Burson Cohn & Wolfe (BCW) is a public relations (PR) company that was established in 2018 by a merger between two PR agencies owned by WPP; Burson-Marsteller and Cohn & Wolfe. This merger reportedly made BCW one of the largest global communications agencies in the world.¹

WPP is a PR and advertising conglomerate, and the parent company of several companies that have longstanding links to the tobacco industry.

In 2024, WPP announced a merger between BCW and another of its communication company’s, Hill & Knowlton, to form ‘Burson’.² According to the statement, Burson was due to be operational from July 2024, and would have more than 6,000 employees worldwide. It also stated that Hill & Knowlton would still “operate within Burson serving a select group of clients globally through strategic communications, advisory and public affairs services”.²

Relationship with the tobacco industry

Providing services to Imperial Brands

A transparency register published by the Public Affairs Board of the Public Relations and Communications Association (PRCA), a British PR association, shows that BCW started working for Imperial Brands between December 2019 and February 2020.³⁴⁵⁶⁷⁸

Channelled loan from PMI to Australian organisation to lobby for vaping deregulation

BCW worked with the Australian Retailers Association (ARA) between August 2019 and July 2020 to support ARAs newly established lobby group, the Australian Retail Vaping Industry Association (ARVIA).⁹

The Australian Financial Review reported that, in February 2020, BCW contracted ARA to lobby for the deregulation of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products (HTPs) in Australia. It was reported that the funds for the contract had been channelled from Philip Morris International (PMI).⁹

There was an option for ARA to renew the contract 6 months later, however when ARA appointed a new CEO in August 2020, ARA cancelled the renewal and shut down ARVIA.⁹¹⁰

In February 2021, BCW stated that it worked with PMI from August 2019 until July 2020, but that “PMI is no longer our client and we ended our work with them last year”.⁹

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• WPP
• Lobby Groups
• Philip Morris International
• Imperial Brands

References

The post Burson Cohn & Wolfe appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Image source: © Guillaume Piolle/CC BY 3.0

Key Points

• Lebanon is located on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. It is served by the World Health Organization’s Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean (EMRO).
• It has a population of 5.5 million, with an estimated tobacco use prevalence for those aged 15 and over of 39%.
• Lebanon ratified the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) in 2005. It has not ratified the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products.
• Lebanon has a state-owned tobacco monopoly, the Regie Libanaise de Tabacs et Tombacs, known as the Regie, which controls the domestic market. Transnational tobacco companies only have access to the Lebanese market through the Regie.
• In recent years, tobacco industry lobbying has prevented the introduction of graphic health warnings; the Regie has sought to influence Lebanon’s delegation to the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the WHO FCTC; and the industry has conducted extensive corporate social responsibility activities, some of which have involved Lebanese state institutions.

Lebanon has some of the highest rates of tobacco use in the world. It is ranked third in the world for cigarette consumption per capita.¹¹ A 2019 survey also suggested that waterpipe use prevalence is particularly high, and higher amongst women than men.¹² Tobacco products were easily affordable until the start of Lebanon’s economic crisis in 2019.¹¹ Though they have become less affordable since then, the decline in affordability has been weaker compared to that for other goods.¹³ At just 9.9% of the retail price, the tax imposed on tobacco products falls well short of the 75% recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO).¹⁴¹⁵ Though a comprehensive tobacco control law was introduced in 2011, there have been major challenges with implementation and enforcement.¹⁶

Tobacco Use in Lebanon

In 2022, the population of Lebanon was 5.5 million.¹⁷ In 2019, the WHO estimated overall tobacco use prevalence to be 39% amongst the population aged 15 and over, based on all national survey data from 1990.¹⁸ An academic study carried out in 2019 found similar results. Based on a cross-sectional household survey, it found prevalence of cigarette smoking among adults aged between 18 and 69 of just over 35% (49% males; 21.5% females).¹² It also found overall waterpipe use prevalence of 39.5%, and at over 46%, prevalence for women was higher than for men (nearly 33%).¹² Almost half of current cigarette smokers reported smoking more than 20 cigarettes per day, while most waterpipe users smoked at least three sessions per week.¹²

In 2017, Lebanon reported tobacco use among boys aged 13-15 of 35% – the highest amongst the 19 EMRO countries which carried out the Global School-based Student Health Survey between 2001 and 2018.¹⁹ The corresponding figure for Lebanese girls that year was 28%.¹⁹ A study carried out amongst Lebanese adolescents aged 11 to 18 between 2016 and 2017 found ever use of waterpipe of 34%.²⁰

There were an estimated 7,810 deaths attributable to smoking in 2019, accounting for over 23% of all mortality in Lebanon for that year.²¹ A study published in 2014 put the economic burden of tobacco use in Lebanon in 2008 at US$326.7 million, or 1.1% of national GDP.²²

A 2019 study on e-cigarette use amongst school and university students aged from 17 to 23 found that 14.5% reported ever use, with 8% reporting current use.²³ However, at the time of writing, data on e-cigarette use amongst Lebanese adults remains scarce.

Tobacco in Lebanon

The Lebanese state tobacco monopoly

The Lebanese tobacco industry is controlled entirely by a state-owned company, the Regie Libanaise des Tabacs et Tombacs (referred to here as “the Regie”).²⁴²⁵ The Regie has exclusive rights to tobacco manufacturing and distribution, tobacco imports and exports, and to the purchase of locally grown tobacco leaf. It also oversees an anti-smuggling unit.²⁶ The Regie distributes local and imported tobacco products to licensed wholesalers, at prices it determines with the Ministry of Finance (MoF).²⁶²⁷ These wholesalers then sell the tobacco products to retailers across Lebanon.²⁶ Though these retailers are also licensed by the Regie, they are not under its direct control and largely depend on the wholesalers for their tobacco supply.²⁶ The Regie sets the profit margin and weekly quota of sold tobacco for both wholesalers and retailers.²⁶

Overseen by the MoF, the Regie’s performance has a direct impact on the public treasury.²⁶ Not only does this provide the Regie with significant access to policy makers, it also creates conflict with other government departments (such as Health), as the MoF may oppose measures which damage the Regie’s profitability.²⁶¹⁶

Market share and leading brands

As of 2022, the Regie had a share of over 55% of the tobacco market, up from 45% in 2017.²⁸ The leading transnational tobacco company (TTC) in Lebanon was Philip Morris International (PMI), with a market share of nearly 15%, followed by Japan Tobacco International (JTI) on over 11%, Imperial Brands on almost 10%, and British American Tobacco (BAT) on 6.5%.²⁸

Transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) only have access to the Lebanese market via the Regie. In return for purchasing Lebanese tobacco leaf, the Regie imports manufactured tobacco products to sell on the Lebanese market and buys Virginia tobacco leaf for the manufacture of local brand cigarettes.²⁶ Since 2016, international brands have also been made in Lebanon at Regie manufacturing facilities, as per agreements with the Big Four TTCs.^29303132

The Regie brand Cedars is by far the most popular brand of cigarettes in Lebanon, with a market share of 55% in 2022.³³ PMI’s Marlboro is in second place with a share of around 14%.³³ JTI’s Winston is third (8%), followed by BAT’s Kent and Imperial Brands’ Gitanes (both around 5%).³³ All other brands have a market share of 3% or less.³³

Tobacco farming and child labour

In 2020, tobacco was being cultivated on 1.32% of Lebanon’s agricultural land.³⁴ In 2021, tobacco production was just over 10,000 tonnes, down slightly from a high of 12,800 tonnes in 2001.³⁵ This makes Lebanon the fifth-largest tobacco producer amongst the 14 EMRO countries for which data is available.³⁶

Lebanese tobacco leaf is purchased exclusively by the Regie via a price support programme, under which the Regie purchases from farmers at a given yearly price and quantity which is determined by the MoF.²⁶ According to Hamade (2014), the price paid is well over the average paid to farmers in other sectors in Lebanon; essentially, it is a subsidy which reinforces farmers’ dependence on tobacco growing and disincentivises any transition towards other crops.²⁴²⁶

Lebanese tobacco featured on the 2022 List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor produced by the U.S. Department of Labor.³⁷ Tobacco production is very labour intensive and involves all or most members of the household, which includes women and children.²⁴ On top of enduring poor wages and working conditions, female workers are also at risk of sexual violence in tobacco-growing communities.³⁸

• For information on tobacco industry responses to accusations of complicity in child labour, please see the pages on CSR: Child Labour and the Eliminating Child Labour in Tobacco-Growing Foundation (ECLT).

Tobacco and the economy

Lebanon is a net importer of raw tobacco. According to Comtrade data, in 2022, it imported over US$40.5 million in raw tobacco, compared to under US$16.4 million in exports.³⁹⁴⁰

Lebanon is also a net importer of cigarettes. In 2022, Lebanese cigarette imports were nearly US$16.5 million, compared to less than US$1 million in exports.⁴¹⁴²

It is also a net importer of waterpipe tobacco. Its imports were worth US$17.3 million in 2022, compared to exports of under US$70,000.⁴³⁴⁴

Illicit trade

Industry documents suggest that illicit trade was used by the TTCs as a means of building market share and furthering regional expansion during the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990).⁴⁵ With governance weak and legal cigarette production in decline, the TTCs flooded the Lebanese market with cheap contraband products.⁴⁵ Though the government made direct appeals to these companies, requesting that they stop supplying distributors involved in this illicit trade, it had little effect.⁴⁵ The documents also show that the TTCs sought to use the issue of illicit trade as leverage in negotiations on establishing manufacturing presence in the country.⁴⁵

Today, reliable data on the scale of the illicit trade in Lebanon are not available. An industry-funded report by the consultancy Oxford Economics (OE) indicated that by the first quarter of 2019 the illicit trade accounted for 28.1% of the market in tobacco products.⁴⁶⁴⁷ However, this data may not be reliable given OE’s long relationship with the tobacco industry. Not only was this particular study funded by PMI, BAT and JTI, but also prepared according to terms of reference agreed with all three companies.⁴⁷ These terms of reference are not disclosed, while the methodology used is highly susceptible to industry interference.⁴⁸

Exaggerating the scale of illicit trade is a well-documented tactic which has been used by the tobacco industry all over the world as a means of opposing tobacco control regulations. See Illicit Tobacco Trade for further details.

• For more information on the tobacco industry in Lebanon, please see the Tobacco Supply Chain Database.

Roadmap to Tobacco Control

Lebanon ratified the WHO FCTC in 2005.⁴⁹ It has yet to ratify the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products.⁵⁰

In August 2011, Lebanon passed Law No. 174, its first ever tobacco control law.¹⁶ This was the result of years of advocacy led by the National Tobacco Control Program (NTCP) (a government organisation within the Ministry of Public Health), alongside academics, tobacco control advocates, civil society organisations, local and international NGOs, and policy makers.¹⁶ Law No. 174 banned smoking in all indoor public spaces; banned tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship; and introduced larger text warnings on tobacco products, with the potential to add graphic health warnings at a later date.¹⁶

However, enforcement remains a challenge, particularly regarding the provision for smokefree spaces. This measure was properly enforced for just three months, thanks in part to strong lobbying from restaurants and other establishments offering waterpipe.¹⁶ There has also been a lack of political will to enforce the law.¹⁶ In late 2012, the then Minister of the Interior implied that the police would be flexible about enforcing the law during the holiday period.⁵¹ The Ministry of Tourism also stopped enforcing the law, alleging a negative impact on Lebanon’s tourist industry and stating that it did not have the resources necessary to monitor implementation.¹⁶⁵²

For more details, please see the following websites:

• Legislation by country – Lebanon, Tobacco Control Laws, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids
• Lebanon, WHO FCTC Implementation Database, WHO FCTC Secretariat
• Country profile – Lebanon, World Health Organization, WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic 2021

Tobacco Industry Interference in Lebanon

Tobacco industry tactics in Lebanon include lobbying, which has prevented the introduction of graphic health warnings; attempting to influence Lebanon’s delegation to the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the WHO FCTC; and corporate social responsibility.

Portraying tobacco as a symbol of resistance

Part of the revenue the Regie collects from imported tobacco products is used to cover the subsidies given to tobacco growers in rural areas, particularly in the south of the country.²⁶¹⁶ Given that this area was previously occupied by Israel, keeping farmers on this land is seen by the state as an important geopolitical objective.¹⁶ Indeed, both Nassif Seklaoui, Chairman and General Manager of the Regie, and the speaker of the Lebanese parliament, have explicitly linked tobacco growing to the struggle of the Lebanese people and their resistance to foreign occupation.⁵³ Such strategies aim to instil the belief that tobacco is a strategic industry and a source of national pride. As the opening statement of a Regie pamphlet from 2011 reads, “The tobacco crop has become a symbol of resilience, resistance and people’s attachment to the Nation’s land.”²⁴

Influencing policy: health warnings

Law 174 significantly increased the size of the textual health warnings on tobacco products in Lebanon, from 15% to 40% of the principal surface areas.¹⁶⁵⁴ A further decree in 2012 defined the text of the warnings, though implementation was delayed, reportedly due the Regie lobbying the Minister of Finance.⁵⁵⁵⁶ Since then, the larger text warnings have been widely implemented – though the measure still falls short of the 50% or more coverage recommended by the WHO FCTC.⁵⁷⁵⁸

Law 174 did also allow for the introduction of graphic health warnings (GHWs) at a later date, subject to the signing of an implementation decree by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Finance.⁵⁷ According to Lebanese tobacco control advocates, of all provisions in Law 174, this was the hardest to obtain, due to fierce opposition from the tobacco industry, including the Regie.⁵⁶ During discussions on Law 174 in 2011, some members of the Lebanese parliament objected to the inclusion of GHWs, echoing industry positions on the issue.⁵⁶ Though the implementation decree for GHWs was elaborated in 2011 and updated in 2016, it has still not been approved, reportedly due to industry interference and lobbying.⁵⁷ As of 2021, GHWs had yet to be implemented.⁵⁹

Interacting with the Lebanese delegation to the COP

In 2018, the Regie hosted a meeting attended by six government officials at its headquarters, ahead of the Eighth Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP8) to the WHO FCTC. In the Regie’s own words, the meeting aimed to define a position that “addresses the threats that the items on COP8 agenda for next October pose to tobacco sector”.⁶⁰ There was also a presentation laying out the Regie’s positions on decisions made at the previous COP, as well as the proposals to be discussed at COP8.⁶⁰

Delivering this presentation, Mariam Hariri, the Regie’s Head of General Management, stated:

“We cannot look at tobacco sector only from the perspective of health damage; we must rather look at it with a comprehensive and impartial view. We must take into consideration the economic benefits it offers and the specificity of Lebanon.”⁶⁰

This meeting contravened the implementation guidelines for Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC, which urge parties to limit interactions with the tobacco industry to those strictly necessary for effective regulation of the industry and its products.⁶¹

The Regie has also lobbied foreign diplomats. In May 2022, the German ambassador to Beirut visited Regie headquarters in Hadath. He was briefed on “the Regie’s achievements in agricultural, industrial, and commercial fields, among others, as well as about the societal role that it had played during the recent years.”⁶²

• For more on the relationship between diplomats and the tobacco industry, please see Diplomats Lobbying for Tobacco Companies.

Corporate social responsibility

In 2016, the Regie launched its sustainable development plan, entitled “Development Vision for a Brighter Tomorrow”. Its stated aim was “promoting economic development, environment protection, fighting illicit trade & child labor, and improving the living of workers & farmers and the communities where we operate.”⁵³ The plan was launched at a ceremony which was supported by the speaker in the Lebanese parliament, and attended by notable figures from business, politics, finance and the trade union movement.⁵³ These included senior civil servants from government departments including the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Economy and Lebanese customs.⁵³

Since then, the Regie has conducted extensive CSR activities, including some directed at or involving Lebanese state institutions. For example, it donated US$2.6 million to the Lebanese Army in 2021.²⁶ It also engaged in CSR during the COVID-19 pandemic, donating US$1 million to the Lebanese government to support repatriating Lebanese students abroad and to buy ventilators for COVID-19 patients.⁶³

The Regie has also organised “women empowerment training sessions” for the daughters of tobacco farmers in different areas of Lebanon. These sessions had the support of local authorities; for example, some were held in municipal buildings or involved the participation of local councillors.⁶⁴⁶⁵

The Regie has also carried out CSR in partnership with TTCs. In 2017, in an initiative financed by PMI Lebanon, the Regie offered scholarships to 136 children of tobacco farmers in the north of the country – the fourth consecutive year it had done so.⁶⁶

• For more on tobacco industry activity during the pandemic, please see the COVID-19 Tobacco Tactics page and the COVID-19 monitoring database.

Relevant Links

• AUB tobacco researchers and Lebanese activists press conference on economic impacts of Law 174: The tobacco control law is good for the economy and public health, American University of Beirut
• Prevalence of cigarette and waterpipe tobacco smoking among adults in three Eastern Mediterranean countries: a cross-sectional household survey, R. Nakkash, Y. Khader, A. Chalak, R. Abla, N. M. E. Abu-Rmeileh, A. Mostafa, M. Jawad, J. H. Lee and R. G. Salloum, BMJ open, 2022, 12(3), e055201
• The passage of tobacco control law 174 in Lebanon: reflections on the problem, policies and politics, R.T. Nakkash, L. Torossian, T. El Hajj, J. Khalil and R.A. Afifi, Health Policy and Planning, 2018, Volume 33, Issue 5, pp. 633–644
• K2P COVID-19 Series: Prompting Government Action for Tobacco Control in Lebanon during COVID-19 Pandemic, R. Saleh, R. Nakkash, A. Harb and F. El-Jardali, 2020, Knowledge to Policy (K2P) Center, Beirut, Lebanon
• The Economics of Tobacco in Lebanon: An Estimation of the Social Costs of Tobacco Consumption, Salti, J. Chaaban and N. Naamani, Substance Use & Misuse, 2014, 49:6, 735-742

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• Eastern Mediterranean Region
• Oxford Economics
• Tobacco Farming

TCRG Research

• The Lebanese Regie state-owned tobacco monopoly: lessons to inform monopoly-focused endgame strategies, H. Alaouie, J.R. Branston and M.J. Bloomfield, 2022, BMC Public Health, 22, 1632.
• Developing more detailed taxonomies of tobacco industry political activity in low-income and middle-income countries: qualitative evidence from eight countries, B.K. Matthes, K. Lauber, M. Zatoński, L. Robertson, A.B. Gilmore, BMJ Global Health 2021;6:e004096.
• Tobacco industry commissioned reports on illicit tobacco trade in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: how accurate are they? Sandberg, A.W.A. Gallagher and R. Alebshehy, 2020, Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, 26(11):1320–1322.

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 Lebanon Country Profile appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

• In 2012, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published guidance for assessing tobacco and nicotine products proposed by manufacturers as less harmful alternatives to conventional cigarettes.
• Transnational tobacco companies have developed similar multi-stage approaches to scientifically assess these newer products.
• There is evidence to suggest the industry’s approach does not guarantee good quality research or prevent the industry from using strategies to influence science.
• The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control calls for regulatory decisions on tobacco products and the scientific assessment of tobacco products to be made independent of the tobacco industry

Background

In 2003 and 2004, the World Health Organization’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Tobacco Product Regulation (SACTob) and Study Group on Tobacco Product Regulation (TobReg) issued principles and guidance on the type of evidence required to scientifically assess newer tobacco and nicotine products that were purportedly less harmful than cigarettes.⁶⁷⁶⁸ Both emphasised the need for a range of study types and independent verification of industry studies. In 2012, the US Institute of Medicine (IOM, now The National Academy of Medicine), an independent, evidence-based advisor on scientific, medical and health-related matters,⁶⁹ outlined the types of studies and appropriate designs, which would be necessary to demonstrate whether newer nicotine and tobacco products could reduce the harms associated with smoking. The IOM grouped the evidence required into three categories: health effects, addictive potential, and perceptions of the newer product.⁷⁰

In 2015, the Tobacco Product Assessment Consortium (TobPRAC – an independent body funded by the US National Cancer Institute)⁷¹ reviewed the WHO’s and IOM’s recommendations for scientific evaluation of purportedly less harmful tobacco products.⁷² In 2011, the consortium had developed a four-staged framework for scientifically evaluating newer tobacco and nicotine products, particularly those claimed by manufacturers to be less harmful.⁷³ The four stages proposed were: pre-market evaluation, pre-claims evaluation, post-market activities, and monitoring and re-evaluation (see image 1).⁷²⁷³

Image 1. Overview of the conceptual framework proposed by the Tobacco Product Assessment Consortium (TobPRAC) to assess newer products.(Source: Shields et al/TobPRAC, 2011, p. 47; Berman, et al, 2015)⁷²⁷³

Designed to inform tobacco product regulators worldwide, the framework was not based on any particular regulatory structure and, according to the TobPRAC, is therefore applicable to any jurisdiction. In line with Article 5.3 of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), TobPRAC noted that regulatory decisions on the necessary criteria for scientifically assessing tobacco products should be made independent of the tobacco industry. As the tobacco industry would inevitably fund and conduct its own scientific research on its products, TobPRAC also emphasised the need for accompanying independent research and governance to effectively implement the framework.⁷²

The ‘big 4’ transnational tobacco companies⁷⁴ have since developed approaches to scientifically evaluate newer products which align with the recommendations of the WHO, IOM and TobPRAC. These companies publicise their scientific approaches and research via dedicated science websites (see External Links below).

Below is an outline of the approaches each transnational tobacco company states that it takes to scientifically assess its newer products. An overview is also provided showing the quantity of publications across each stage of each company’s scientific assessment approach. In the final section, some criticisms of the industry’s scientific approaches are summarised.

Philip Morris International

Image 2. PMI’s approach to scientifically assessing newer products.(Source: PMI Science website)⁷⁵

Philip Morris International’s (PMI) scientific assessment approach has five stages (see image 2).⁷⁵ The first stage, “product development”, comprises design and aerosol testing of potential newer products. The aerosol analyses aim to determine the physical and chemical properties of product emissions, which indicate the potential risks of the product.

Next, in vitro and in vivo “toxicological assessments” are used to measure the impact of the product emissions on cells and animals.

If this stage indicates that the product has reduced risk potential, the health effects of the products are tested in human users under controlled conditions (“clinical assessment”).

Following this, “perception and behavior” studies investigate consumer’s perceptions of the product, as well as user behaviours and levels of satisfaction.

Finally, in its “long-term assessment”, PMI states it will continue to monitor the biological effects and consumer acceptance of the product via safety surveillance, clinical studies, and epidemiological studies.⁷⁵

PMI catalogues its scientific publications in a library on the PMI Science website.⁷⁶ Publications held in this online library include: journal articles, presentations, posters, books, clinical trial registrations, posters, dossiers, reports, data, and methods and protocol documents. Up until May 2022, PMI assigned each publication in its library a tag relating to the relevant stage of its assessment approach. In addition to the five stages described above, two additional tags were used in PMI’s library: ‘Plant Biology’ and ‘Overview’. The number of publications assigned each tag (as of May 2022)⁷⁷ is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Number of publications tagged with each assessment stage in the PMI Science library as of May 2022. N.B. a single publication can have multiple tags.

British American Tobacco

Image 3. BAT’s approach to scientifically assessing newer products.(Source: BAT Science website)⁷⁸

British American Tobacco’s (BAT) scientific assessment approach consists of four stages (see image 3),⁷⁸ fewer than the other transnationals. The preliminary “emissions” stage consists of studies which investigate whether the newer product functions correctly and whether combustion occurs (combustion studies), the chemical properties of the product emissions (emission studies), and then the effects of the product in vitro (toxicological studies).

Next, the product’s effects in human users are investigated. BAT states that “exposure”-related outcomes are assessed via clinical studies which analyse the behaviours exhibited by users (use behaviour), the short-term pharmacological effects of the nicotine in users (clinical: PK), and the levels of biomarkers of potentially harmful chemicals in users (clinical: exposure). “Risk” is assessed via medium-term clinical trials measuring the levels of biomarkers linked to harm and disease (clinical: individual risk), post marketing surveillance surveys to monitor the use of the product by consumers (population risk: PMS), and epidemiological modelling simulating potential impacts of the product on public health.

Finally, BAT states that it will use “long-term epidemiological data” to determine how the product is being used, as well as impacts on disease prevalence and public health.⁷⁸

BAT catalogues its scientific publications in a library on the BAT Science website.⁷⁹ Publications held in this online library include: abstracts, method documents, posters, presentations, journal articles, and ‘other’ publications.

Unlike the other transnationals, BAT does not categorise or tag the publications in this library by assessment stage.

Japan Tobacco International

Image 4. JTI’s approach to scientifically assessing newer products. (Source: JTI Science website)⁸⁰

Japan Tobacco International’s (JTI) scientific assessment approach consists of 6 stages (see image 4),⁸⁰ the highest number of the four companies. JTI start with testing the design of its prototype products (“product design”) and the chemical properties of the product’s emissions (“aerosol chemistry”).

Next, in vitro and in vivo “toxicological assessments”, as well as in silico simulation studies, are used to assess the toxicity of the product.

“Clinical studies” will then investigate the effects of the product on human users, including risk reduction and pharmacokinetic studies.

The users experience, including satisfaction and patterns of use, are assessed through “perception and behavior” studies.

JTI state that it completes its assessment by monitoring the long-term effects of the newer product (“long-term assessment”).⁸⁰

JTI catalogues its scientific publications in a library on the JTI Science website.⁸¹ Publications held in this online library include: journal articles, reports, posters, presentations, booklets, press releases, leaflets and news items. JTI assigns each publication in its library a tag relating to the relevant stage of its assessment approach. In addition to the six stages described above, two additional tags were used in JTI’s library: ‘Indoor Air Quality’ and ‘Other’. The number of publications (as of January 2023)⁸² assigned each tag is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Number of publications tagged with each assessment stage in the JTI Science library as of January 2023. N.B. a single publication can have multiple tags.

Imperial Brands

Image 5. Imperial Brand’s approach to scientifically assessing newer products.(Source: Imperial Brands Science website)⁸³

Imperial Brands’ scientific assessment approach consists of 6 stages (see image 5).⁸³ It begins with assessing the product’s design and emissions via chemical analyses and preliminary toxicological studies (“product characterisation science”).

Once this has been completed, Imperial Brands moves onto further “biological science”, including in vitro assessments to test the product’s toxicity to human cells.

Then, clinical studies are used to confirm that the reduced risk potential observed in the laboratory-based studies are also observed in actual human users of newer products (“clinical science”).

The “behavioural science” stage comprise studies to investigate the use, perceptions and addictiveness of newer products, both pre- and post-commercialisation.

In the next stage, “computational science”, comprise mathematical and computational modelling to estimate population-level use and health impacts.

Finally, Imperial Brands states that it conducts post-market studies measuring product use, user attitudes, adverse events, health-related outcomes and sales data (“population health science”).⁸³

Imperial Brands catalogues its scientific publications in a library on the Imperial Brands Science website.⁸⁴ Publications held in this online library include: journal articles, infographics, posters, presentations and videos. Rather than using tags that describe each stage of its assessment approach, Imperial Brands assigns each publication in its library one or more of the following tags: ‘pre-clinical’, ‘clinical’ and ‘post-market’. The number of publications assigned each tag (as of January 2023)⁸⁵ is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Number of publications tagged with each assessment stage in the Imperial Brands Science library as of January 2023. N.B. a single publication can have multiple tags.

Criticisms of the Industry’s Approaches

The tactics the tobacco industry uses to influence scientific research in order to further its economic interests are well documented.⁸⁶⁸⁷⁸⁸

• For more details see Influencing Science

There is evidence that the industry continues to employ strategies to influence research and its approaches do not prevent bias. For example, the tobacco industry, including PMI and BAT, has used external scientific consultants⁸⁹ and publishes its research in journals with which it has ties.⁹⁰ Such strategies help to influence the volume, credibility, reach and use of science.⁹¹

The industry has a history of designing clinical research to substantiate and develop harm reduction claims, especially those around reduced exposure to harmful chemicals compared to cigarettes.⁹² A 2022 systematic review critically assessing clinical trials on HTPs, most of which have been conducted by tobacco companies, fall short of what is needed to adequately investigate whether HTPs were beneficial to public health.⁹³ The same review found most of the industry’s clinical trials on HTPs were at high risk of bias, particularly due to inadequate blinding of participants (concealing information from participants that might influence results)⁹⁴ and selectively reporting results.⁹³ A systematic review of the e-cigarette literature found studies by independent authors were more likely to report potentially harmful effects of e-cigarettes, while the majority of studies by tobacco, e-cigarette and pharmaceutical companies reported no harmful effects.⁹⁵

All the transnational companies include epidemiological or long-term studies in their assessment approaches. However, according to each company’s Science webpages,^80969798 their own publication library tags (see Figures 1-3), and reviews of both the HTP^99100101 and e-cigarette literature,¹⁰²¹⁰³ it appears that, to date, the industry has conducted few epidemiological or long-term studies.

As noted by TobPRAC, Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC calls for regulatory decisions on tobacco products and scientific assessment of tobacco products to be made independent of the tobacco industry.⁷²

For more details see FCTC Regulations on the Need to Protect Public Health Policies from Tobacco Industry Interference

Relevant links

• PMI Science
• BAT Science
• JT Science
• Imperial Brands Science

Tobacco Tactics Resources

Newer Nicotine and Tobacco Products

Influencing Science

References

The post Industry Approaches to Science on Newer Products appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Background

The European Citizens’ Initiative is a democratic tool meant to benefit individuals, or groups of individuals, with rules in place to exclude companies.¹⁰⁶¹⁰⁷ However, one of the organisers of the ‘Let’s demand smarter vaping regulations’ initiative was Valerio Forconi, Head of EU Corporate Affairs and registered lobbyist for Imperial Brands.¹⁰⁴ Imperial Brands made the initial donation of €10,000 (around GB£8,700) on 8 October 2018, to set up the campaign.¹⁰⁴

PR company Instinctif Partners were contracted by Imperial to promote the campaign (see below).

Imperial’s Aim

The campaign sought to replace the existing TPD regulations with:

“bespoke scientific, evidence-based legislation in line with the functioning of the internal market that distinguishes vaping products from tobacco & pharmaceutical products; (…) Vaping policy should (…) ensure smokers and vapers have clear information and access to tobacco-free less harmful alternatives.”¹⁰⁴

The initiative was launched in April 2019, with the intention of gathering one million signatures in one year from at least 7 EU countries. This would then require the European Commission to consider the request to revoke Article 20.¹⁰⁴¹⁰⁶

The accompanying website, set up by Imperial Brands (see below), portrayed it as a “grassroots” campaign to support a change in regulation, by differentiating e-cigarettes from conventional tobacco products.¹⁰⁸ This is a clear example of ‘astroturfing’, a well-known tactic used by the tobacco industry to interfere with tobacco control legislation.¹⁰⁹

Others listed as organisers of the initiative included representatives from two e-cigarette trade associations with Imperial as a member (along with other tobacco companies): Michael Kenneally, registered lobbyist and Director of Vape Business Ireland;^104110111 and Vincent Durieux, President of France Vapotage.^104112113

The main representative of the organising committee was listed as Dustin Dahlmann, from German e-cigarette-business association Bündnis für Tabakfreien Genuss (BfTG), which donated EURO€8,000 to the campaign. BfTG states that it is “tobacco-free” and has no tobacco industry members.^104114115116 Another organiser was listed as Mosè Giacomello, from Vapitaly, which organises an annual trade event in Italy, and provided EURO€16,000 in funding to the campaign.¹⁰⁴¹¹⁶

Set Up Website to Promote the Initiative

Imperial also set up a website called ‘Vaping is NOT Tobacco’, launched in April 2019, to promote the petition and enable people to sign it direct from the site.¹⁰⁶¹⁰⁸

It also provided forms for visitors to contact their Member of the European Parliament (MEP):

“Don’t hesitate to let them know how vaping products improved your life by helping you switch from tobacco. That way, when they deal with the regulation of these products, they will remember your stand on the topic”.¹¹⁷

The website listed France Vapotage as a supporter, and stated that it was “promoted by Imperial Brands”.¹¹⁸Brandon Mitchener, Managing Partner at Instinctif Partners the PR company contracted by Imperial to run the campaign, was listed as the only Team Member of the ‘Vaping is NOT Tobacco’ Facebook page.^106119120121 Neither the campaign’s Facebook page nor its Twitter bio (@vapeNOTtobacco) declared a link to Instinctif or Imperial. The campaign press release gave Instinctif Partners as the contact but did not mention Imperial Brands.¹²²

Despite the direct connection to Imperial Brands, and the involvement of a PR company being paid to run the campaign, the website stated that this “Citizen’s” initiative was a “grassroots campaign” and a “bottom up movement”.¹⁰⁸ Corporate watchdog Corporate Europe Observatory condemned Imperial’s activities, stating that the tobacco company had:

 “vested commercial interests in getting vaping products excluded from the Tobacco Products Directive and is abusing a democratic tool for citizenship participation”.¹⁰⁶

By December 2019, the total number of signatures gathered by the campaign was fewer than 50,000, far short of the one million required.¹²³¹¹⁴

As of 2021 the campaign website no longer existed.¹²⁴

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• Imperial Brands
• E-cigarettes: Imperial Brands
• Instinctif Partners

References

The post Imperial Brands’ Use of the EU Citizens’ Initiative appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

• The EU menthol ban came into force in May 2020. Tobacco companies exploited weaknesses in the ban: the focus on characterising flavours rather than flavour ingredients; product exemptions; and a long phase-in period.
• Prior to the ban menthol use was highest in England and Poland. Menthol had an estimated 20% of the UK cigarette market, in which Imperial Brands and JTI dominate.
• Unlike other EU countries, menthol’s share of the market grew in Poland and the UK after the ban was announced in 2016.
• Tobacco companies, led by JTI and Imperial, were able to exploit the challenges of determining ‘characterising’ flavour, and the omission of cigarillos and accessories from the ban. There are early indications that this has prolonged menthol use post-ban.
• Menthol ban websites promoted newer products, mainly heated tobacco and e-cigarettes.
• In its submissions to the EU, the tobacco industry is minimising the harm caused by flavoured additives by focusing on toxicity rather than addiction.

Regulation of flavours that make smoking more palatable is recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (FCTC).¹²⁵¹²⁶ This page details regulation and interference in the EU in the pre and post the 2020 menthol ban.

For information on the global menthol market, and regulation and interference in other countries see Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco.

Background

Regulation and Interference on Flavour in the EU and UK

An EU-wide ban on the sale of flavoured cigarettes was introduced in May 2016, including menthol, under the 2014 revised European Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), with a May 2016 deadline for EU countries to transpose the TPD into national law.¹²⁷ While retailers were allowed a year to sell existing stocks of other flavours, the phase-out period for menthol was extended for a further three years, and came into force across the EU in May 2020.¹²⁸

Weaknesses of the EU menthol ban which could be exploited by industry included:^129130131

• not banning menthol as an ingredient
• exemption for most products (as the ban was only applicable to cigarettes – factory made and roll your own) and accessories
• and a four year phase-in period.

Menthol market share in Europe

Prior to the 2020 ban, Euromonitor analysis estimated the whole European menthol market to be worth around EU€9.7 billion (US$11 billion, nearly UK£8.5 billion).¹³²  The relative shares of menthol flavoured cigarettes versus those with capsules (menthol and other flavours) varied; while the market share for capsules exceeded the share for menthol flavoured tobacco in half of EU countries, in others the capsule share was very low or non-existent.¹³³ Menthol and capsule market share has tended to be higher for European countries outside the EU.¹³³

The International Tobacco Control (ITC) survey in 2016 (n=10,000 adult smokers, in 8 European countries) found that the countries with the highest menthol use were England (over 12% of smokers) and Poland (10%); the lowest levels were observed in Germany and Spain (Figure 1).¹³⁴

Figure 1: Prevalence of flavour of cigarettes smoked (usual brand of choice) in 2016 (%).(Source: EUREST-PLUS ITC Europe Surveys)¹³⁴

The ITC figures are supported by 2018 Euromonitor data, which show that the combined market share of menthol and capsules was generally higher in northern European countries, with the highest in Poland, at over 25%, followed by the UK, at over 20% .¹³⁵

The UK market

The UK was part of the EU until 31 January 2020.  The 2016 TPD, which included the menthol and flavours ban, was transposed into UK law and remains in place in the UK.  Any future amendments to UK legislation will be made by the UK government.

The UK cigarette market, is dominated by two tobacco companies, Imperial Tobacco (Imperial Brands) and Japan Tobacco International (JTI).¹³⁶ According to Euromonitor, in 2019, Imperial had a 44% share of the total cigarette market and JTI 37%, by retail volume. Although it is also based in the UK, British American Tobacco (BAT)’s share was much smaller, at just over 9%. Philip Morris International (PMI) had under 8%, mainly due to its Marlboro brand.¹³⁷

Prior to the ban, menthol cigarettes formed an estimated 21% of the UK market.¹³³ 2018 figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) indicate that there were 7.2 million smokers in the UK; based on the 2016 ITC survey data (detailed above) that would equate to nearly 900,000 smokers who usually smoke menthol cigarettes. According to market research survey based data, the figure was much higher in 2019, nearly 1.6 million in Great Britain,¹³⁸

Six billion menthol cigarettes were sold in the UK in 2018.¹³⁹ According to the ITC survey, 17.5% of UK smokers said that they intended to quit after the ban (an average of 16% of smokers in the EU said the same).¹³⁴ As this could reduce annual sales by around 1 billion sticks (3% of the total UK cigarette market), tobacco companies had a clear interest in circumventing the ban and maintaining market share, particularly Imperial and Japan Tobacco International (JTI) (having over 80% of the total cigarette market between them).

See below for a description of the range of tactics used by tobacco companies to exploit loopholes in the legislation and circumvent the EU menthol ban.

• For information on the global market for menthol cigarettes see Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco.

Tobacco Companies Activities to Circumvent and Undermine the Menthol Ban

Lobbying and delay: four year phase-out for menthol

After protests against the TPD from the tobacco industry, and an (ultimately unsuccessful) legal challenge by Poland at the European Court of Justice, supported by Romania, implementation of the ban on menthol cigarettes was postponed to 2020.¹⁴⁰¹⁴¹ This was agreed as a four-year transitional “phase-out” period for all flavoured products with more than a 3% market share in the EU, such as menthol.¹⁴² (There was a similar ‘sell-through period’, a period when soon to be non-compliant stock can be sold off, when plain, or standardised, packaging was introduced into the UK in 2016, although only for one year).¹⁴³  Romania asked for the ban to be repealed shortly after the TPD was agreed, using evidence from PMI as justification.  JTI officials in Romania were making the same arguments at the time.¹⁴⁴

The relevant wording of the EU TPD menthol ban is as follows:

“Member States shall prohibit the placing on the market of… cigarettes and roll your own tobacco… products with a characterising flavour… including… menthol [or those] containing flavourings in any of their components such as filters, papers, packages, capsules or any technical features allowing modification of the smell or taste of the tobacco products concerned…  However, products with characterising flavour with a higher sales volume should be phased out over an extended time period to allow consumers adequate time to switch to other products… In the case of tobacco products with a characterising flavour whose Union-wide sales volumes represent 3 % or more in a particular product category, the provisions of this Article shall apply from 20 May 2020… The Member States and the Commission may charge proportionate fees to manufacturers and importers of tobacco products for assessing [compliance].” ¹²⁷

Some member states, such as Germany and Finland, have gone beyond these requirements and prohibit menthol as an additive.¹³¹ Hungary has also announced it has plans to ban cigarettes that contain any amount of menthol.¹⁴⁵

In early May 2020, tobacco companies were reported to be lobbying for further postponement of the ban in the EU.¹⁴⁶¹⁴⁷ Tobacco industry front group Forest EU were also reported to be lobbying against the ban.¹⁴⁷ In January 2019 it had described the ban as “unwarranted attack on consumer choice that will do little to deter children from smoking”.¹⁴⁸ These attempts were not successful. Romania delayed implementing the ban for six weeks in 2020, without informing the EU.¹⁴⁴

Promotion of menthol products through the derogation period

Menthol/capsule cigarettes’ market share began to decline after the EU TPD legislation was announced in EU countries, whereas there was some growth in in countries in the WHO Europe Region which were not EU members. Two exceptions were the UK and Poland, two markets with high proportions of menthol sales.  In these countries there was marked growth in the market share of menthol/capsule cigarettes despite the incoming ban (figure 2).

Figure 2: Tobacco companies increased their sales of menthol in the run up to flavour bans in the UK and Poland (source: TCRG, June 2021)

During this period the tobacco industry promoted new menthol products to UK retailers through the retail trade press. It appears that the tobacco industry was prolonging sales in the ‘phase out’ period in these countries rather than using the period for a phase out of flavours, thus calling into question the necessity of a long derogation (delay to implementation).^149150151

Tobacco company buy-back schemes to maximise pre-ban sales

Despite being given four extra years by the EUTPD to get ready for the menthol ban, UK retailer group the Association of Convenience Stores stated, in advice to its members, that there was “no sell-through period”.¹⁵²¹⁵⁰ Tobacco companies stated that they had, or were planning, ‘buy-back’ schemes, to encourage retailers to sell menthol cigarettes right up to the ban.¹⁵⁰  However, tobacco companies were slow to inform UK retailers of their plans.

PMI’s UK affiliate Philip Morris Ltd (PML) supplied details of its scheme via a dedicated website, where it promoted PMI’s heated tobacco product (HTP) IQOS as an alternative product, and which required retailer registration (see below).¹⁵³¹⁵⁴ Further details were provided as late as the end of April 2020.^150154155 BAT said in November 2019 that it would swap small amounts of menthol stock after the ban came into force. However, when approached by trade publication Better Retailing in April, less than a month before the ban, BAT refused to give further details.¹⁵⁵

Imperial Tobacco also gave no indication whether or how it would take back excess menthol products, other than that it would “be dealt with on an individual basis”.¹⁵⁵ It was reported that some retailers had advised others to remove from their product lists those products supplied by companies which would not disclose their plans. Otherwise, they risked being left holding stock which they would not be able to legally sell after 20 May.¹⁵⁵

In August 2021, fourteen months after the ban, some retailers were still waiting for the buyback and complaining of a lack of response from attempts to contact tobacco companies. ¹⁵⁶¹⁵⁷

Tobacco companies issued warnings of the risks of the ban leading to illicit trade. JTI, which said it would be buying back excess menthol stock, warned retailers that there was a risk of illicit trade in menthol cigarettes, claiming that “counterfeit menthol products [had been] seized in the UK already”.¹⁵⁵¹⁵⁸ However, Better Retailing stated that this was contrary to information from other tobacco companies earlier in the year.¹⁵⁸ JTI’s anti illicit trade operations manager said that retailers should warn their customers not to buy fake products, using common tobacco industry arguments around product quality and safety.¹⁵⁸

For more information see Illicit Tobacco Trade.

Product innovation & promotion of newer products

While the ban applied to cigarettes and roll your own tobacco, other tobacco products were exempt. Menthol accessories were only included in the ban if they were sold within the packaging of cigarettes or roll your own tobacco.¹⁴⁹¹⁵²

Tobacco companies used product innovation as a way to circumvent the menthol ban and maintain a market for their menthol products, claiming that they were doing so to meet the needs of consumers.^132159160

Tobacco companies used several tactics, including launching product alternatives, in order to circumvent the ban:

• new menthol accessories
• new brands of cigarettes containing some menthol, exploiting the term ‘characterising flavour’
• new cigarette-like cigarillos, other tobacco products (pipe or shisha tobacco)
• menthol and flavour launches for newer products (heated tobacco products, e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches) promoted through ‘menthol ban’ websites

CNTC identified Germany, France, Belgium, Spain and the UK as offering the largest variety of these alternatives in the EU.¹³⁵ Methods varied by company: Imperial and JTI developed new products; PMI used it as an opportunity to promote its own alternatives. All created ‘menthol ban’ websites or web pages (see below).

New menthol accessories

Tobacco accessories sold separately are not covered by the current TPD regulations, although they can still impart a menthol flavour. The tobacco industry has launched various new accessories since the TPD implementation in 2016, many relating to filters.¹⁴⁹¹⁶¹ Imperial launched menthol roll your own (RYO) filter tips in mid-2017.¹⁶² In January 2019, it launched a filter tip with a capsule, called “Polar Blast”.¹⁶³

It originally appeared that new filter tips might be an attempt to encourage menthol cigarette smokers to switch to RYO rather than quit. However, IMB introduced a product which enabled it to circumvent the EU ban on pre-inserted flavour capsules in factory made cigarettes. In January 2019, Imperial launched the L&B Blue Bright Air Filter with a recess in the filter and a firm filter structure.¹⁶⁴ Although the launch announcement did not mention it, this filter structure allows a menthol filter tip – designed for RYO – to be inserted.¹⁶⁵

Independent company Republic Technologies, which specialises in RYO accessories, also introduced a new menthol filter tip under its Swan brand.¹⁶⁶ (Republic Technologies bought Swedish Match UK in 2008, but does not sell tobacco).¹⁶⁷ These have been advertised with Imperial’s L&B Blue Bright Air Filter cigarettes.¹⁶⁵

Packets of flavour capsules are now being advertised to buy separately to be poked into the cigarette filter before combustion in websites targeted at Poland.¹⁶⁸

Figure 3: Imperial’s Rizla menthol “infusion” cards (source: conveniencestore.co.uk)¹⁶⁹

Strips of cardboard, known as flavour cards, add flavour to cigarettes when they are added to a pack.  A Finnish firm ‘Frizc’ sells menthol, lime, liquorice and raspberry flavoured cards in Estonia.¹⁷⁰  The company website states that the packs (which appeared on the market in May 2020) can be used to flavour tea, coffee and oatflakes but do not mention tobacco. However, they are sized exactly for a cigarette pack and retailers can recommend them to smokers.¹⁷⁰

In January 2020, the launch of Imperial’s “Flavour Infusion cards” in two flavours: “menthol chill” and “fresh mint” was announced (Figure 3).¹⁷¹ These cards impart a menthol flavour into factory made cigarettes or RYO tobacco if inserted into product packs.¹⁷²  Imperial stated it was selling 900,000 packs of flavour cards a week by mid-2021.¹⁷³

The point of sale display ban exempts tobacco accessories (including branding) in England and Wales but in Scotland accessories must be hidden like other tobacco products.¹⁷⁴ Imperial have made use of the exemption in England and Wales to recommend that flavour infusion cards are promoted in point of sale displays.¹⁷²¹⁷⁵ Imperial reported selling 900,000 a week in July 2021.¹⁷⁶ Swan, an accessories manufacturer had also launched flavour cards by mid-2021.¹⁷⁶ In July 2021, the UK tobacco accessories market was reported to be worth UK£314 million.¹⁷⁶

Menthol and other flavour sprays, stones and drops have been developed for soaking filters or cards, and are on sale in the EU,¹³⁵¹⁷⁷ and the UK ¹⁷⁸¹⁷⁹

Exploiting the term ‘characterising flavours’

The TPD regulations state that:¹²⁷

“characterising flavour” means a smell or taste other than one of tobacco which—
(a) is clearly noticeable before or during consumption of the product; and
(b) results from an additive or a combination of additives, including, but not limited to, fruit, spice, herbs, alcohol, candy, menthol or vanilla”

In November 2020, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, working with the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) reported uncertainty and confusion in multiple European countries as to the level of menthol flavouring present in cigarettes that could be considered to be characterising.¹⁴⁵¹⁸⁰ They presented evidence that the term ‘characterising’ was used after lobbying from the tobacco industry.¹⁴⁵ Public health NGO Comité National Contre le Tabagisme (CNTC) accuses tobacco companies of exploiting the ambiguity around the definition of the term ‘characterising’.¹³⁵

Determining whether a product has a characterising flavour is difficult. The EU took nearly five years to put a methodology in place; a combination of sensory panels and chemical analyses.¹³¹¹⁸⁰ Slow development of testing, and a lack of firm action, has left a regulatory vacuum for the tobacco industry to exploit. JTI launched products which, when challenged, it claimed did not have a characterising flavour.¹⁸⁰ The company later changed direction, saying it was able to sell these products because there was no way at the time to test for a characterising flavour.¹⁸⁰ Other tobacco companies and health campaigners have claimed that these new products do have flavours that would be characterising.¹⁸¹ The Direction Générale de la Santé (DGS, the French ministry of health) was reported to be investigating over 300 products suspected of containing prohibited flavours.¹³⁵ Sweden referred 21 JTI cigarette varieties to the European Commission to test for characterising flavour in June 2020.  In late 2021, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (the successor to Public Health England) was reported to be testing products from several manufacturers.¹⁸⁰

UK

In the UK products began to be released at an early stage. In late March 2020, JTI promoted new ‘dual’ cigarette products with new blends, filters and two sections of 10 cigarettes, to appeal to menthol smokers looking for new products.¹⁸²¹⁸³ However it was unclear what these new ‘blends’ entailed.

JTI also developed a range of “Green” and “Blue” product variations under the same brand names as their menthol cigarettes.¹⁸⁴ The Sun newspaper reported that these products tasted and smelled like menthol, without containing the substance.¹⁸⁴ Scottish Local Retailer published a dedicated  publication for UK retailers in conjunction in conjunction with JTI, called “Making A Mint”, which detailed alternative products including cigarettes made with “distinctive blends” of tobacco but did not mention helping smokers quit; it did recommend selling cigarettes at low prices.(Figure 4 )¹⁸⁵ These new cigarettes were promoted under the logo “menthol reimagined”, alongside  JTI’s newer nicotine and tobacco products (so called “Next Generation Products”).¹⁸⁵ (Imperial Tobacco promoted its e-cigarette blu in this publication.¹⁸⁵ See below for more on tobacco companies promoting newer products as menthol alternatives). JTI also ran an online training course for retailers, which featured their new cigarettes as direct replacements for existing menthol brands.¹⁸⁴

Figure 4: Page from retail publication showing JTI’s alternative cigarettes post-ban.(Source: Scottish Local Retailer/Japan Tobacco International, Making a Mint 2020, PDF supplied by Action on Smoking and Health)

A week before the May ban, Imperial Tobacco announced the launch of new “smooth” variants of their non-menthol brands, called “Bright” and “Green Filter”. The company said this was to “help retailers cater for their menthol and crushball customers when the ban comes into effect, by offering them new innovations from their brands of choice”.¹⁸⁶ Imperial also said its research showed that 82% of menthol and crushball smokers would continue to smoke their usual cigarette brand despite reduced levels of menthol, and 70% percent were “expected to switch to a smooth or full flavour variant”.¹⁸⁶

Better Retailing reported that, according to information from UK wholesalers, tobacco companies had between them created 29 new product lines to replace menthol products due to be banned, which was confusing for customers.¹⁸⁷ While colour and branding can be used to promote products to retailers, cigarettes can only be sold in plain packs, and so the only noticeable difference for the customer with these new products would be a slight change of brand variant name.

Ireland

The Irish Times reported that JTI were selling a “green” version of their Silk Cut cigarette brand. JTI argued that this product complied with the ban, even though the company admitted that it used menthol flavouring in its manufacture.¹⁸⁸ According to the newspaper, JTI stated that they: “conduct robust internal testing processes to determine that the use of flavourings in our products does not produce a clearly noticeable smell or taste other than one of tobacco.”¹⁸⁸ BAT accused JTI of using the same tactic in France, with new versions of its Camel and Winston brands, to which JTI issued a similar denial.¹⁸⁹

The Irish Times also reported that PML was advertising a new cigarette in the retail press. Called “Marlboro Bright“, it was described by PMI as a “the Marlboro menthol blend – without methylation”.¹⁸⁸¹⁹⁰ PMI later said that this advertisement was a “mistake” and it should have used the phrase “without menthol” rather than “methylation”.¹⁹⁰ The company insisted that it had “delisted all menthol cigarettes in the UK and Ireland – all of our cigarettes remaining on the market, including our latest variant Marlboro Bright, do not have any menthol in them and are in full compliance with the law”.¹⁹¹

BAT also developed new variations under its Pall Mall, Vogue and Rothmans brands which included new blends and changes to filters “providing meaningful differentiation for adult smokers who previously preferred menthol.”^192193194 A representative of BAT (P.J.Carroll) in Ireland said that it was “not launching any cigarette brands or accessories with menthol-type properties”.¹⁸⁸

These attempts to adapt products were criticised by the Irish government with a spokesperson stating that the Health Minister believed the issue “should be dealt with at EU level”.¹⁸⁸

Similar tactics from BAT, PMI and JTI have been noted in the following EU member states: France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Denmark and Ireland ¹³⁵, Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary,  Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden ¹⁸¹

In 2020, JTI’s brands in France,¹³⁵ and Ireland ¹⁹⁵ had high sales, suggesting this has been a successful strategy for the tobacco industry.

New ‘cig-alike’ cigarillos

The only part of standardised packs legislation applicable to cigars and cigarillos was a larger health warning; legislation on branding, minimum pack size, and flavourings does not apply. Tobacco companies developed new product variations and promoted these products in the retail press.¹⁴⁹ From 2020, JTI and/or Landwyck cigarette-like cigarillos were launched in France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Denmark, Ireland, Romania, Netherlands, Poland and the UK.¹³⁵

Figure 5: JTI’s Sterling Dual menthol cigarillo (Source: talkingretail.com)¹⁹⁶

Japan Tobacco International 

Stirling Dual Capsules are cigarette-like cigarillos with mentholated tobacco launched in the UK by JTI in early 2020 (figure 5).¹⁹⁶ The product contains  a capsule filter which releases a peppermint flavour on crushing.¹⁹⁷ Stirling is one of JTI’s most popular cigarette brands, which already included capsule options.  The cigarillos were legally allowed to be sold in 10 packs making them  approximately half the price of the cheapest cigarette packs on the UK market. Marketing to retailers framed them as an option to circumvent the menthol ban.¹⁴³¹⁵⁹ Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) described this as a “cynical” move on the part of JTI, saying that its new cigarillo was essentially “a cigarette wrapped in tobacco leaf”.¹⁶⁰ JTI, quoted in retail magazine The Scottish Grocer, said that it was “committed to providing retailers with as much choice as possible by launching innovative new products that respond to current trends”.¹⁹⁸

These cigarillos won retail industry awards and were described as having “a strong performance” and JTI released a 20 stick version in early 2021.¹⁹⁷ In the second half of 2020, over 45% of cigar sales recorded by the Retail Data Partnership were Sterling Dual Capsule cigarillos.¹⁸⁰

Scandinavian Tobacco Group

The Scandinavian Tobacco Group, a cigar specialist, launched Signature Dual in February 2020.¹⁶⁶¹⁹⁹ This is a menthol capsule cigarillo, similar to JTI’s Sterling Dual Capsule.

Imperial Brands

In August 2020, Imperial Brands (previously Imperial Tobacco) added a 10-pack of menthol crushball cigarillos to its JPS Players range, with a price comparable to JTI’s product. Imperial’s UK market manager said that this product would: “help bridge the gap left by the ban”.²⁰⁰²⁰¹

Impact of new cigarillo variants

According to Euromonitor data, the UK cigarillo market was in decline until the TPD came into force in 2016, but it is now growing. Euromonitor forecasts sales of cigarillos will carry on rising, whereas cigar sales will remain in long term decline.²⁰²²⁰³

Promoted newer products through menthol ban websites

Tobacco companies used harm reduction as a strategy to achieve their business objectives. In advance of the menthol ban in the UK, they promoted their newer nicotine and tobacco products (heated tobacco products, e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches).

As the UK does not allow open promotion and display of tobacco products, tobacco companies created websites and pages specifically to provide information about the ban to retailers and consumers, in addition to articles in the retail press.^153154203204 Although they are apparently set up to provide information, these websites also help companies to capitalise on the upcoming ban by promoting their newer products.¹⁸³ These include heated tobacco products (HTPs) such as PMI’s IQOS and its HEETS tobacco sticks, to which the ban did not  apply.¹⁶⁶¹⁵⁵

• For details, see: Promotion of Newer Products Around The UK Menthol Ban

What Next for Menthol in Europe?

Despite industry efforts to boost menthol sales, the upcoming ban appeared to be having an impact on UK smokers’ buying habits, as sales of menthol cigarettes fell in the months before it came into effect. For details see Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco – Do Bans Work.

UK: arguments for retrenchment

Since the EU 2016 TPD came into force, the UK has left the EU (known as Brexit).  Twitter activity and some media reports suggested Brexit could be an opportunity to repeal the menthol ban. ²⁰⁵²⁰⁶ It is not clear whether the tobacco industry intends to lobby to roll back this legislation after the transition period. However, traditionally the UK has gone beyond EU requirements regarding tobacco control, so repealing would require a change in political consensus.²⁰⁷ In July 2020, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care confirmed that “As the ban is part of United Kingdom legislation, it will remain in place when the UK exits the transition period with the European Union”.²⁰⁸

The UK did not replicate the 2023 EU ban on flavoured heated tobacco products (see below).

Finland: going beyond the TPD

Finland aims to end the use of tobacco and other nicotine products by 2030.  Policy makers have interpreted the 2016 TPD flavour ban as also applying to e-cigarette liquids.²⁰⁹ There have been court cases in Finland as shops have been selling flavourings labelled for food use, but which have not been tested for possible toxicity when heated and inhaled.  These flavourings are labelled for use with e-cigarettes (vaping) in other countries.  Finnish researchers have called for the EU to reconsider regulation, product notification and prohibition of e-cigarette flavours.²⁰⁹

Revision of the 2014 TPD

The TPD is under revision, in both the EU and the UK, as scheduled in the legislation. Tobacco industry activity implies that current regulation should be tightened to:²¹⁰

• remove the loopholes around characterising flavour by banning menthol as an ingredient;
• extend the ban to all tobacco products, especially cigarillos and other products that are mimicking or replacing cigarettes; and
• consider whether to broaden regulations to include heated tobacco sticks, e-liquids and other new products

As essentially a cigarette wrapped in brown leaf rather than white paper, cigarillos are likely to be very attractive to the tobacco industry; not only are they currently exempt from EU and UK standardised packs legislation, but they are also subject to lower taxes.¹⁴⁹¹⁴³ It has also been recommended that the ban is extended to waterpipe where flavours are a key attraction and young people, and some European populations have a particularly high level of use.²¹¹

Extending the ban to accessories could be more difficult given their variety, but there are already a bans on  their display at point of sale in Denmark and Scotland.²¹²²¹³ Some accessories such as cigarette filters, where the tobacco industry has made false health claims, could themselves be banned completely.¹⁶¹

Tobacco industry strategies during revision development

Reinskje Talhoot from the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, (Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu, RIVM) in the Netherlands stated that the tobacco industry has been focussing on the toxicity of tobacco additives like menthol. There is little evidence of toxicity and this helps draws attention away from studies that show that menthol encourages young smokers to continue smoking.¹³⁰

From May 2020, manufacturers were required to disclose additives in tobacco products and additional information about the harmful and addictive effects of 15 priority additives including menthol.  The EU Commission asked an independent group of experts, called WP9 and led by RIVM, to assess the research reports.¹³⁰ WP9 concluded that there was strong independent evidence that low amounts of menthol (which would be insufficient to make a characterising flavour) still facilitates smoke inhalation making smoking easier for novice (new) smokers.¹³⁰ WP9 noted that tobacco industry reports did not come to the same conclusion because they left out some independent studies. There were also limitations in the research methods and statistical analyses.¹³⁰ WP9 therefore concluded that the industry reports were unreliable and should not be used to guide EU member states’ policies. WP9 instead advises that menthol in cigarettes should be banned completely.¹³⁰

EU ban on flavoured heated tobacco products

Heated tobacco products (HTPs) were exempted from the flavour ban. However, the Commission published a report in June 2022 which found that the sales of HTPs had increased by more than 10% (by volume) in 10 member countries, and were making up over 3% of total tobacco product sales.²¹⁴

This was classified as a “substantial change of circumstances” enabling the Commission to propose a ban on flavoured HTPs, as part of Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan.^{215216 217} The Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, Stella Kyriakides, said:

“With nine out of ten lung cancers caused by tobacco, we want to make smoking as unattractive as possible to protect the health of our citizens and save lives. Stronger actions to reduce tobacco consumption, stricter enforcement and keeping pace with new developments to address the endless flow of new products entering the market – particularly important to protect younger people – is key for this. Prevention will always be better than cure.”²¹⁵

After a period of scrutiny, a Delegated Directive was published in November 2022 and entered into force the same month, which banned HTPs with a characterising flavour in any of their components (referring to components closes a potential loophole for flavoured accessories).²¹⁸²¹⁹ EU member countries were required to adopt national laws by 23 July 2023, and enact the ban 3 months later, by 23 October.²¹⁶ Germany was the first country to pass the ban into law,²²⁰

Extended transition period in Italy

The directive included a 3 month transitional period.²¹⁸ Market analysts Tobacco Intelligence reported that Italy allowed an extended transition period to sell existing stocks of flavoured products: ²¹⁹

“…manufacturers can supply these to tax warehouses until 31st December 2023, tax warehouses can provide them to retailers until 1st March 2024, and retailers can sell existing stocks.”²¹⁹

Tobacco industry response

Legal challenges

In January 2023, BAT was granted permission to challenge the ban in the Irish high court (as the Republic of Ireland is part of the EU).²²¹²²² BAT stated that the ban would undermine its investment in “products with a reduced-risk profile” and have implications for public health policy.²²¹ In March, Philip Morris Group was given permission to join the legal challenge. Philip Morris did not market HTPs in Ireland at the time, but said it intended to do so.²²³  In October 2023, media reported that the case had been referred to the European Court of Justice, with the tobacco companies accusing the EU of regulatory ‘overreach’.^224225226

Promoted purchases in countries where flavoured HTP sticks continued to be legal

On its website PMI stated that Northern Ireland was affected by the ban, but not the rest of the UK.²²⁷ It noted that as the ban was on sales, not use,  “[a]dult users may still be able to buy heated tobacco products with a characterising flavour abroad and use them in the EU.”²²⁸

Tobacco industry journal Tobacco Journal International also highlighted the potential for cross-border purchasing of flavoured products from neighbouring countries without a ban in place.²²⁹

Launched new nicotine sticks

In the months before the ban came into force, PMI and BAT launched flavoured sticks for using in HTP devices that do not contain tobacco. Instead, the sticks contain nicotine infused leaves (including rooibos tea) apparently developed in order to circumvent the HTP flavour ban.²³⁰²³¹

For details see:

• Newer Nicotine and Tobacco Products: Philip Morris International
• Newer Nicotine and Tobacco Products: British American Tobacco.

TobaccoTactics Resources

• Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco
• Promotion of Newer Products Around The UK Menthol Ban
• EU Tobacco Products Directive Revision
• Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco in LMICs
• Product Innovation
• Newer Nicotine and Tobacco Products

Relevant Links

• STOP statement on the delayed US menthol ban and NGO-instigated legal action
• Menthol tobacco companies are exploiting loopholes in the  UK’s characterising flavours ban, S. Dance & K. Evans-Reeve, Tobacco Control blog, May 2021

TCRG Research

• Effects of and challenges to bans on menthol and other flavors in tobacco products, K. Przewoźniak, C. Kyriakos, R. Hiscock et al,  Tobacco Prevention & Cessation, 2021; 7 (November): 68, doi: 10.18332/tpc/143072
• Tobacco industry tactics to circumvent and undermine the menthol cigarette ban in the UK, R. Hiscock, K. Silver, M. Zatonski, A. Gilmore, Tobacco Control, 18 May 2020, doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-055769
• Cigarette-like cigarillo introduced to bypass taxation, standardised packaging, minimum pack sizes, and menthol ban in the UK, J. Branston J, R. Hiscock, K. Silver, D. Arnott, A. Gilmore, Tobacco Control, Online First, 26 August 2020, doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-055700
• A prospective longitudinal study of tobacco company adaptation to standardised packaging in the UK: identifying circumventions and closing loopholes, K. Evans-Reeves, R. Hiscock, K. Lauber K, J. Branston, A. Gilmore, BMJ Open, 2019;9:e028506, doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028506
• Standardised packaging, Minimum Excise Tax, and RYO focussed tax rise implications for UK tobacco pricing, R. Hiscock, N. Augustin, J. Branston, A. Gilmore, PloS one, February 2020, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0228069

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

References

The post Menthol Cigarettes: Industry Interference in the EU and UK appeared first on TobaccoTactics.