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: Nathan Hughes Hamilton/CC BY 2.0 DEED

Key Points

• Indonesia is a country in Southeast Asia, part of the World Health Organization’s South-East Asia Region.
• It is the fourth most populous country in the world, with a population in 2022 of 275.5 million.
• Tobacco use prevalence is high, particularly amongst men. 34.5% of all adults were current tobacco users in 2021, including 65.5% of men.
• Indonesia has neither signed nor ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. As a non-party, it is ineligible to join the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products.
• The Indonesian tobacco market is dominated by local manufacturers PT Gudang Garam Tbk and PT Djarum, as well as Philip Morris International.
• Recent tobacco industry tactics in Indonesia include the use of third parties; the targeting of youth with tobacco marketing, both at point of sale and online, as well as via event sponsorship; and sponsorship of popular sports such as badminton and football.

According to the authors of a 2023 paper, “Indonesia has a high smoking prevalence that has not diminished significantly since 1990”. This has been driven by male smoking rates which remain amongst the highest in the world.¹¹¹² It is the only country in Asia to have neither signed nor ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC),¹³ and nor is there any comparable national framework for tobacco control.¹¹ Industry interference in policymaking is ongoing, as there is no effective legal mechanism to prevent it.¹⁴¹⁵ Smoking has long been a part of Indonesian culture, particularly for men, something which tobacco companies have exploited through aggressive marketing tactics that aim to reinforce smoking as a normal or even essential masculine behaviour.¹⁵¹⁶ This high degree of social acceptability means that the government treats the industry as a legitimate stakeholder.¹⁷ One key challenge, therefore, is to de-normalise tobacco use, as part of a comprehensive tobacco control plan.¹⁷¹⁸

Tobacco Use in Indonesia

The link between smoking and masculinity is deeply embedded within Indonesian culture.¹⁸¹⁹ This has been reinforced by tobacco marketing which associates tobacco products with characteristics traditionally considered masculine, such as strength, heroism and self-control.¹⁸¹⁹

In 2021, tobacco use prevalence amongst adults was 34.5%; 70.2 million adults were current users of tobacco.²⁰ Nearly two-thirds (65.5%) of Indonesian men reported using tobacco, compared to around 3% of women.²⁰

In 2019, nearly 20% of students aged from 13 to 15 reported tobacco use.²¹ Around 36% of males in this age group reported current tobacco use compared to 3.5% of females.²¹

Kreteks – cigarettes consisting of tobacco, cloves and flavourings such as chocolate, dried fruit and coffee – are by far the most popular tobacco product in Indonesia. According to government figures from 2017, kreteks accounted for more than 95% of the cigarettes sold that year.²² The cloves provide a unique flavour and smell, and also contain eugenol, a chemical compound which reduces the harshness of the smoke.²³ In 2021, close to 30% of all Indonesian adults – around 60 million of the country’s 70 million adult tobacco users – reported smoking kreteks.²⁰

There were an estimated 246,000 deaths attributable to smoking in 2019, accounting for nearly 15% of all mortality in Indonesia that year.²⁴ Research published in 2022 estimated the total cost of smoking to the Indonesian economy in 2019 at between Rp184.36 trillion (US$13 billion) and Rp410.76 trillion (US$29 billion).²⁵ The same study found that direct healthcare costs accounted for between Rp17.9 trillion (US$1.3 billion) and Rp27.7 trillion (US$2 billion), most of which is covered by the Social Security Agency for Health, equivalent to 57-59% of total direct expenditure on healthcare.²⁵

Tobacco in Indonesia

Market share and leading brands

In 2022, market research company Euromonitor International put the value of the Indonesian tobacco market at over US$34 billion.²⁶ It is the second-largest cigarette market in the world.²⁷

The market leader in Indonesia is the local kretek manufacturer PT Gudang Garam Tbk (Gudang Garam), with nearly one-third of the market in 2022.²⁸²⁹

Its closest competitor is Philip Morris International (PMI), with a slightly smaller share.²⁸ PMI operates in Indonesia via its subsidiaries PT Philip Morris Indonesia and PT HM Sampoerna Tbk (Sampoerna).²⁸³⁰ At the time of its acquisition by PMI in 2005, Sampoerna was the leading tobacco company in Indonesia.³⁰³¹

PT Djarum (Djarum), another local kretek producer, has the third-largest market share, around half that of the two leading companies.²⁸³²

Like PMI, other transnational tobacco companies have sought to expand into Indonesia by acquiring local companies. In 2009, British American Tobacco (BAT) bought an 85% stake in PT Bentoel Internasional Investama Tbk (Bentoel) – at the time the fourth largest tobacco company in the country.³¹ In 2011, the South Korean company Korea Tobacco & Ginseng (KT&G) – which has a partnership with PMI for its newer nicotine and tobacco products – bought a controlling share of Indonesia’s sixth-largest tobacco company, PT Trisakti Purwosari Makmur.³¹³³ Similarly, Japan Tobacco International (JTI) acquired two Gudang Garam subsidiaries, Karyadibya Mahardhika and its distributor, PT Surya Mustika Nusantara, in 2017.³¹ However, BAT, JTI and KT&G each had market shares of less than 2% as of 2022.²⁸

In 2022, the top four brands of cigarette in Indonesia were all kreteks. Gudang Garam has around one-third of the market. Djarum, A Mild and Dji Sam Soe (the latter two both PMI/Sampoerna brands) each have around a one-tenth share. Others, including PMI’s premium cigarette Marlboro, have smaller shares.³⁴

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

Tobacco farming and child labour

Tobacco is grown in Indonesia almost entirely on small, family-run farms, and 90% of production comes from just three provinces: East Java, Central Java, and West Nusa Tenggara.³⁵

In 2021, Indonesia reported production of over 237,000 tonnes of raw tobacco, making it the fourth largest producer in the world after China, India and Brazil.³⁶ Production has varied since 2010, from a low of less than 127,000 tonnes in 2016 to a high of nearly 270,000 tonnes in 2019. However, the overall trend in recent decades has been upwards, as shown in the graph below:

Figure 1: Tobacco production, 1980 to 2021.³⁷ Source: UN Food and Agriculture Organization/Our World in Data | CC BY

The area harvested under tobacco crop also increased by over 30% between 2000 and 2020, to nearly 220,000 hectares.³⁸

A 2017 report by the World Bank found that poverty was widespread amongst tobacco farmers in Indonesia. Nearly three-quarters of tobacco farmers were poor compared to around one-tenth of the general population.³⁹ Most tobacco-farming households received some form of government social assistance, and more than 60% reported food insecurity.³⁹

Research published in 2020 found that Indonesian tobacco farmers would be better off economically if they grew other crops or pursued alternative, non-agricultural livelihoods.⁴⁰ Tobacco is also vulnerable to adverse weather conditions in comparison to other crops. In 2016, a period of much higher-than-average rainfall, while non-tobacco farmers made a modest income, tobacco farmers’ income was almost zero.⁴⁰

Tobacco-farming households had significantly higher labour costs than those growing other crops.⁴¹ Tobacco farmers also used child labour, both hired and household, more frequently compared to those growing other crops.⁴⁰ Similarly, more children from tobacco farms missed school.⁴⁰ Farmers reported using child labour because tobacco growing does not usually pay enough to hire adult workers.⁴⁰

An investigation by The Guardian in 2018 visited the village of Beleke, on the island of Lombok, where it found almost all children above the age of four doing tobacco work during harvest season.⁴² This followed a report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) in 2016, which stated that thousands of children work in tobacco farming in Indonesia. HRW found children engaged in dangerous work in four Indonesian provinces, interviewing more than 130. They reported serious health and safety issues, including acute nicotine poisoning as a result of handling tobacco leaves (also known as green tobacco sickness) and contact with pesticides and other chemicals.³⁵

HRW’s interviews with tobacco farmers and traders revealed a lack of human rights due diligence in the tobacco supply chain in Indonesia, particularly regarding child labour.³⁵ The farmers and traders interviewed supplied large Indonesian and transnational companies including Gudang Garam, Sampoerna, Djarum and Bentoel.³⁵

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

Tobacco and the economy

Given its high level of tobacco consumption, Indonesia has long been a net importer of tobacco leaf, despite also being a major producer.⁴¹ In 2022, it imported over US$617 million in raw tobacco, compared to around US$266 million in exports.⁴³⁴⁴

However, it is a net exporter of cigarettes: over US$913 million in 2022, compared to US$118 million in imports.⁴⁵⁴⁶

In 2020 the WHO reported that the contribution of the tobacco industry to the Indonesian economy was relatively small; tobacco manufacturing generates just 0.6% of total employment, while tobacco farmers represent only 1.6% of the agricultural workforce. Most families involved in tobacco growing and kretek rolling also receive some form of social assistance – meaning that the Indonesian state is essentially subsidising poorly-paid employment in the tobacco industry.⁴⁷

Illicit trade

A study published in 2019, which collected packs of cigarettes from respondents in Indonesia, found that 20% of the 1,440 smokers surveyed reported ever smoking illicit cigarettes. However, among the 1,201 packs researchers collected, only 20 (i.e. 1.6%) had no excise stamp, a fake excise stamp, or no graphic health warning – and hence were potentially illicit. Price appears to be a factor, with people on lower incomes more likely to purchase illicit cigarettes, though consumption of illicit cigarettes was not found to be a long-term behaviour.⁴⁸ However, a 2021 study estimated that the share of illicit cigarette consumption in the country increased from 5% in 2013 to 19% in 2018.⁴⁹

Globally, Free Trade Zones (FTZs) are well known to facilitate the illicit tobacco trade.⁵⁰ There are four FTZs in Indonesia, where cigarette production and trade are exempted from excise duties, making the price much lower. Cigarettes leak from these FTZs, becoming illicit in the process, as the packs bear no excise stamps.⁵¹ In August 2023, Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission announced that a senior official from the Bintan Free Trade and Port Zone had been arrested on charges of data manipulation and receiving bribes from cigarette companies, to allow greater flows of duty-free cigarettes through the zone.⁵²

Internal industry documents suggest that historically, BAT has been involved in illicit trade in Indonesia and the broader region.⁵³ A 1994 internal BAT document points to Indonesia – along with Malaysia – as a conduit of illicit products to the Philippines.⁵⁴ A BAT-commissioned study from the 1980s also documented Indonesian consumers’ preference for its smuggled products.⁵⁵

As part of the third round of the Philip Morris International initiative PMI IMPACT, PMI is funding the Institute for Development of Economics and Finance, an Indonesian think tank, to “examine the market for NTHRPs [nicotine and tobacco harm reduction products] and how to prevent illicit trade in this growing sector, with research to include surveys and limited group discussions”.⁵⁶

• For more information on PMI IMPACT, please see the following pages: PMI IMPACT, List of Successful PMI IMPACT Applicants and Organisations linked to PMI IMPACT.

Tobacco and the environment

Indonesia is the world’s second-biggest contributor to marine plastic pollution after China, responsible for 1.29 million tonnes of debris entering the ocean annually.⁵⁷ Of this waste, cigarette butts are the most commonly-littered item.⁵⁸ The Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control has estimated the cost of tobacco-related marine pollution and waste management in Indonesia at Rp49 trillion (US$3.1 billion) per year.⁵⁹

• For more information, please see the page on Tobacco and the Environment and the long read on Plastics, the Environment and the Tobacco Industry.

Roadmap to Tobacco Control

Indonesia is not a party to the WHO FCTC, and is therefore ineligible to join the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products. As of 2023, there appears to be little political will either to ratify the WHO FCTC or to create a comparable national framework for tobacco control. This has led to a fragmented approach across different government departments and prevented the development of coherent tobacco control policies.¹¹

However, Indonesia has committed to an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) five-year plan on health, under which it has pledged to reaffirm collective positions against industry interference and for implementation of control measures, for both tobacco and alcohol.⁶⁰

In 2009, the passage of Law No. 36 authorised the Ministry of Health to introduce tobacco control regulation, including on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship (TAPS); smoke-free spaces; and packaging and labelling of tobacco products.⁶¹ This was followed in 2012 by Indonesia’s principal tobacco control law, Government Regulation 109 (PP 109/2012).⁶¹ These laws prohibit smoking on public transport, and in educational facilities and places of worship, though other types of enclosed public spaces, including workplaces, restaurants and government facilities, may provide smoking areas.⁶²⁶³ More stringent regulations at the subnational level are permitted.⁶² As of June 2023, 456 (around 86%) of Indonesia’s 520 cities and districts had adopted smoke-free policies, though implementation remains a challenge.⁶⁴

Indonesia is one of the few countries that still permits tobacco advertising on television, though it may not be broadcast until after 9:30pm.⁶²⁶¹ While Law No. 36 and PP 109/2012 also introduced graphic health warnings (GHWs) on tobacco packaging and banned misleading terms such as “light” and “low-tar”, the law was not retroactive for tobacco products that already had these words in their branding, and other misleading features – such as colours, numbers and symbols – are still permitted.⁶²⁶¹

As of 2024, various other limitations remain. There are no restrictions on internet sales or the sale of individual cigarettes (single sticks); there is no national law regulating the sale, use, advertising, promotion, sponsorship, packaging or labelling of e-cigarettes; and tobacco industry corporate social responsibility (CSR) is still permitted.⁶¹⁶³ Cigarettes in Indonesia also remain relatively cheap. In 2022, the price of the bestselling brand of cigarettes was just over US$2.⁶³

In 2018, President Widodo issued a decree containing a list of government regulations to be revised, which included PP 109/2012.⁶⁵ Tobacco control advocates have seen this as an opportunity to push for stronger regulations, such as larger GHWs, higher excise taxes on cigarettes and a comprehensive ban on TAPS.⁶⁵ However, this process has stalled, amidst conflict between different government ministries and opposition from farmers’ associations and other groups (see section “Use of third parties”).⁶⁵ As of March 2024, the revision of PP 109/2012 had yet to advance.

For more details, please see the following websites:

• Legislation by Country/Jurisdiction – Indonesia, Tobacco Control Laws, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
• Country profile – Indonesia, World Health Organization, WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic 2023

Interference in Indonesia by Tobacco Industry and Allies

Tobacco industry tactics in Indonesia include the use of third parties; the targeting of youth with tobacco marketing, both at point of sale and online, as well as via event sponsorship; and sponsorship of popular sports such as badminton and football.

Use of third parties

The tobacco industry has long used third parties and front groups to advance its interests, as a means of achieving greater credibility and overcoming public mistrust.

The Indonesian Tobacco Farmers’ Association (Asosiasi Petani Tembakau Indonesia, APTI), a lobby group, opposes the WHO FCTC, and has urged the Indonesian government not to ratify the treaty.⁶⁶ It has also frequently lobbied against increases in excise taxes on tobacco products. In 2019, APTI held a rally in front of the Ministry of Finance, to demand the repeal of an increase in excise and the retail price of cigarettes, and the revision of a regulation requiring at least 50% of the Tobacco Excise Revenue Sharing Fund to be allocated to health purposes.⁶⁷

APTI has also opposed the proposed revision to Indonesia’s main tobacco control law, PP 109/2012. In 2022, in Temanggung, a major tobacco-growing region in Central Java, APTI representatives were seen at a public event displaying banners asking the local government for support in opposing the proposal.⁶⁸ APTI also sent official letters to President Widodo opposing the revision, stating that it would negatively affect the livelihoods of people working in the tobacco sector, particularly farmers.⁶⁵

Another lobby group which has opposed of any revision of PP 109/2012 is the Indonesian Tobacco Community Alliance (Aliansi Masyarakat Tembakau Indonesia, AMTI), a coalition of tobacco industry stakeholders – including cigarette manufacturers – established in 2010.⁶⁹ It reportedly has close links to the PMI subsidiary Sampoerna.⁷⁰⁷¹ AMTI has sought to portray tobacco control as an agenda imposed on Indonesia by foreign actors who do not understand the local context – a common tobacco industry tactic in the country.⁷²⁷³

Both APTI and AMTI are affiliates of the International Tobacco Growers Association (ITGA), a global front group funded and run by the ‘Big Four’ transnational tobacco companies (TTCs), as well as two major leaf merchants.⁷⁴⁷⁵⁷⁶ Though ITGA claims to defend the interests of tobacco farmers and their communities around the world, it uses tobacco farmers as a means of opposing tobacco control regulations and protecting the interests of the TTCs.⁷⁶

Controversial marketing strategies: targeting youth

The tobacco industry has long seen young people as a vital target market; tobacco use generally starts in adolescence. In Indonesia, the mean age of smoking initiation amongst males is 18.3 years, while smoking prevalence amongst Indonesian adolescents (aged 10 to 18) increased from 7% in 2013 to 9% in 2018.⁷⁷⁷⁸

In Indonesia, there is a high concentration of tobacco retailers, high exposure to point-of-sale advertising and no restriction on the display of cigarette packs in retail outlets – all of which are associated with increased tobacco use amongst adolescents.⁶³⁷⁸⁷⁹ In addition, many retailers are located close to schools; enforcement of the ban on sales to minors is very weak; while sales of single sticks, which make smoking more accessible to young people, are still permitted.⁷⁹⁷⁸⁸⁰ Retailers therefore have an important role in recruiting new, young smokers, and maintaining growth of the market.⁷⁸

Indonesia’s incomplete TAPS regulations have also allowed the tobacco industry to switch to less regulated forms of advertising such as event sponsorship and internet marketing, often targeting young people.⁸¹

For example, the popular music festival SoundrenAline, which has been running in Indonesia since 2002, was founded by Sampoerna.⁸² Following a visit to SoundrenAline 2016, researchers reported that Sampoerna branding and the slogan “Go Ahead” were found throughout the festival site. Sampoerna A brand cigarettes were widely sold, including by cigarette girls and boys – a form of direct one-on-one marketing.⁸¹⁸³ Cigarettes that were not a Sampoerna brand were confiscated at the entrance.⁸¹ As of 2022, Sampoerna was still the sponsor of the event and owner of the registered trademark for “SoundrenAline”.⁸²

With over 111 million users, Indonesia has one of the world’s largest Instagram audiences, over half of whom are aged between 13 and 24.⁸⁴ According to the Tobacco Enforcement and Reporting Movement (TERM), as of 2023, around 70% of online tobacco marketing in Indonesia took place on Instagram.⁸⁵⁸⁶ Most of this marketing is indirect and community based. Rather than display their products directly, the tobacco companies build online communities of followers with a common interest such as music, travel or sport, as a means of improving brand visibility and indirectly promoting their products.⁸⁶⁸⁵

Controversial marketing strategies: sponsorship of popular sports

Tobacco industry sponsorship of sport is as old as professional athletic competition itself.⁸⁷ It aims to create links between pre-existing associations people may have with sports (such as fun, excitement, strength, etc.) with tobacco branding and products; promote an image of tobacco use as normal and healthy; and appeal to young people.⁸⁸

In Indonesia, TAPS has historically been very widespread in popular sports.⁸⁹ Badminton, for instance, which the New York Times has described as part of Indonesia’s “national identity”, has long been a vehicle for tobacco industry sponsorship.⁹⁰ From 2006, Djarum was the corporate sponsor of the national badminton trials for children and adolescents aged from 5 to 18.⁹¹ The trials were shown on national television, and participants were required to wear clothing which displayed the Djarum logo.⁷⁸⁹¹

Ten civil society organisations reported Djarum to the National Commission on Child Protection, arguing that the sponsorship violated Indonesia’s child protection law.⁹¹ In 2019, Djarum agreed to remove its logos from the badminton trials.⁹²⁹³ It also withdrew its sponsorship from future trials, which critics argued would undermine development of young talent. However, in 2021 the state-owned telecommunications firm Telkom replaced Djarum as sponsor.⁹¹

Djarum owns the PB Djarum badminton club in Kudus, Central Java, which has a youth academy, as well as a club in Jakarta.⁹⁰⁸⁵⁹⁴ The company also continues to market itself and its products indirectly via Djarum-associated social media accounts which focus on badminton-related content.⁸⁶⁸⁵

An investigation into tobacco marketing on social media in Indonesia, India and Mexico around the 2022 FIFA World Cup found that 92% of the football-themed tobacco marketing originated from Indonesia, with 81% being produced by Djarum alone.⁸⁹

Both Gudang Garam and Djarum, via their respective brands Intersoccer and Super Soccer, sponsored live World Cup viewing parties. Super Soccer, which describes itself as the “home of soccer fans in Indonesia”, promotes its activities on social media to hundreds of thousands of followers.⁸⁹ It developed a “Soccerphoria” event series and campaign specifically for the World Cup, which were heavily promoted across its accounts. As well as the live viewing parties, these events involved mural painting, branded clothes, and limited-edition World Cup cigarette packs designed by local artists.⁸⁹

In 2019, Djarum bought the Italian Serie B club Como 1907, via its subsidiaries SENT Entertainment Ltd and Mola TV. Mola, a television streaming service, has broadcast a reality TV series following 24 young footballers trying to succeed at Como 1907.

• For more on this topic please see the pages on Football Sponsorship and Social Media.

Relevant Links

• Indonesia factsheet, Tobacco Atlas
• Indonesia Tax Scorecard, Tobacconomics
• Dashboard Kawasan Tanpa Rokok [Smoke-Free Area Dashboard], Indonesia Ministry of Health
• Situation reports: Indonesia, Tobacco Enforcement and Reporting Movement, Vital Strategies
• Indonesia, Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance
• Front Groups Indonesia, Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco in LMICs
• Greenwashing
• Gudang Garam and sports endorsement
• Lobby Groups
• Tobacco Industry Tactics

References

The post Indonesia Country Profile appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Image source: Storm Crypt/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 DEED

Key Points

• The Philippines is an island nation in Southeast Asia consisting of over 7,000 individual islands. It is part of the World Health Organization’s Western Pacific Region.
• Its population was 115.6 million as of 2022. The previous year, adult tobacco use prevalence was 19.5%.
• The Philippines ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in 2005. It has not signed the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products.
• PMFTC Inc. – a joint venture between Philip Morris International and the Fortune Tobacco Corporation, the tobacco business of local conglomerate LT Group – has the largest share of the Philippine cigarette market. Japan Tobacco International accounts for most other sales.
• Recent tobacco industry tactics in the Philippines include attempting to influence the committee responsible for overseeing tobacco control in the country; corporate social responsibility, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic; and establishing relationships with public officials, including at the very top of government.

The Philippines has made some progress on tobacco control, especially since the introduction of the reforms known as the Sin Taxes in 2013. These both greatly simplified tax structures and significantly increased excise on tobacco and alcohol products, with a substantial share of the new revenue being channelled into universal healthcare.⁹⁵ Tobacco use prevalence, which stood at 29.7% in 2009, had fallen to 23.8% by 2015, and again to 19.5% by 2021.⁹⁶²⁰ However, rising incomes and subsequent smaller increases in tobacco taxes have made cigarettes more affordable, slowing further progress.⁹⁷ Other challenges include an illicit tobacco market larger than the global average;⁹⁸ the growing popularity of newer nicotine and tobacco products (particularly e-cigarettes) amongst young people;⁹⁹ and ongoing tobacco industry presence on the inter-agency committee responsible for implementing tobacco control regulation in the country.¹⁰⁰ Philippine domestic law continues to fall short of what is required by the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) across a number of areas.⁶³

Tobacco Use in the Philippines

In 2022, the population of the Philippines was 115.6 million.¹⁰¹ According to the 2021 Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS), tobacco use prevalence amongst Filipino adults was 19.5%.²⁰ Prevalence is much higher amongst males (nearly 35%) than females (just over 4%).²⁰ Amongst adolescents aged between 13 and 15, 12.5% were using some form of tobacco in 2019.²¹ Again, prevalence for males (over 18%) is higher than for females (nearly 7%).²¹

In the 2021 GATS, just over 2% of Filipino adults reported current use of e-cigarettes (3.6% males; 0.5% females).²⁰ However, use of e-cigarettes is considerably higher amongst youth. In the 2019 Global Youth Tobacco Survey, the corresponding figure was over 14% – higher than for conventional cigarettes (10%).²¹ More than 20% of boys aged between 13 and 15 reported using e-cigarettes, compared to 7.5% of girls.²¹ Smokeless tobacco use in the Philippines also appears to be greater amongst the young: in 2019, 3% of young people reported current smokeless tobacco use, compared to 1.5% of adults in 2021.²¹²⁰

There were an estimated 95,600 deaths attributable to tobacco use in 2019, accounting for nearly 15% of all mortality in the Philippines that year.¹⁰² According to a 2018 study, the economic burden of tobacco use in the Philippines in 2012 was just under PHP₱270 billion (US$15.1 billion according to the purchasing power parity exchange rate) – equivalent to 2.5% of national GDP. This includes both direct costs resulting from tobacco use (e.g., hospitalisations and medication) as well as indirect costs (reduced productivity due to disability and mortality). The same study found that diseases attributable to tobacco use accounted for nearly 5% of total health expenditure.¹⁰³

Tobacco in the Philippines

Market share and leading brands

PMFTC Inc. (PMFTC) dominates the Philippine cigarette market, with a market share of around 61% in 2022.²⁸ PMFTC is a joint venture between Philip Morris International (PMI) and the Fortune Tobacco Corporation, the tobacco business of local conglomerate LT Group.¹⁰⁴

Japan Tobacco International (JTI) has a market share of 38%, thanks to its 2017 acquisition of local company Mighty Corporation.²⁸¹⁰⁵ Together, PMFTC and JTI account for virtually all of the licit cigarette sales in the country.²⁸

PMI’s flagship brand Marlboro is the most popular brand of cigarette, with a share of nearly 33% in 2022. In second place is another PMFTC brand, Fortune International, with a share of nearly 17%. JTI’s Winston is third, with a market share of around 14%. All other brands have market shares of less than 10%.¹⁰⁶

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

At nearly 23%, the Philippines has one of the largest market shares for menthol cigarettes in the world.¹⁰⁷¹⁰⁸ Menthol cigarettes have been marketed in the Philippines since at least the 1970s, including in campaigns targeting young women.¹⁰⁹ In more recent times, the menthol market share has increased year on year since 2014. Similarly, though the market for flavour capsule cigarettes is much smaller than for menthol, it has also been growing steadily, with yearly increases since 2015.¹⁰⁷ These products are often more attractive to youth and young adults than conventional cigarettes; menthol in particular is associated with increased smoking initiation.¹⁰⁸

• For more information, please see the page on Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco in LMICs.

Tobacco farming and child labour

Since the early 1960s, tobacco production in the Philippines has remained roughly stable, at between 40,000 and 70,000 tonnes a year. However, between 1981 and 1993 it increased to between 74,000 and 118,000 tonnes. Conversely, between 2006 and 2009 it dipped below 40,000, to a low of 32,000 tonnes in 2008.¹¹⁰

Figure 1: Tobacco production, 1961 to 2021.¹¹⁰ Source: UN Food and Agriculture Organization/Our World in Data | CC BY

Research has demonstrated that tobacco growing is not a profitable enterprise for most farmers. Despite this, farmers continue to grow tobacco due to a belief in its profitability and the reliability of the tobacco market; its perceived resilience to bad weather compared to other crops; and, in particular, access to credit.¹¹¹ Filipino farmers interviewed for a study published in 2019 stated that tobacco farming allowed them to take out loans to which they would not have had access had they been growing other crops. Loans were also used to cover non-agricultural expenses such as school fees, buying food, and paying off other loans.¹¹¹

As part of the Sin Tax reforms, 15% of the revenue collected from tobacco taxes is allocated to tobacco-growing communities to promote economically viable alternatives.¹¹² However, this remains a challenge. Farmers have cited lack of capital, difficulties accessing credit, an absence of technical support and a perceived lack of markets for other crops as reasons for not transitioning away from tobacco.¹¹¹

Tobacco is also one of 13 commodities produced in the Philippines which feature on the U.S. Department of Labor’s 2022 List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor.¹¹³ However, comprehensive and up-to-date information on child labour in Philippine tobacco farming is not available.

Tobacco and the economy

The Philippines is a net importer of raw tobacco, importing about US$243 million of raw tobacco in 2022, compared to exports of around US$184 million.¹¹⁴¹¹⁵ However, the country is a net exporter of cigarettes, with exports in the same year of over US$232 million, compared to about US$22.6 million in imports.¹¹⁶¹¹⁷

Illicit trade

Illicit tobacco was estimated to form around 16% of the market in the Philippines in 2018.⁹⁸ Though this is above the likely global average of 11 to 12%, it has changed little since 1998.⁹⁸¹¹⁸ Though industry-funded studies found significant increases in the Philippine illicit tobacco trade following the introduction of the Sin Taxes in 2013, there is no independent evidence to support this.⁹⁸

Tobacco and the environment

The WHO reports that curing in tobacco agriculture is a leading cause of demand for wood from native forests in the Philippines.¹¹⁹

Farmers cultivating the native batek variety of tobacco in the southern Philippines have been documented as using several toxic agrochemicals to control pests. These include some listed as hazardous by the WHO, such as cypermethrin and methomyl.¹²⁰

It has been estimated that between 30 and 50 billion cigarette butts are littered every year in the Philippines – 12.5 million on the resort island of Boracay alone.¹²¹ Boracay was closed for six months in 2018 for environmental rehabilitation, resulting in billions in lost revenues for both government and the private sector.¹²¹¹²²

• For more information on the tobacco industry’s environmental impact, please see Tobacco and the Environment and the long read on Plastics, the Environment and the Tobacco Industry.

Roadmap to Tobacco Control

The Philippines ratified the WHO FCTC in 2005 and the treaty entered into force later that year.¹²³¹²⁴ WHO FCTC ratification was a catalyst for strengthening tobacco control laws in the country and reducing industry influence on policy.¹²⁴ However, the Philippines is not a party to the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products.¹²⁵

The Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003 (RA 9211) is the country’s main tobacco control law, covering areas such as smoking in public places; tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship; and sales restrictions. Subsequent legislation built on the 2003 law, introducing further regulation on issues such as designated smoking areas, advertising and the packaging and labelling of tobacco products.¹²⁶

However, given that RA 9211 was enacted just three months before the Philippines signed the WHO FCTC, Filipino tobacco control advocates have argued that the law was both timed and designed to pre-empt the Convention. This has resulted in tobacco control regulations which, nearly 20 years later, still fall some way short of WHO FCTC requirements.¹⁰⁰¹²⁷ Designated smoking areas are still permitted in indoor offices and workplaces; restaurants; and cafés, pubs and bars. Restrictions on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship remain incomplete. And at 50.6% of the retail value of the most popular brand of cigarettes, tobacco taxation is significantly below the 75% threshold recommended by the WHO.⁶³

The tobacco industry, led by the Philippine Tobacco Institute (PTI), has also used RA 9211 as justification for delaying the introduction of more WHO FCTC-compliant measures (such as graphic health warnings), arguing that such measures contravene existing Philippine law.¹²⁷¹²⁸

In August 2020, the joint House Committees on Trade and Industry and on Health approved a bill regulating manufacture, sale and use of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products (HTPs).¹²⁹ This bill reversed an earlier decision to raise the purchase age from 18 to 21 and restrict flavourings to tobacco and plain menthol. It also shifted responsibility for regulation of these products from the Food and Drug Administration to the Department of Trade and Industry. Eight days after the bill was approved, the first of four stores dedicated to PMI’s flagship HTP IQOS opened for business.¹³⁰

This bill was a precursor to the Vaporized Nicotine and Non-Nicotine Products Regulation Act, which eventually became law in July 2022. E-cigarettes in hundreds of different flavours reportedly flooded the Philippine market in the months following the passage of the law.¹³¹ Leading Filipino tobacco control advocates argue that the law has undermined recent gains in tobacco control.¹³⁰

For more details, please see the following websites:

• Legislation by country/Jurisdiction – Philippines, Tobacco Control Laws, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids
• Philippines, WHO FCTC Implementation Database, WHO FCTC Secretariat
• Country profile – Philippines, World Health Organization, WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic 2023

Tobacco Industry Interference in the Philippines

Recent tobacco industry tactics in the Philippines include attempting to influence the committee responsible for overseeing tobacco control in the country; corporate social responsibility, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic; and attempts to influence policy, including by establishing relationships at the very top of government.

Conflict of interest

The Philippines’ main tobacco control law, RA 9211, requires the government to implement a “balanced policy”, given that:

“It is the policy of the State to protect the populace from hazardous products and promote the right to health and instill health consciousness among them. It is also the policy of the State, consistent with the Constitutional ideal to promote the general welfare, to safeguard the interests of the workers and other stakeholders in the tobacco industry.”¹³²

However, the first principle of the implementation guidelines for Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC states that “There is a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the tobacco industry’s interests and public health policy interests.”¹³³ Any requirement for “balance” can only therefore hinder progress on tobacco control and undermine public health.

This may be seen in the composition of the Interagency Committee on Tobacco (IAC-T), a multisectoral body established by RA 9211 responsible for overseeing implementation of the legislation.¹³² One seat on the IAC-T is reserved for the National Tobacco Administration (NTA) – a government agency that sits within the Department of Agriculture – which has a mandate to “Promote the balanced and integrated growth and development of the tobacco industry to help make agriculture a solid base for industrialization.”¹³⁴

Another seat is reserved for a representative of the tobacco industry, specifically the Philippine Tobacco Institute (PTI), an association whose members over the years have included PMFTC and JTI, among others.^132135136137 The PTI has a long history of undermining tobacco control measures, including successfully managing to reduce the size of graphic health warnings on tobacco products, opposing tobacco tax reforms and litigating over tobacco control regulations against public bodies such as the City of Balanga and the Department of Health.^136138139

Tobacco control advocates have called repeatedly for the removal of the PTI from the IAC-T, citing conflict of interest and alleging that it uses its position to actively weaken tobacco control policies.^136140141 The WHO has supported this position, stating that the composition of the Philippine IAC-T “is blatantly in conflict with WHO FCTC Article 5.3”, which requires parties to protect their public health policies against the commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry.¹⁴²

Corporate social responsibility

As of 2023, there was still no ban on tobacco industry corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the Philippines.⁶³ The tobacco industry has taken advantage of this shortcoming to try to enhance its reputation and influence both policy makers and the general public.

From 2017 to 2021, PMI spent nearly US$38 million on CSR in the Philippines. Nearly US$31 million of this total was spent in 2020 and 2021 alone.¹⁴³ Much of this funding is channelled through the Jaime V. Ongpin Foundation (JVOFI), a development NGO and partner of “Embrace”, PMFTC’s CSR programme.¹⁴³¹⁴⁴ During 2020, in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, JVOFI distributed ambulances, ventilators, PCR machines for COVID-19 testing, personal protective equipment, food supplies and rapid test kits throughout the country.¹⁴⁴

PMI was far from the only tobacco industry player carrying out this kind of work: by mid-April 2020, the LT Group – PMI’s partner in joint venture PMFTC – had spent PHP₱200 million (around US$4 million) on COVID-19 assistance.¹⁴⁴ The LT Group implements such initiatives in the Philippines via its CSR arm, the Tan Yan Kee Foundation.¹⁴⁵ Also in April 2020, Japan Tobacco International (JTI) donated 20,000 face masks to hospitals in the province of Batangas, where its manufacturing facilities are located.¹⁴⁴

An investigation published by the media and business intelligence organisation Eco-Business in 2021 revealed that a number of congressional representatives were involved in the distribution of COVID-19 relief donated by the tobacco industry and its associates.¹³⁰ These donations also coincided with several debates in Congress which addressed regulation for newer nicotine and tobacco products (see section “Roadmap to Tobacco Control”).¹³⁰¹²⁷

Both PMI and JTI also lobbied the Philippine Ministry of Finance for permission to continue their operations as normal during lockdown, though cigarettes were not considered to be an essential item.¹⁴⁴ In an April 2020 press release, JTI argued that lockdown restrictions were forcing smokers to buy illicit tobacco; were resulting in lower tax revenues for government; and were harming retailers, especially small and family-run businesses.¹⁴⁶ Restrictions on the transport and delivery of tobacco products were subsequently lifted.¹⁴⁷

This shows how industry arguments around the illicit trade were accepted by Filipino policy makers, allowing tobacco companies to operate even during an outbreak of a lethal respiratory disease to which smokers are more vulnerable.¹⁴⁸

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

Unnecessary interaction with high level officials

Hailing from the Ilocos region, where tobacco is a major cash crop, President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. has met with PMI at least twice since becoming president in June 2022.¹³¹¹⁴⁹ The most recent of these meetings was a lunch he and First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos hosted for PMI executives – including CEO Jacek Olczak – at the Malacañang Palace in November 2022, the first time a company CEO has been received at the Philippine presidential palace. Also present were PMFTC president Denis Gorkun and LT Group CEO Lucio Tan III.¹³¹

PMFTC’s director for global communications stated that the aim of the meeting was to outline the company’s plan “to expand our economic footprint in the Philippines.”¹³¹ PMI is reportedly investing US$150 million in the expansion of a manufacturing plant in Tanauan, Batangas. The new wing of the factory is to be used for the production of BLENDS, tobacco sticks used exclusively in PMI’s BONDS, a more affordable version of its flagship HTP IQOS.¹³¹

In 2012, the then Senator Marcos was photographed during a Senate debate on the Sin Taxes speaking to a lawyer representing PMFTC.¹⁵⁰¹⁵¹

Relevant Links

• The Toll of Tobacco in the Philippines, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, 2023
• Tobacco Industry Interference Index 2022: The Philippine Report on the Implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, HealthJustice, 2023
• Global Adult Tobacco Survey, Fact Sheet, Philippines 2021, Republic of the Philippines Department of Health, Philippine Statistics Authority, WHO Philippines et al
• Global Youth Tobacco Survey, Fact Sheet, Philippines 2019, Republic of the Philippines Department of Health, Epidemiology Bureau, WHO Western Pacific Region et al
• Tobacco Industry Monitor – Philippines, Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance, 2024

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco in LMICs

References

The post Philippines Country Profile appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

“Sustain Controversy”

PM’s secret method of recruiting so-called independent scientists for the project is laid out in various documents. One is BAT scientist Dr Sharon Boyce, who attended a “special meeting” on London in 1988:¹⁵⁴

The Philip Morris philosophy of ETS was presented. This appeared to revolve around the selection, in all possible countries, of a group of scientists either to critically review the scientific literature on ETS to sustain controversy, or to carry out research on ETS. In each country a group of scientists would be carefully selected, and organised, by a national coordinating scientist.¹⁵⁴

“No previous connections with tobacco companies”

The scientists:

“should, ideally, according to Philip Morris, be European scientists who have had no previous connections with tobacco companies and who have no previous record on the primary health issue which might … lead to problems of attribution. The mechanism by which they identify their consultants is as follows: they ask a couple of scientists in each country … to produce a list of potential consultants. The scientists are then contacted by these coordinators or by the lawyers and asked if they are interested in problems of Indoor Air Quality: tobacco is not mentioned at this stage. CV’s are obtained and obvious “anti-smokers” or those with “unsuitable backgrounds” are filtered out…”¹⁵⁴

Philip Morris then expect the group of scientists to operate within the confines of decisions taken by PM scientists to determine the general direction of research, which apparently would then be ‘filtered’ by lawyers to eliminate areas of sensitivity.¹⁵⁴

Boyse’s notes include a list of 18 scientists, mostly at British universities, who were suggested as possible consultants.¹⁵⁴

“Instead of Second-Hand Smoke, What about Pet Birds as a Cause of Cancer?”

By 1990, Covington and Burling boasted of its successes of the Whitecoat project.¹⁵⁵ “One consultant is an adviser to a particularly relevant committee of the House of Commons”.¹⁵⁵ Another was recruited as an editor of the Lancet.¹⁵⁵ A third was “providing medical advice to Middle eastern Governments”.¹⁵⁵ One other consultant conducted “research into factors other than passive smoking that cause lung cancer – keeping pet birds”.¹⁵⁵¹⁵⁶

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• Influencing Science
• Philip Morris International

References

The post Influencing Science: The Whitecoat Project appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

• For example, internal industry documents show that in the 1960s tobacco companies were aware that nicotine was an addictive substance,¹⁵⁷ but despite this, in 1994 Brown and Williamson’s CEO testified before the US Congress that nicotine was not addictive.¹⁵⁸
• In the 1970s seven tobacco companies used national manufacturers’ associations to promote controversy around the idea that smoking was harmful to health – a conspiracy named ‘Operation Berkshire’ – which damaged tobacco control efforts around the world.¹⁵⁹
• In the 1980s scientists working for British American Tobacco (BAT) were advised by scientists working for Brown & Williamson “about areas of research such as inhalation that should not be further pursued”.¹⁶⁰

The following are a selection of further historical and contemporary examples of tobacco industry attempts to influence science.

For an overview of the strategies tobacco companies employ to influence science visit the Influencing Science landing page. In each section below, we also link directly to the relevant strategies on the landing page, and to other pages with detail on the examples given here.

Examples of the use of third parties

Tobacco companies often disseminate their scientific messages using third parties. For more on this strategy see the landing page section: Influence the reach of science to create an “echo chamber” for industry’s scientific messaging.  See also the general page on Third Party Techniques.

• Tobacco Industry Research Committee. In the early 1950s, public relations (PR) firm Hill & Knowlton advised tobacco companies on the best way to fight against the emerging evidence of the link between smoking and cancer. Instead of denying the findings of the research, they advised companies to say that more research was needed, thereby creating doubt.¹⁶¹ It was under Hill & Knowlton’s advice that the Tobacco Industry Research Committee was established. Rather than explore the relationship between smoking and cancer this group looked for alternative explanations for the causes of cancer.¹⁶¹
• Duke University has a history of collaborating with tobacco companies, including receiving funding from Philip Morris to establish the Center for Smoking Cessation Research (CSCR).¹⁶² The Director of CSCR (up until 2022),¹⁶³ Jed E. Rose, sat on the advisory board of Philip Morris’ (US, now Altria) “Smoker Cessation Support Initiative”.¹⁶⁴¹⁶⁵ He also founded the Rose Research Center,¹⁶⁶ and has received funding from the Philip Morris International (PMI) funded Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW).¹⁶⁷ FSFW is a US based charitable organisation established in 2017 with a grant from PMI, and since then exclusively funded by PMI. One of FSFW’s three main grant themes is Health and Science Research.¹⁶⁸ Research by the University of Bath’s Tobacco Control Research Group (TCRG) found that the Foundation functions as a scientific lobby group promoting tobacco industry interests.¹⁶⁹ See also Foundation for a Smoke-Free World Grantees.

• To explore the scientific research outputs of FSFW and its grantees visit the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World: Research Database

• The Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR) was created by the industry in the late 1980’s to create doubt about the health risks of second-hand smoke.¹⁷⁰
• The European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF) was active between 1994 and 2005 as a UK-based tobacco industry funded “science watchdog” that conducted a variety of science influencing activities including trying to undermine the science of second-hand smoke, describing it as “junk science”.¹⁷¹
• The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) is an influential UK ‘free-market’ think tank that has collaborated with the tobacco industry. Roger Bate, co-founder of the European Science and Environment Forum and lead of the IEA’s Environment Unit published a book in 1996 which was funded by BAT. The book suggested that scientists were overestimating the risk of second-hand smoke.¹⁷² For more information visit IEA: Working with RJ Reynolds, BAT and Philip Morris on Environmental Risk.

Examples of concealing involvement in science

Tobacco companies covertly fund science so that research appears to be independent from the industry, whilst serving its aims. For more on this strategy visit landing page section: Influencing the conduct and publication of science.

• In the late 1980s Philip Morris developed a covert plan named the Whitecoat Project that involved funding apparently independent scientists to “resist and roll back smoking restrictions” and “restore social acceptability of smoking”.¹⁷³
• Ghost-writing is the practice of writing books, reports or research credited to another person. Ghost writers have been employed by tobacco companies as a science influencing tactic. For examples and more information see Influencing Science: Ghost Writing.
• In an attempt to counter the influence of corporate funding on scientific publishing, many journals require authors to submit conflict of interest (COI) statements or funding declarations. In some cases, researchers funded by the tobacco industry fail to declare conflicts of interest. This avoids scrutiny or rejection of their papers, and means industry-funded science can be presented as independent. For example, some researchers that receive grants from the PMI funded Foundation for a Smoke-Free World have failed to declare this conflict of interest when publishing tobacco related science.¹⁷⁴ This is a practice that has in some cases led to the retraction of papers.¹⁷⁵¹⁷⁶

Examples of industry influencing the evidence base

Tobacco companies attempt to shape the conclusions of research to be more favourable to the industry. There are several examples of Philip Morris employing such strategies, these can be found on Influencing Science: Philip Morris changing the conclusions of research.

Recently, tobacco companies have been spending large sums on research around newer nicotine and tobacco products. Concerns have been raised about the integrity and robustness of this science.

• A 2022 Cochrane review in the UK found that all randomised control trials of HTPs were tobacco company funded and that there was a need for independent research to assess the efficacy and safety of the devices.¹⁷⁷
• There is evidence to suggest that the industry’s approach does not guarantee good quality research or prevent the industry from using strategies to influence science. A 2022 systematic review by TCRG found that clinical trials assessing the harms of heated tobacco products (HTPs) “fall short of what is needed to determine whether HTPs are beneficial to public health meaning they may not be a sound basis for tobacco control policy decisions”.¹⁷⁸ Of the 40 trials assessed, 29 were tobacco industry affiliated.¹⁷⁸ The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) calls for regulatory decisions on tobacco products and the scientific assessment of tobacco products to be made independent of the tobacco industry.

For more information on these and other similar examples see:

Industry Approaches to Science on Newer Products and Tobacco Company Science Pages

See also Harm Reduction: A Tobacco Solution to a Tobacco Problem?

Examples of tobacco companies discrediting research

Tobacco companies have discredited unfavourable research which threatens their profits. For more information on this topic see the landing page: Manufacture trust in industry and its scientific messaging.

• In the 1990s, when regulation of second-hand smoke was being discussed, the industry wanted to discredit science that suggested second-hand smoke was a health risk. PR company APCO Associates set up a front group called The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) in 1994 to discredit the science of second-hand smoke by labelling it as “junk science”. Simultaneously it promoted industry friendly science as “sound science”.¹⁷⁹
• In a 2020 report, Philip Morris International, again referred to “junk science”, this time saying it was being used to “set political agendas” and that “poor-quality science is being used to sway the public against alternatives to cigarettes”.¹⁸⁰ This same report describe the dangers of “bad science” referring to issues such as vaccine scepticism and scientific illiteracy among policymakers. In this way PMI aligns tobacco industry scientific interests with reasonable public health concern, to try to build trust and credibility.¹⁸¹
• In a 2023 report the Institute of Economic Affairs disregarded data published by the UK’s Department of Health the year before in to how much smoking costs the NHS, saying that “The reality is that smokers pay far more in tobacco duty than they cost the state in healthcare, while non-smokers cost the state more, on average, in both healthcare and social security payments”.¹⁸² For more on this visit the page Tobacco Industry Interference with Endgame Policies.

Examples of attacks on science and scientists

The tobacco industry also uses intimidation as a tactic to combat unfavourable research.

• Lawsuits in 2012 against Imperial Tobacco Canada (owned by BAT) revealed that in the 1970s the company made explicit efforts to undermine scientific research that proved smoking causes cancer, with Imperial’s PR representative saying that they “should denounce [the findings] with vigor and try to discredit them as much as possible.”¹⁸³ For more on this see Influencing Science: Imperial Tobacco Canada.
• A 2023 TCRG study illustrated the various forms of intimidation experienced by researchers and advocates working in tobacco control – this intimidation included reputational attacks, physical threats and the use of “vexatious” freedom of information requests.¹⁸⁴
• In 2009 and 2011 the University of Stirling received freedom of information (FOI) requests, on behalf of Philip Morris, attempting to access research data that had informed the UK government’s plain packaging legislation and tobacco display ban. For more information visit the FOI: Stirling University page and the Linda Bauld page.

Example of influencing the publication of science

The tobacco industry also uses various methods to try to ensure that the publication process works in its favour. For more on this topic visit How science is conducted and published to skew evidence in industry’s favour.

Preprints are academic findings published without peer review, unlike traditional journal manuscripts. Platforms that publish preprints, such as medRxiv, can be a helpful way of sharing scientific findings that are time sensitive, and therefore grew in popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, lack of peer review oversight presents an opportunity for tobacco companies to influence the publication of science by publishing industry friendly research that may be rejected by peer-reviewed journals.¹⁸⁵

For example:

• During the COVID-19 pandemic several pre-print research articles were published that indicated tobacco may be protective against coronavirus. Some of the authors of these articles had historical links to the tobacco industry, and some of their papers in peer-reviewed journals had been retracted due to these conflicts of interest.¹⁸⁵
  For more on retractions and preprints see Tobacco Industry involvement in COVID-19 science
• FSFW and its grantees also use preprint platforms to publish research.¹⁶⁹

Examples of involvement in scientific communities, meetings and events

Tobacco companies view scientific conferences and meetings as useful opportunities to influence science, in some cases by manufacturing controversy about scientific issues.¹⁸⁶

• A 2023 TCRG study found that BAT and PMI attended 213 scientific events between 2012 and 2021. Topics covered included Medicine, Biology, Chemistry, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Science.¹⁸⁷
• During the COVID-19 pandemic tobacco companies saw an opportunity to align with public health messaging through health related corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. For example, in April 2021 PMI co-organised an event on “Science Diplomacy” with Foreign Policy magazine that sought to “energize international cooperation on science and technology innovation to tackle misinformation” relating to the pandemic, despite PMI’s history of influencing science for profit.¹⁸⁸ For more on tobacco company activities during the pandemic see COVID-19.

Tobacco company science pages

The ‘Big Four’ tobacco companies each present their scientific outputs and research agendas on science websites. Each site is representative of the company’s brand and the sort of scientific image it wants to present to consumers.

• British American Tobacco presents its science via its BAT Science website, which leads with the slogan “A Better Tomorrow”. The site highlights BAT’s research focus in to what it calls “New Category” products as well as its research and commercial interests in vaccine development via its subsidiary Kentucky Bioprocessing.¹⁸⁹ During the COVID-19 pandemic Kentucky Bioprocessing began developing a COVID-19 vaccine. For more on this visit Tobacco Company Investments in Pharmaceutical & NRT Products. BAT’s website also features a library of scientific publications.
• Imperial Brands presents its scientific outputs via its Imperial Brands Science It highlights its “Next Generation products” and the product safety testing it conducts using its Scientific Assessment Framework.¹⁹⁰ The site also features a research archive.
• Japan Tobacco International (JTI) presents its science via the JT Science website, where it highlights its mission to “inform, educate and collaborate with all those interested in learning about the science behind Reduced-Risk Products (RRP)”. Like Imperial brands, JTI presents a six-step safety assessment for its newer nicotine products.¹⁹¹ It also has a section on the science of nicotine and a resource hub archive of JTI research.Alongside its main tobacco business Japan Tobacco Inc., parent company of JTI, has a large pharmaceutical division established in 1987,¹⁹² which researches, develops, manufactures and distributes drugs for a range of diseases including heart disease and cancer.¹⁹³
• Philip Morris International presents its scientific agenda via the PMI Science The majority of the research it presents is focussed on its heated tobacco product IQOS. The site features a letter from Chief Life Sciences Officer Badrul Chowdhury describing how the company has “spent years disrupting its core cigarette business by developing, assessing and marketing non-combustible alternatives to cigarettes.”.¹⁹⁴ The site also features a library of PMI publications.

For more information on this topic visit Industry Approaches to Science on Newer Products.

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• Influencing Science
• Influencing Science: Philip Morris Changing the Conclusions of Research
• Influencing Science: Ghost Writing
• Influencing Science: Imperial Tobacco Canada
• Influencing Science: The Whitecoat Project
• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World
• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World Grantees
• Industry Approaches to Science on Newer Products
• COVID-19
• Cigarette Filters
• Tobacco Company Investments in Pharmaceutical & NRT Products

See the list of pages in the category Influencing Science

TCRG Research

Document analysis of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World’s scientific outputs and activities: a case study in contemporary tobacco industry agnogenesis, T. Legg, B.  Clift, A.B. Gilmore, Tobacco Control, Published Online First: 03 May 2023. doi: 10.1136/tc-2022-057667

The Science for Profit Model—How and why corporations influence science and the use of science in policy and practice, T. Legg, J. Hatchard and A.B. Gilmore, Plos One, 2021, 16(6):e0253272, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253272

Paying lip service to publication ethics: scientific publishing practices and the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, T. Legg, M. Legendre, A. B. Gilmore, Tobacco Control 2021;30:e65-e72, accessed October 2023

“They try to suppress us, but we should be louder”: a qualitative exploration of intimidation in tobacco control, B.K. Matthes, R. Alebshehy, A.B. Gilmore, Globalization & Health, 19:88,  2023, doi: 10.1186/s12992-023-00991-0.

Seeking to be seen as legitimate members of the scientific community? An analysis of British American Tobacco and Philip Morris International’s involvement in scientific events, B. K. Matthes, A. Fabbri, S. Dance, L. Laurence, K. Silver, A. B. Gilmore. Tobacco Control Published Online First: 03 February 2023. doi: 10.1136/tc-2022-057809

The perils of preprints, M. C. van Schalkwyk, T. R. Hird, N. Maani, M. Petticrew, A. B. Gilmore,  BMJ, 2020; doi:10.1136/bmj.m3111

References

The post Influencing Science Case Studies appeared first on TobaccoTactics.