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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK

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

Engagement and lobbying

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

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

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

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

Tobacco industry events

UK government guidelines state that staff must not:

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

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

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

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

• See UK Diplomats Lobbying for BAT for details.

Engaging with industry allies

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

Attending meetings with the tobacco industry

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

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

Business vs public health interests?

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

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

Japan

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

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

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

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

Germany

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

Denmark

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

Switzerland

Switzerland is not Party to the WHO FCTC.

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

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

• For more details see Swiss Diplomats Lobbying for PMI

USA

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

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

Why it matters

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

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

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

TobaccoTactics Resources

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

TCRG Research

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

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

References

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

The Western Pacific region includes 37 countries and territories and hosts nearly 1.9 billion people. ⁶¹  The countries are Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Cook Islands, Fiji, Japan, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia (Micronesia), Mongolia, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Republic of Korea (Korea), Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Viet Nam.⁶²⁶¹ China, the largest country in the region, hosting 73% of its total population (1.39 billion), is home to approximately 20% of the world’s population.⁶³⁶⁴

Eleven countries (Nauru, Tuvalu, Marshall Islands, Palau, Micronesia (Federated States of), Singapore, Tonga, Kiribati, Samoa, Vanuatu and Fiji) in the WPR are among the 50 smallest countries in the world. ⁶⁵

Smoking in WPR

According to the WHO tobacco trends report, the prevalence of tobacco use reported in WPR in 2020 was 25.7% and it was the second highest prevalence following the South East Asian region (SEAR).⁶⁶

In 2020, the average prevalence of tobacco use among males and females reported were 47.9% and 3.6% respectively. Compared to other regions, male’s prevalence rate is the highest of a region, and the female prevalence rate was the lowest. ⁶⁶

The global highest prevalence of smoking among people aged >15years reported in 2020 in the WPR and it was 23.3% (384 million people). The average smoking prevalence among males and females reported in 2020 were 44% (361 million) and 2.6% (23 million) respectively.⁶⁶

According to the WHO estimates, the tobacco smoking prevalence across different countries in the region varies from 14.1% in Australia to 52% in Kiribati. The highest tobacco smoking prevalence among males was recorded in Kiribati (68.6%) and the lowest was recorded in Australia and New Zealand (16.1%). Among the female population, the highest and lowest prevalence of smoking was recorded in Nauru (46%) in Malaysia (1%) respectively.⁶⁶

With regards to the number of smokers aged >15years in the region, China records the highest with 306.2 million, which accounts for nearly 80% of total smokers in the WPR (386.5 million).⁶⁶

Tobacco Production in WPR

China is the largest tobacco producer in the WPR as well as in the world, with a production of 2.61 million metric tons in 2019.⁶⁷It accounts for nearly 40% of world’s tobacco production in 2019.⁶⁸

According to the Taxation office of the Australian Government, a license is required to grow and/ or manufacture tobacco in Australia; and there have been no license holders since 2006. ⁶⁹

Brunei Darussalam, Cook Islands, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Samoa, Singapore, and Tuvalu do not grow tobacco. ⁷⁰In Solomon Islands and in Vanuatu, tobacco is growing small scale for personal use and sales. ⁷⁰

Table 1:  Summary of farming and production of tobacco in the WPR ⁷¹⁷²

*Information not available for Nauru and Papua New Guinea. Tobacco production, cultivation and cigarette manufacturing is not reported in Brunei Darussalam, Cook Islands, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Niue, Samoa, Singapore and Tuvalu.

**N/A = Information Not available

Who dominates the market?

The tobacco products that destroy so many people’s lives are the result of the activities of a number of companies around the world. The Tobacco Supply Chain Database enables tobacco control researchers and advocates to understand what the supply chain is, where it is located and who is involved. For more information, access the database here.

British American Tobacco (BAT) dominated the Australian and Malaysian markets with 47.6% and 68% of the market shares respectively. ⁷³⁷⁴Philip Morris International dominates the cigarette market in Philippines (70.5%)and Singapore (47%) ⁷⁵⁷⁶

The state owned tobacco monopoly in China (China National Tobacco Corporation (CNTC)) and in Japan(Japan Tobacco International (JTI)) lead the cigarettes market in the respective counties.⁷⁷⁷⁸In Lao, 72.3% of the tobacco market is owned by the Lao Tobacco Limited (LTL) since 2001, with placed joint venture with the government.⁷⁹

Local companies dominate in certain other countries, too, in the WPR: The Mongol Tobacco company (40%) in Mongolia, The Korea Tomorrow & Global Corporation (KT&G) (63.1% ) in  Korea,  and the Vietnam National Tobacco Corporation (VINATABA) (60.5% )in Viet Nam.⁸⁰⁸¹⁸²

Table 2: Countries with the most sold cigarette brand owned by an international/ multinational company.^{838474808185868788899091}

*Only countries in which data is available are mentioned in the table.

Presence of Transnational Tobacco Companies (TTCs)

Table 3 summarises the presence of ‘big tobacco’, the transnational tobacco companies (TTCs), in WPR. These companies are present in the region by way of having either manufacturing facilities, full/partial ownership in local entities or distribution rights. Philip Morris International (PMI), British American Tobacco (BAT), Imperial Brands and Japan Tobacco International (JTI) are present in the WPR. BAT is present in fifteen countries in the region, followed by PMI in twelve, Imperial brands in eleven and JTI in nine (Table 3). The presences of all four ‘big’ TTCs are seen in eight countries in the region, namely, Cambodia, China, Japan, Malaysia, Mongolia, Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam. Though tobacco cultivation and cigarettes manufacturing is absent in Mongolia and Singapore, the presence of all four TTCs in these countries is notable.

Table 3: Presence of ‘big’ transnational tobacco companies in WPR ^9293949582

*Presence of transnationals are not formally reported in Brunei Darussalam, Cook Islands, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Fed. Sts), Nauru, Niue, Palau, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.

Links to government

Tobacco industry recruits retired higher ranking government officials aiming to facilitate the lobbying process. There are examples in WPR of senior government officials taking up leadership positions in tobacco companies, highlighting the ‘revolving door´phenomenon. As of 2021, Yasutake Tango, who served as the Director General of Financial Bureau, Ministry of Finance, Deputy Vice Minister and Special Advisor to the Cabinet in Japan, is the Chairman of JTI. ⁹⁶Similar incidents were reported from Malaysia and Vietnam.⁹⁷

In Malaysia, the new Chairman of BAT Malaysia appointed in January 2017 was the former Secretary General of the Ministry of Home Affairs. He is active in service to sports as the Trustee and Chairman of the Football Association of Malaysia.⁹⁸

*Please see our page on TPD: Revolving Door Cases for more information on similar cases in the world.

There are state owned tobacco enterprises in the region such as the State Tobacco Monopoly Administration (STMA) in China who owns China National Tobacco Corporation (CNTC), and Vietnam National Tobacco Corporation (Vinataba) in Vietnam. The government of Japan holds 33% of the shares of Japan Tobacco Group and the government of Lao PDR maintains a joint venture with Imperial brands (Lao Tobacco Limited). ^{96 97}

 Participation of Industry on Policy/Decision Making Processes

The Tobacco Regulation Act 2003 in Philippines allowed a seat for an industry representative in the Inter-Agency Committee -Tobacco (IAC-T), established to implement the act. Representatives of the tobacco industry including Philippine Tobacco Institute (PTI), a retailers’ association and a farmers’ group were invited as resource persons for the Committee to discuss increasing tobacco taxes in 2018to the House of Representatives.⁹⁶National Kenaf and Tobacco Board (LKTN) and Border Security Agency (AKSEM) in Malaysia, which are responsible for licensing tobacco retailers and enforcement activities on illicit trade respectively, are represented by the JTI.⁹⁷ Active interference from the industry in developing national policies and tobacco control measures were reported from China, Japan, Lao PDR and Vietnam.⁹⁶⁹⁷

Lobbying government officials

A report published by the Health Justice Philippines illustrated the role of industry in influencing the policy formation for Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (ENDS). The Joint Committees of Health and Trade at the House of Representatives proposed nine bills related to ENDS. Six out of nine bills proposed were oriented to adopting ENDS; and the other three showed the involvement of PMI.⁹⁶ In Vietnam, the Ministry of Science and Technology promoted ENDS as a safer alternative following a meeting with PMI.⁹⁷

 Getting benefits/image promotion via CSR activities

Sponsorships from tobacco industry are allowed for poverty alleviation and disaster relief projects in Vietnam. Sponsorships by the Vietnam National Tobacco Corporation (Vinataba) in the fields of medical purposes, women empowerment, labour welfare, and scholarships are reported. Sponsorships in similar fields were reported from China and Republic of Korea, funded by the State Tobacco Monopoly Administration (STMA) and KT&G respectively. ⁹⁷

Many incidents of donations and CSR activities have been reported during COVID 19 pandemic. LT group, a company involved in tobacco and alcohol industry, and Japan Tobacco International (JTI) donated face masks to two hospitals in Philippines.^{99 100} Collapsible hospital beds were donated to Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) in Philippines by Philip Morris Fortune Tobacco Corp Inc, a joint venture between Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing Inc. (PMPMI) and Fortune Tobacco Corporation (FTC).¹⁰¹ Japan Tobacco International (JTI) Malaysia donated money to supply food for low income families.¹⁰² Vietnam National Tobacco Corporation (VINATABA) in Viet Nam donated money, protective cloths and disinfection chambers to Bach Mai hospital.¹⁰³

 Good practices related FCTC Article 5.3

Civil Service Commission and Department of Health in Philippines issued a Joint Memorandum Circular in 2010, which provides a code of conduct consisting with the guidelines of the WHO FCTC Article 5.3, for all government officials. Some government departments enacted institute specific code of conducts or regulations complaint with the Circular.¹⁰⁴ Similarly, Lao PDR introduced a Code of Conduct for the employees of the Ministry of Health in 2018.⁹⁶

The Government of Australia prohibited the acceptance of donations from the tobacco industry. New South Wales Electoral Commission, Australian Labour Party and Liberal Party banned the donations from the tobacco industry as well.¹⁰⁴

In 2008, The Government of Australia started to maintain a Register of Lobbyists and a code of conduct for lobbying to make sure the transparency of dealings between the government representatives and the tobacco industry.¹⁰⁴ Since 2011, the Ministry of Health in New Zealand maintained an online register with all the details of the meetings conducted with the industry which is made accessible to the public.¹⁰⁴

 Roadmap to tobacco control

All countries in WPR are parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) treaty.⁷⁰

Three countries (Fiji, Mongolia and Samoa) are Parties and another two countries (China and Republic of Korea) are Signatories to the  Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products. This protocol is an international treaty negotiated by Parties to the FCTC with the objective of eliminating all forms of illicit trade in tobacco products through cooperation of countries.¹⁰⁵

As of 2020, all countries in WPR have national level tobacco control laws in place.⁷⁰ WHO introduced MPOWER measures comprising the essential six elements (Monitor use and control measures, Protect from tobacco smoke, Offer help to quit, Warn against negative consequences, Enforce ban on advertisements and promotions and Raise tax) to implement FCTC effectively at country level. ¹⁰⁶ However, the 2019 WHO report on the tobacco epidemic shows that WPR has a considerable gap in achieving complete implementation of policies as per the FCTC directive thus maintaining compliance. Policy areas such as Monitoring tobacco use, Comprehensive cessation services and implementation of Graphical Health warning are well developed in most countries in the region. The compliance scores for each policy area suggest the existing gap between definition and enforcement of the control policies. For example, none of the countries have reached “fully compliant” (i.e. score of 10) in terms of comprehensive smoke-free legislation as per the FCTC directive. Some countries in the region have reached the score of 10 as fully compliant in terms of tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorships. ¹⁰⁶

The following table shows a summary of implementation of MPOWER strategies in each country in the WPR (Table 4).A level above zero is considered as implementation.

Table 4: Summary of implementation of MPOWER policies in the WPR ¹⁰⁶

Lao People’s Democratic Republic is the only country in WPR that has completely banned the tobacco related CSR activities. Department of Education in Philippines issued a Department Order (No. 48 s. 2016) prohibiting tobacco industry sponsorships including CSR activities for both public and private schools.¹⁰⁴

All countries in WPR, except Japan, Kiribati, Marshall Island, Micronesia, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Tonga and Tuvalu, have implemented Graphic Health Warning Labels (GHWL) on cigarette packs.¹⁰⁷

Australia and New Zealand have completed the implementation of plain packaging while Singapore has it under consideration.¹⁰⁸

In November 2017, Viet Nam became the first country in Asia to adopt a policy to stop cooperating with the PMI-funded Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW). ⁹⁸

Some countries in the region have either banned or regulated electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS).Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Lao DPR and Singapore are the countries which have banned all types of e-cigarette sales in WPR. Australia and Japan have banned the sale of e-cigarettes with nicotine. ¹⁰⁹

McCabe Centre for Law and Cancer, a non government institute in Australia, hosts the WHO FCTC Secretariat’s Knowledge Hub on Legal Challenges.This is a one the seven and the first WHO FCTC Secretariat’s Knowledge Hubs established in the world. The aim of establishing Knowledge Hubs is to assist the Parties to implement the articles of FCTC. ¹¹⁰

As part of WHO FCTC ratification, all countries in WPR have established a FCTC focal point for tobacco control and a National Coordination Mechanism (NCM) except for Fiji, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. FCTC focal points in general are responsible for facilitating the establishment of NCM for FCTC implementation and serve as coordinating hubs for national and international stake holders.¹¹¹⁷⁰

Industry interference

Tobacco industry (TI) has been ambitious about the Western Pacific region as the region hosts 1.9 billion of the world’s population, and the largest tobacco producer in the world.⁶¹⁶⁷ Therefore the TI has been using multiple tactics to penetrate and expand the markets in the region.

The following are a selection of themes and examples of tobacco industry interference in the region:

Delaying enforcement of tobacco control laws through litigation

Australian Parliament passed world’s first Plain Packaging legislation on 21 November 2011 to be enforced from 1 December 2012. All four big tobacco companies, British American Tobacco, Philip Morris, Imperial Tobacco, and Japan Tobacco International, brought legal challenges against this legislation. Philip Morris Asia initiated legal proceedings under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law 2010, claiming the legislation on plain packaging did not comply with The Australia – Hong Kong Bilateral Investment Treaty. This legislation was also challenged at the World Trade Organization (WTO) by a few countries. Additional legal action was filed at the Australian High Court against the legislation by PMI, BAT, Imperial Tobacco and JTI arguing the new legislation is an acquisition of property by the government.

*For more information on plain packaging and campaigning by tobacco industry against plain packaging laws in Australia, see our pages Plain Packaging, Australia: Challenging Legislation and Plain Packaging in Australia.

Interfering the development and implementation of tobacco control measures

In Japan, when implementing GHWL on cigarette packs, the proposal was dismissed by a committee under the Ministry of Finance which was reported as industry friendly. There was no GHWL displayed in China till 2015 owing to the influence of State Tobacco Monopoly Administration.⁹⁶ PMI and BAT continue their Heated Tobacco Products (HTP) sale without prescribed GHWL amidst the unresolved classification on HTPs in Malaysia. ⁹⁷

With industry interference, China was unable to implement the national-level smoke-free policy. Japan remains with text-only GHWL on the package of tobacco products. Korea is unable to enforce the policies to prohibit the advertising including point of sale advertising and sponsorships. ⁹⁷

The government of Lao PDR made a joint agreement with Imperial Brands, which allows industry preferred tax rates depending on the production. This agreement caused to extinguish about USD 144 million to the government in tax revenues for the period of year 2002-2017.⁹⁶  Cambodia waived off the tax on tobacco leaves exported to Vietnam. ⁹⁶

Aggressive expansion of multinational companies in the region

TTCs are aggressively seeking to expand their markets in this region through acquisitions and mergers. TTCs have also capitalised on countries with weaker economies to enforce unreasonable conditions to favour them when making investments. When Imperial Tobacco acquired Lao Tobacco Limited in 2001, they negotiated a 25-year agreement with the government to charge only a 15% tax on cigarettes. It is estimated as of 2014, Laos have lost more than US$ 79 million in 13 years and will lose more than US$ 72 million in the next 12 years due to this agreement.¹¹²

Expansion plans have brought rival companies together on some occasions. South Korea’s leading tobacco company KT&G established a strategic alliance with Philip Morris International in January, 2020 to expand the market worldwide for its heat-not-burn cigarette brand ‘lil’. This partnership have potentially secured a global distribution network for KT&G which had remained domestic predominantly.¹¹³

 Pressuring governments to open their markets in the name of free trade

Tobacco companies have been able to capitalise on free trade agreements in the region to open the markets. During the 1980s, the US Cigarette Export Association, consisting of Philip Morris International, R.J. Reynolds and Brown and Williamson, petitioned against South Korean and Japan governments under the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) for not opening their markets to foreign cigarette manufacturers. As a result of the GATT ruling, Japan and Republic of Korea had to open its market to US cigarettes in 1990s.¹¹⁴

 Interference on tobacco control measures through front groups and business councils

The International Tobacco Growers Association (ITGA) is a well-known global front group of the tobacco industry. Members in the region include the China Tobacco Society in China, Korean Tobacco Growers Organization in Korea, Phil Tobacco Growers Association in Philippines and Vietnam National Tobacco Corporation (VINATABA) in Viet Nam ^{115 116117} ITGA is alleged for smearing WHO and FCTC reports on tobacco control, providing false information about farmers and conflicting statistics, and creating fears among farmers, for example in Philippines and Vietnam. ¹¹⁸

Most countries in WPR have American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) country chapters, namely, Australia, Cambodia, China (China, Hong Kong, Shanghai, South China and Macau), Fiji, Japan (Japan, Okinawa), Malaysia, Mongolia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea and Vietnam.¹¹⁹Senior managers from tobacco industries have served in AmCham leadership positions and both AmCham and US Chamber of Commerce have become platforms for tobacco industry representatives to associate with senior government officials. In 2009, Chris Nelson served as the chairman of PMI Philippines and later he served as the Director of AmCham Board and Trustee of the
AmCham foundation in Philippines.¹²⁰ Similarly,  the Board of Governors of the AmCham was represented by the higher positions of tobacco companies in China, Malaysia and Singapore.¹²⁰

AmCham contributes to promotion of the image of tobacco industry via CSR activities, Graduate Trainee Programs and different events.¹²⁰⁹⁷

US-ASEAN Business Council, which includes a board member from PMI, held a dinner reception collaborating with the US Chamber of Commerce during the 74^thUN General Assembly in New York in 2019. ⁹⁷

* For more detail on the activities and movements of front groups in the region and across the globe, see our pages on Front Groups, Think Tanks and the US Chamber of Commerce.

Funding research institutes and think tanks on advocacy for tobacco industry

The tobacco industry’s usage of research and policy forums to promote its own agenda is a well-known strategy used to influence policymaking. From 2012 to 2015, Philip Morris International (PMI) funded US and UK-based think tanks International Tax and Investment Center (ITIC) and Oxford Economics Ltd, to conduct studies on the illicit trade in the ASEAN region.¹²¹

There are instances where industry-funded think tanks directly interfered in tobacco control. In Australia, industry funded think tanks, consultancies and independent experts campaigned against implementation of plain packaging and undermined Australian government efforts, even after the implementation. Read more on this at Australia: Funding Think Tanks and Hiring Independent Experts. In Malaysia, when the Ministry of Health announced plans for plain packaging in 2016, Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS), a Malaysian think tank, opposed it. IDEAS received funds from JTI and PMI in 2015 and 2016. Since 2015,IDEAS has been actively opposing tobacco control measures, especially plain packaging and tax increase.¹²²

The Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW) is a Phillip Morris International-funded organisation. In 2019, when Hong Kong government was considering a ban on next generation tobacco products, both FSFW and PMI submitted their arguments against it.

In WPR, FSFW have funded institutes in China and New Zealand,  to conduct tobacco smoking related research since 2018.¹²³

There are also examples of TTCs funding organisations to advocate on new generation tobacco products in the region. Factasia.org, a non-governmental organization based in Hong Kong, funded by Philip Morris International and Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association (TVECA),is an example.¹²⁴

* Read more about the Foundation and the projects it funds on our pages Foundation for a Smoke-Free World and Foundation for a Smoke-Free World Grantees.

Sponsorships and Involvement in Sports

The government of Japan allows JTI to sponsor volleyball, chess, and golf teams and tournaments and getting media coverage as Japan has not banned the tobacco sponsorships.⁹⁷

*For more information on tobacco industry involvement in sponsoring sports events, see our Motorsport Sponsorship and Gudang Garam and sports endorsement.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities

Corporate Social Responsibility(CSR) is a strategy used by the tobacco industry to build their reputation in the eye of the public, to gain sympathies from the governments and as a platform to interact with public officials.

Industry involves government officials during these CSR activities in order to get their endorsements and help for tobacco companies to gain acceptance in the community. Government officials from the Ministry of Industry and Trade have joined to distribute gifts to flood victims sponsored by Vietnam National Tobacco Corporation (Vintaba); and local authorities joined to distribute gifts to poor households at the inauguration ceremony of a bridge constructed sponsored by BAT. In Malaysia, the Minister of Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism, whose ministry has a new responsibility to regulate electronic cigarettes, officiated at a Philip Morris-sponsored “Back to School” programme organised by the Salam Foundation, a regular recipient of PMI’s CSR grants.⁹⁸

CSR activities in Japan is oriented towards public education promoting “good manners” in smoking, such as smoking in designated ‘smoking spaces’, aiming to maintain a facade of reconciliation with non-smokers. Japan Tobacco International has established 943 locations as ‘smoking spaces’ with the partnership of 212 Municipalities in Japan. Similarly, in China, guidance was issued by Chinese National Bureau to develop “Beautiful China” with ‘civilised smoking environment’, which operates at national and sub national levels.⁹⁶

In 2017, Shanghai Tobacco Company donated RMB 10 million (USD 1.5 million) to the Shanghai Charity Foundation for education. Charity Award for outstanding corporate social responsibility in China was awarded to Shanghai Tobacco Company by China Charity Foundation.⁹⁶

Philip Morris Fortune Tobacco Corporation (PMFTC) conducts CSR activities through its CSR arm called “Embrace” in Philippines. ⁹⁷

*Read more about the CSR strategies by tobacco industries on our page CSR Strategy.

Illicit trade of Cigarettes (Tobacco Smuggling)

Studies based on industry documents have revealed that TTCs have allowed Tobacco Smuggling as a marketing strategy in several Asian countries with examples in China and Vietnam.¹²⁵ One such study reveals, when China opened its tobacco market for international brands in 1979, BAT initially established its brands such as State Express 555 through smuggling. And BAT has tried to establish a legal presence only when risks for contraband sales were amplified.¹²⁵ Another study reveals that one of the strategies adopted by BAT was to set up the contraband trade to gain access to tobacco market in Vietnam when the Vietnamese government banned importing of cigarettes in 1990. ¹²⁵

* Refer to our pages Tobacco Smuggling and BAT Involvement in Tobacco Smuggling for more information.

 Lobbying for less regulation of next generation products

With increasing controlling laws on traditional smoking products, tobacco industry has focused on developing Next Generation Products (NGPs). Some common NGPs are electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) which also referred to as e-cigarettes and Heated Tobacco Products.

Around the globe and in Asia the industry is lobbying governments for leniency in regulation, which would allow the companies to promote these products or be treated less restrictively than combustible tobacco products. One study shows that in Philippines in 2018, from the nine bills proposing ENDS regulation in Congress, six were oriented to adopting industry positions in relation to ENDS. Three bills, two in the House of Representatives and one in the Senate, showed the involvement of PMI. The Philippines E-Cigarette Industry Association (PECIA) and Vapers Philippines were vocal during the meetings, arguing that regulation should be assigned to the Department of Trade and Industry, promoting the harm reduction argument, and claiming that e-cigarettes are an effective smoking cessation tool.¹²⁶

* Read more about new tobacco industry products and strategies here on Next Generation Products and Harm Reduction

Tobacco tactics resources

*Japan Tobacco International

* US-ASEAN Business Council

*China National Tobacco Corporation

*South East Asian region

* Tobacco Smuggling

* CSR Strategy

* Foundation for a Smoke-Free World Grantees

References

The post Western Pacific Region appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Much like Germany’s Goethe-Institut and the French Institut Francais, the Foundation supports arts and cultural exchanges as well as Japanese language teaching and studies as part of cultural soft diplomacy.

It has well-established financial links with a number of corporations including Japan Tobacco International. In 2021 it was a sponsor, alongside Philip Morris International, of the high-profile Future of Asia conference.

Background

The Japan Foundation was established in 1972 and has 25 overseas offices including nine in Asian countries, six in European countries and five in the Americas.¹³²

It estimates that in 2019 more than 1.5m people attended or took part in events it organised around the world and more than 3.8m were learning Japanese.¹³³

The organisation is registered as a “public benefit organisation” in Japan and is supported by a mix of grants, corporate donations and membership fees and government subsidies. According to the 2019/20 annual report this amounted to more than JPY23.7bn (approximately UK£15.4m).¹³³

Many large Japanese companies support the Foundation but the value of individual donations, fees or grants are not disclosed.

Links with Japan Tobacco International

Japan Tobacco International (JTI) has provided financial and other support for cultural activities arranged by the Foundation across the globe since at least 2013. The details are set out below. No specific financial information has been released.

Belarus

For several years JTI has funded language support in Russia. In 2018 that extended to students from Belarusian State University. Those who won a Japanese language proficiency competition were able to study in Japan for six months. The competition was organised by the Foundation along with the Japanese embassy and JTI.¹³⁴¹³⁵

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Japanese language courses at the University of Sarajevo were organised by the Japanese Embassy in conjunction with the Foundation and sponsored by JTI.¹³⁶

Indonesia

JTI sponsored a student package design competition in 2018/19.¹³⁵

Italy

In 2013 JTI supported two exhibitions in Rome marking the 50^th anniversary of Japan Cultural Institute.¹³⁷

Romania

In 2017, the Foundation arranged for the Japanese dance company Noism to perform in Romania. The event was called JTI Encounters, which supported it.¹³⁸

Russia

Foundation annual reports from 2013 onwards show that JTI donations for “Japanese language and studies at Russian Universities” on an annual basis.

In May 2018 JTI also sponsored a performance in Russia by the group Drum Tao at the opening of the Japan Year in Russia event.¹³⁹

In 2021 The Moscow Museum of Modern Art presented Double Vision: Contemporary Art from Japan in collaboration with the Japan Foundation. The event from 14 March to 6 May was supported by JTI.¹⁴⁰

United States

In March 2021. JTI was a contributing sponsor to the annual National Cherry Blossom Festival’s opening ceremony in Washington. This prestigious event featured a range of cultural performances.¹⁴¹

The Future of Asia Conference

The Foundation is co-sponsor of the 2021 The Future of Asia conference taking place in Japan. The other sponsor is Philip Morris International (PMI). The incoming CEO of PMI Jacek Olczak was listed to speak at the event.¹⁴²

Foundation personnel

Kazuyoshi Umemoto was appointed president in 2020 after a long diplomatic career including ambassadorships in Switzerland, the UN Mission and Italy. His predecessor Ando Hiroyasu similarly had a diplomatic background.¹⁴³

Tobacco Tactics Resources

CSR: Arts & Culture

Japan Tobacco International (JTI)

References

The post The Japan Foundation appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

• Philip Morris International (PMI) is increasingly moving into the ‘cessation space’.
• The US Food and Drug Administration denied PMI “reduced risk” status for its heated tobacco product IQOS. Nevertheless, PMI continues to push it as a cessation product, including in countries where it is currently banned.
• PMI uses misleading terminology when talking about IQOS use and “quitting”, and conflates its e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products (HTP), leading to confusion among the public, and potentially governments.
• PMI’s data for global IQOS use, used to promote the HTP and present it as a successful product around the world, are based in part on commercial data which is not publicly available and is skewed by data from Japan where e-cigarettes are banned.
• PMI’s ‘switching’ estimates are short term and downplay dual use of IQOS with cigarettes and the potential for initiation by non-smokers, including youth.
• There is very little evidence that IQOS is effective as a quit tool at the individual level or population level.
• Not all governments are prepared to accept IQOS as a cessation tool.

Background

Philip Morris International (PMI) has stated that it has a vision of a “smoke-free” future and that it intends to move its business away from combustible tobacco products entirely.¹⁴⁸¹⁴⁹ PMI envisages itself and its heated tobacco product (HTP), IQOS, as central in this vision. However, independent evidence does not support many of PMI’s claims about its product, including its claims about risk reduction and its effectiveness in helping people stop smoking. PMI’s commercial goal is not to stop people using tobacco altogether, but to ensure they continue to buy its products, including IQOS, and to increase the numbers of people doing so.¹⁵⁰

PMI uses its own research and market data to produce estimates about users, IQOS usage, and the use of other tobacco products. While research on IQOS use is available on the PMI Science website and in some external publications (see below), PMI’s methodology for calculating its global estimates of IQOS use is not transparent. While there has been some independent research on the prevalence of HTP use (including IQOS), as of January 2023, PMI’s estimates for the total numbers of IQOS users globally were yet to be independently verified.

The Philip Morris company has a history of claiming that it promotes cessation.¹⁵¹ It even created its own, limited cessation programme called “QuitAssist”, launched in 2004 before PMI separated from parent company Altria.¹⁵¹¹⁵² This was not proven to be effective, but gave the company opportunities to engage with public health and government.¹⁵¹ (See also the page on Duke University and its connections to QuitAssist)

This page describes some of PMI’s more recent attempts to enter the ‘cessation space’ with IQOS. It then looks at relevant PMI statements from media interviews, press releases and industry publications, and the evidence it uses to support its claims, including that submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It summarises the independent, peer reviewed academic research relating to the use of IQOS, including prevalence, dual and poly use, and youth initiation. Finally, it describes the reaction from the governments of Australia, New Zealand and Mexico in 2020, in response to PMI’s attempts to introduce IQOS to their countries and frame them as cessation products.

What is cessation?

Use of the terms “cessation” and “quitting” varies, even within public health, and can be conceptualised in different ways, for example:

1. Quitting/cessation of smoked tobacco products
2. Quitting/cessation of any tobacco product
3. Quitting/cessation of any nicotine product

Products containing, or derived from, tobacco do not necessarily fall neatly into these categories, as definitions vary globally for the purposes of regulation and cessation.

The tobacco industry is able to take advantage of this diversity of opinion,¹⁵³ and different attitudes towards harm reduction more broadly, to further its own commercial interests. For example, HTP manufacturers have gone to great lengths to frame HTPs as “smokefree” in order for potential consumers, governments and regulators to view them differently from combustible tobacco products, like cigarettes.¹⁵⁰¹⁵⁴ However, HTPs contain tobacco leaf and are therefore tobacco products.

PMI attempts to re-enter the ‘cessation space’ with IQOS

As governments increasingly struggle to fund their public health services and set up new smoking cessation (or ‘quit’) programmes, new opportunities have emerged for the tobacco industry to present itself as a solution to the problem it has created: getting consumers hooked on cigarettes, a deadly and addictive product.^155156157158

Proposed £1 billion fund for UK stop-smoking services

In February 2020, an investigation by The Guardian newspaper and Channel 4 TV’s Dispatches programme exposed PMI’s attempt to fund and run cessation services in the UK, in exchange for being able to promote IQOS.¹⁵⁹ Leaked documents showed that the company planned to create a GB£1 billion “tobacco transition fund” to be spent by UK health authorities, with GB£15 million to go to Public Health England to “facilitate switching”.¹⁵⁹ In exchange, PMI expected the lifting of restrictions on the advertising and marketing of IQOS and e-cigarettes. The Guardian reported that PMI encouraged a UK Member of Parliament, Kevin Barron, to present an (unsuccessful) bill proposing this in parliament in October 2018.¹⁵⁹

Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) described this move by PMI as “completely unacceptable” and expressed concerns that the company’s ability to recruit a previously anti-tobacco MP to further its business interests was a sign of increasing normalisation of the industry in the UK.¹⁵⁹¹⁶⁰ Philip Morris’ statement to The Guardian indicated the range of its lobbying in the UK, in its attempt to co-opt existing cessation campaigns and undermine the ‘polluter pays’ principle proposed by ASH:¹⁶⁰

“We have made this point time and time again to MPs, civil servants, local councillors, journalists and the broader public. What this story really shows is that Philip Morris has been consistent in its efforts to make smoke-free 2030 a reality.”¹⁵⁹

Offered free IQOS to cessation services in New Zealand

In August 2019, a Radio New Zealand (RNZ) investigation reported that health officials had been lobbied by PMI to have IQOS included in public cessation programmes.¹⁶¹¹⁶² The company proposed supplying free IQOS devices in exchange for “community-based trials, data collection and monitoring”.¹⁶¹ It is not known if PMI were expecting the programmes to use IQOS exclusively, or alongside other evidence-based cessation tools. RNZ also reported that PMI had approached an advocacy group working with people on low incomes and had sold IQOS  to Maori groups at half price.¹⁶¹ New Zealand’s Director General of Health, Ashley Bloomfield, said that PMI was:

“doing its best on all fronts to … legitimise both its product and its role in being part of smoking cessation initiatives around the country.”¹⁶¹

Bloomfield instructed health officials to reject PMI’s approaches and reminded them of their obligation under FCTC article 5.3.¹⁶¹¹⁶³

Funding cessation programmes through Foundation for a Smoke-Free World

PMI set up, and is the sole funder of, the Foundation for A Smoke Free World (FSFW). FSFW funds a number of cessation-related projects globally and, in 2020, appeared to be expanding this area of work. The Centre for Health Research and Education (CHRE), a private company run by an ex-employee of British American Tobacco (BAT) and a UK doctor, received grants from FSFW for cessation work in the UK, and to fund the scoping of work in India.¹⁶⁴

In July 2020, FSFW published a country report on India.¹⁶⁵ This covered research on cessation in India, mentioning nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and “cessation medications”, and perceived gaps in provision, including the training of health care professionals and the establishment of tobacco cessation centres. In a section titled “Policies Prohibiting Tobacco and Harm Reduction Products in India”, it referred to India’s ban on e-cigarettes and other products and stated that “There is a growing demand for reduced-risk products globally, as well as evidence on e-cigarettes as a potential cessation tool, and it is important to consider the implications of this ban”.¹⁶⁵ However, there appeared to be no further detail, or policy recommendations relating to cessation.

The Centre for Research Excellence: Indigenous Sovereignty and Smoking (COREISS) is a private company which presents itself as an independent scientific organisation whose stated goal is reducing tobacco-related harms among indigenous peoples. COREISS was funded by FSFW to “build a global center for smoking cessation and harm reduction in indigenous people” in New Zealand.¹⁶⁴

For more information see the CHRE and COREISS pages. Details of other FSFW grants can be found on the FSFW grantees page. FSFW also funds a number of third-party organisations which campaign for a greater role, and fewer restrictions, on newer nicotine and tobacco products.  See for example the International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations (INNCO), Knowledge-Action-Change (K-A-C) and Pakistan Alliance for Nicotine and Tobacco Harm Reduction (PANTHR). PMI also directly funds Factasia.

The risks of using IQOS vs quitting

PMI portrays IQOS as a “reduced risk” product.¹⁵⁰ In July 2020, the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted PMI a “modified exposure” order but denied a “reduced risk” order, acknowledging that while IQOS reduces exposure to some potentially harmful chemicals it has not been shown to reduce the harm or risks of tobacco-related diseases.¹⁶⁶

In July 2020, the WHO stated that there was a large gap in knowledge on HTPs, as they have not been on the market long enough to gather data on their health effects and broader impact.

“Conclusions cannot yet be drawn about their potential to attract new, young tobacco users (gateway effect), or the interaction in dual use with other conventional tobacco products and e-cigarettes”.¹⁶⁷

The Tobacco Control Research Group (TCRG) published a STOP briefing, and British Medical Journal editorial pointing out the potential for the misrepresentation of the FDA’s decision outside the US and advising that smokers trying to quit should use evidence-based methods, and only use HTPs “as a last resort”.¹⁶⁸¹⁶⁹

Creating confusion around science is a long-standing tactic of the tobacco industry. For more information see Influencing Science

Redefining “quitting” as “switching”

Although PMI uses the word “quitting” in its public-facing media statements and interviews, it frames the concept in terms of  “switching”, “converting”, or “making the change” to IQOS, rather than quitting tobacco use entirely.¹⁷⁰¹⁷¹ In its September 2020 “Scientific Update”, the word “quitting” appears once, compared to 20 uses of  “switch”¹⁷² (“cessation” is only used in a summary of an academic study on e-cigarettes).

PMI has denied that the name “IQOS” stands for “I Quit Ordinary Smoking”.¹⁷³¹⁷⁴ However, Stanford University research on PMI’s IQOS marketing campaigns noted that even the use of the letter Q in the brand name reinforces the sense that the product is designed for ‘quitting’.¹⁷⁵

The WHO points out that consumers and regulators are likely to confuse or conflate the terms “switch” and “quit”, blurring the line between the two concepts, and helping the tobacco industry to position their HTPs as cessation aids (as well as arguing that they should be exempted from smoke-free regulation).¹⁵⁵

PMI’s estimates of the numbers of IQOS users are widely reported in media coverage around the world, and there is evidence that they are also being used by PMI to lobby governments to encourage governments to open their markets to IQOS.¹⁶⁸

For more information see PMI’s promotion of IQOS using FDA MRTP order

Conflating HTPs and E-cigarettes

PMI has also appeared to conflate HTPs and e-cigarettes (also known as electronic nicotine delivery systems, or ENDS) in its marketing. This has the potential to sow further confusion.¹⁶⁹ For example, in its ‘Hold My Light’ campaign, it said that “similar to most e-cigarettes” HTPs produce a “a nicotine-containing vapour with much lower amounts of harmful chemicals than found in cigarette smoke”.¹⁵⁰ This was described by Bath researchers as an attempt “to piggyback HTPs onto the relative acceptability of e-cigarettes as a form of harm reduction in some countries that permit their sale”.¹⁵⁰

PMI had an e-cigarette called IQOS Mesh on the market in the UK until April 2020, when it appeared to have been withdrawn. PMI presented IQOS Mesh, now apparently rebranded as IQOS VEEV, as a product suitable for “e-vapor users, adult smokers considering the e-vapor category and dual users of e-vapor and heated tobacco products”. ¹⁷⁶¹⁷⁷ Consumers are likely to find this confusing, given the similar name to PMI’s HTP.

Researchers found that in New Zealand PMI conflated heated tobacco products (HTPs) with ENDS in its marketing material, with both products sold in dedicated stores called “IQ Vape”.¹⁷⁸ Price promotions for IQOS products were “explicitly encouraging consumers to dual use an HTP with ENDS”.¹⁷⁸ Changes identified in PMI’s marketing principles in 2019 indicated that IQOS HTPs can be promoted to users of other nicotine products, not just cigarette smokers, which could include former smokers using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).¹⁷⁸ The researchers also identified conflation in PMI’s descriptions of risk profiles, noting that, while PMI’s press releases argue that the public lacks clear information on products and risk:

“by conflating HTPs with ENDS, the company risks doing the very thing it says it opposes: propagating confusion and misinformation amongst consumers.”¹⁷⁸

IQ Vape has also been registered by PMI as a trademark in New Zealand.^179180181 Europe,¹⁸² and elsewhere.¹⁸³

While there have been randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using e-cigarettes to aid cessation,¹⁸⁴ at the time of publication there had been no RCTs testing the use of IQOS as a cessation aid.

PMI may also be conflating its products through business relationships. In Ireland, PMI joined the e-cigarette trade association Vape Business Ireland.¹⁸⁵ In 2021, PMI’s membership was listed on VBI’s website as IQOS, rather than the e-cigarettes brand Veev.¹⁸⁶ See also the page on UK retailer VPZ, which has a close financial relationship with Philip Morris Ltd, and markets IOQS HTPs in its stores as well as e-cigarettes.

• For more information on Mesh and VEEV and Vape Business Ireland, see E-cigarettes: Philip Morris International.

IQOS “Use”, “Switching” and “Conversion” – What Does PMI Mean?

The term IQOS “user” was used frequently in PMI annual reports and presentations to shareholders from 2018 onwards and refers to the “IQOS user base” when reporting its financial results.¹⁸⁷

PMI defines an IQOS “user” as an adult who has used the product for at least 5% of their total tobacco consumption for a period of 7 days.¹⁸⁸ A “predominant user” would need to have used IQOS for at least 70% of their consumption and a “converted user” for 95%. It also has a broad category for those who use IQOS for between 5% and 70% of their consumption, which it calls a “situational user”.¹⁸⁸

Conversion rates are a commonly used metric in tobacco research, referring to the rate of transfer from first use of a cigarette (commonly youth use) to regular, daily smoking.¹⁸⁹ PMI’s definitions do not appear to be based on any classifications commonly used in prevalence and cessation surveys, and it does not explain its rationale for how it developed its percentage bands. While the bands may serve to categorise users of IQOS, they do not predict cessation success or equate to the reduction of harm.

In February 2020, PMI stated that 14 million people were using IQOS. According to PMI, 10 million IQOS users (71% of the total) had stopped smoking and “switched” to IQOS, and an estimated 4 million were “in various stages of conversion” (i.e. still smoking cigarettes).¹⁹⁰PMI regularly updates these figures in its public statements. In September 2020, CEO Andre Calantzopoulos gave a figure of 11.2 million as having ‘switched’ to IQOS.¹⁹¹ By the end of 2021, PMI stated that this had risen to 21.2 million.¹⁹²

PMI states that its “aspiration” is for the number of smokers switching to IQOS to exceed 40 million by 2025.¹⁹³

What are its estimates based on?

It is not clear how PMI calculates its user estimates. In its presentations and corporate reports, it states that they are based on a combination of “PMI financials or estimates, IQOS user panels and PMI market research” (see Image 1 below).¹⁹⁴Information on IQOS sales and revenue from IQOS (but not profit) is reported in company statements, but PMI does not share the raw data from its user panels or market research.

Image 1: PMI’s estimates of IQOS users 2018- 2019 (Source: PMI, 2019 Fourth Quarter and Full Year Results presentation, 6 February 2020)

In 2019, PMI said that it would conduct a series of annual surveys to estimate the prevalence and use patterns of IQOS and other nicotine products in Germany, Italy and part of the UK.¹⁹⁵ PMI stated that “the results of the first year data analysis are expected to be available by June 2019”. As of January 2023, these results did not appear to be publicly available.

The “PMI Science” website presents some findings relating to the use of IQOS based on surveys conducted in Japan between 2016 and 2018.¹⁹⁶¹⁹⁷

The problem with “conversion”

PMI stated in a 2018 presentation to shareholders that “High full conversion rates for an RRP [Reduced Risk Product] product [sic] are of fundamental importance” to consumers, the company and regulators as it “underscores a higher potential to meaningfully improve public health, as [IQOS] has a demonstrated ability to switch current smokers to proven better alternatives than cigarettes”.¹⁹⁸

However, PMI’s estimates for those who have “converted” to IQOS are based on a seven day assessment only,¹⁹⁹ which limits the ability to generalise the findings as a reflection of sustained behavioural change. It is likely that the number of people who use IQOS exclusively is lower than PMI’s estimates.¹⁵⁰ PMI’s statements are based on the assumption that current dual users of tobacco and IQOS will all give up smoking cigarettes, and that the process of “conversion” will not be reversed.¹⁵⁰²⁰⁰

PMI does not systematically publish raw data on the quit intentions of its users. Prior to the EU menthol ban, Philip Morris Ltd (PMI’s UK subsidiary) reported that 15% of UK consumers would try to quit in response to the ban, while over 50% would consider switching to IQOS “once made aware of this option”. It appears that this survey involved showing participants the IQOS device, but it is not known if they were shown other HTPs, e-cigarettes, smokeless tobacco or medical cessation tools, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).²⁰¹ This finding has not been independently verified and other survey data does not support PMI’s claims. (For more details see Menthol Cigarettes: Industry Interference in the EU and UK)

Dual and poly use

Evidence suggests even low levels of ongoing smoking can be deadly.²⁰² Thus, if HTPs are to have a potential public health benefit, they must not only reduce the  risk of harm and disease compared to cigarettes and other smoked products (currently unproven), but also be used by smokers exclusively, not just ‘most of the time’.

Yet, there is emerging independent evidence of considerable dual and poly use in countries where PMI says that IQOS is helping smokers to quit cigarettes. Multiple independent studies amongst have found many HTP users also concurrently use other tobacco and nicotine products, particularly cigarettes.^{203204205206207208209} In two of these studies, the authors note their findings suggest HTPs may serve as “complements” to cigarettes rather than an aid to quitting them.²⁰³²⁰⁴

These patterns of dual and poly use are confirmed by PMI’s own evidence. For example, 2017 and 2019 conference posters based on PMI’s surveys in Japan identify, yet downplay, significant dual and poly use of IQOS, cigarettes and other nicotine products. ¹⁹⁶²¹⁰

Apart from this not being a representative sample of the global population, e-cigarettes are banned in Japan, meaning that IQOS has little competition from other products. As the FDA noted:

“Consumers may be more likely to try using IQOS if non‐cigarette tobacco products such as nicotine‐containing e‐cigarettes are not readily available”.¹⁶⁶

In its review, the FDA created its own chart based on PMI’s perception and behaviour studies and definitions (image 2 below). This showed that across five countries, significantly more people also used cigarettes (dual use) or reverted to cigarettes, than exclusively, or even predominantly, used IQOS.¹⁶⁶

Image 2: FDA chart showing dual use, based on PMI’s data (Source: FDA)¹⁶⁶

Academic review by McKelvey et al. found that PMI’s consumer perception and behaviour studies were fundamentally flawed in multiple ways: findings were extrapolated from a diary task to the whole sample, when only half of the participants had completed it; studies did not count use of other tobacco products, only cigarettes and IQOS; studies were limited to a 4-6 week period, when HeatSticks were provided for free (giving a price advantage and potential bias, meaning that the results were not representative of smokers or HTP users); and they did not allow sufficient time to identify how many IQOS users might “switch back” to cigarettes.²¹¹ In addition, the authors stated that PMI had mis-represented its own finding around participants’ quit intentions and downplayed the likelihood of dual or poly use.²¹¹

Euromonitor International (which receives project funding from the Foundation for a Smoke Free World and PMI) published a report in May 2020, which included some general findings on nicotine use from surveys it conducted in 2019 and 2020.²¹² In part, this survey was designed to “understand the extent and nature of dual and multiple formats”.²¹² The report noted that the HTP market is still relatively small, and that dual and poly use is most common among smokers who also use e-cigarettes and/or other products (which were not specified in this report). It also stated that in the case of HTPs, only 15% of users reported that they were planning to quit completely in the next year, and that this was “the smallest proportion of consumers of any category”.²¹² Euromonitor suggests this is due to the “immaturity” of the HTP category compared to other tobacco and nicotine product categories, such as e-cigarettes.²¹²

Another Euromonitor report from April 2020, based on its nicotine survey, stated that around 20% of e-cigarette users planned to move to HTPs (up from 18% in 2019) and around 30% of HTP users planned to move to e-cigarettes. Given the large size of the e-cigarette market this would lead to a significant “net gain for heated tobacco”.²¹³

For information on the global HTP market see Heated Tobacco Products

PMI is careful in public statements not to refer to IQOS users as “smokers”, even when they also smoke cigarettes. Stanford University researchers have pointed out that dual use of cigarettes and IQOS, where smoking is not allowed for example in “IQOS Friendly Places”, may in practice “serve to deepen nicotine addiction and make cessation less probable”.¹⁷⁵

HTPs may attract non-smokers

PMI also downplays data on non-smokers who start using IQOS. In work based on its Japanese surveys, PMI states that “initiation and re-initiation of tobacco use with IQOS was minimal in both surveys and years” but does not explain how these figures were derived.¹⁹⁶ PMI’s studies have actually found up to 2% of registered Japanese IQOS users were not nicotine or tobacco users when they started using IQOS.²¹⁴¹⁹⁶ Further, up to 6% of non-smokers and up to 15% of former smokers expressed an intention to use IQOS in PMI’s Japan and US surveys.²¹⁵²¹⁶ None of these studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals.

There is some evidence emerging that HTPs may be attractive to those who have never smoked cigarettes, including young people.²¹⁷ While there is currently little evidence of a potential ‘gateway effect’ (i.e. people who don’t smoke or use nicotine products start using HTPs and then move onto conventional cigarettes), any tobacco or nicotine product uptake would clearly lead to an increase in harms to health.¹⁸⁴ Research from Italy (a country where HTPs were introduced at a favourable tax rate, and a key IQOS market) found that 45% of Italy’s 740,000 IQOS users, and over half of the 1.2 million people who were expressed an intention to try IQOS, were people who had never smoked.²¹⁸²¹⁹ This finding was supported by research from South Korea, which found that HTPs were likely to be attractive to youth who had not previously used any tobacco products.²²⁰ The FDA noted that:

“the currently available evidence suggests that youth uptake of IQOS is currently low in countries where it has been measured. However, given that IQOS is still a relatively new product, the uptake and use patterns among youth in these markets, or any market that may start selling IQOS, is unclear”.¹⁶⁶

Its marketing authorisation for IQOS in the US requires PMI to conduct post-market assessments to “ensure that youth exposure to tobacco marketing is being minimized”.¹⁶⁶

Analysis of surveys conducted in Canada, England and the US, published in 2020, also found that non-smokers were interested in trying the product.²²¹

IQOS rejected as a cessation tool

There is very little evidence that IQOS is effective as a quit tool at the individual level or population level. A 2022 Cochrane review of the evidence on HTPs for cessation concluded:

“Heated tobacco probably exposes people to fewer toxins than cigarettes, but possibly more than not using any tobacco. Falls in cigarette sales appeared to speed up following the launch of heated tobacco in Japan, but we are uncertain whether this is caused by people switching from cigarettes to heated tobacco”.²²²

New Zealand

When instructing public health officials to reject PMI’s offer of free IQOS in August 2019, the Director-General of Health stated that “the health sector does not share the same goals or aspirations of this industry”.¹⁶³ He also referred to PMI’s funding of FSFW, and discouraged engagement with COREISS, stating that “there is a range of alternative sources of information and advice on smoking cessation and the possible use of vaping products to support cessation, including for Māori”.¹⁶³

Australia

Despite intense lobbying by PMI to allow the sale of IQOS, in August 2020, the Australian government’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) rejected the sale of HTPs in Australia.²²³²²⁴.

The TGA found that PMI’s assertion that smoking rates in Australia had “stagnated” was inaccurate, and that rates were in fact continuing to decline. In addition to uncertainty over nicotine levels and general health risks (which included PMI’s own research findings), the TGA also highlighted the concern that HTPs might still attract people who had never smoked, including youth: “there would be no ability to restrict the supply of HTPs to smokers seeking to quit”.²²³

In Australia, nicotine products, including HTPs, are available via a medical prescription for smoking cessation. The TGA concluded that as a consequence, there was no justification to introduce “a new nicotine product for non-therapeutic use”.²²³

Mexico

In September 2020, the Mexican Ministry of Health reaffirmed the ban on the import of HTPs, made clear that IQOS had not been granted any form of reduced risk status in Mexico and stated that it did not support its use as a tool to stop smoking.²²⁵ For more information see: Heated Tobacco Products

Why does this matter?

TCRG researchers have stated that until the relative health risks are determined, HTPs, including IQOS, have no public health role:¹⁶⁹

“There is currently no evidence that IQOS helps smokers quit. Smokers wishing to quit should use products shown to be safe and effective in line with national and international guidance.”¹⁶⁸²²⁶

PMI’s attempts to establish or take over cessation programmes could have a damaging effect on public health. Writing about Philip Morris’s historical efforts, MacDaniel et al concluded that:

“Such endeavors have the potential to inflict real harm by competing with more effective programs and by helping to maintain a tobacco-favorable policy environment. If PM truly wanted to support cessation, it could drop legal and other challenges to public policies that discourage smoking.”¹⁵¹

In 2023, the same statement can be applied to PMI.

Relevant Links

• Addiction at any cost: Philip Morris International Uncovered, Stopping Tobacco Organisations and Products/Tobacco Control Research Group, 2020
• STOP/TCRG, FDA does not rule that IQOS reduces tobacco-related harm, yet PMI still claims victory, Issue brief, July 2020
• WHO statement on heated tobacco products and the US FDA decision regarding IQOS, July 2020

TobaccoTactics Resources

• Harm Reduction
• Heated Tobacco Products
• Newer Nicotine and Tobacco Products: Philip Morris International
• PMI Promotion of IQOS Using FDA MRTP Order

TCRG Research

• Tobacco industry messaging around harm: Narrative framing in PMI and BAT press releases and annual reports 2011 to 2021, I. Fitzpatrick, S. Dance, K. Silver, M. Violini, T.R. Hird, Frontiers in Public Health, 18 October 2022. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.958354
• Corporate communication of the relative health risks of IQOS through a webchat service, S. Braznell, J.R. Branston, A.B. Gilmore, Tobacco Control, Online First: 03 March 2022. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056999
• PMI New Zealand conflates IQOS heated tobacco products with electronic nicotine delivery systems, L. Robertson, J. Hoek, K. Silver, Tobacco Control Published Online First: 19 November 2021. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056964
• US regulator adds to confusion around heated tobacco products, A.B. Gilmore, S. Braznell, BMJ, 2020;370:m3528
• Understanding the emergence of the tobacco industry’s use of the term tobacco harm reduction in order to inform public health policy, S. Peeters, A. Gilmore, Tobacco Control, 2015,24(2):182-189

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 PMI’s IQOS: Use, “Switching” and “Quitting” appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Long-Standing Career at Japan Tobacco

Kimura joined Japan Tobacco and Salt Public Corporation (now known as Japan Tobacco) in April 1976, and has held various leadership roles including:²³³

• Executive Corporate Advisor of Japan Tobacco Inc. (since 2014)
• Chairman of Japan Tobacco Inc (2012 – 2014)
• Representative Director (2006 – 2014)
• Chief Executive Officer and President of Japan Tobacco Inc (2006 – 2012)
• Senior Executive Vice President, Assistant to the Chief Executive Officer of JTI SA, Geneva (1999 – 2006)
• Director of Japan Tobacco Inc (1999 – 2001)

Opposed Tobacco Tax Increase

To reduce smoking rates the Japanese government (which owns a 50% stake in JT) proposed to increase Japanese tobacco taxes in 2008.²³⁴²³⁵ Tobacco tax increases are a uniquely strong and cost-effective means to prevent or reduce tobacco use according to the World Bank.²³⁶ Also see: Price and Tax
Kimura strongly criticised the proposed tax increase, claiming that the measure was “disastrous and unfair” and “disproportionately penalized smokers”. In an interview with Bloomberg News, Kimura suggested that the government would do better to sell its 50% stake in the tobacco company than raise taxes.²³⁷ Representatives of Japan’s 13,000 tobacco farmers supported Kimura’s view, arguing that the proposed tax increase would ‘ruin their livelihoods’.²³⁴
Despite tobacco industry opposition, the tax increase came into effect in 2010, and resulted in a price increase of about 40% for popular cigarette brands.²³⁸
In the peer reviewed journal Tobacco Control, Tabuchi et al (2017) suggested that the increase in tobacco price during the period of 2009 – 2010 led to a decrease in smoking prevalence in Japan from 27.2% to 24.5%.²³⁹

TobaccoTactics Resources

• Japan Tobacco International
• Japan Tobacco Group
• Price and Tax

References

The post Hiroshi Kimura appeared first on TobaccoTactics.