The tobacco industry has a long history of attempting to influence science in order to cast doubt on evidence showing the harms of its products and to argue against the need for regulation of those products. In the 1950s when science began to establish a causal link between smoking and cancer, the industry mobilised to cast doubt on that evidence. In the 1980s and 1990s, when it became clear that second-hand smoke was harmful, the industry funded and created science that attempted to obscure that harm.¹ More recently, the tobacco industry has funded research in to newer tobacco and nicotine products and concerns have once again been raised that the industry is manipulating science for its own benefit.

Industry strategies for influencing science

Researchers from the Tobacco Control Research Group at the University of Bath have developed a typology and model – the Science for Profit Model – to explain how and why the tobacco industry (along with other harmful industries) attempts to influence science.² The authors conclude that strategies for influencing science are used to “purposefully-create misinformation, doubt, and ignorance”, to “obscure the harms of industry products and practices” and to “oppose regulation that could threaten corporate profits”.²

Below is an overview of this research, illustrating the ways in which the industry (and third parties used by the industry) uses science to further its aims. The following strategies and examples are drawn from the Science for Profit Model.

• To find out about these strategies in more depth, see the research paper on the Science for Profit Model.²

The Science for Profit Model

The Science for Profit Model²

Strategy A – Influence how science is conducted and published to skew evidence in industry’s favour

The tobacco industry has used various strategies to influence which research is – and isn’t – undertaken and published, in order to counteract independent scientific research which might show industry products and practices in an unfavourable light.

These strategies include funding research by third parties to deflect attention from industry harms. One example is research that looked for alternative causes of cancer (including hormones and nutrition) to distract attention from the link between smoking and cancer. This was conducted through the Tobacco Industry Research Committee from the 1950s onwards.³ Another example is research that focused on issues of “indoor air” (such as dirty air filters) to deflect attention from the harms of passive smoking, conducted through the Center for Indoor Air Research in the 1980s. Since 2017, research funded by PMI through the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW) has similarly distracted attention from industry harms, including by redirecting blame towards the public health community and the media, implying that they are responsible for a slowing in the decline of smoking rates.⁴

Other strategies include undertaking “risky” research secretly, so that it can be hidden or abandoned if results harm the industry’s interests,² and manipulating study design or statistical analyses to ensure favourable findings. Another is to ‘cherry-pick’ (select the most favourable) papers to include in literature reviews to obscure parts of the evidence base.²

To see how study design affected PMI-funded science on plain packaging of cigarettes visit the Ashok Kaul and Michael Wolf pages.

In order to influence what research is published, the industry has created its own journals, such as the “Tobacco and Health” research journal which was distributed to health professionals.⁵² More recently, it has published in journals with editorial staff who have links to the industry, and used ‘pre-print’ platforms to self-publish its own non-peer-reviewed science.⁴⁶

• For more examples of how the tobacco industry influences the conduct and publication of science visit Influencing Science Case Studies

Strategy B – Influence how science is interpreted to undermine unfavourable science and create a distorted picture of the evidence base

The industry also works to distort how science and scientists are seen by the public and experts.

In the 1990s, tobacco companies launched the “Sound Science” and “Good Epidemiology” public relations campaigns. These demanded unrealistic levels of evidence in epidemiological studies examining harms caused by industry products, and were designed to prevent policy action on passive smoking.²

For decades, the industry has attacked and misrepresented science and scientists that may harm its commercial agenda. For example, in the 1990s, it criticised a US Environmental Protection Agency risk assessment which concluded that second-hand smoke was carcinogenic.² Nearly thirty years later the director of the Centre for Research Excellence: Indigenous Sovereignty and Smoking (COREISS), an FSFW grantee, used a similar argument, despite overwhelming evidence that second-hand smoke is a health risk:

“scientific studies have not proven that exposure to cigarette smoke in the car causes disease”.⁴⁷

In the 1990’s Philip Morris developed plans for what it called “Project Sunrise” – a project in which the company proposed the monitoring of individuals and organisations working in tobacco control, framing some as “extreme” and others as “moderate” in order to divide the community.⁸ Some of the many attacks on individuals working in tobacco control are documented on Martin Cullip, FOI: Stirling University and FOI: University of Bath.

• For more examples of how the tobacco industry influences the interpretation of science, visit the Influencing Science Case Studies page.

Strategy C – Influence the reach of science to create an “echo chamber” for industry’s scientific messaging

The industry disseminates messages that support its scientific stance. A common approach is to contract third party “friendly” voices to amplify scientific messages and distance these messages from industry. These messengers include front groups, designed to look like unbiased sources, organisations such as think tanks and professional associations, and “expert” individuals.²

In the 1980s, the ‘Whitecoat Project’ was Philip Morris’s secret plan to recruit ostensibly independent scientists to disseminate scientific narratives which would help it to “restore the social acceptability of smoking”.² Read more about the project on the Influencing Science: The Whitecoat Project page.

Organisations funded by FSFW have promoted industry-friendly scientific narratives on e-cigarettes and COVID-19, and endorsed science calling for weaker regulation of the industry’s products.⁴

In order to maximise press coverage of industry-favourable scientific messaging, the industry funds media outlets to disseminate its science, cite its staff, and report on its scientific events, including conferences.⁹¹⁰ One example is Filter magazine – to find out more visit the page on The Influence Foundation.

• For more examples of how the tobacco industry uses third parties to spread its scientific messages, visit the Influencing Science Case Studies page.

Strategy D – Create industry-friendly policymaking environments which shape the use of science in its favour

Tobacco companies have worked to embed their own standards of evidence in policymaking, and bring about policy reforms that increase reliance on the tobacco industry’s own science.²

In the 1990s, the tobacco industry attempted to shape risk assessment of its own products, and influence European Union (EU) regulatory mechanisms in relation to the assessment of data from epidemiological and animal studies, for example. Although they did not succeed, this would have meant that the criteria used for determining scientific ‘proof’ would have been drawn up by industry itself.²

British American Tobacco promoted regulatory reform in the EU, to make it harder to implement public health policies which conflicted with its commercial interests. This ‘Better Regulation’ or ‘Smart Regulation’ appeared to be about good governance and transparency but “in fact mandated industry’s right to be heard early in scientific debates about their products and practices.”² Read more on this topic on the EU Better Regulation page.

Strategy E – Manufacture trust in industry and its scientific messaging

The industry has worked to promote its involvement in science in order to manufacture an image of scientific credibility. Many academic institutions and journals no longer collaborate with the industry directly, due to its history of scientific deception, and so the industry uses third party organisations to push for ‘renormalisation’ of its business.¹¹¹² For instance, since it was set up in 2017, FSFW has worked to frame the industry’s involvement in science and policy as the ‘solution’ and its exclusion as counterproductive, despite industry having created the problem.⁴

At other times the industry does not disclose its involvement in science when it believes this will lend the science more credibility. Sometimes it creates third party organisations that appear to be independent, to conduct its research (e.g. Philip Morris setting up the Institute for Biological Research in Germany).¹³ At other times it uses public relations consultancies and law firms to recruit scientists.²

• For a more extensive overview of industry allies and front groups see the Industry People and Allies topic as well as the Allies Database produced by Stopping Tobacco Organizations and Products (STOP)

Desired outcome of influencing science

The desired outcome for the tobacco industry has been to create doubt about the harms of its products, or about the necessity – or efficacy of – tobacco control legislation. It has framed use of its newer products as the only realistic solution to the tobacco epidemic, and aimed to legitimise its role as a stakeholder in science and policymaking.²

These outcomes weaken policy that would reduce industry profits, prevent litigation against the industry, and maximise consumption of its products. In short, the industry’s involvement in science does not primarily advance knowledge or improve the health of populations, but maximises profits.²

Influencing Science Case Studies

For more detailed historical and contemporary examples of how tobacco companies influence science visit Influencing Science Case Studies.

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• Influencing Science Case Studies
• Influencing Science: Philip Morris Changing the Conclusions of Research
• Influencing Science: Ghost Writing
• Influencing Science: Imperial Tobacco Canada
• Influencing Science: The Whitecoat Project
• Newer Nicotine and Tobacco Products
• Industry Approaches to Science on Newer Products
• COVID-19
• Tobacco Company Investments in Pharmaceutical & NRT Products
• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World
• Tobacco Industry Research Committee
• Forest
• Duke University
• Tobacco Industry Research Committee
• Tobacco Institute
• Hill & Knowlton
• Ruder Finn

See the list of pages in the category Influencing Science

TCRG Research

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

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, 2023, doi: 10.1136/tc-2022-057667

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, doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-056003

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, 2023, doi: 10.1136/tc-2022-057809

Tobacco industry messaging around harm: Narrative framing in PMI and BAT press releases and annual reports 2011 to 2021, I. Fitzpatrick, S. Dance, K. Silver, M. Violini, T. Hird, Front. Public Health, 2022, 10:958354, doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.958354

References

The post Influencing Science 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.¹⁴¹⁵ It is the only country in Asia to have neither signed nor ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC),¹⁶ and nor is there any comparable national framework for tobacco control.¹⁴ Industry interference in policymaking is ongoing, as there is no effective legal mechanism to prevent it.¹⁷¹⁸ 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.¹⁸¹⁹ This high degree of social acceptability means that the government treats the industry as a legitimate stakeholder.²⁰ One key challenge, therefore, is to de-normalise tobacco use, as part of a comprehensive tobacco control plan.²⁰²¹

Tobacco Use in Indonesia

The link between smoking and masculinity is deeply embedded within Indonesian culture.²¹²² This has been reinforced by tobacco marketing which associates tobacco products with characteristics traditionally considered masculine, such as strength, heroism and self-control.²¹²²

In 2021, tobacco use prevalence amongst adults was 34.5%; 70.2 million adults were current users of tobacco.²³ Nearly two-thirds (65.5%) of Indonesian men reported using tobacco, compared to around 3% of women.²³

In 2019, nearly 20% of students aged from 13 to 15 reported tobacco use.²⁴ Around 36% of males in this age group reported current tobacco use compared to 3.5% of females.²⁴

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.²⁵ The cloves provide a unique flavour and smell, and also contain eugenol, a chemical compound which reduces the harshness of the smoke.²⁶ In 2021, close to 30% of all Indonesian adults – around 60 million of the country’s 70 million adult tobacco users – reported smoking kreteks.²³

There were an estimated 246,000 deaths attributable to smoking in 2019, accounting for nearly 15% of all mortality in Indonesia that year.²⁷ 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).²⁸ 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.²⁸

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.²⁹ It is the second-largest cigarette market in the world.³⁰

The market leader in Indonesia is the local kretek manufacturer PT Gudang Garam Tbk (Gudang Garam), with nearly one-third of the market in 2022.³¹³²

Its closest competitor is Philip Morris International (PMI), with a slightly smaller share.³¹ PMI operates in Indonesia via its subsidiaries PT Philip Morris Indonesia and PT HM Sampoerna Tbk (Sampoerna).³¹³³ At the time of its acquisition by PMI in 2005, Sampoerna was the leading tobacco company in Indonesia.³³³⁴

PT Djarum (Djarum), another local kretek producer, has the third-largest market share, around half that of the two leading companies.³¹³⁵

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.³⁴ 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.³⁴³⁶ Similarly, Japan Tobacco International (JTI) acquired two Gudang Garam subsidiaries, Karyadibya Mahardhika and its distributor, PT Surya Mustika Nusantara, in 2017.³⁴ However, BAT, JTI and KT&G each had market shares of less than 2% as of 2022.³¹

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.³⁷

• 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.³⁸

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.³⁹ 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 2021.⁴⁰ 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.⁴¹

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.⁴² Most tobacco-farming households received some form of government social assistance, and more than 60% reported food insecurity.⁴²

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.⁴³ 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.⁴³

Tobacco-farming households had significantly higher labour costs than those growing other crops.⁴⁴ Tobacco farmers also used child labour, both hired and household, more frequently compared to those growing other crops.⁴³ Similarly, more children from tobacco farms missed school.⁴³ Farmers reported using child labour because tobacco growing does not usually pay enough to hire adult workers.⁴³

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.⁴⁵ 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.³⁸

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.³⁸ The farmers and traders interviewed supplied large Indonesian and transnational companies including Gudang Garam, Sampoerna, Djarum and Bentoel.³⁸

• 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.⁴⁴ In 2022, it imported over US$617 million in raw tobacco, compared to around US$266 million in exports.⁴⁶⁴⁷

However, it is a net exporter of cigarettes: over US$913 million in 2022, compared to US$118 million in imports.⁴⁸⁴⁹

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.⁵⁰

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.⁵¹ However, a 2021 study estimated that the share of illicit cigarette consumption in the country increased from 5% in 2013 to 19% in 2018.⁵²

Globally, Free Trade Zones (FTZs) are well known to facilitate the illicit tobacco trade.⁵³ 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.⁵⁴ 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.⁵⁵

Internal industry documents suggest that historically, BAT has been involved in illicit trade in Indonesia and the broader region.⁵⁶ A 1994 internal BAT document points to Indonesia – along with Malaysia – as a conduit of illicit products to the Philippines.⁵⁷ A BAT-commissioned study from the 1980s also documented Indonesian consumers’ preference for its smuggled products.⁵⁸

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”.⁵⁹

• 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.⁶⁰ Of this waste, cigarette butts are the most commonly-littered item.⁶¹ 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.⁶²

• 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.¹⁴

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.⁶³

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.⁶⁴ This was followed in 2012 by Indonesia’s principal tobacco control law, Government Regulation 109 (PP 109/2012).⁶⁴ 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.⁶⁵⁶⁶ More stringent regulations at the subnational level are permitted.⁶⁵ As of June 2023, 456 (around 86%) of Indonesia’s 520 cities and districts had adopted smoke-free policies, though implementation remains a challenge.⁶⁷

Indonesia is one of the few countries that still permits tobacco advertising on television, though it may not be broadcast until after 9:30pm.⁶⁵⁶⁴ 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.⁶⁵⁶⁴

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.⁶⁴⁶⁶ Cigarettes in Indonesia also remain relatively cheap. In 2022, the price of the bestselling brand of cigarettes was just over US$2.⁶⁶

In 2018, President Widodo issued a decree containing a list of government regulations to be revised, which included PP 109/2012.⁶⁸ 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.⁶⁸ 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”).⁶⁸ 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.⁶⁹ 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.⁷⁰

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.⁷¹ 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.⁶⁸

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 2010.⁷² It reportedly has close links to the PMI subsidiary Sampoerna.⁷³⁷⁴ 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.⁷⁵⁷⁶

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.⁷⁷⁷⁸⁷⁹ 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.⁷⁹

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 2018.⁸⁰⁸¹

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.⁶⁶⁸¹⁸² 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.⁸²⁸¹⁸³ Retailers therefore have an important role in recruiting new, young smokers, and maintaining growth of the market.⁸¹

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.⁸⁴

For example, the popular music festival SoundrenAline, which has been running in Indonesia since 2002, was founded by Sampoerna.⁸⁵ 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.⁸⁴⁸⁶ Cigarettes that were not a Sampoerna brand were confiscated at the entrance.⁸⁴ As of 2022, Sampoerna was still the sponsor of the event and owner of the registered trademark for “SoundrenAline”.⁸⁵

With over 111 million users, Indonesia has one of the world’s largest Instagram audiences, over half of whom are aged between 13 and 24.⁸⁷ According to the Tobacco Enforcement and Reporting Movement (TERM), as of 2023, around 70% of online tobacco marketing in Indonesia took place on Instagram.⁸⁸⁸⁹ 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.⁸⁹⁸⁸

Controversial marketing strategies: sponsorship of popular sports

Tobacco industry sponsorship of sport is as old as professional athletic competition itself.⁹⁰ 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.⁹¹

In Indonesia, TAPS has historically been very widespread in popular sports.⁹² 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.⁹³ From 2006, Djarum was the corporate sponsor of the national badminton trials for children and adolescents aged from 5 to 18.⁹⁴ The trials were shown on national television, and participants were required to wear clothing which displayed the Djarum logo.⁸¹⁹⁴

Ten civil society organisations reported Djarum to the National Commission on Child Protection, arguing that the sponsorship violated Indonesia’s child protection law.⁹⁴ In 2019, Djarum agreed to remove its logos from the badminton trials.⁹⁵⁹⁶ 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.⁹⁴

Djarum owns the PB Djarum badminton club in Kudus, Central Java, which has a youth academy, as well as a club in Jakarta.⁹³⁸⁸⁹⁷ The company also continues to market itself and its products indirectly via Djarum-associated social media accounts which focus on badminton-related content.⁸⁹⁸⁸

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.⁹²

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.⁹² 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.⁹²

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.⁹⁸ Tobacco use prevalence, which stood at 29.7% in 2009, had fallen to 23.8% by 2015, and again to 19.5% by 2021.⁹⁹²³ However, rising incomes and subsequent smaller increases in tobacco taxes have made cigarettes more affordable, slowing further progress.¹⁰⁰ Other challenges include an illicit tobacco market larger than the global average;¹⁰¹ the growing popularity of newer nicotine and tobacco products (particularly e-cigarettes) amongst young people;¹⁰² and ongoing tobacco industry presence on the inter-agency committee responsible for implementing tobacco control regulation in the country.¹⁰³ 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.⁶⁶

Tobacco Use in the Philippines

In 2022, the population of the Philippines was 115.6 million.¹⁰⁴ According to the 2021 Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS), tobacco use prevalence amongst Filipino adults was 19.5%.²³ Prevalence is much higher amongst males (nearly 35%) than females (just over 4%).²³ Amongst adolescents aged between 13 and 15, 12.5% were using some form of tobacco in 2019.²⁴ Again, prevalence for males (over 18%) is higher than for females (nearly 7%).²⁴

In the 2021 GATS, just over 2% of Filipino adults reported current use of e-cigarettes (3.6% males; 0.5% females).²³ 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%).²⁴ More than 20% of boys aged between 13 and 15 reported using e-cigarettes, compared to 7.5% of girls.²⁴ 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 2021.²⁴²³

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.¹⁰⁵ 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.¹⁰⁶

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 2022.³¹ PMFTC is a joint venture between Philip Morris International (PMI) and the Fortune Tobacco Corporation, the tobacco business of local conglomerate LT Group.¹⁰⁷

Japan Tobacco International (JTI) has a market share of 38%, thanks to its 2017 acquisition of local company Mighty Corporation.³¹¹⁰⁸ Together, PMFTC and JTI account for virtually all of the licit cigarette sales in the country.³¹

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%.¹⁰⁹

• 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.¹¹⁰¹¹¹ Menthol cigarettes have been marketed in the Philippines since at least the 1970s, including in campaigns targeting young women.¹¹² 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 2015.¹¹⁰ These products are often more attractive to youth and young adults than conventional cigarettes; menthol in particular is associated with increased smoking initiation.¹¹¹

• 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 2008.¹¹³

Figure 1: Tobacco production, 1961 to 2021.¹¹³ 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.¹¹⁴ 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.¹¹⁴

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.¹¹⁵ 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.¹¹⁴

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.¹¹⁶ 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.¹¹⁷¹¹⁸ 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.¹¹⁹¹²⁰

Illicit trade

Illicit tobacco was estimated to form around 16% of the market in the Philippines in 2018.¹⁰¹ Though this is above the likely global average of 11 to 12%, it has changed little since 1998.¹⁰¹¹²¹ 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.¹⁰¹

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.¹²²

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.¹²³

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.¹²⁴ Boracay was closed for six months in 2018 for environmental rehabilitation, resulting in billions in lost revenues for both government and the private sector.¹²⁴¹²⁵

• 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.¹²⁶¹²⁷ WHO FCTC ratification was a catalyst for strengthening tobacco control laws in the country and reducing industry influence on policy.¹²⁷ However, the Philippines is not a party to the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products.¹²⁸

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.¹²⁹

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.¹⁰³¹³⁰ 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.⁶⁶

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.¹³⁰¹³¹

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).¹³² 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.¹³³

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.¹³⁴ Leading Filipino tobacco control advocates argue that the law has undermined recent gains in tobacco control.¹³³

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.”¹³⁵

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.”¹³⁶ 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.¹³⁵ 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.”¹³⁷

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.^135138139140 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.^139141142

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.^139143144 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.¹⁴⁵

Corporate social responsibility

As of 2023, there was still no ban on tobacco industry corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the Philippines.⁶⁶ 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.¹⁴⁶ Much of this funding is channelled through the Jaime V. Ongpin Foundation (JVOFI), a development NGO and partner of “Embrace”, PMFTC’s CSR programme.¹⁴⁶¹⁴⁷ 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.¹⁴⁷

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.¹⁴⁷ The LT Group implements such initiatives in the Philippines via its CSR arm, the Tan Yan Kee Foundation.¹⁴⁸ 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.¹⁴⁷

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.¹³³ These donations also coincided with several debates in Congress which addressed regulation for newer nicotine and tobacco products (see section “Roadmap to Tobacco Control”).¹³³¹³⁰

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.¹⁴⁷ 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.¹⁴⁹ Restrictions on the transport and delivery of tobacco products were subsequently lifted.¹⁵⁰

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.¹⁵¹

• 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 2022.¹³⁴¹⁵² 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.¹³⁴

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.”¹³⁴ 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.¹³⁴

In 2012, the then Senator Marcos was photographed during a Senate debate on the Sin Taxes speaking to a lawyer representing PMFTC.¹⁵³¹⁵⁴

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.

Image source: Luis Barrios/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Key Points

• Mexico is a country in North America, covered by the World Health Organization’s Regional Office for the Americas.
• It has a population of over 127.5 million with current smoking prevalence of 19% amongst the population aged 20 and over.
• Mexico ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in 2004. It has not joined the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products.
• The Mexican tobacco market is dominated by the big transnational tobacco companies, particularly Philip Morris International and British American Tobacco.
• Recent tobacco industry tactics in Mexico include the use of third parties; the targeting of youth with marketing for newer nicotine and tobacco products, particularly on social media; and corporate social responsibility, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mexico significantly reduced smoking prevalence between 2002-2009, in the years around ratification of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC).^155156157 However, between 2009 and 2016 there was no further progress. This may be explained by ongoing industry interference, such as on price and tax; the introduction and rapid growth of flavour capsule cigarettes; as well as challenges involved with implementation of Mexico’s main tobacco control law.¹⁵⁷¹⁵⁸ In more recent years, Mexico has redoubled its efforts, passing a major amendment to its tobacco control law in 2021 which significantly increased compliance with the WHO FCTC.¹⁵⁹ Mexico now has some of the most comprehensive tobacco control regulation in the world.¹⁵⁹¹⁶⁰

Tobacco Use in Mexico

In 2022, the population of Mexico was over 127.5 million.¹⁶¹ According to the 2021 National Health and Nutrition Survey on COVID-19 (ENSANUT), prevalence of current smoking in the Mexican population aged 20 and over was just over 19%. There is significant difference between males and females, with nearly 30% of men reporting current smoking compared to around 9% of women. Prevalence of current smoking amongst Mexican youth aged from 10 to 19 was less than 5%, with 7.5% of males in this age range smoking compared to less than 2% of females.¹⁶²

There were an estimated 48,400 deaths attributable to smoking in 2019, accounting for 6.6% of all mortality in Mexico that year.¹⁶³ A study published in 2021 estimated the total cost of tobacco use to the Mexican economy at US$8.2 billion per year. US$5.1 billion is spent on treating diseases associated with tobacco use – equivalent to 9.3% of the annual health budget. The US$1.9 billion that Mexico receives in revenue from the tobacco industry covers just 38% of the burden of tobacco use.¹⁶⁴

Since 2008, Mexico has prohibited sale, distribution and promotion of any product that resembles a cigarette, which has been applied to e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products (see section “Roadmap to Tobacco Control”).¹⁶⁵¹⁶⁶ Even so, in the 2021 ENSANUT survey, current use of e-cigarette by adults aged 20 and over was 1.6% (2.5% for males; 0.7% for females). Amongst youth aged 10 to 19, prevalence was slightly higher, at 1.8% (2.4% for males; 1.1% for females).¹⁶² A 2022 survey by the National Commission Against Addictions estimated that five million Mexicans between the ages of 12 and 65 had used e-cigarettes at some point, with 975,000 being current users.¹⁶⁷

Tobacco in Mexico

Market share and leading brands

In 2022, market research company Euromonitor International estimated the Mexican tobacco market to be worth nearly 89 billion Mexican pesos (US$4.5 billion), mostly accounted for by cigarette sales.¹⁶⁸ The market is dominated by the big transnational tobacco companies (TTCs), particularly Philip Morris International (PMI) and British American Tobacco (BAT), and to a much lesser extent Japan Tobacco International (JTI). Between them, these three companies accounted for virtually all legal cigarette sales in 2022. PMI is the market leader with just over 60%, followed by BAT with just under 36%. JTI’s share was 4%.³¹

As of 2022, the top six brands in Mexico were all manufactured by either PMI or BAT. By far the most popular cigarette was PMI’s premium brand Marlboro, with a market share of over 48%. This was followed by BAT’s mid-range cigarette Pall Mall, with under 22%. All other brands had a share of less than 10%.¹⁶⁹

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

The use of flavour capsule cigarettes is particularly high in several Latin American countries, including Mexico, where their share of the market has risen year on year since 2012.¹⁷⁰ Although they were only introduced in 2011, flavour capsule cigarettes accounted for nearly 28% of the cigarette market in 2022 – amongst the highest proportions in the world.¹⁵⁷¹⁷¹ Research has shown that flavour capsules increase the appeal of cigarettes and stimulate a desire to try them, particularly amongst young people.¹⁷¹¹⁷²

• For more information, see Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco in LMICs.

Tobacco farming and child labour

Tobacco growing in Mexico has fallen considerably since 1980, when it produced nearly 94,000 tonnes of leaf, to under 7,000 tonnes in 2010 (see Figure 1). However, in 2010 production started to increase again, rising to over 15,000 tonnes by 2012, since when the figure has remained roughly stable.¹¹³

Figure 1: Mexican tobacco production, 1961 to 2020.¹⁷³ Source: UN Food and Agriculture Organization/Our World in Data | CC BY

Similarly, in 1980 the harvested area was 42,000 hectares, falling to 4,000 hectares in 2010, but up to 7,000 in 2020.¹¹³

A series of exposés in the 1990s revealed widespread use of child labour on Mexico tobacco farms, as well as the use of banned agrochemicals and poor living and working conditions for tobacco pickers. While the industry claims much has changed since then, an investigation by The Guardian in 2018 found children working on seven out of the ten farms the report visited in the state of Nayarit, Mexico’s main tobacco growing region. The farms featured in the investigation were supplying PMI, BAT and Universal Leaf Tobacco.¹⁷⁴

• 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

Mexico is a net exporter both of tobacco leaf and cigarettes. According to UN Comtrade, it exported approximately US$7.1 million in raw tobacco in 2022, compared to around US$2.4 million in imports.¹⁷⁵¹⁷⁶

A 2021 report on the impacts of tobacco tax, published by the Center of Research on Food and Development (CIAD), which bases its calculations on the Secretariat of Economy’s Online Tariff Information System, puts the figure for cigarette exports in 2019 at close to US$180 million, compared to imports of over $10 million.¹⁷⁷ This corresponds to customs data from Descartes Datamyne, which put cigarette exports for 2020 at over $168 million, compared to imports of US$10.7 million.¹⁷⁸ However, the Comtrade figure for cigarette exports in 2020 is much lower.¹⁷⁹ No import data is available on Comtrade for that year.

According to the CIAD report, seventy per cent of Mexican cigarette exports served the Canadian market, 15% the Colombian market, and 11% Central American markets.¹⁷⁷ Customs data also indicates these are the main export destinations for cigarettes manufactured in Mexico.¹⁷⁸

The CIAD report also states that the tobacco industry is a relatively small sector of the Mexican economy, employing just 0.1% of the national workforce in 2018.¹⁷⁷

Illicit trade

In a 2021 study which measured the Mexican illicit tobacco trade using two methodologies, illicit cigarettes accounted for 8.8% of total consumption based on an analysis of discarded packs, and 7.6% based on a survey of smokers. Both results are significantly lower than the figure of 16.6% which is widely publicised by the tobacco industry.¹⁸⁰ While the figures obtained via both methodologies represent an increase from previous estimates of illicit cigarette consumption – 0.5% in 2009 and 2.7% in 2015 – they are lower than the global average and lower than the figure for other countries in Latin America such as Brazil, Chile and Uruguay.¹⁸¹¹⁸² A previous study also found wide geographical variation across the country: for example, in Hermosillo, Sonora, just 0.3% of total cigarette consumption was illicit, while in León, Guanajato, the figure was as high as 27.5%.¹⁸¹

There is also an illegal e-cigarette market. Between January 2021 and June 2022, Mexican authorities seized over 60,000 devices, suspending the activities of nearly 180 retail outlets.¹⁸³

Tobacco and the environment

Mexico produces around 40 billion cigarettes annually. This consumes between 109 and 205 billion litres of water and between 73 and 114 million kilowatts of energy. It also generates CO₂ emissions of between 20,000 and 29,000 tonnes. Around 55 million cigarette butts are discarded every day in Mexico, at an estimated cost of close to US$140 million annually.¹⁸⁴

• 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

Mexico was the first country in the Americas to ratify the WHO FCTC in 2004.¹⁵⁶ However, it has not joined the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products.¹⁸⁵

In 2008, The General Law on Tobacco Control came into force, containing most of the provisions established in the WHO FCTC.¹⁸⁶ However, it left some significant loopholes. While smoking was completely prohibited indoors in primary and secondary schools, and in federal government facilities, workplaces and other buildings with public access were permitted to provide designated smoking areas. Similarly, the law banned most forms of tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, but made an exception in cases where it was aimed exclusively at adults.¹⁸⁷ Some stricter regulation was introduced at subnational level. For example, Mexico City passed its own 100% smokefree law in February 2008 and in the following years 14 states followed suit.¹⁸⁸¹⁸⁹

In 2021, the Mexican Senate unanimously approved a key amendment to the 2008 General Law, which banned smoking in all enclosed public spaces and workplaces, as well as banning all forms of tobacco advertising.¹⁵⁹ A further update, which came into force in January 2023, extended smoke-free legislation even to open-air environments where there may be public gatherings, such as parks, beaches and restaurant terraces. It also bans the display of tobacco products in all retail outlets.^160190191 With these two measures, Mexico made important progress towards full compliance with the WHO FCTC.¹⁵⁹

Mexico has taken a tough stance on newer nicotine and tobacco products. Since 2008, there has been a ban on any product that resembles a cigarette.^192193194 Regulators have applied this law to e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products (HTPs), but it has been contested by both retailers and tobacco companies.¹⁶⁵¹⁹² In 2020, the government banned imports of e-cigarettes and HTPs, bringing customs law into line with existing health regulations.¹⁹⁵ Though a decree published by the Secretariat of Economy in July 2021 created an exception for HTPs, this was reversed by a new presidential decree in October of the same year.¹⁹⁶¹⁹⁷

Finally, on World No Tobacco Day in May 2022, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador signed a decree imposing a total ban on “circulation and marketing” of e-cigarettes and HTPs. This effectively makes the import and sale of these products illegal in Mexico.¹⁹²¹⁹⁸

For more details, please see the following websites:

• Legislation by country – Mexico, Tobacco Control Laws, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids
• Mexico, WHO FCTC implementation database, WHO FCTC Secretariat
• Country Profile – Mexico, World Health Organization, WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic 2023

Tobacco Industry Interference in Mexico

Tobacco industry tactics in Mexico include the use of third parties; the targeting of youth with marketing for newer nicotine and tobacco products, particularly on social media; and corporate social responsibility, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Use of third parties

Tobacco companies often lobby via industry and trade associations, think tanks, front groups and other third parties, including public relations (PR) companies and professional lobbyists.

In Mexico, the Confederación Patronal de la República Mexicana (COPARMEX) is an employers’ union, which brings together businesses of all sizes and from all sectors.¹⁹⁹ In 2021, Philip Morris International (PMI) listed COPARMEX as one of the business and trade organisations in which it held a leadership role.²⁰⁰

In May 2022, Mexico held a public consultation on an update to its revised tobacco control law, regarding proposals to completely ban the display of tobacco products at points of sale, and to further restrict designated smoking areas to limited open-air environments.¹⁹⁰ COPARMEX’s submission to the consultation argued that cost of implementing these measures would be high and adversely impact the owners of small businesses; that the proposals violated the right to free trade; and that they would fuel the growth of the illicit trade.²⁰¹

The National Tobacco Industry Council (CONAINTA) – of which PMI, BAT and JTI are all members – also opposed these measures, arguing that they would have a negative impact on the national economy, including on tobacco growing communities; that they violated consumer rights; and that they would endanger jobs and investment.²⁰² In 2023, the president of CONAINTA warned that there would be a “storm” of legal appeals against the updated tobacco control law.²⁰³

Controversial marketing: targeting youth

The tobacco industry has long seen young people as a vital target market; tobacco use generally starts in adolescence. According to the 2016-7 National Survey of Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco Consumption, the average age of initiation for daily tobacco consumption in Mexico was less than 20 years old.²⁰⁴

Mexican media have documented tobacco companies targeting young people with marketing for newer nicotine and tobacco products via social media. From around 2018, industry hashtags – such as #FuturoSinHumo (“#SmokeFreeFuture”) and #EligeElCambio (“#ChooseChange” – both PMI) and #vypefriends and #govype (both BAT) began to appear on posts by popular Mexican actors, influencers, comedians and others.²⁰⁵²⁰⁶ Products such as PMI’s HTP IQOS and BAT’s e-cigarette Vype (since rebranded as Vuse) featured visibly in this content, though often company sponsorship was not made explicit.²⁰⁵

Even before the General Law on Tobacco Control was amended in late 2021, it prohibited tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship in all but three circumstances: in adult magazines, in adult-only establishments, or in personal correspondence to adults via post. It also specifically prohibited the online marketing of tobacco products.¹⁸⁷ According to a lawyer at the Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, “these products must comply with the General Law on Tobacco Control, which clearly establishes a near-total ban on this publicity.”²⁰⁵

A 2022 study on exposure to e-cigarette advertising and the social acceptability of e-cigarette use in Mexico identified online advertising as one of the channels of exposure most significantly associated with a higher likelihood of perceiving e-cigarettes as socially acceptable.²⁰⁷ According to a researcher at the National Institute of Public Health – one of the authors of the study – the industry’s aim is the “renormalization” of nicotine consumption amongst young people.²⁰⁵

• See also the page on PMI’s Futuro Sin Humo campaign.

The tobacco industry has also sponsored motorsports in Mexico. In the 2022 Mexico City Grand Prix, held in October, the McLaren cars displayed BAT’s Vuse branding – in an apparent violation of the comprehensive ban on e-cigarettes brought in just months beforehand.²⁰⁸ Motorsport sponsorship is a longstanding and well-documented promotional strategy aimed at young people, particularly boys and young men.²⁰⁹

Corporate social responsibility

Tobacco companies often use corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives to enhance their public image and corporate reputation.

In 2018, PMI’s local subsidiary Philip Morris México (PMM) set up a partnership with a local start-up, Eco Filter, which uses biotechnology to recycle cigarette butts.²⁰⁵²¹⁰ This partnership involves clean-up and collection initiatives which target young people, with events taking place at concerts, parks and universities. Eco Filter also delivers presentations to young people in which it displays PMI logos, and has used the social media hashtag and PMI slogan #FuturoSinHumo.²⁰⁵²¹¹ Eco Filter states that it does not promote PMI’s products or encourage nicotine consumption amongst young people.²⁰⁵

In 2021, Eco Filter opened a new factory in Guadalajara, Jalisco, with support from PMM.²¹⁰²¹² It will process waste from PMM’s manufacturing facility near Guadalajara, as well as cigarette butts from the street.²¹³²¹⁴

• See also Cigarette Filters.

Both PMI and BAT carried out extensive corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities in Mexico during the COVID-19 pandemic. In May 2020, PMI donated electric beds, vital signs monitors and ventilators to a hospital in Guadalajara. PMI also donated money for personal protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare professionals, and meals to a public welfare institution.²¹⁵ BAT joined a programme called UNIR y DAR (“UNITE and GIVE”) with other local companies in Nuevo León, where BAT México is headquartered. As part of an initiative called #RespiraNL, these companies made donations for PPE.²¹⁶ BAT also provided food supplies in Guadalupe, Nuevo León.²¹⁷

There are also CSR initiatives on child labour in Mexico. For example, since 2001 BAT has run a programme called “Florece” (meaning “Blossom” or “Flourish” in English), which provides day centres for the children of workers in the tobacco fields of Nayarit.²¹⁸²¹⁹

• 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

• III Índice Regional de Interferencia de la Industria Tabacalera en países de América Latina y el Caribe 2023, Corporate Accountability, Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control
• Mexico – Tobacco Industry Interference Index 2021, Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control
• Interferencia de tabacaleras en México: reporte de índice regional, Salud Justa, 2021
• Mexico: the long road to Tobacco Control, Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)
• Mexico – Cigarette Tax Scorecard, Tobacconomics
• Tobacco Industry Interference in Mexico, STOP
• México, Organización Panamericana de la Salud

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• E-cigarettes: British American Tobacco
• Futuro Sin Humo
• Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco in LMICs
• PMI’s IQOS: Use, “Switching” and “Quitting”

TCRG Research

• 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.

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 Mexico Country Profile appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) is an international treaty that aims to reduce the supply and demand of tobacco. The WHO FCTC includes a specific obligation, Article 5.3, requiring Parties to protect public health policies from commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry.²²⁰

• More information on Article 5.3, and tobacco industry attempts to undermine the WHO FCTC, can be found on the TobaccoTactics FCTC page.
• A summary and timeline of the relevant WHO FCTC regulations can be found on FCTC Regulations on the Need to Protect Public Health Policies from Tobacco Industry Interference.

The Parties to the WHO FCTC usually meet every two years at the Conference of the Parties (COP). In 2023, the 10^th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 10) was due to take place from 20 to 25 November in Panama, immediately followed by the third Meeting of the Parties (MOP 3) from 27 to 30 November, to oversee the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products. This treaty was adopted at COP 5 and addresses means of countering the illicit tobacco trade. However, both events were postponed to February 2024. COP 10 took place from 5 to 10 February in Panama, immediately followed by the MOP 3 from 12 to 15 February.

COP 10 and MOP 3 provisional agendas are available on the website of the Convention Secretariat of the WHO FCTC.

In August 2023, the WHO released a statement indicating its concern that the tobacco industry and others working in its interest have approached some Parties. Accordingly, the statement calls for Parties to “remain vigilant” in preparation for COP 10 and MOP 3.²²¹

This page summarises activities and interference by the tobacco industry and its allies in relation to COP 10 and MOP 3, as well as highlighting criticism aimed at the WHO and COP.

• See History of Interference by the Tobacco Industry and its Allies During COP and MOP for incidents of documented interference at previous COPs.

Tobacco Industry Activities

Discussion of COP 10 by the tobacco industry, industry associates, and industry media, began several months before the conference was due to take place. It focused largely on the topic of tobacco harm reduction, in addition to some lobbying activities documented in tobacco growing countries. Some examples are detailed below.

British American Tobacco

In April 2023 (during the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum GTNF’s ‘In Focus’ online series), James Murphy, director of research and science at British American Tobacco (BAT), highlighted COP as an opportunity to discuss tobacco harm reduction.²²²

In May 2023 (at industry event TabExpo), Flora Okereke, head of global regulatory insights and foresights at BAT,  reportedly said that the nicotine industry should work together to fight for harm reduction and send a single message to governments ahead of COP 10: that newer nicotine and tobacco products have a role to play in smoking cessation.²²³ She added:

“I think it is time for you to use your access to your government …Remember, the parties are the ones mandated to make decisions at this meeting. Countries have the mandate to raise their voice and their opinion.”²²³

Philip Morris International

In October 2023, The Guardian newspaper published an article based on a leaked internal email, sent the previous month by Philip Morris International (PMI) senior vice-president of external affairs Grégoire Verdeaux.²²⁴ The article points to a widespread PMI lobbying campaign against stronger regulation of “smoke-free”  products ahead of the COP. Verdeaux said that for the previous 18 months his company had worked to “leverage the right support” at the meeting but added: “At this stage we are not where we would like to be – in terms of intelligence, positions and delegations”.²²⁴

Verdeaux described the COP 10 agenda as “nothing short of a systematic, methodical, prohibitionist attack on smoke-free products”. He said that PMI would be at the event in Panama and intended to protest its exclusion, adding that it could be “the most helpful private partner the WHO could have in the fight against smoking”.²²⁴

During the week of COP 10, Verdeaux attended the launch event of a campaign by Crime Stoppers International that highlighted illicit tobacco trade in Panama.²²⁵²²⁶ Verdeaux stated “We can learn from examples in Europe where sensible regulations have been introduced to control, regulate, and tax alternatives to cigarettes. So, you don’t corner smokers into the black market”.²²⁵

Tobacco industry associations meet with government in Brazil

In June, a public hearing was held at the Chamber of Deputies, Brazil’s lower house of Congress, to clarify the country’s position at COP 10.²²⁷ It was attended by representatives from various government departments, as well as representatives of the Tobacco Growers’ Association of Brazil (AFUBRA), the Brazilian Tobacco Industry Association (ABIFUMO) and the Interstate Tobacco Industry Union (SindiTabaco).²²⁸ The Ministry of Health reportedly declined to attend.²²⁹

During the meeting, the president of SindiTabaco described the WHO FCTC as “the worst dictatorship” for not allowing the “the parties with the greatest interest to take part in the debates”. “We should monitor Brazil’s position in the next COP and warn of the consequences of a misguided approach”, he added.²²⁹

In July, representatives from several industry associations including SindiTabaco met with the Minister of Agriculture to ask for his support ahead of COP 10.²³⁰ A similar meeting was held with the Minister of Agrarian Development a few days later, in which the minister reportedly criticised initiatives to replace tobacco as a cash crop.²³¹

In October there was a further meeting between industry associations and representatives of various government departments.²³² In the meeting, industry representatives called for transparency on the Brazilian position at the COP and the inclusion of tobacco growers at every stage of the discussions.²³³

In February 2024, the Brazilian parliamentary committee, consisting of state and federal representatives from tobacco-growing regions in Southern Brazil, was denied entrance to COP 10.²³⁴ The committee held daily debriefing sessions that were moderated by the head of the Brazilian delegation, Carlos Henrique Abreu e Silva.^{235 236} Abreu e Silva also met with the Tobacco Growers’ Association of Brazil (Afubra) and the International Tobacco Growers Association (ITGA) during one of the meetings.²³⁷

Tobacco Industry Media and Events

Filter magazine

In July and August 2023, Filter magazine published articles on COP 10. Filter is owned by The Influence Foundation, which receives direct and indirect tobacco industry funding, from tobacco companies and the PMI-funded Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW).

Written by the pro-tobacco blogger Martin Cullip, one article, titled “Time Short to Stop the WHO’s Assault on Tobacco Harm Reduction”, he described “threats” which could be posed by the COP 10 meeting, including prohibition of non-tobacco e-liquid flavours, and the extension of regulations on tobacco products to newer nicotine and tobacco products. He called upon “the public, the safer nicotine trade and tobacco harm reduction advocates” to petition key policymakers and national delegates.²³⁸

In another article, he stated that the WHO was “dishonestly railroading delegates toward a preordained outcome of heavy restrictions and prohibition” and that parties “make their decisions based on robust evidence, rather than a steady stream of propaganda”.²³⁹

Around COP, Filter magazine published several articles by Lindsey Stroud of the Taxpayers’ Protection Alliance (TPA), which criticised the WHO.^240241242 The Influence Foundation declared that it had received funds from the TPA “to support travel to Good COP”, a parallel meeting run by the TPA during COP 10.²⁴³

See below for more on the TPA.

Tobacco Reporter

Industry publication Tobacco Reporter, which is owned by the Tobacco Merchants Association (TMA), has a dedicated section on its website called ‘Special Report: COP 10’, where it published articles before, during and after COP. The stated aim was to examine COP 10 closely, arguing that the decisions to be made at the COP could have far reaching implications for the tobacco industry, suppliers, tobacco farmers, smokers and users of e-cigarettes.²⁴⁴

Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum 2023

The Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum (GTNF) is an annual tobacco industry-funded event, sponsored by major transnational tobacco companies including PMI, BAT and Imperial Brands.²⁴⁵²⁴⁶

On the final day of the 2023 conference, a session titled ‘Talking about COP 10’ was led by Derek Yach, former FSFW president and board director, and Flora Okereke of BAT.²⁴⁷ The discussion focused on the topic of tobacco harm reduction.²⁴⁸

• For more information on the GTNF, please see the page on the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum.

Tobacco Industry Allies’ Activities

Knowledge-Action-Change

In April 2023, Knowledge-Action-Change (KAC), a FSFW grantee, published a COP briefing paper on the website of its Global State of Tobacco Harm Reduction (GSTHR) project. The brief stated that the COP lacked transparency and accountability, and included instructions for how to engage with the COP and lobby officials.²⁴⁹

In October 2023, KAC published a further briefing on the COP 10 agenda, which described “The principal threats to THR [tobacco harm reduction] and consumer access to SNP [safer nicotine products]”.²⁵⁰

The following month, KAC published another briefing paper focused on tobacco harm reduction consumer advocacy groups, criticising their exclusion from COP 10.²⁵¹²⁵² This briefing has been referred to in industry media.^253254255

Institute of Economic Affairs

The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), a “free market” UK think tank, has a history of collaboration with the tobacco industry, including receiving financial support from tobacco companies.

The Director of the IEA’s “Lifestyle Economics” unit, Christopher Snowdon, authored an article published by The Sun criticising the WHO’s stance on e-cigarettes as “unscientific and fanatical”, described it as a threat to global health, and said the UK had an opportunity to oppose proposals relating to e-cigarettes during COP 10. He also described the WHO as a “fundamentally corrupt and incompetent organisation”.²⁵⁶

Snowdon attended the Taxpayers Protection Alliance’s ‘Good COP’ event (see below for more information).²⁵⁷

• For more information see Institute of Economic Affairs: COP 10.

International Tobacco Growers Association

The International Tobacco Growers’ Association (ITGA) is a front group set up and run by the major cigarette manufacturers.

ITGA held several meetings in the year leading up to COP 10 in which the COP featured as a discussion point, and ITGA criticised the WHO FCTC for “excluding” farmers from discussions.^258259260 After its ‘Africa Regional Meeting’ in June, ITGA’s report of the event stated “ITGA President is in a crusade to raise awareness of the false claims raised by WHO about tobacco farming and about the economic viability of alternatives crops”.²⁵⁹

According to Mercedes Vázquez, ITGA CEO, the organisation applied for observer status at COP 10, though as of November 2023, it had received no reply.²⁶¹²⁶² ITGA’s applications to observe previous COPs were refused.²⁶¹ It later released a statement ahead of COP 10 in February arguing for publicly attended sessions at COP, and for tobacco growers to be able to participate in the discussions.²⁶³

During of the week of COP 10, ITGA continued to criticise the WHO and FCTC.²⁶⁴ ITGA also met with the Brazilian ambassador to Panama, head of the Brazilian delegation.²⁶⁵²³⁷

• For more information see International Tobacco Growers Association: COP 10.

Tobacco Institute of India

The Tobacco Institute of India (TII) was founded in 1992 by ITC Limited, Godfrey Phillips India and VST Industries Ltd. All three companies have affiliations with either BAT or PMI.²⁶⁶

At an awards ceremony for tobacco farmers, Sharad Tandan, TII director, said that he hoped that COP 10 would not take “ill-conceived policy measures on issues like tobacco crop diversification etc, which will have a devastating impact on India’s export performance and on the livelihood of millions of farmers, farm workers, and their families”.²⁶⁷

World Vapers Alliance

The World Vapers Alliance (WVA) is a US-based organisation funded by the Consumer Choice Center, which in turn receives funding from tobacco industry, and by BAT directly.²⁶⁸²⁶⁹

In September 2023, WVA published an article, arguing that “the WHO has neglected evidence” for the use of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid because “it has already taken a side in the vaping debate”. It also argued that prohibition would lead to “irreversible illicit trade”.²⁷⁰

During the week of COP 10, WVA then criticised the “exclusion of consumers from the decision-making process”.²⁷¹

• For more information see World Vapers’ Alliance: COP 10.

Center of Excellence for the Acceleration of Harm Reduction

In October 2023, the Center of Excellence for the Acceleration of Harm Reduction (CoEHAR), a FSFW grantee, sent a letter to the European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, Stella Kyriakides. It stated:

“Our hope is that, in light of scientific evidence, the FCTC and the European Union conduct a careful, balanced, and transparent review of the available scientific evidence regarding non-combustible products, compared to conventional cigarettes, to provide indispensable information for making decisions in the interest of millions of smokers.”²⁷²

We Vape

We Vape was founded in 2020 by Mark Oates, a fellow at Adam Smith Institute, a UK think tank that has a history of collaboration with the tobacco industry, including accepting funding.

In an article published in August 2023, Mark Oates highlighted what he called “big issues” with the WHO’s recommendations approaching COP 10, and stated that We Vape was running its “Back Vaping Save Lives campaign, to educate and embolden the millions of vapers in the UK whose freedom to use a life-saving tool is under attack”.²⁷³ He called upon “the vaping community and beyond” to write to their local MPand provided a template letter.²⁷⁴

In October 2023, Oates called for readers to oppose tax increases on e-cigarettes during COP 10.²⁷⁵

New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is a lobby group which has previously received funding from BAT.²⁷⁶ It ran a campaign entitled “Clear The Air” to promote newer nicotine and tobacco products, and has repeatedly opposed tobacco control measures, including plain packaging.^276277278

In January 2024, it called upon New Zealand’s delegates to COP 10 to reject the WHO’s call to action on e-cigarettes which called for strong regulation and enforcement.²⁷⁹.²⁸⁰

Other Criticism of the WHO and COP

Taxpayers Protection Alliance

The Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) is a US-based not-for-profit which lobbies on tobacco related topics, including outside the US. (The US is not a party to the FCTC)

TPA announced that they would be running a parallel meeting called “Good COP” to counter the WHO’s “Bad COP”.²⁵⁷ It described the meeting as “a rapid response and fact checking conference in Panama City” that would “bring in experts and consumers, often ignored by WHO, to be heard during the discussion of tobacco and tobacco harm reduction”.²⁸¹ The National Taxpayer’s Union and the Tholos Foundation, an affiliate of Americans for Tax Reform, were listed as partners of the event. See Lobby Groups for information on these ‘taxpayer’ organisations.²⁸²

Event speakers listed on the agenda included representatives from the TPA, JCIC International Consultancy, the Institute of Economic Affairs, We Vape and the Centre of Excellence for the Acceleration of Harm Reduction (CoEHAR).²⁸³²⁸²

In the run up to COP 10, International Fellow of the TPA, Martin Cullip, and Director of the TPA’s Consumer Center, Lindsey Stroud, authored several articles criticising the WHO. One  stated that “permitting commercial tobacco harm reduction products costs governments nothing” and urged them to “roundly reject the WHO’s advice”.^284285286

• For more information see Taxpayers’ Protection Alliance: COP 10.

Global Britain

Campaigns ‘Say No To WHO’ and ‘Save My Vape’ have similar objectives. Their websites invite visitors to sign a petition, though the websites and associated Facebook pages contain no details about the organisations or their funders.²⁸⁷²⁸⁸ Both campaigns have been linked to Global Britain Ltd, run by PR consultant Brian Monteith. Monteith has a long history of opposition to tobacco control.²⁸⁹

Smoke Free Sweden 2023

Health Diplomats, a health consulting company set up by Delon Human, a South African doctor with a history of collaboration with BAT, set up the Smoke Free Sweden 2023 campaign. Human is described as the “leader of the Smoke Free Sweden movement”.²⁹⁰

In November 2023, following the postponement of COP 10, Smoke Free Sweden published a press release, urging the FCTC to use the delay “to consider smoke-free success stories like that of Sweden.”²⁹⁰

UK All-Party Parliamentary Group for Vaping

UK Member of Parliament Adam Afriyie, vice chair of the UK’s All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Vaping, spoke at the industry-sponsored Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum (GTNF) in South Korea in September 2023, where he warned against handing over control of UK policy to the WHO.²⁹¹ Afriyie was a member of a panel moderated by David Bertram from EUK Consulting, which has worked for BAT since 2000.²⁹²²⁹³

Afriyie’s expenses were paid, as in 2022, by the GTNF trust.²⁹⁴²⁹⁵ Afriyie has been accused of having a conflict of interest because of his connections to Elite Growth, a firm that sells disposable vapes, of which his wife is a shareholder.²⁹⁵ He has been closely associated with the UK Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) while the Big Four transnational tobacco companies were members (UKVIA stated in September 2023 that it no longer has tobacco company members).^296297298 For more information see the UKVIA page.

Afriyie has argued in Parliament that the UK should work more closely with the tobacco industry,²⁹⁹ and has lobbied for the legalisation of snus in the UK, on behalf of Swedish Match.

Other APPG members have also been critical of COP.³⁰⁰³⁰¹ Mary Glindon MP, another vice chair of the APPG, called COP 10 “the biggest threat to the U.K.’s world-beating harm reduction strategy” with its “singular mission focused on actively encouraging countries to ban vaping as part of its tobacco control approach, purposefully flouting the evidence of vaping’s success.”²²² Glindon was speaking at the GTNF’s In Focus webinar in April 2023. Other keynote speakers included Delon Human, James Murphy of BAT, and Derek Yach, former FSFW president.²²²³⁰²

The APPG for Vaping closed down in November 2023, reportedly because no-one was able to take over Mark Pawsey’s position as chair.³⁰³

Relevant Links

• World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)
• FCTC COP website
• The Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products
• FCTC MOP website

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• COP & MOP
• Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
• Protocol to Eliminate Illicit trade in Tobacco Products
• Illicit Tobacco Trade

References

The post Interference around COP 10 & MOP 3 appeared first on TobaccoTactics.