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

This page covers flavoured tobacco, including menthol cigarettes, in low and middle-income countries (LMICs).¹²

Background

Flavoured tobacco products are available in various forms around the world, including products previously only used in particular regions or countries. For example in Indonesia, the vast majority of smokers use kretek, clove-flavoured cigarettes,³⁴ and they are now available in other countries.⁵⁶

Flavoured tobacco is used in waterpipe, a device which originated in middle-eastern countries and is increasingly popular elsewhere, including among young people.⁷

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

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

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

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

Specific challenges for LMICs

LMICs with no ban often have other major tobacco control policy gaps that are not necessarily menthol/flavour related but worsen the negative impact of menthol/flavours.⁸ One such policy is plain, or standardised, packaging,  which can include restrictions on flavour descriptors as well as colours on packaging which are known to signify flavour (e.g. green for menthol).⁹ However, plain packaging policies have yet to be implemented in many countries, including some high-income countries, so this would be a significant challenge in LMICs. Another relevant policy is the prohibition of marketing, especially near schools.¹⁰

Governments have more conflicts of interest in tobacco growing areas as they receive much needed foreign currency for tobacco exports,  and multinational companies can threaten this income stream if governments attempt to put tobacco controls in place.⁸¹¹  However, apart from rare exceptions the tobacco industry contributes little overall to the balance of payments.¹²¹³

Regulatory challenges

The WHO published brief guidance on the regulation of menthol and flavoured tobacco which summarised some regulatory options including restrictions on: the sale of menthol branded products,  the use of menthol at noticeable levels (giving a ‘characterising flavour’),  or banning any menthol ingredients.¹⁴  The report points to likely opposition from the tobacco industry in countries or regions with an established menthol market.¹⁴ This was the case with the European Union (EU) menthol ban which only came into full force in 2020, after the tobacco industry had successfully lobbied for a delay. Testing for characterising flavour is more difficult and expensive than a ban on ingredients; this makes banning menthol as an ingredient particularly efficient for LMICs.

The WHO noted that:

“A ban on all flavour agents that increase tobacco product attractiveness, rather than focusing on menthol exclusively, can provide an alternate route to restricting menthol, and may prevent the unwanted introduction of menthol substitutes.”¹⁴

Research and data

As of 2021, when TCRG researchers conducted a review of evidence on menthol/flavour in LMICs,¹⁵ there were very few research papers from countries in Eastern Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean region, and Africa.

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

More research is needed on menthol and flavour in LMICs to help governments monitor the tobacco industry and its products, as recommended by the WHO: “An evidence base using data collected from the region of interest can provide more direct support for regulation.”¹⁴

Market in LMICs

Evidence suggests menthol and flavoured tobacco products are widely used in LMICs.  Data from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Policy Evaluation Project suggests that menthol is smoked by more than 20% of smokers in several middle-income countries. Although the dates vary (see the note above on data challenges) this research gives an indication of the scale of the problem. The highest rates were found in Zambia (42% in 2014) and Thailand (35% in 2012). Kenya and India also had over 20% menthol smokers, with China just under just under that level.¹⁶

A study from Johns Hopkins University, between 2015 and 2017, found a range of flavoured and capsule cigarettes on the market in those LMICs with the highest number of smokers: Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Russia, Thailand, and Vietnam.¹⁷

The main TTCs operating in these countries (PMI, JTI, and BAT) mostly sold menthol or mint flavours. China National Tobacco Corporation (CNTC) sold  a mix of flavours.¹⁷

There is also evidence from a number of studies that menthol and flavour tobacco use is rising, either as a proportion of the market or substantively.  Evidence from TCRG research shows that after the implementation of the European Union (EU) menthol ban in 2020, there was a marked increase in the share of menthol/flavoured products in some LMICs.¹⁵ A study of cigarette packs in Brazil, Indonesia, the Philippines, Russia, Thailand, and Vietnam, between 2013 and 2016, found that the number of flavour capsule variants on the market was growing.¹⁸ Most were mint and menthol flavour but with others the flavour was unclear from the product name.¹⁸

A number of studies have identified related marketing activities.  Marketing strategies for flavour capsules are likely driving their global growth particularly among young people in LMICs.¹⁹

TCRG’s review  of tobacco industry strategies underpinning the growth of menthol/flavoured tobacco use in LMICs  highlighted widespread marketing in stores (including retailers near schools), on billboards, on TV, online and via brand ambassadors. The packaging of flavoured and menthol products, legally displayed in stores, was  found to be colourful with non-conventional, appealing names for flavours.¹⁵

Tobacco companies also use symbols on cigarette sticks to indicate that they contain capsules.²⁰ Researchers studying this form of marketing in LMICs have described the space on a cigarette as “valuable communicative real estate” for tobacco companies, which could be better used to display public health messages.²⁰

Research and data from specific regions and countries is summarised below. We refer in many places to TCRG research based on 2019 cigarette market data from Euromonitor. In this data ‘high market share’ means 20% or more of the total cigarette market in that country in 2019. ‘High market share growth’ means that the share doubled between 2005-19 and was growing from 2017.¹⁵ We link to regional and country profile pages on TobaccoTactics, where available.

Africa

Nigeria has high menthol/flavour market share and high market share growth.¹⁵

Cameroon has high market share, the only other country in the region for which this data was available. (For Egypt see Eastern Mediterranean region below.)¹⁵

Tanzania

JTI sells a menthol cigarette called Sweet Menthol through its subsidiary in Tanzania. It describes this product as “the leading local mainstream menthol brand”.²¹

Zambia

JTI owned brand Sweet Menthol is the third most popular cigarette in Zambia.  It is cheap and is usually sold as single sticks.²²  On its webpage for Zambia, JTI describes itself  as a leaf farming company, and does not mention that it sells cigarettes in the country. A locally owned company, Roland Imperial,  also sells menthol cigarette brands.²³

ITC survey data showed a high prevalence of menthol smokers in Zambia, with 43% of smokers choosing the product.²⁴ Menthol was most commonly used among younger smokers, those with a middle income, and those that don’t smoke every day. Over a third of smokers indicated that they thought menthol cigarettes were less harmful than non-menthol.²⁴

Kenya

ITC survey data from Kenya also suggests a high prevalence of menthol smokers.²⁴²⁵ In 2018, 21% of smokers with a regular cigarette brand smoked menthol or sweet menthol (although Euromonitor estimates that only 7% of cigarette sales are menthol).¹⁵  More women smoke menthol than men in Kenya, and two thirds of smokers believed that menthol is less harmful than other cigarettes.²⁴²⁵

Ethiopia

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

• For details see Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco

This was a pre-emptive ban as flavour sales were low. However there has been a lack of enforcement at the retail level.⁸ Flavoured products are not made in Ethiopia and more collaboration with customs is needed to prevent illicit importation.⁸ There is also a lack of awareness that the ban includes waterpipe products.¹⁴

Since 2017, two years after the ban was enacted, JTI has owned 70%  the state owned tobacco company, NTE.²⁶

Latin America

Menthol cigarettes are popular in Latin America, and increasingly so in some countries.¹⁵ Guatemala and Peru have high market share and high market share growth. There is high market share in Columbia and the Dominican Republic, and high market share growth in Argentina, Bolivia and Costa Rica.¹⁵

Use of flavour capsule cigarettes is particularly high in Chile and Mexico.²⁷  According to BAT’s annual report in 2014,  sales of  flavour capsule cigarettes had increased in the region despite price rises, while overall cigarette sales were down.²⁸

A study of over 1,000 retailers located close to schools in Latin American cities (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile and Peru) found that the majority (85%) sold flavoured cigarettes, and most (71%) sold capsule versions.¹⁰ (Similar findings were reported in Uruguay, a high income country, immediately before the implementation of plain pack regulations in 2020.)²⁹

These products were frequently displayed near the point of sale, or confectionary. Some stores also had advertisements and price promotions.¹⁰ Unconventional flavour descriptors such as “fusion blast” and “ruby ice” were very common.³⁰

Brazil

Survey data from 2016-2017 among adult smokers in Brazil found that over 50% supported a ban on menthol and over 60% supported a ban on all additives.³¹ Support did not vary across sociodemographic groups. When menthol smokers were asked what they would do if menthol cigarettes were banned, a third reported they would quit, around 20% would reduce the amount they smoked and a similar number would switch to non-menthol cigarettes. Slightly fewer said they would still find a way to get menthol cigarettes.³¹

ITC survey data from the same period suggested that 8% of smokers with a regular cigarette brand smoked menthol.³² 13% believed that menthol cigarettes were less harmful than non-menthol cigarettes, and over a third reported that they were smoother on the throat and chest.  Nearly two thirds  of surveyed smokers supported a complete ban on all cigarette additives, including flavourings.³²

An online sample of women aged 16- 26 (smokers and non-smokers) preferred packs with flavour descriptors.³³

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

Chile

In 2013, Chile sought to implement a law banning substances that cause higher levels of addiction, harm or risk, leading to tobacco industry resistance and interference.¹⁴

• For details see Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco

Mexico

Studies of retailers in Mexican cities, found that the majority sold menthol and flavoured products, and more than half of stores situated near schools sold flavour capsule cigarettes.³⁴³⁵ Many flavoured cigarettes have descriptors which suggest there is a flavour, but the type of flavour is unclear: chemical analysis of dual flavoured cigarettes suggested flavours were menthol and another flavour, for example fruit.³⁶

A study in Mexico City found that colour and flavour descriptors on cigarette packs made the products more appealing, and some smokers believed they would taste better.³⁷

Guatemala

A study of convenience store retailers in Guatemala found that all sold flavoured tobacco products.³⁸

The majority (88%) of indoor tobacco advertisements in Guatemala were found to be for capsule cigarettes.³⁸

South East Asia & Western Pacific

There is high market share of menthol/flavour in India, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand, and high market share growth in Vietnam.¹⁵  A 2010 study noted that governments in the region had no legislation banning exotic flavours of cigarettes and cigarettes with new flavours had appeared in Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines.³⁹

Philippines

Menthol has been advertised to appeal to young women in the Philippines since the 1970s with menthol brands common for many decades.⁴⁰ PMI, JTI, BAT and Korea Tobacco & Ginseng (KT&G) all sell flavoured capsule cigarettes in the Philippines.⁴¹

Menthol packs studied in the Philippines were harder than non-menthol (for capsule protection) giving a quality feel. Flavoured capsule brands had a greater technological appeal,⁴¹ and packs were rated as more attractive by young adults.⁴²

Blue and white packs were perceived to be less harmful than other colours, as were the descriptors ‘light’ and ‘cool’, whereas the term ‘strong’ was perceived as more harmful.⁴²  Researchers called for greater action and support for banning flavour additives.

Malaysia

In Malaysia, menthol cigarette marketing has been aimed at young people and women.  In the 1980s Brown and Williamson’s Newport menthol cigarettes were marketed in Malaysia with youthful American images and were sold at a cheap price point.⁴³ An internal document from 1993 reveals how the company was developing sweet and fruit flavours for the Malaysian market. ⁴³⁴⁴ A 2003 study noted that the menthol variant of Cartier Vendome (a BAT brand at the time) was described as ‘pearl tipped’ so likely to appeal to women.⁴⁵

In 2013, vanilla, mint and fruit flavoured cigarettes were on sale, and strawberry cigarette packs with pink packaging were documented.⁴⁶

China

In China ‘flavour capsule’ was found to be one of the most common cigarette terms used in online tobacco marketing.  One website explicitly linked flavour capsules with female smokers.⁴⁷

Indonesia

In Indonesia the dominant cigarettes are kreteks which are flavoured with cloves.  Industry attempts to introduce their own cloved flavoured products had failed at least to 2004.⁴⁸  In 2009 PMI and BAT acquired two domestic manufacturers which allowed them access to the kretek market.⁴⁹ In 2009 PMI launched the first super slims kretek for women and Marlboro black menthol for young men.  By 2012 BAT had launched several kretek brands. Both companies were aware that kreteks  are particularly carcinogenic due to the presence of toxic chemical compounds: Anethole, Coumarin and Eugenol.⁴⁹

In Indonesia the flip lid of the cigarette packet was used by Esse (owned by Korean Tobacco & Ginseng, KT&G) to promote the brand with phrases evoking flavour, like “sweet surprise” and “its honey”.  Research found seven cigarette brands with capsules.  Flavours included mint, menthol, berry and honey.⁵⁰

Eastern Mediterranean

There is high market share growth in in Pakistan and Egypt .¹⁵

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

Eastern Europe

Data shows that in Russia menthol/flavour has both a high market share and high market share growth.¹⁵

Other LMICs in the region with high market share growth are Ukraine, Bosnia Herzegovina, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.¹⁵

Relevant Links

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

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

WHO FCTC decision on banning waterpipe flavour (2016)

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

TobaccoTactics Resources

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

TCRG Research

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

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

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

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

References

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

• Despite decades of denial, the tobacco industry has long known about the addictiveness of cigarettes.
• Tobacco companies manipulated the addictiveness of cigarettes via changes in content and design to attract and retain smokers. As a consequence, smokers today are at a greater risk of disease than smokers in the 1960’s, despite smoking fewer cigarettes.
• Greater implementation of FCTC guidelines around product innovation is needed to protect smokers from changes to cigarettes that increase addiction and harm.

Industry knowledge

Cigarettes have been called “dangerous by design”⁵¹. Industry documents reveal that tobacco companies have known for decades about the addictiveness of compounds in cigarettes, including nicotine. They knew how to design cigarettes to affect smokers’ perceptions and behaviours⁵², and knowingly altered the content and design of cigarettes to maintain addiction in their customers⁵³. Yet up until the 1990’s, they continued to claim publicly that cigarettes were not addictive⁵⁴ (see Image 1), despite overwhelming evidence at the time showing the opposite to be true⁵⁵⁵⁶. Tobacco companies’ own internal documents show that they even admitted that they knew all along how addictive their products were⁵³.

Image 1. Tobacco company executives claimed that nicotine is not addictive in 1994 (Source: AP Photo/John Duricka). See this video (source: University of California San Francisco)

Public knowledge

In contrast to tobacco companies’ knowledge of the addictive compounds in cigarettes, the public is unaware of the majority of chemicals in cigarettes, with little awareness of the existence of additives in cigarettes. Yet, consumers do want more information about the ingredients in cigarettes⁵⁷.

Cigarette additives

Tobacco companies increased the addictiveness of cigarettes by manipulating the effects of additives in cigarettes⁵⁸. They increased the amount of nicotine delivered to smokers; and added other chemicals (eg: flavours, sugars, ammonia) to reduce the harshness and improve the taste of cigarette smoke, and to increase the absorption of nicotine.

Nicotine

Nicotine is the primary addictive component in cigarettes, reaching the brain seven seconds after being inhaled⁵⁹. The amount of nicotine delivered to smokers via tobacco smoke has increased overtime ⁶⁰⁶¹. Between 1999 and 2011, it increased by 14.5%; which was due to changes made by manufacturers, rather than natural variation⁶⁰. This trend has been seen in all major market categories of cigarettes⁶¹ .

See the page on newer nicotine and tobacco products for information about nicotine in various consumer tobacco and nicotine products, and the page on harm reduction for information on the debate about the role of these products in tobacco control.

Flavours

Flavourings (eg: cocoa, liquorice, menthol) improve the taste and decrease the harshness of cigarette smoke⁶²⁶³. The ingredients in cocoa and liquorice can ease inhalation of tobacco smoke and nicotine⁶⁴.

Menthol cigarettes (see Image 2) became popular in the 1950s. Menthol masks the harshness of tobacco and alleviates irritation from nicotine, which makes cigarettes easier to smoke⁶⁵, promotes smoking initiation, and facilitates inhalation of tobacco smoke⁶⁶. The cool sensation of menthol causes smokers to hold their breath, enabling greater exposure to the harmful substances in tobacco smoke. This results in increased addiction and tobacco-related diseases⁶⁷.

See the page on Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco for information on how the industry circumvents menthol bans.

Image 2. Newport and Marlboro menthol cigarettes (source: DailyRecord.co.uk).

Other chemicals

Filter design

Tobacco companies deceitfully added filters to cigarettes in the 1950’s in an attempt to imply reduced harm, and entice smokers with health concerns, including women and young smokers. However, this design feature reduces smokers perceptions about the harms of smoking, yet in reality may increase the risk of harm⁷⁸⁷⁹. The ventilation holes in filters increased the amount of nicotine delivered to smokers⁸⁰. Smokers of filtered cigarettes (see Image 3) take puffs deeper and more frequently (this is known as compensatory smoking)⁸¹, whilst blocking ventilation holes with their fingers⁸²⁸³, which means that carcinogens that are inhaled more deeply into the lungs⁸⁴.

See the page on Cigarette Filters for information on marketing and the health and environmental harms.

Image 3. Cigarette filters (source: TheNewYorkTimesMagazine.com).

The U.S. Surgeon General’s report of 2014 concluded that, despite a decline in smoking prevalence, the risk of tobacco-related mortality has increased over the last 50 years due to changes in product composition and design. Specifically, it concluded that adding filters to cigarettes has caused an increase in lung adenocarcinomas (cancers in peripheral areas of the lungs)⁸⁵.

See the page on Product Innovation for information on concerns around changes to products.

Global regulation

The World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) recognises that “cigarettes and some other products containing tobacco are highly engineered so as to create and maintain dependence”⁸⁶. Articles 9 and 10 of the WHO FCTC require Parties to regulate the contents of tobacco products and disclose tobacco products ⁸⁷. The FCTC recommends that attractiveness and its impact on dependence should be taken into consideration for regulation. It recommends that countries:

• Ban misleading and deceptive tobacco advertising, eg: descriptors such as “light” (see Image 4);
• Ban or restrict ingredients used to increase palatability of tobacco products, eg: sugars and sweeteners, and flavourings;
• Ban ingredients associated with energy and vitality in tobacco products;
• Require manufacturers to disclose information on the ingredients in tobacco products to governments, for each product type and each brand⁸⁶.

See the page on Advertising Strategy for information on the industry’s use of advertising.

Image 4. Packets of Marlboro lights cigarettes (source: NewYorkTimes.com).

Up to date information on tobacco control legislation around the world can be found on the Tobacco Control Laws website (published by the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids). You can search litigation by country, tobacco control measure, or type of legal action. The website also contains analysis and assessment of FCTC compliance, and policy factsheets. Parties to the WHO FCTC submit regular FCTC COP reports detailing their progress in implementing the treaty, which are presented in the FCTC Implementation database. Further information on countries’ progress in implementing the WHO recommended MPOWER measures can be found in the WHO reports on the global tobacco epidemic, a serious of biennial reports detailing status and compliance.

The tobacco industry has deliberately manipulated the content and design of cigarettes to maintain addiction in its customers. Given the greater harm experienced by smokers as a result⁸⁵, greater implementation of FCTC guidelines around product innovation is required to protect smokers from changes to cigarettes that increase addiction and harm.

TobaccoTactics Resources

Product Innovation

Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco

Cigarette Filters

TCRG Research

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

R. Hiscock, K. Silver, M. Zatonski, A. Gilmore, Tobacco industry tactics to circumvent and undermine the menthol cigarette ban in the UK, Tobacco Control, 18 May 2020, doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-055769

J. R. Branston, R. Hiscock, K. Silver, D. Arnott, A. Gilmore, Cigarette-like cigarillo introduced to bypass taxation, standardised packaging, minimum pack sizes, and menthol ban in the UK, Tobacco Control, Online First, 26 August 2020, doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-055700

K. Evans-Reeves, K. Lauber, R. Hiscock, The ‘filter fraud’ persists: the tobacco industry is still using filters to suggest lower health risks while destroying the environment, Tobacco Control, 26 April 2021, doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-056245

S. Dance, K. Evans-Reeves. Menthol: Tobacco Companies are exploiting loopholes in the UK’s characterising flavours ban. Tobacco Control.

References

The post Addiction Manipulation appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

This page provides details of the debate over e-cigarette advertising that guided the push for further regulation in and around 2013. In particular, it analyses concerns over companies marketing e-cigarettes to youth, and provides some examples of (controversial) e-cigarette adverts.

The connected pages on early regulation and UK marketing rules contain information specific to this period of time.

• Up to date information can be found on the main e-cigarette page, including links to information on regulation around the world.
• It also links to pages for each of the transnational tobacco companies and their products. Their main brands are presented in a diagram on the newer nicotine and tobacco products page, and in an associated table.
• See also the timeline of tobacco companies’ early investments in e-cigarettes.

A 2021 Cancer Research UK report on E-cigarette Marketing in the UK summarises evidence from adult and youth surveys, as well as policy compliance studies and gives a comprehensive overview of the topic.⁸⁸

Early Spending on the Marketing of e-cigarettes

Research from the University of Stirling revealed that spending on e-cigarette promotion in the UK increased from £1.7m in 2010 to £13.1m in 2012. In addition, in the second half of 2013, a British American Tobacco subsidiary spent £3.6m in two months to promote the launch of its e-cigarette brand, Vype in the UK.⁸⁹⁹⁰

• Also see E-cigarettes, E-cigarettes: E-cigarettes: Marketing Rules and E-cigarettes: Early Regulation.

British American Tobacco subsidiary Vype e-cigarette advert as used on billboards, UK, January 2014.

Concerns

In the UK, the advertising of tobacco products has been banned in most of its forms since 1965. Restrictions applying specifically to the marketing of e-cigarettes did not exist until 2014, when the European Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) was introduced.⁹¹

• For more information on the TPD provisions on marketing e-cigarettes, see the page E-cigarettes: UK marketing rules.

A year before the TPD, in 2013, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) expressed concerns that, without regulation, such devices may be “marketed in a way that may ultimately promote smoking.”⁹² Similar concerns were also being raised by research into the marketing of e-cigarettes in the UK, published by CRUK in 2013. The research highlighted that e-cigarettes were being targeted at two distinct consumer groups:⁹⁰

• The committed smoker,
• Young social smoker or non-smoker.

The same year, a report by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States (US) found that “from 2011 to 2012, electronic cigarette use increased significantly among middle school (0.6% to 1.1%) and high school (1.5% to 2.8%) students…”⁹³ While these percentages are relatively low, they account for nearly 2 million students in the US. E-cigarettes were increasingly being positioned as socially attractive and part of a rapidly growing trend, while being sold at exclusive events and popular venues like parties and festivals.⁹⁴ Therefore, many public health researchers and advocates started to agree on the need to regulate the marketing of e-cigarettes to ensure they were not made to appeal to young people and non-smokers.

According to research,⁸⁹⁹⁰ consumer marketing of e-cigarettes was happening via:

• Television adverts
• Sports and cultural sponsorship
• Celebrity endorsement
• Social networking
• Online advertising
• Point of Sale displays
• Pricing strategies
• Product innovation

The following concerns, relating specifically to young people, have been raised (this list is not exhaustive):

• Glamorising use by using celebrity endorsement and promotion at glamorous events e.g. free handouts at New York Fashion Week⁹⁵⁹⁶
• Sexualising use in paid adverts⁹⁷
• Using social media such as Facebook and Twitter⁹⁰⁹⁸⁹⁹

Concerns about e-cigarette marketing practices⁹⁰

Marketing to youth

E-cigarettes were also being marketed in a way which emulated very successful tobacco advertising: asserting an independent identity and a lifestyle choice, aligning oneself with celebrities, fashionable and youthful places and activities.⁹⁰¹⁰⁰ Both independent e-cigarette companies and tobacco company e-cigarette subsidiaries engaged in marketing activities that can be interpreted as appealing to youth, even if the company line is that this is not its intention.

Independent e-cigarette companies

Independent e-cigarette companies (those which are not associated with tobacco companies) have tended “to distance their products from tobacco.”⁹⁰

The following marketing techniques have been used by independents. Evidence exists that each of these strategies has been successful with youth audiences in conventional cigarette promotion:

Aesthetic appeal including attractiveness, coolness, colours and innovative packaging and flavour variations. Research on tobacco clearly indicates the appeal of such characteristics and flavourings to youth audiences.^101102103

• The Internet and social media tools, used to display attractive price promotions, competitions and group discount vouchers; Price is an important determinant in purchasing behaviour, particularly amongst young people,¹⁰⁴ and the internet presents a direct route of communication to such audiences.¹⁰⁵
• Celebrity endorsements and celebrity-inspired styling. This strategy is a marketing technique, ¹⁰⁶ and also a public relations activity to promote trust in a product.¹⁰⁷
• Sports sponsorship (including football and motorsport, see image 1 ). Research found that corporate sponsorship of sports teams leads children to absorb the corporate marketing messages and influence purchasing decisions.^108109110 For example, Sky Cig made its first club-specific sponsorship deal in October 2013 (see section below), after having had an advertising presence within football for two seasons. In June 2013, London venue The O2 signed a multi-year partnership deal with E-Lites, allowing guests to use and buy the products in and around the arena.¹¹¹

Image 1: Motorsport sponsorship, reminiscent of conventional cigarette sponsorship, e.g. Marlboro and Formula 1

Tobacco Companies

Professor Gerard Hastings, a co-author of the 2013 Cancer Research UK report on the marketing of e-cigarettes said:

“The fact that multinational tobacco companies are moving in on this market is of particular concern. From past experience, we know they are deceitful, determined and deeply detrimental to public health.”⁹⁸

Research shows that, in the case of the smokeless tobacco product snus, the tobacco industry talks about harm reduction, but internal documents reveal that smokeless tobacco was seen as an opportunity to target smokers that were considering quitting, smokers in smokefree public places and a health conscious generation no longer interested in starting smoking.¹¹²

Tobacco companies’ message was somewhat different to that of the independent e-cigarette companies and the nicotine products of the pharmaceutical industry. The tobacco industry has tended to frame the independents as not understanding smokers’ needs, and the pharmaceutical industry as offering unappealing products.⁹⁰Tobacco companies, instead, marketed their e-cigarettes as a dual-use products which allow smokers to access nicotine inside social venues (Image 2).

• For more information on the Tobacco Industry’s interest in harm reduction, see our dedicated page.

Image 2:Vype advert promoting indoor use of e-cigarettes

British American Tobacco’s Vype

In 2013, British American Tobacco’s at-the-time subsidiary CN Creative outlined the target audience of their e-cigarette, Vype, as existing smokers:

“The new product is a similar weight and size to a tobacco cigarette, has a soft-tip filter and features an LED light which glows a soft red when in use. This example, demonstrates how BAT have used their existing knowledge and expertise in the smoking market and applied it to a new product and market”¹¹³

As part of its £3.6m campaign to promote Vype, CN Creative:

• Emphasised characteristics such as freedom, sociability and fun
• Employed social media strategies in addition to print media adverts
• Used attractive young people in Vype branding cars to tour the UK’s cities to promote the e-cigarette¹¹⁴
• Opened what was called the first social venue centred entirely around e-cigarettes: the Vype Social night club in Shoreditch, a young trendy area of London (see Image 3) Using the tagline “Sociability Reborn” (Image 4), the e-cigarette ‘lounge’ was promoted heavily using social media, actively stirring discussion and therefore publicity. However, the club was closed soon after it was opened in November 2013. ¹¹⁵

Image 3: Vype bar, Shoreditch, London, open in November 2013

Image 4: Vype promotional tagline “Sociability Reborn”

BAT also received criticism in October 2013 when an advert for Vype appeared in an online children’s game (Image 5)

Image 5: Advert for Vype appears in children’s online game, October 2013

• For more information on Vype and other BAT products see E-cigarettes: British American Tobacco

Lorillard’s Blu

Blu was an independent US e-cigarette company, acquired by US tobacco company Lorillard in 2010 (and later by Imperial Tobacco in 2015). Lorillard spent £19m promoting Blu.

In the third quarter of 2013, Blu owned 49% of the US e-cigarette market share.^8990116

An analysis of the marketing methods of companies selling smokeless products observed 879 adverts for Blu e-cigarettes in print and on television between 1 June 2012 and August 31 2012.¹¹⁷ Some have argued that marketing techniques for e-cigarettes mimic the successful advertising of cigarettes in a by-gone era¹¹⁸ (image 6).

Image 6: Comparison between iconic cigarette advert and new Blu e-cigarette advertising

Amongst other techniques, Lorillard has used the following strategies, all of which are known to appeal to youth audiences, as shown above:

• Celebrity endorsement – Actress Jenny McCarthy and actor Stephen Dorff acted as promotional “faces” for the brand (see images 7 and 8). In one ad, Dorff says: “It’s time we take our freedom back,” before going on to say that Blu e-cigarettes can be smoked “at a basketball game … in a bar with your friends … virtually anywhere.” Inhaling with swagger, he adds: “Come on, guys, rise from the ashes.”¹¹⁹
• Sports endorsement
• Sexuality (Image 9)
• Innovative packaging – Innovative packs alert users when they come within fifty feet of another user. Both packs start vibrating and flashing a blue light. As an alternative to this users can modify their preferences and share social media details with the other users.¹²⁰
• No reason to quit – Blu does not position e-cigarettes as a way to stop smoking, as evidenced by their US advertisement slogan–“Why quit? Switch to Blu” (Image 1

Image 7: Stephen Dorff in ironically styled Blu e-cigarette advert

Image 8: Actress Jenny McCarthy endorses Blu e-cigarettes on the product website

Image 9: Sexualising e-cigarette use

Image 10: E-cigarettes as another way of smoking

• For more information on the development of blu see E-cigarettes: Imperial Tobacco

Sky Cig

The inaugural television advert for Sky Cig was first broadcast on Tuesday 15 January 2012 (this was before Lorillard took over the UK e-cigarette brand in October 2013 – by then already successful). Showing young people performing youthful activities, partying, mountain biking, relaxing in bed, and travelling. The voice-over emphases that “Life is about now” ….”Life is only asking you one thing…” – to which the answer is: “Who are you sharing it with?” Throughout the advert, in sync with the questions asked, the camera zooms-in repeatedly on the Sky Cig branded package of e-cigarettes carried by, or placed next to, all the young people depicted in the ad. As if in response to the questions posed, the voiceover ends the advert simply stating: “Sky Cig”. After a complaint to the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA), Sky Cig the advert was not permitted to run again in its original form, as is explained at the page on E-cigarettes: UK Marketing Rules.

The advert is reminiscent of the Philip Morris Be Marlboro cigarette adverts which have been aired in 50 countries around the world. The Be Marlboro campaign has been widely criticised for its youth appeal and, after running for over a year, has been banned by authorities in Germany.¹²¹

In October 2013, just when Skicig was taken over by Lorillard, the company signed a deal with the Wolverhampton Wanderers. Under first club-specific sponsorship deal, fans of the football club will be allowed to buy and use e-cigarettes within certain areas of the Molineux Stadium. Smoking has been banned within English football stadiums since 2007 when the ban on smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces came into effect; however, regulation around the use of e-cigarettes in public places is less clear cut.¹²²

TobaccoTactics Resources

• E-cigarettes
• E-cigarettes: Early Regulation
• E-cigarettes: At The Pharmacy
• E-cigarettes: Marketing Rules
• Harm Reduction
• Product Innovation
• British American Tobacco’s subsidiaries CN Creative and Nicoventures

External Reources

• Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising: E-cigarettes.

References

The post E-cigarettes: Marketing appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Motorsports, golf, cricket, tennis, sailing and badminton are among many sports which have received tobacco money.^126127128

With one-fifth of the world’s population, nearly a billion people, connected to football directly or indirectly, this sport provides the tobacco industry with a massive potential audience.¹²⁹ By associating with football, the tobacco industry is able to increase brand awareness among key demographics in all parts of the globe, link their brand with images of health and success, normalise its presence and contribute towards its corporate social responsibility goals. ¹³⁰¹³¹ Note: In this article we use the word football though in some countries the sport is more commonly known as soccer.

Football-themed cigarette pack produced by Semarange in Indonesia in 2015. Image from The use of sports imagery and terminology on cigarette packs from fourteen countries, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10826084.2017.1363236

Tobacco pack advertising

The tobacco industry initially promoted its products as a means of maintaining an athletic physique.¹³⁰ In the 1890s tobacco companies began producing collectible cards with images of football players. The cards, which featured cigarette advertisements, were placed inside cigarette boxes. The practise all but stopped during the Second World War due to paper and tobacco shortages, but companies such as Carreras, now British American Tobacco (BAT), continued advertising, putting images on cigarette cartons.¹³⁰¹³²

Tobacco brand names are still used to develop links with sport, including football. An analysis by Kleb et al looked at cigarette packs from 14 low- and middle-income countries to see how many had sports-related themes. It found 36 brands with distinct “sports appeal” including the use of football imagery and text. “The pack is a powerful medium through which tobacco companies continue to associate their products with idealised concepts associated with sports,” the authors conclude.¹³³

Football star endorsements

Tobacco brands have used particularly well-known football stars to endorse their brands. In the United States in 1964, such testimonials were prohibited under the voluntarily Cigarette Advertising Code. However the code was widely felt to be ineffective and in other countries tobacco associations with the sport continued.¹³⁴¹³⁵

Where previously the England captain in the 1950s would be proudly pictured with a particular brand, now prominent footballers are often called out if seen smoking. Zinedine Zidane, Mario Balotelli and Fabien Barthez, are among those who have been criticised for setting a poor example.¹³⁶¹³⁷

Nonetheless, the attractiveness of using individual football stars continues – whether they wish to or not. In 2002, the English Football Association threatened legal action against BAT after the company used images of England World Cup captain David Beckham and star, Michael Owen, in newspaper advertisements in Malaysia.¹³⁸ In 2012, Indonesian cigarette company Gudang Garam used its digital sports channel to form a link with Manchester United and England star Rio Ferdinand, before the footballer cut ties with the company. It subsequently focussed on motorsports content.

More recently, VPZ, which operates e-cigarettes stores in the UK and has financial links with Philip Morris International, launched a campaign on 10 March 2022 to coincide with National No Smoking Day, calling for a “complete ban on smoking”. The retailer enlisted the services of former Tottenham and Liverpool player Neil “Razor” Ruddock to act as the campaign ambassador. As part of its anti-smoking campaign, VPZ argued that “vaping is fundamental to reaching this target” and highlighted its “vape clinic” services.¹³⁹

Since television money flooded into the game in the 1990s, football has vastly expanded its global reach. Its top stars have ever-greater global exposure and marketing power which continue to make them attractive targets for tobacco companies.

Sponsoring clubs, leagues and cups

Tobacco companies have sponsored football leagues, clubs and cups around the world. The practice is helped by the fact that the global governing body of football, FIFA, and its continental confederations such as UEFA, often have little authority over national leagues which are structured in a variety of ways. In these regulatory gaps tobacco companies continue to exploit football brands, in particular in the continents of Africa, Asia and South America.

An internal presentation from Philip Morris in 1994 outlined the benefits for targeting the Asian football market to promote the Marlboro brand. It said: “[Football] Perceived as a very masculine, somewhat rugged sport; very popular among YAMS [young adult male smokers], nicely complements F1 as a Marlboro property.” It proposed sponsoring regional and national cups and leagues and identified China, Indonesia, South Korea and Hong Kong as priority markets. It proposed spending US$9m over three years sponsoring the China National Football League.¹⁴⁰ That deal went ahead despite the fact there was a law banning tobacco advertising in sports stadiums.¹⁴¹ The sponsorship deal did end a year later, partly due to the advertising ban. Marlboro had eventually paid more than US$1.2m each year for the rights – which was twenty times more than the China Football Association’s organisational budget. “The commercialization of Jia-A league opened a brand new era of Chinese sports,” according to one study.¹⁴²¹⁴³

RJ Reynolds’ Camel brand sponsored cup competitions in Uruguay (Mundialito Uruguay), Japan (Toyota Cup) and venues across Europe for the European Cup Winners cup in the 1980s. An internal analysis concluded that the European advertising had great potential but “it will be a slow and expensive process”.¹⁴⁴ Tobacco companies have invested in that process.

In Jamaica, Craven A, produced by Carreras, was the title sponsor of the country’s premier domestic league competition until the early 2000s.¹⁴⁵ Tobacco companies have also sponsored domestic leagues in Colombia (Copa Mustang) and Indonesia (Liga Dunhill) as well as individual sides such as Austria Vienna (Memphis cigarettes) and FK Sarajevo in Bosnia and Herzegovina.¹⁴⁶

In 2017, Nyasa Manufacturing Company took ownership of Big Bullets FC in Malawi.¹⁴⁷ In 2020 Zimbabwe professional side Dynamos Football Club (known to its fans as DeMbare) agreed an increased sponsorship package with Gold Leaf Tobacco.¹⁴⁸¹⁴⁹ Cairo’s Eastern Company Sporting Club, also known as El Sharkia Lel Dokhan, is named after the Egyptian tobacco company, and in 2021 the company’s top management asked all smokers to support the team in the Egyptian football league stating that “sports is the good image of the company”.¹⁵⁰

In 2019, Djarum, an Indonesian tobacco company that ranks as the world’s leading clove cigarette producer¹⁵¹ bought an Italian football club called Como 1907, a team that plays in the Italian Serie B league.¹⁵² The new owners brought in former England international Dennis Wise as CEO and have attracted young footballing talent as well as more well-known faces such as Spain’s Cesc Fabregas.¹⁵³

The ownership of the club is actually via Djarum’s subsidiary SENT Entertainment Ltd. Through Djarum’s television arm Mola TV, it has developed a reality TV series called Dream Chasers: Garuda Select which followed 24 young footballers trying to succeed in Europe under the direction of Wise. This collaboration between sport and media has echoes of F1’s successful Netflix series Drive to Survive which has been credited with increasing interest in the sport in America. Motorsport is a recipient of huge tobacco sponsorship given the opportunity to reach new young markets.¹⁵⁴¹⁵⁵

Djarum also owns a badminton club and has sponsored other sports events in the past.¹⁵⁶

In many cases the financial support offered by tobacco companies is vital for some clubs and it is not always about them being targeted by cigarette manufacturers. In 2001, the US Soccer Federation, the charitable arm of football in America, contacted Philip Morris about setting up a “Smoke Free Kids and Soccer Program” to distribute grants. “Obviously we are interested in your input and would love to hear any ideas you might have,” the Foundation’s associate director of development and outreach wrote.¹⁵⁷ Philip Morris already had years of investment in football in America, such as through the Miami Cup in the 1980s.¹⁵⁸

As well as these professional sides there is a tradition of works teams who took their official names from tobacco companies. These include BAT Sports FC in the UK, a club originally formed by the workforce of British American Tobacco, and whose team was once nicknamed the ‘tobacco men’.¹⁵⁹ Another example is the BSG Tabak Dresden, a German team that was named after the local tobacco manufacturer in the 1940s.¹⁶⁰

FIFA World Cup and Confederations Cup

American tobacco company RJ Reynolds was an official sponsor of the 1982 FIFA World Cup in Spain. Though Mexico had tobacco advertising bans in place when it hosted the 1986 World Cup, tournament organisers negotiated a deal which allowed RJ Reynolds to advertise. After 1986, FIFA announced that it would no longer accept sponsorships from the tobacco industry.¹⁶¹ FIFA then introduced a ban on tobacco use at the 2002 World Cup in South Korea and Japan, but, four years later in Germany, the ban was dropped.¹⁶²

In 2005, the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control banned “all tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship”, and with the increasingly global nature of TV coverage and consequent bans on cross-border advertising, companies were forced to remove all cigarette branding.¹⁶³ FIFA, with help from the WHO, developed its own tobacco-free policy, and in South Africa in 2010, introduced a comprehensive ban on smoking during its competitions.¹⁶⁴

In 2017, FIFA updated its tobacco-free policy to include heated tobacco products (HTPs) and e-cigarettes (also known as electronic nicotine delivery systems, or ENDS).¹⁶⁵

For the 2022 World Cup an agreement between FIFA, the WHO and the Government of Qatar prohibits smoking and the use of e-cigarettes in the stadium bowl and fan zones and only allows it in outdoor designated smoking areas in the outer perimeter of the stadiums. This will be enforced by tobacco monitors.¹⁶⁶ One UK-based manufacturer of e-liquids has promised to pay the fines of England fans caught using such products.¹⁶⁷ Meanwhile Indonesian clove cigarette manufacturer Djarum, already one of tobacco companies most actively using sports to promote its products, will repeat its 2018 World Cup strategy of sponsoring community-based world cup screenings, including World Cup-themed promotional material.¹⁶⁸

UEFA European Football Championships

UEFA introduced a tobacco-free stadia policy in all its competitions in 2012, prohibiting the use, sale and promotion of tobacco and e-cigarettes in all internal and external areas of host stadia.¹⁶⁹ In 2014, Healthy Stadia studied the extent and nature of smoke-free policies operating at football stadia within Europe and found that only 10 of 22 countries with bans completely prohibited smoking.¹⁷⁰ The same study, which explored the legislative framework surrounding smoke-free stadia in Europe, showed gaps between legislation and practise.¹⁷⁰

The first European Championships staged under the policy was Euro 2012 in Poland and Ukraine, with the policy extending to France 2016.¹⁶⁹¹⁷¹

The postponed 2020 European football championships saw the launch of a Tobacco-Free Declaration developed by the European Healthy Stadia Network to help clubs, leagues and governing bodies develop tobacco-free policies. An updated survey found a marked increase in smoke-free stadia compared with 2014.

It showed that 29 out of 50 UEFA national associations responding were operating complete smoke-free policies, 21 had partial policies while three had no policies at all. In addition 51 of the 53 associations responding had policies prohibiting the sale and advertising of tobacco products and 26 had specific policies prohibiting e-cigarettes.¹⁷²

The Dutch Football Association is one of those with voluntary codes stronger than national legislation and aims to have all stadia and training areas smoke-free and no advertising or promotion of both conventional and newer nicotine and tobacco products.¹⁷²

VIP facility at Bayern Munich’s stadium in Germany sponsored by a tobacco company

UEFA national associations are only part of the football picture in each country. Examples such as cigar sponsorship at Germany’s prestigious Bayern Munich ground show there are still gaps in the advertising and promotion ban.¹⁷³

During the 2020 UEFA Championships, British American Tobacco’s HTP brand glo acted as official sponsor for the Italian national Football Federation, despite the Italian Ministry of Health and consumer rights organisations exposing it as illegal sponsorship of tobacco products.¹⁷⁴

Glo sponsorship of the Italian National Football Federation included a sales area in the Rome stadium, allowing fans to win and personalise glo products on site.¹⁷⁵

A survey conducted by Tobacco Tactics found varying levels of compliance with such legislation. Spanish journalists reported a lack of awareness of legislation banning tobacco use at stadia and a general acceptance of smoking as a matter of culture. Journalists in Romania reported seeing occasional tobacco advertising since the autumn of 2019. By contrast, reporters in Denmark reported neither witnessing tobacco use, nor advertising in or around stadia and reported general compliance with laws.¹⁷⁶

• For more information see the Healthy Stadia guidance on tobacco free stadia.

Promoting Newer Products

The uneven application of tobacco advertising bans has opened the door to advertising the growing sales of newer nicotine and tobacco products such as e-cigarettes and HTPs. Despite many countries now having smoke-free regulations inside stadia for domestic competitions, this does not always stretch to prohibiting the use of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products (HTPs). For example, the English Football League does not prohibit them within its ground regulations.¹⁷⁷ One of the early examples of NGP manufacturers taking advantage of this is Birmingham City in the UK which in 2013 signed a sponsorship deal with local-based Nicolites to carry the e-cigarette logo on its first team shirts.¹⁷⁸ In Scotland, the sponsors of Rangers FC, launched a range of e-cigarettes flavours honouring the club’s Ibrox brand.¹⁷⁹ Chinese e-cigarette companies have been forging links with football clubs. In 2021 Geekvape and French Ligue 1 giants Paris Saint-Germain agreed a deal “for co-branded products in authorized countries”.¹⁸⁰ Innkin signed a sponsorship deal with the English Football League in October 2020.¹⁸¹ Notionally this supposed to support smoking cessation campaigns in October but the deal has continued.

Also getting a boost from an association with football are Snus pouches. In 2018 it was reported that hundreds of professional footballers in the UK used the Scandinavian smokeless tobacco product despite its sale being banned. They included England star Jamie Vardy. One footballer said: “It’s big in the game.”¹⁸²

Closed Stadia During Covid-19 Pandemic

In 2020, most domestic league seasons were cancelled, delayed or shortened mid-season due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Before the pandemic, domestic league matches across Europe drew audiences of 20 million to enclosed, or partially covered stadia, and matches were played behind closed doors once leagues resumed.¹²⁹

Companies such as Phillip Morris International have exploited the lockdowns and referenced the COVID-19 pandemic in promoting special offers for home delivery of its HTP, IQOS, to Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Romania and Spain.¹⁸³ All four countries will be hosting matches in the UEFA 2020 European Football Championship matches.¹⁸⁴

However, the pandemic has also worked to enhance tobacco control policies in some instances. In Belgium, a general smoking ban was implemented in football stadia in October 2020 to aid the safe return of fans and discourage them from removing their masks. The Belgian Pro-League has now announced that it will become totally tobacco-free from the start of the 2021 season.¹⁸⁵

• For more information go to our COVID 19 resources page.

Related links

Healthy Stadia: Tobacco-Free Stadia Guidance

World Health Organization: FIFA World Cup 2022 resources

TobaccoTactics Resources

Motorsports Sponsorship

CSR Strategy

References

The post Football Sponsorship appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

• Filtered cigarettes have historically been marketed as safer than unfiltered cigarettes. Despite evidence showing that they are not less harmful and have increased health risks, they are still perceived by consumers as less harmful.
• Today, new variants of filtered cigarettes continue to be promoted by the industry to retailers.
• The high environmental cost of cigarette filters is being used by the industry to facilitate engagement with the UK government, in an attempt to repair its damaged reputation and maintain profits.
• The tobacco industry should bear the responsibility for both the environmental and health harms of cigarette filters.

More than 90% of cigarettes sold worldwide have a filter.¹⁸⁸¹⁸⁹ These filters are typically made of a plastic called cellulose acetate,¹⁹⁰ and are not biodegradable.¹⁹¹

History of industry marketing

‘Safer’ and ‘healthier’

Cigarette filters have been referred to as the “deadliest fraud in the history of human civilisation”.¹⁹² Filters were initially used from 1860 to 1920 to prevent particles of tobacco entering the mouth. The first major filtered cigarette, called Parliament (Brown and Williamson), was introduced in the USA in 1931. Viceroy cigarettes (also Brown and Williamson), introduced in 1936, were the first filter cigarette sold at a popular price.¹⁸⁸

During the early 1950s, evidence demonstrated causal links between smoking and lung cancer.¹⁹³¹⁹⁴ The tobacco industry responded by introducing filters to reassure smokers that it was taking action to make cigarettes safer,¹⁸⁹ and to promote an alternative to quitting.¹⁹⁵ In 1950, cigarettes with cellulose acetate filters were introduced, capturing 1% of the market share.¹⁸⁸

Many new filters were launched between the mid-1950s to mid-1960s and, according to a Philip Morris document from 1966,  proved to be an “‘effective advertising gimmick’”.¹⁹⁵¹⁹⁶ Over the same period, industry spending on advertising tripled to approximately US$150 million, at least partly accounted for by the promotion of filters.¹⁹⁵

In 1964, the US Surgeon General’s report on smoking and health concluded that smoking caused lung cancer.¹⁹⁷ Philip Morris (PM) claimed that this report missed an opportunity to promote the health benefits of filters. In 1966, PM conducted market analysis for a ‘health cigarette’, which concluded that “the illusion of filtration is as important as the fact of filtration”.¹⁹⁵

‘Light’ and ‘mild’ cigarettes

In the 1970s, with more studies confirming the damaging health impact of smoking, tobacco companies started introducing ‘light’ and ‘mild’ cigarette brand variants.¹⁹⁵ Japan Tobacco International was the first tobacco company to introduce a cigarette with ‘mild’ in the brand name.¹⁹⁸ Such cigarettes, which initially were supported by public health,¹⁹⁹ had perforated filters.¹⁸⁹

Industry research using standard smoking machine tests found that filter ventilation reduced the concentrations of tar and nicotine in the inhaled smoke,²⁰⁰ as well as making cigarettes taste lighter and milder.²⁰¹²⁰² However, smoking machines do not precisely mirror real-life cigarette use in smokers. When their nicotine intake is reduced smokers typically engage in ‘compensatory smoking’; they take more frequent and deeper puffs to satisfy nicotine cravings,²⁰³²⁰⁴ and could cover the ventilation holes in the filters with their fingers.²⁰⁵²⁰⁶ Research on industry documents shows that Brown & Williamson, developer of the first major filtered cigarette, was aware of smokers’ practice of compensating for filter ventilation during the design process.²⁰⁷

Despite being aware by the 1970s, that smokers smoked filtered cigarettes differently to the machines used in testing, there was an industry-wide movement towards marketing filtered cigarettes as ‘safer’.²⁰⁸ Advertising slogans for such cigarettes referred to “miracle filter tips”.¹⁹⁵ There was a switch from regular products to new products, such as filtered cigarettes, particularly among female and older smokers. However, overall smoking rates stayed the same across this period.¹⁹⁵

No benefit to health

Filters have been marketed as a means to reduce smoking-related health risks,¹⁸⁹ although evidence to date does not support this claim. Despite common perception, research has shown that cigarette filters do not offer any health benefit and filtered cigarettes are not less harmful than unfiltered cigarettes, for either smokers²⁰¹ or passive smokers.²⁰⁹ The compensatory behaviour exhibited by smokers using filtered cigarettes not only negates any potential reduction in health risks, but can actually increase health risks. The 2014 US Surgeon General’s Report on smoking and health concluded that cigarette filter ventilation, found in ‘light’ brand variants, has caused an increase in lung adenocarcinomas (cancers found in peripheral areas of the lungs) among smokers, due to altered puffing and inhalation associated with ventilated filters.²¹⁰ This means smokers inhale carcinogens more deeply into the lungs²⁰¹ and small particles in tobacco smoke are increasingly deposited in small airways.²¹⁰ There is also a risk of smokers inhaling fibres from filters.²¹¹

Consumer (mis)perceptions

Smokers and non-smokers incorrectly perceive that ‘lighter’ brand variants are less damaging to health. Malboro Gold (previously ‘light’) smokers are more likely than Malboro red (‘full strength’) smokers to rate their cigarettes as weaker, and lower in nicotine and tar, as well as less harsh and mild tasting. However, this is not demonstrated by clinical evidence on biomarkers of exposure.²¹²

The evidence on filters also shows that:

• Filter marketing slogans imply cleanliness and reduced risk through improved filtration,²¹³ hygiene,²¹⁴ ‘cleaner’ stubbing out, less smoke smell, and a smoother smoking experience.²¹⁵
• Smokers perceive cigarette packs with a picture of a filter as significantly more likely to taste smooth, deliver less tar and be lower risk.²¹⁶
• The colour of cigarette packs is associated with filter ventilation. Filtered cigarette packages are associated with brighter and less saturated colours.²¹⁷
• White filter tips reinforce this perception of reduced harm.²¹⁸²¹⁹ Young people in particular perceive cigarette packs with references to filters as significantly less harmful than packs without references to filters.²²⁰

Global Regulation

Maximum tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide levels

The European Tobacco Products Directive sets maximum emission levels for tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide (TNCO) for cigarettes sold in the EU (10mg tar, 1mg nicotine and 10mg carbon monoxide), as measured using the ‘International Standards Organization (ISO)’ method.²²¹  This method has been criticised for allowing manipulation through filter ventilation, as smokers close the holes in the filter with their fingers and lips. It produces artificially lowered levels of TNCOs, and doesn’t account for smokers’ compensatory behaviours.²²²

An alternative method, called ‘Canadian Intense’, tapes the ventilation holes and captures larger puffs with a shorter break in between. As a result, the Canadian Intense method usually measures higher amounts of TNCOs.²²¹²²³ This method was adopted by the World Health Organization and is also referred to as the WHO Intense method.^224225226

The WHO advocates for methods of testing and measurement developed independently from the tobacco industry:

“The industry exerts considerable influence on the adopted ISO testing methods for tobacco and tobacco products, as they make up by far the largest percentage of national and international technical committees.”²²⁶

In 2018, the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) conducted a study on one hundred cigarettes for sale in the Netherlands using the WHO Intense method. The study found TNCO emissions between 2 and 3 times higher than the legally permitted maximum during real-life consumption, whereas the emissions of all cigarettes remained under the legal thresholds when measured with the ISO method.^222227228 An RIVM study recommended that a different, independent measurement method be used instead of the ISO method, rather than one “largely influenced by the tobacco industry”.²²² The WHO also recommends the extension of tobacco product sale regulation and tax policy to include single-use cigarette filters.¹⁹¹

As of January 2021, 93 countries worldwide have banned or restricted misleading packaging and labelling.²²⁹ Descriptors of ‘light’ and ‘mild’ on cigarette packs have been banned in the European Union and Brazil since 2003. Similar policies have been in place in Australia since 2005, Canada since 2007 and the USA since 2009. Consequently, misperceptions about ‘light’ cigarettes reduced between 2002 and 2009 in smokers across Canada, the UK, and Australia.²³⁰²³¹

The tobacco industry continues to use filter ventilation to imply that filtered cigarettes are safer, by using packaging to indicate ‘light’ or ‘mild’ cigarettes, despite the introduction of bans on misleading packaging and labelling. This deceptive marketing is typically not regulated by plain packaging legislation.²³⁰²³¹ To evade this legislation, the tobacco industry is exploiting loopholes by:

• Using colour named brands to indicate former ‘lights’ brands, which were associated with filter ventilation,²³² while maintaining the same product characteristics.²³³
• Innovating filters, which enables continued differentiation between products and promotion to investors (see Figure 1).²³⁴

Figure 1: Slide from BAT Investor Day 2015 presentation on marketing strategy. (Source: British American Tobacco)

Innovations in filters

The tobacco industry uses product innovation as a tactic to grow sales and circumvent legislation.

Flavour capsules

Since being introduced in 2007, cigarettes with flavour capsules in the filter have grown exponentially worldwide. In 2017, the market share of capsule cigarettes was greatest in Chile (36%), followed by Peru (34%), Guatemala (32%), Mexico (22%), and Argentina (17%).²³⁵ (More details on the capsule market can be found on Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco and Menthol Cigarettes: Industry Interference in the EU and UK.)

Filters can contain one or two different flavour capsules, with flavours including mint, fruit, or those that imitate drinks, including cocktails. In 2014, flavour capsules were also introduced for roll-your-own cigarettes in the UK and Korea. These types of filters enable tobacco companies to market and differentiate their brands, despite regulations on plain packaging and health warnings.²³⁵

Capsules in cigarette filters are strategically marketed to consumers, through a ball and/or power button symbol, coloured images (blue or green), and phrases such as “activate” and “pop it”.²³⁶ The evidence shows that cigarettes with flavour capsules are associated with misperceptions of harm²³⁷ and increased attractiveness among young smokers.²³⁸

Recessed and firm filters

Since plain packaging legislation was introduced in Australia in 2012, the tobacco industry has undermined the legislation by introducing recessed filters and firm filters. Recessed filters have a hollow section at the mouth end, whereas firm filters look similar to standard filters but have a firmer feel. Recessed and firm filters reduce perceived harm and increase appeal.²³⁹ Packs labelled with these new filters have mostly replaced the common products in leading brands.²⁴⁰

As the UK prohibits tobacco advertising and point of sale display, and enforces plain packaging legislation,²³¹ the tobacco industry uses the retail trade press to promote tobacco products to retailers rather than use traditional marketing. This includes adverts claiming improved filters (see Figures 2-4). Before and around the introduction of plain packaging legislation in the UK, tobacco companies introduced filter innovations such as recessed filters.²³⁴

The retail trade press advertised British American Tobacco’s Lucky Strike with a recessed filter (see Figure 2);²⁴¹ and Imperial’s JPS Triple Flow with a recessed filter in 2016 (see Figure 3);²⁴² and PMI’s Malboro with a firmer filter in 2015 (see Figure 4).²⁴³

Figure 2: BAT advert for Lucky Strike. (Source: Retail Newsagent, 2016)

Figure 3: Imperial Tobaccco advert for JPS Triple Flow. (Source: Retail Newsagent, 2016)

Figure 4: PMI advert for Marlboro. (Source: Retail Newsagent, 2015)

Environmental impact

Cigarette filters are among one of the top ten most common plastics in the world’s oceans, representing a major environmental hazard. 4.5 trillion cigarette butts (used filtered cigarettes) are deposited into the environment each year. It has been estimated that cigarette butt waste will increase by 50% in 2025.²⁴⁴

Cellulose acetate filters are photodegradable, as ultraviolet rays from the sun reduces the filter to smaller pieces.²⁴⁵ However, they are not biodegradable because they are made of acetyl molecules.¹⁹¹ They only lose an average of 38% of mass in two years of decomposition²⁴⁶ and contain multiple toxic substances which infiltrate the environment.²⁴⁷²⁴⁸ Cigarette filters affect the microbial diversity of coastal sediment²⁴⁹ and the mortality of animals.²⁵⁰

Single use plastics were banned across the EU in 2019,²⁵¹ although this does not cover plastic cigarette filters. As of 2021, tobacco companies must increase awareness of the plastic in cigarette filters and contribute financially to dealing with cigarette butts.²⁵² However, these measures were resisted by the tobacco industry.²⁵³

Multiple options have been suggested to reduce the environmental impact of cigarette filters, including:

• Prohibiting filter ventilation, alongside low maximum standard tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide yields, which would make cigarettes less appealing and promote smoking cessation;²⁵⁴
• Combining plain packaging legislation with removing colour as a distinguishing feature across cigarette packs, to remove the association between packaging elements and filter ventilation;²¹⁷
• Labelling filtered cigarettes with warnings advising smokers to dispose of the product responsibly;²⁴⁵
• Implementing deposit/recycling laws in which a deposit is initially paid, and returned once the used cigarette is returned;²⁴⁵
• Implementing a waste tax on cigarettes which could be used to fund research;²⁴⁵
• Bringing litigation against the tobacco industry;²⁴⁵
• Making biodegradable filters mandatory;²⁴⁵
• Implementing fines for littering and increasing consumer education and responsibility.²⁴⁵

Biodegradable filters

Given the high environmental cost of cigarette filters, there is growing concern about the need to develop alternatives to current methods of disposal,²⁵⁵ and increase the biodegradability of filters.²⁵⁶ The tobacco industry is using growing environmental concern to exploit a loophole in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and as a tactic: to justify and enable interaction with the UK government.²⁵⁷ This is a greenwashing tactic used by the tobacco industry. Tobacco companies promote their environmental campaigns and activities, in order to increase sales and divert attention away from the health and environmental harms of cigarette filters.

The tobacco industry may see biodegradable filters as a method to combat the social unacceptability of smoking and improve the industry’s public image.²⁵⁸²⁵⁹ However, biodegradable filters still have negative impacts; they would still leach harmful chemicals into the environment if not discarded properly.²⁴⁷

The tobacco industry’s primary motive is to rehabilitate its reputation.²⁵⁸ Partnerships between public health and environmental advocates could increase pressure on tobacco companies to take responsibility for the environmental and health harms of cigarette filters,²⁵⁸²⁵⁹ and increase support for regulation.²⁶⁰

TobaccoTactics Resources

• Product Innovation
• Advertising Strategy
• Greenwashing

Tobacco Control Research Group (TCRG) research

• Evans-Reeves, K. Lauber, K. Hiscock, R. The ‘filter fraud’ persists: the tobacco industry is still using filters to suggest lower health risks while destroying the environment, Tobacco Control, 26 April 2021, doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-056245
• R. Hiscock, K. Silver, M. Zatonski, A. Gilmore, Tobacco industry tactics to circumvent and undermine the menthol cigarette ban in the UK, Tobacco Control, 18 May 2020, doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-055769

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 Cigarette Filters appeared first on TobaccoTactics.