³². The IEA is a think tank which has a history of collaboration with the tobacco industry.⁵⁰

Image 2: Factasia.org E-cigarette symposium held in Hong Kong in 2015. From Left: Ray Story (TVECA), John Boley, Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos, Heneage Mitchelle , Nav Lalji (AVA) (Source: Factasia)

Staff

Heneage (‘H’) Mitchell and John Boley, are both founders and directors of the organisation.^{48 51}

According to his LinkedIn profile, Mitchell became Managing Director of factasia.org in October 2013, after working in journalism, publishing and other businesses, including writing on tobacco (see above for details). ⁴⁸ He states that his specialities include public relations and campaign management.⁴⁸ and in 2017.⁵² His presentation in 2016 was titled “Developing a united front for consumers to public health authorities in Asia-Pacific – challenges and opportunities” and, in 2017, “The lexicography of harm reduction”.⁵³

Lobbying decision-makers

Collaborating with third party organizations and funding their activities in order to reach out to decision makers is one of the most common tobacco industry tactics.(See Third Party Techniques) Factasia has not been the exception, as evidenced in the promotion of  looser regulations for newer products in Australia:

Lobbied Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)

Regarding PMI´s IQOS, Factasia made a submission in June 2020, after the Australian medicines regulator, the TGA, made an interim decision refusing Philip Morris Ltd application to exempt its IQOS product from the Poison’s Schedule. Factasia´s submission argued that “It is unconscionable that Australia continues to ignore the evidence and is now seeking to further restrict access by adult smokers to these life-saving technologies by considering legislation to require a doctor’s prescription to purchase nicotine-containing vape products.” ⁵⁴ Despite intense lobbying by PMI to allow the sale of IQOS, in August 2020, the Australian government’s Therapeutic Goods Administration rejected the sale of HTPs in Australia.⁵⁵⁵⁶.

Lobbied Australian parliament:

After lobbying with CAPHRA for fewer restrictions on e-cigarettes in Australia, in summer 2020,⁵⁷   Factasia made a formal submission to the Australian Parliament on October 16, 2020, arguing that “The government has a unique opportunity to act for the good of its citizens by recognizing that harm reduced nicotine products save lives and benefit all Australian citizens by reducing the death and disease caused by smoking. Smokers need to be able to access the life-saving technology of harm reduced nicotine products. This should be a key part of Australia’s Tobacco Control policy”.  ⁵⁸ Furthermore, Factasia lobbied for newer products to be legalized in Australia and regulated differently than tobacco products. ⁵⁸

Partnerships

Factasia.org is associated with the Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA)⁵⁷  and supports its SF4L campaign.⁴³ Heneage Mitchel was at the launch of SF4L, along with Peter Paul Dator, president of Vapers PH; Clarisse Virgino, the CAPHRA Philippine representative; and Nancy Loucas, executive director of CAPHRA (see image 3 below).^{59 44}

Image 3: (from left) Peter Paul Dator, president of Vapers PH; Clarisse Virgino, the Philippine representative to the Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates; Nancy Loucas, executive director of CAPHRA; and Heneage Mitchell  at the Asia-wide education and information campaign #SmokeFree4Life in Poblacion, Makati City.

Relevant Link

Factasia.org

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum
• Next Generation Products
• Philip Morris International
• Lobbying Decision Makers

TCRG Research

Robertson, A. Joshi, T. Legg T, 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 Factasia appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

A report from Physicians for Smoke Free Canada shows how since the early 1990s tobacco companies have used international trade and intellectual property agreement claims to forestall or block tobacco control measures. ⁶⁰

• 1992 – 1998: Thailand’s proposals to require ingredient disclosure

Tobacco companies launched repeated efforts to characterise requirements for ingredient disclosure as a breach of GATT/WTO obligations, and successfully engaged the US government in supporting their case. The disclosure requirements finally came into force in April 1998.

• 1993: Changes to Canadian health warning messages

The tobacco industry successfully prompted the EU GATT Inquiry Point to express official concern to the Canadian government about the new requirement for warnings to occupy 25% of the principal display surfaces of packages. The tobacco industry had hoped to have the measure quashed, but succeeded only in having it delayed. The warnings appeared on packages in 1994.

• 1993: Finland’s proposals to strengthen its 1977 tobacco law banning advertising

The Finnish Tobacco Manufacturers Association told parliament that “the prohibition against the use of symbols combined with a prohibition to register the trademark of a tobacco product as a trademark for a product other than tobacco product would be incompatible with the fundamental principles of the trademark rights, defined in the Paris Convention binding on Finland.” The amendments were passed and came into force in 1994.

• 1994: South Africa’s proposed 25% health warning messages

In a letter to the health ministry, Philip Morris claimed that proposed larger health warnings would infringe their property rights. “Protection of International Property Rights has provided assurances to international consumer products companies that their trademark rights will be respected and protected against infringement or expropriation. Yet the proposed regulations… would seriously infringe these trademark rights… and expose the South African government to legal challenge.” The regulation came into force later that year.

• 1996: Hong Kong Smoking Public Health Amendment Bill 1996

The bill restricted advertising and required health warning messages. The Tobacco Institute of Hong Kong protested that “the Bill’s proposals also would effectively diminish the commercial value of trademarks lawfully registered and used in Hong Kong, without any compensation to the trademark owner. They may also violate the Paris Convention for the Protection of Intellectual Property and that part of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) dealing with Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).” The law was passed in 1997.

• 1997: New Zealand proposals to increase the size of its warnings

In a submission to the government, the Tobacco Institute of New Zealand charged that the proposals were “an unwarranted and unjustifiable interference with the intellectual property rights of tobacco companies” and “contrary to New Zealand’s international obligations undertaken in the WTO/TRIPS Agreement which New Zealand has ratified and by which it is legally bound.” The regulations were adopted in 1999.

• 1999: Sri Lanka’s proposed National Authority on Tobacco and Alcohol

BAT’s subsidiary, the Ceylon Tobacco Company, challenged the proposed law as raising “serious issues … under a number of international agreements to which Sri Lanka is a signatory, including the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights and Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade”. Sri Lanka passed legislation to establish this authority in 2006.

• 1999: Changes to Canadian health warnings messages

The industry again attempted to engage the EU in another trade challenge against Canada’s new health warnings but were summarily rebuffed. The EU Director General for Trade, Mr. Carl, asserted the proposed Canadian measures were “probably compatible with WTO rules.” The warnings have been on packages since 2000.

• 2001: European Union ban on ‘light’ descriptors

Japan Tobacco International filed a complaint in mid-September 2001 with the European Court of First instance claiming that the ban on ‘light’ and ‘mild’ was a violation of intellectual property laws. The law came into force, as predicted, on September 30, 2003.

• 2008: UK discussion paper on plain packaging On World No Tobacco Day, 2008

The UK government issued a discussion paper on tobacco control measures, including the potential for plain packaging. Tobacco companies including Philip Morris, JTI, Imperial Tobacco and BAT responded that such measures were an infringement of the Paris Convention or other international treaties.

Legal Claims Still Being Made 20 Years Later

Two decades after the industry received legal opinion that it has no protection under intellectual property right treaties and law, tobacco companies and their representatives are still using this argument against the introduction of plain packaging.
In 2009, members of the UK’s House of Lords tabled amendments to a health bill which, if passed, would outlaw branded cigarette packets. According to a newspaper report, Imperial Tobacco wrote to the Department of Health and members of the Lords, warning that it would take legal action over the “unnecessary, unreasonable and unjustified” proposals. The letter said: “Imperial Tobacco is also concerned about the continued erosion and potential expropriation of our valuable intellectual property rights … Regulation that requires plain packaging will expropriate valuable corporate assets in which the company and its shareholders have invested for more than a century and risks placing the UK government in breach of a range of legal and treaty obligations that relate to intellectual property rights, international trade and EU law.” ⁶¹
On 24 September 2010, the European Commission launched a public consultation on the possible revision of the EU Tobacco Products Directive. The consultation included a proposal to introduce plain packaging in the EU: “Plain or generic packaging would standardise the appearance of tobacco packaging. Manufacturers would only be allowed to print brand and product names, the quantity of the product, health warnings and other mandatory information such as security markings. The package itself would be plain coloured (such as white, grey or plain cardboard). The size and shape of the package could also be regulated.” ⁶²
In its response, the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association suggests that such a move would breach cigarette companies’ intellectual property rights: “The Commission must recognize that changes to packaging and pack labelling regulation impact fundamental legal, economic and commercial rights of tobacco manufacturers and consumers. These include… their property right in their brands (including trademarks, goodwill and brand equity)…” ⁶³
A similar legal strategy can be seen at work in the landmark court case Philip Morris vs the Government of Uruguay, action by four companies against the Australian Government (see TPD: Challenging Legislation) and in British American Tobacco vs the Government of Namibia.

TobaccoTactics Resources

• TPD: Legal Challenges

Read more about Tobacco Industry Tactics

References

The post Legal Claims appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Using Lobby Groups is one of the ways in which Tobacco Companies are Lobbying Decision Makers. Lobby Groups act on behalf of the tobacco industry, contacting regulators and policy makers with the aim to influence regulation and legislation.
The page on Lobbying Decision Makers explains the issue in more detail, discussing – amongst other things – the difference, or rather, the thin line between direct and indirect lobbying. Lobby groups speaking on behalf of the industry could be understood as direct lobbying – specifically if it is transparent who has paid them to do this. Transparency, however, is a treasure hard to find in this line of business. Apart from the groups mentioned above, Think Tanks or other policy institutions can also be involved in (indirect)lobbying.
On this page is a selection of lobbying groups, pressure groups and trade associations from around the world. Many are clearly associated with the industry as their representatives. Others echo industry arguments and do not reveal any of their donors. None of these organisations have broken any laws. For many of them we provide individual pages giving even more background information which can be found by clicking on the title of the organisation.

Lobbying and Pressure Groups

Retailers Associations

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• Third Party Techniques
• Lobbying Decision Makers
• Libertarians
• Pro-Tobacco Bloggers
• Front Groups
• Think Tanks

References

The post Lobby Groups appeared first on TobaccoTactics.