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).¹²³ 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.³⁴ 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.⁵ Mexico now has some of the most comprehensive tobacco control regulation in the world.⁵⁶

Tobacco Use in Mexico

In 2022, the population of Mexico was over 127.5 million.⁷ 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.⁸

There were an estimated 48,400 deaths attributable to smoking in 2019, accounting for 6.6% of all mortality in Mexico that year.⁹ 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.¹⁰

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”).¹¹¹² 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).⁸ 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.¹³

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.¹⁴ 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%.¹⁵

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%.¹⁶

• 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 2012.¹⁷ 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.³¹⁸ Research has shown that flavour capsules increase the appeal of cigarettes and stimulate a desire to try them, particularly amongst young people.¹⁸¹⁹

• 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.²⁰

Figure 1: Mexican tobacco production, 1961 to 2020.²¹ 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 2020.²⁰

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.²²

• 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.²³²⁴

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.²⁵ 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.²⁶ However, the Comtrade figure for cigarette exports in 2020 is much lower.²⁷ 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.²⁵ Customs data also indicates these are the main export destinations for cigarettes manufactured in Mexico.²⁶

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 2018.²⁵

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.²⁸ 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.²⁹³⁰ 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%.²⁹

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.³¹

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.³²

• 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 2004.² However, it has not joined the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products.³³

In 2008, The General Law on Tobacco Control came into force, containing most of the provisions established in the WHO FCTC.³⁴ 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.³⁵ 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.³⁶³⁷

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.⁵ 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.⁶³⁸³⁹ With these two measures, Mexico made important progress towards full compliance with the WHO FCTC.⁵

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.⁴⁰⁴¹⁴² Regulators have applied this law to e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products (HTPs), but it has been contested by both retailers and tobacco companies.¹¹⁴⁰ In 2020, the government banned imports of e-cigarettes and HTPs, bringing customs law into line with existing health regulations.⁴³ 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.⁴⁴⁴⁵

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.⁴⁰⁴⁶

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.⁴⁷ In 2021, Philip Morris International (PMI) listed COPARMEX as one of the business and trade organisations in which it held a leadership role.⁴⁸

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.³⁸ 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.⁴⁹

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.⁵⁰ In 2023, the president of CONAINTA warned that there would be a “storm” of legal appeals against the updated tobacco control law.⁵¹

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.⁵²

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.⁵³⁵⁴ 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.⁵³

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.³⁵ 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.”⁵³

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.⁵⁵ 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.⁵³

• 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.⁵⁶ Motorsport sponsorship is a longstanding and well-documented promotional strategy aimed at young people, particularly boys and young men.⁵⁷

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.⁵³⁵⁸ 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.⁵³⁵⁹ Eco Filter states that it does not promote PMI’s products or encourage nicotine consumption amongst young people.⁵³

In 2021, Eco Filter opened a new factory in Guadalajara, Jalisco, with support from PMM.⁵⁸⁶⁰ It will process waste from PMM’s manufacturing facility near Guadalajara, as well as cigarette butts from the street.⁶¹⁶²

• 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.⁶³ 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.⁶⁴ BAT also provided food supplies in Guadalupe, Nuevo León.⁶⁵

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.⁶⁶⁶⁷

• 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.⁶⁸

• 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 3.⁶⁹

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.⁷⁰

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.⁷¹ 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.”⁷¹

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.⁷² 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”.⁷²

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”.⁷²

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.⁷³⁷⁴ 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”.⁷³

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 10.⁷⁵ 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).⁷⁶ The Ministry of Health reportedly declined to attend.⁷⁷

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.⁷⁷

In July, representatives from several industry associations including SindiTabaco met with the Minister of Agriculture to ask for his support ahead of COP 10.⁷⁸ 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.⁷⁹

In October there was a further meeting between industry associations and representatives of various government departments.⁸⁰ 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.⁸¹

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 10.⁸² The committee held daily debriefing sessions that were moderated by the head of the Brazilian delegation, Carlos Henrique Abreu e Silva.^{83 84} 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.⁸⁵

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.⁸⁶

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”.⁸⁷

Around COP, Filter magazine published several articles by Lindsey Stroud of the Taxpayers’ Protection Alliance (TPA), which criticised the WHO.⁸⁸⁸⁹⁹⁰ 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 10.⁹¹

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.⁹²

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.⁹³⁹⁴

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.⁹⁵ The discussion focused on the topic of tobacco harm reduction.⁹⁶

• 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.⁹⁷

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]”.⁹⁸

The following month, KAC published another briefing paper focused on tobacco harm reduction consumer advocacy groups, criticising their exclusion from COP 10.⁹⁹¹⁰⁰ This briefing has been referred to in industry media.^101102103

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”.¹⁰⁴

Snowdon attended the Taxpayers Protection Alliance’s ‘Good COP’ event (see below for more information).¹⁰⁵

• 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.^106107108 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”.¹⁰⁷

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.¹⁰⁹¹¹⁰ ITGA’s applications to observe previous COPs were refused.¹⁰⁹ 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.¹¹¹

During of the week of COP 10, ITGA continued to criticise the WHO and FCTC.¹¹² ITGA also met with the Brazilian ambassador to Panama, head of the Brazilian delegation.¹¹³⁸⁵

• 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.¹¹⁴

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”.¹¹⁵

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.¹¹⁶¹¹⁷

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”.¹¹⁸

During the week of COP 10, WVA then criticised the “exclusion of consumers from the decision-making process”.¹¹⁹

• 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.”¹²⁰

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”.¹²¹ He called upon “the vaping community and beyond” to write to their local MPand provided a template letter.¹²²

In October 2023, Oates called for readers to oppose tax increases on e-cigarettes during COP 10.¹²³

New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is a lobby group which has previously received funding from BAT.¹²⁴ 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.^124125126

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.¹²⁷.¹²⁸

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”.¹⁰⁵ 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”.¹²⁹ 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.¹³⁰

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).¹³¹¹³⁰

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”.^132133134

• 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.¹³⁵¹³⁶ 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.¹³⁷

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”.¹³⁸

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.”¹³⁸

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.¹³⁹ Afriyie was a member of a panel moderated by David Bertram from EUK Consulting, which has worked for BAT since 2000.¹⁴⁰¹⁴¹

Afriyie’s expenses were paid, as in 2022, by the GTNF trust.¹⁴²¹⁴³ 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.¹⁴³ 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).^144145146 For more information see the UKVIA page.

Afriyie has argued in Parliament that the UK should work more closely with the tobacco industry,¹⁴⁷ 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.¹⁴⁸¹⁴⁹ 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.”⁷⁰ 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.⁷⁰¹⁵⁰

The APPG for Vaping closed down in November 2023, reportedly because no-one was able to take over Mark Pawsey’s position as chair.¹⁵¹

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.

There have been multiple instances of lobbying by ambassadors and other diplomats from the UK, as well as Japan and Switzerland. Much of this lobbying activity has taken place in low and middle-income countries (LMICs).¹⁵⁵ These countries are important sources of new customers for tobacco companies as markets in higher income countries where consumption is generally falling.^156157158

Diplomats are also involved in activities which help promote the tobacco industry via local media, such as visiting tobacco farms or factories. Other engagement supports tobacco companies’ product promotions, or corporate social responsibility strategy. These activities help to raise the profile of tobacco companies, enhance their reputations, and support the ‘normalisation’ of the industry.^154159160

Background

Parties to the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) have an obligation to protect public health policies from the “commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry” and any contact with tobacco industry representatives, or others seeking to further their interests, must be “limited” and “transparent”.¹⁶¹ The implementation guidelines to Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC recommend that Parties limit interactions with the tobacco industry to those that are absolutely necessary to regulating the industry, and ensure the transparency of those interactions that do occur.¹⁶¹  The guidelines also recommend parties treat state-owned tobacco companies in the same way as any other tobacco company, including avoiding any “preferential treatment”.¹⁶¹

In addition, the guidelines state that “… Whenever possible, interactions should be conducted in public, for example through public hearings, public notice of interactions, disclosure of records of such interactions to the public”.¹⁶¹

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

In October 2014, the 6^th Conference of the Parties (COP) decided to urge parties: “to raise awareness and adopt measures to implement Article 5.3 and its implementing Guidelines among all parts of government including diplomatic missions.”¹⁶² Another decision required governments to “take into account their public health objectives in their negotiation of trade and investment agreements”.¹⁶³

Nevertheless, diplomats continue to lobby for tobacco companies around the world.¹⁵⁴

Countries whose diplomatic representatives have lobbied on behalf of tobacco companies overseas  include the UK, Germany and Japan, who are all Parties to the WHO FCTC,¹⁶⁴ as well as the United States and Switzerland. BAT, PMI and Japan Tobacco all have offices in Geneva, Switzerland, the location of the World Health Organization and other key international bodies.

UK

There are specific guidelines covering the engagement of British (UK) officials working overseas designed to limit contact with tobacco companies, and support compliance with Article 5.3. After the UK Ambassador to Panama lobbied on behalf of British American Tobacco (BAT),¹⁶⁵ the guidelines were revised in 2013.¹⁶⁶ These guidelines state that “Posts must not…Engage with local foreign governments on behalf of the tobacco industry, except in cases where local policies could be considered protectionist or discriminatory”.¹⁶⁶

Engagement and lobbying

Despite having guidelines in place to support compliance with the WHO FCTC, FOI requests and media investigations have revealed that British diplomats continue to interact with the tobacco industry more than is necessary. UK diplomats have lobbied for BAT in Bangladesh,¹⁶⁷¹⁶⁸ Hungary,¹⁶⁹ and Pakistan.^{165170171172173}

UK officials have also disclosed contact with tobacco companies in Panama and Venezuela,¹⁷⁴¹⁷⁵ Laos,¹⁷⁶ Cuba,¹⁷⁷ and Burundi.¹⁷⁸

In 2018, UK advocacy organisation Action on Smoking & Health (ASH) called this a “global pattern of engagement” by British officials to defend BAT’s interests.¹⁷⁹

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

Tobacco industry events

UK government guidelines state that staff must not:

“Attend or otherwise support receptions or high-profile events, especially those where a tobacco company is the sole or main sponsor and/or which are overtly to promote tobacco products or the tobacco industry (such as the official opening of a UK tobacco factory overseas)”.¹⁶⁶

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

For example, in 2019 the British ambassador to Yemen opened a cigarette factory in a free trade zone in Jordan, celebrating the expansion of the tobacco company Kamaran which is part-owned by BAT.^154180181182

In 2020, staff from the UK high commission in Pakistan attended a promotional event for a BAT product in Pakistan.¹⁸³

• See UK Diplomats Lobbying for BAT for details.

Engaging with industry allies

The links between diplomatic missions and tobacco companies can be more indirect, via funding third party allies of the industry. The UK guidelines state that diplomats should not “endorse projects which are funded directly or indirectly by the tobacco industry”.  However, a 2019 investigation by The Guardian found that the British high commission in Malaysia had given funding to a Kuala Lumpur based think tank (IDEAS) for several years. At the same time the think tank was also receiving money from tobacco companies and was lobbying against plain packaging regulation and tobacco taxes.¹⁸⁴  While the UK had already implemented plain packaging regulations, tobacco control was being undermined overseas.

Attending meetings with the tobacco industry

Tobacco companies attend meetings and events organised directly by UK government departments, such as the FCO (now FCDO) or the DIT (now Department for Business and Trade).¹⁷⁴  They also attend those held by regional, national or local business organisations such as chambers of commerce.

Responses to FOI requests show that when the attendance of UK government officials at such events is disclosed, there is little detail about the specific purpose or content of these meetings,¹⁶⁷¹⁶⁹ It may simply be described as relating to ‘doing business’ in the country.¹⁷⁵

Business vs public health interests?

The UK guidelines for overseas staff (last updated in 2013) allow for the communication of “basic trade, investment and political information”, although this is not defined.¹⁶⁶ One of the activities used to justify interaction by UK diplomats is “resolving business problems that are potentially discriminatory”.^{165167169185186} This has been criticised as running counter to the WHO FCTC guidelines.¹⁵⁴¹⁸⁷

While transparency is required for tobacco industry interactions in 2018, the UK government told Parliament that it “does not catalogue the representations it makes on behalf of companies”.^188189190  Research by the Tobacco Control Research Group (TCRG) concluded that the stated WHO FCTC goal of “maximum transparency” is not being achieved in the UK.¹⁵⁴¹⁸²

Japan

In 2021, the Ambassador of Japan to Bangladesh lobbied the government of Bangladesh on behalf of Japan Tobacco International (JTI).  In a letter to the Bangladesh Finance Minister the Ambassador criticised 2019 taxation changes for their impact on JTI. It also complained about the activities of competitors, and licensing demands.¹⁹¹

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

The Japanese Ambassador to Ethiopia was present at the signing of a deal between the Ethiopian government and JTI in 2016,  when the Ministry of Public Enterprise sold 40% of its National Tobacco Enterprise to the Japanese company.¹⁹² Japanese diplomats have also toured tobacco farms and JTI factories in Tanzania and Zambia.¹⁹³¹⁹⁴

Japan Tobacco International is the overseas subsidiary of Japan Tobacco (JT), which is one third-owned by the Japanese government.¹⁹⁵

Germany

In May 2022, the German ambassador to Beirut visited the offices of Regie, the Lebanese Tobacco and Tobacco Inventory Administration.¹⁵⁴¹⁹⁶

Denmark

The Imani Centre for Policy and Education, a Ghana-based think tank,  received money from the Danish embassy while lobbying against tobacco control.¹⁸⁴¹⁹⁷

Switzerland

Switzerland is not Party to the WHO FCTC.

In 2019, Swiss diplomats approached the government of the Republic of Moldova on behalf of Philip Morris International (PMI) seeking an opportunity to discuss new tobacco legislation.^198199200  The proposed legislation included significant tax increases on heated tobacco products, in which PMI has invested.¹⁹⁸²⁰¹

The same year, PMI helped fund an inaugural event for the new Swiss Embassy in Moscow.²⁰²²⁰³

• For more details see Swiss Diplomats Lobbying for PMI

USA

Although the US is not Party to the WHO FCTC, it has specific laws and guidance that prohibit its diplomats from promoting the sale or export of tobacco, or influencing non-discriminatory restrictions on tobacco marketing.^204205206207 However, US diplomats have enabled meetings between tobacco companies and government representatives.

The US ASEAN Business Council organises delegations of US businesses, including Philip Morris International (PMI), which meet high level officials in the ASEAN region.²⁰⁴  PMI was at the time a vice chair of its Customs & Trade Facilitation Committee and used this opportunity to meet with government officials from the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Vietnam.²⁰⁴²⁰⁸

Why it matters

The examples above illustrate contraventions of the WHO FCTC, an international treaty, and in many cases breaches of national guidelines. As TCRG research points out, all of these activities also undermine the spirit of these laws, by apparently serving the commercial interests of transnational tobacco companies and helping to ‘normalise’ the industry in the eyes of policy makers and the public.¹⁵⁴

The implementation guidelines of Article 5.3 urge Parties to exclude the tobacco industry completely from the public health policy arena.  The guidelines also urge them not to participate in corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities which are used by the tobacco industry and as an alternative means to access policy makers, as well as for public relations and product promotion.¹⁵⁴

In August 2019, in direct response to the exposure of lobbying by Swiss diplomats, the WHO released a statement urging governments to comply with Article 5.3 and to “proactively aspire to reduce the number of people starting and continuing smoking, to promote health and preserve future generations”.²⁰⁹

TobaccoTactics Resources

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

TCRG Research

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

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

References

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

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

This page covers flavoured tobacco, including menthol cigarettes, in low and middle-income countries (LMICs).²¹⁶²¹⁷

Background

Flavoured tobacco products are available in various forms around the world, including products previously only used in particular regions or countries. For example in Indonesia, the vast majority of smokers use kretek, clove-flavoured cigarettes,²¹⁸²¹⁹ and they are now available in other countries.²²⁰²²¹

Flavoured tobacco is used in waterpipe, a device which originated in middle-eastern countries and is increasingly popular elsewhere, including among young people.²²²

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

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

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

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

Specific challenges for LMICs

LMICs with no ban often have other major tobacco control policy gaps that are not necessarily menthol/flavour related but worsen the negative impact of menthol/flavours.²²³ One such policy is plain, or standardised, packaging,  which can include restrictions on flavour descriptors as well as colours on packaging which are known to signify flavour (e.g. green for menthol).²²⁴ However, plain packaging policies have yet to be implemented in many countries, including some high-income countries, so this would be a significant challenge in LMICs. Another relevant policy is the prohibition of marketing, especially near schools.⁶

Governments have more conflicts of interest in tobacco growing areas as they receive much needed foreign currency for tobacco exports,  and multinational companies can threaten this income stream if governments attempt to put tobacco controls in place.²²³²²⁵  However, apart from rare exceptions the tobacco industry contributes little overall to the balance of payments.²²⁶²²⁷

Regulatory challenges

The WHO published brief guidance on the regulation of menthol and flavoured tobacco which summarised some regulatory options including restrictions on: the sale of menthol branded products,  the use of menthol at noticeable levels (giving a ‘characterising flavour’),  or banning any menthol ingredients.²²⁸  The report points to likely opposition from the tobacco industry in countries or regions with an established menthol market.²²⁸ This was the case with the European Union (EU) menthol ban which only came into full force in 2020, after the tobacco industry had successfully lobbied for a delay. Testing for characterising flavour is more difficult and expensive than a ban on ingredients; this makes banning menthol as an ingredient particularly efficient for LMICs.

The WHO noted that:

“A ban on all flavour agents that increase tobacco product attractiveness, rather than focusing on menthol exclusively, can provide an alternate route to restricting menthol, and may prevent the unwanted introduction of menthol substitutes.”²²⁸

Research and data

As of 2021, when TCRG researchers conducted a review of evidence on menthol/flavour in LMICs,²²⁹ there were very few research papers from countries in Eastern Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean region, and Africa.

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

More research is needed on menthol and flavour in LMICs to help governments monitor the tobacco industry and its products, as recommended by the WHO: “An evidence base using data collected from the region of interest can provide more direct support for regulation.”²²⁸

Market in LMICs

Evidence suggests menthol and flavoured tobacco products are widely used in LMICs.  Data from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Policy Evaluation Project suggests that menthol is smoked by more than 20% of smokers in several middle-income countries. Although the dates vary (see the note above on data challenges) this research gives an indication of the scale of the problem. The highest rates were found in Zambia (42% in 2014) and Thailand (35% in 2012). Kenya and India also had over 20% menthol smokers, with China just under just under that level.²³⁰

A study from Johns Hopkins University, between 2015 and 2017, found a range of flavoured and capsule cigarettes on the market in those LMICs with the highest number of smokers: Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Russia, Thailand, and Vietnam.²³¹

The main TTCs operating in these countries (PMI, JTI, and BAT) mostly sold menthol or mint flavours. China National Tobacco Corporation (CNTC) sold  a mix of flavours.²³¹

There is also evidence from a number of studies that menthol and flavour tobacco use is rising, either as a proportion of the market or substantively.  Evidence from TCRG research shows that after the implementation of the European Union (EU) menthol ban in 2020, there was a marked increase in the share of menthol/flavoured products in some LMICs.²²⁹ A study of cigarette packs in Brazil, Indonesia, the Philippines, Russia, Thailand, and Vietnam, between 2013 and 2016, found that the number of flavour capsule variants on the market was growing.²³² Most were mint and menthol flavour but with others the flavour was unclear from the product name.²³²

A number of studies have identified related marketing activities.  Marketing strategies for flavour capsules are likely driving their global growth particularly among young people in LMICs.²³³

TCRG’s review  of tobacco industry strategies underpinning the growth of menthol/flavoured tobacco use in LMICs  highlighted widespread marketing in stores (including retailers near schools), on billboards, on TV, online and via brand ambassadors. The packaging of flavoured and menthol products, legally displayed in stores, was  found to be colourful with non-conventional, appealing names for flavours.²²⁹

Tobacco companies also use symbols on cigarette sticks to indicate that they contain capsules.²³⁴ Researchers studying this form of marketing in LMICs have described the space on a cigarette as “valuable communicative real estate” for tobacco companies, which could be better used to display public health messages.²³⁴

Research and data from specific regions and countries is summarised below. We refer in many places to TCRG research based on 2019 cigarette market data from Euromonitor. In this data ‘high market share’ means 20% or more of the total cigarette market in that country in 2019. ‘High market share growth’ means that the share doubled between 2005-19 and was growing from 2017.²²⁹ We link to regional and country profile pages on TobaccoTactics, where available.

Africa

Nigeria has high menthol/flavour market share and high market share growth.²²⁹

Cameroon has high market share, the only other country in the region for which this data was available. (For Egypt see Eastern Mediterranean region below.)²²⁹

Tanzania

JTI sells a menthol cigarette called Sweet Menthol through its subsidiary in Tanzania. It describes this product as “the leading local mainstream menthol brand”.²³⁵

Zambia

JTI owned brand Sweet Menthol is the third most popular cigarette in Zambia.  It is cheap and is usually sold as single sticks.²³⁶  On its webpage for Zambia, JTI describes itself  as a leaf farming company, and does not mention that it sells cigarettes in the country. A locally owned company, Roland Imperial,  also sells menthol cigarette brands.²³⁷

ITC survey data showed a high prevalence of menthol smokers in Zambia, with 43% of smokers choosing the product.²³⁸ Menthol was most commonly used among younger smokers, those with a middle income, and those that don’t smoke every day. Over a third of smokers indicated that they thought menthol cigarettes were less harmful than non-menthol.²³⁸

Kenya

ITC survey data from Kenya also suggests a high prevalence of menthol smokers.²³⁸²³⁹ In 2018, 21% of smokers with a regular cigarette brand smoked menthol or sweet menthol (although Euromonitor estimates that only 7% of cigarette sales are menthol).²²⁹  More women smoke menthol than men in Kenya, and two thirds of smokers believed that menthol is less harmful than other cigarettes.²³⁸²³⁹

Ethiopia

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

• For details see Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco

This was a pre-emptive ban as flavour sales were low. However there has been a lack of enforcement at the retail level.²²³ Flavoured products are not made in Ethiopia and more collaboration with customs is needed to prevent illicit importation.²²³ There is also a lack of awareness that the ban includes waterpipe products.²²⁸

Since 2017, two years after the ban was enacted, JTI has owned 70%  the state owned tobacco company, NTE.²⁴⁰

Latin America

Menthol cigarettes are popular in Latin America, and increasingly so in some countries.²²⁹ Guatemala and Peru have high market share and high market share growth. There is high market share in Columbia and the Dominican Republic, and high market share growth in Argentina, Bolivia and Costa Rica.²²⁹

Use of flavour capsule cigarettes is particularly high in Chile and Mexico.²⁴¹  According to BAT’s annual report in 2014,  sales of  flavour capsule cigarettes had increased in the region despite price rises, while overall cigarette sales were down.²⁴²

A study of over 1,000 retailers located close to schools in Latin American cities (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile and Peru) found that the majority (85%) sold flavoured cigarettes, and most (71%) sold capsule versions.⁶ (Similar findings were reported in Uruguay, a high income country, immediately before the implementation of plain pack regulations in 2020.)²⁴³

These products were frequently displayed near the point of sale, or confectionary. Some stores also had advertisements and price promotions.⁶ Unconventional flavour descriptors such as “fusion blast” and “ruby ice” were very common.²⁴⁴

Brazil

Survey data from 2016-2017 among adult smokers in Brazil found that over 50% supported a ban on menthol and over 60% supported a ban on all additives.²⁴⁵ Support did not vary across sociodemographic groups. When menthol smokers were asked what they would do if menthol cigarettes were banned, a third reported they would quit, around 20% would reduce the amount they smoked and a similar number would switch to non-menthol cigarettes. Slightly fewer said they would still find a way to get menthol cigarettes.²⁴⁵

ITC survey data from the same period suggested that 8% of smokers with a regular cigarette brand smoked menthol.²⁴⁶ 13% believed that menthol cigarettes were less harmful than non-menthol cigarettes, and over a third reported that they were smoother on the throat and chest.  Nearly two thirds  of surveyed smokers supported a complete ban on all cigarette additives, including flavourings.²⁴⁶

An online sample of women aged 16- 26 (smokers and non-smokers) preferred packs with flavour descriptors.²⁴⁷

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

Chile

In 2013, Chile sought to implement a law banning substances that cause higher levels of addiction, harm or risk, leading to tobacco industry resistance and interference.²²⁸

• For details see Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco

Mexico

Studies of retailers in Mexican cities, found that the majority sold menthol and flavoured products, and more than half of stores situated near schools sold flavour capsule cigarettes.²⁴⁸²⁴⁹ Many flavoured cigarettes have descriptors which suggest there is a flavour, but the type of flavour is unclear: chemical analysis of dual flavoured cigarettes suggested flavours were menthol and another flavour, for example fruit.²⁵⁰

A study in Mexico City found that colour and flavour descriptors on cigarette packs made the products more appealing, and some smokers believed they would taste better.²⁵¹

Guatemala

A study of convenience store retailers in Guatemala found that all sold flavoured tobacco products.²⁵²

The majority (88%) of indoor tobacco advertisements in Guatemala were found to be for capsule cigarettes.²⁵²

South East Asia & Western Pacific

There is high market share of menthol/flavour in India, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand, and high market share growth in Vietnam.²²⁹  A 2010 study noted that governments in the region had no legislation banning exotic flavours of cigarettes and cigarettes with new flavours had appeared in Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines.²⁵³

Philippines

Menthol has been advertised to appeal to young women in the Philippines since the 1970s with menthol brands common for many decades.²⁵⁴ PMI, JTI, BAT and Korea Tobacco & Ginseng (KT&G) all sell flavoured capsule cigarettes in the Philippines.²⁵⁵

Menthol packs studied in the Philippines were harder than non-menthol (for capsule protection) giving a quality feel. Flavoured capsule brands had a greater technological appeal,²⁵⁵ and packs were rated as more attractive by young adults.²⁵⁶

Blue and white packs were perceived to be less harmful than other colours, as were the descriptors ‘light’ and ‘cool’, whereas the term ‘strong’ was perceived as more harmful.²⁵⁶  Researchers called for greater action and support for banning flavour additives.

Malaysia

In Malaysia, menthol cigarette marketing has been aimed at young people and women.  In the 1980s Brown and Williamson’s Newport menthol cigarettes were marketed in Malaysia with youthful American images and were sold at a cheap price point.²⁵⁷ An internal document from 1993 reveals how the company was developing sweet and fruit flavours for the Malaysian market. ²⁵⁷²⁵⁸ A 2003 study noted that the menthol variant of Cartier Vendome (a BAT brand at the time) was described as ‘pearl tipped’ so likely to appeal to women.²⁵⁹

In 2013, vanilla, mint and fruit flavoured cigarettes were on sale, and strawberry cigarette packs with pink packaging were documented.²⁶⁰

China

In China ‘flavour capsule’ was found to be one of the most common cigarette terms used in online tobacco marketing.  One website explicitly linked flavour capsules with female smokers.²⁶¹

Indonesia

In Indonesia the dominant cigarettes are kreteks which are flavoured with cloves.  Industry attempts to introduce their own cloved flavoured products had failed at least to 2004.²⁶²  In 2009 PMI and BAT acquired two domestic manufacturers which allowed them access to the kretek market.²⁶³ In 2009 PMI launched the first super slims kretek for women and Marlboro black menthol for young men.  By 2012 BAT had launched several kretek brands. Both companies were aware that kreteks  are particularly carcinogenic due to the presence of toxic chemical compounds: Anethole, Coumarin and Eugenol.²⁶³

In Indonesia the flip lid of the cigarette packet was used by Esse (owned by Korean Tobacco & Ginseng, KT&G) to promote the brand with phrases evoking flavour, like “sweet surprise” and “its honey”.  Research found seven cigarette brands with capsules.  Flavours included mint, menthol, berry and honey.²⁶⁴

Eastern Mediterranean

There is high market share growth in in Pakistan and Egypt .²²⁹

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

Eastern Europe

Data shows that in Russia menthol/flavour has both a high market share and high market share growth.²²⁹

Other LMICs in the region with high market share growth are Ukraine, Bosnia Herzegovina, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.²²⁹

Relevant Links

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

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

WHO FCTC decision on banning waterpipe flavour (2016)

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

TobaccoTactics Resources

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

TCRG Research

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

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

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

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

References

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

The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) is an international treaty that aims to reduce the demand and supply of tobacco.²⁷¹ 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.²⁷²

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

FCTC parties usually meet every two years at a Conference of the Parties (COP).²⁷³

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 9^th session, or COP 9 as it is called, was postponed from 2020 to November 2021, to be held virtually.

Immediately following COP 9 is the second Meeting of the Parties (MOP 2). This oversees the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products. This treaty was adopted at COP 5 and addresses means of countering illicit trade in tobacco products.²⁷⁴

This page summarises interference by the tobacco industry and its allies around the 9^th Conference of the Parties (COP 9).  It also covers the second session of the Meeting of the Parties (MOP2).

Incidents of documented interference at previous COPs are can be found in a timeline on:
History of Interference by the Tobacco Industry and its Allies During COP and MOP

Grants from the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World

The Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW) is wholly funded by Philip Morris International (PMI). Details of grants noted below can be found in FSFW’s tax returns.²⁷⁵²⁷⁶

INNCO

• In 2020, the International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations (INNCO) received a grant of US$65,000 to: “assist the organization in its work to garner consensus and support for COP 9 to consider harm reduction as integral to tobacco control”.²⁷⁵ INNCO received a further US$52,000 for this grant in 2021.²⁷⁶ During COP 9, INNCO organised some lobbying activities:
  • Published a report titled “Misinfodemic Dossier” criticising the WHO and Bloomberg Philanthropies.²⁷⁷²⁷⁸
  • Organised a demonstration outside the UK Parliament.²⁷⁹
  • Participated in a parallel event organised by CAPHRA.²⁸⁰

INNCO again had its application rejected for observer status at COP.²⁸¹

Knowledge Action Change

• Another major FSFW grantee,²⁷⁵²⁷⁶  Knowledge-Action-Change (K-A-C), publisher of the Global State of Tobacco-Harm Reduction (GSTHR) reports, has criticised the FCTC and COP. K-A-C  released a GSTHR report titled “Fighting the Last War: The WHO and International Tobacco Control” on 27 October 2021.²⁸² Fellow FSFW grantees, and now ex-President of the FSFW Derek Yach, spoke at the launch event. Ahead of the launch, GSTHR released a set of briefing papers that criticise the WHO FCTC and sought to use the UK’s stance on harm-reduction to influence international discussions at COP 9.²⁸³

Analysis of FSFW’s 2020 tax return shows it awarded specific COP 9-related grants to two organisations, in Pakistan and Argentina, in addition to INNCO.²⁷⁵

Alternative Research Institute – Pakistan

• Pakistan’s Alternative Research Institute, received US$176,400 in 2020 to “build a momentum to include smokers’ concern in tobacco efforts before the COP 9”.²⁸⁴ It received a further US$193,760 in 2021.²⁷⁶

Asociación Argentina de Servicios Médicos de Avanzada – Argentina

• In 2020, the Argentinian Asociación Argentina de Servicios Médicos de Avanzada, received US$128,850 from FSFW for a project to “garner consensus and support for the ninth session of Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (COP 9) to consider harm reduction as integral to tobacco control”.²⁷⁵ It received a further US$11,699 in 2021.²⁷⁶

Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey – Turkey

• In September 2021, the Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey (TEPAV), another FSFW grantee, ²⁸⁵ launched a report titled “The Economics of Curbing Smoking in Turkey: A Scoping Review”.²⁸⁶ The report argues that the effectiveness of the implementation of WHO FCTC measures in the countries that adopted them have not all been up to expectations.

Tobacco Industry Meeting with Government in Brazil

• In August 2021, there was a collaboration meeting between members of the Brazilian government and the tobacco industry in preparation for COP 9. During this meeting, the tobacco industry asked for the support of the Brazilian government.²⁸⁷ A summary of tobacco industry positions was sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to “ensure that the government takes into account the views of the tobacco supply chain and act to ensure that COP 9 does not result in harm to their interests”.²⁸⁸Civil society organisations denounced the industry’s attempts to interfere with the preparations for COP 9. As a result, the Brazilian National Commission for the Implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (CONICQ), called for an open meeting in September. During this meeting, Federal Deputy for Rio Grande do Sul Marcelo Moraes and other government representatives, dismissed CONICQ efforts to discuss the Brazilian positions towards COP 9, arguing that CONICQ’s existence was under legal challenge.²⁸⁸²⁸⁹CONICQ was created in 2003, within the scope of the Ministry of Health, and has achieved international acclaimed for its achievements in tobacco control policies. However, along with other institutional spaces, the Commission was extinguished by the Decree No. 9,759/2019, during President Bolsonaro´s administration. The issue was taken to the Federal Supreme Court, where the measure was declared unconstitutional. After this decision, the Ministry of Health reinstated CONICQ´s legitimacy and existence. Over 70 organizations working in tobacco control in Brazil, Latin America and the world supported CONICQ and requested “the urgent and necessary formal reconstitution of the Conicq, by means of a presidential decree” ²⁸⁹ to prevent the tobacco industry undermining of the institution and any setbacks to the implementation of the FCTC.

COP Enquiry run by UK All Party Parliamentary Group

• In February 2021, the UK All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Vaping, which is made up of MPs with a common interest in the issue but has no legislative power, set up an inquiry into COP 9. The consultation report was published in March 2021 listing several recommendations, including that the UK should consider its options in relation to future funding of WHO and WHO FCTC, and that it should consider withdrawing funds if WHO continues to discourage vaping as a form of smoking cessation.²⁹⁰ It also called for the UK to include harm reduction public health experts in its delegation to COP 9 and to encourage other member states to follow suit.²⁹⁰ Submissions to the inquiry included one from a tobacco company, Japan Tobacco International (JTI); and other individuals and organisations with industry links: the Adam Smith Institute, the International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations (INNCO), Mark Pawsey MP, JUUL Labs, the Reason Foundation, the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), the UK Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA), and The Federation of Philippine Industries, which has tobacco company members including Philip Morris International (PMI) and JTI.²⁹¹

COP 9 highlights

Held virtually in 2021, COP 9 provided the opportunity for Parties to meet and for some decisions to be made before 2023. However, most key discussions were postponed until COP10. Tobacco industry interference was detected, as the tobacco control community and several parties had warned.²⁹²

Interference Within the Conference of Parties

Statements by the delegations of some parties argued for the  inclusion of “all” stakeholders in tobacco control discussions.²⁹³ and for investment in harm reduction efforts. Delegations that were more actively using pro-industry statements were mostly coming from low-and middle-income countries (LMICs),²⁹⁴²⁹⁵ and from non-parties to the FCTC.²⁹⁶ Evidence shows that the tobacco industry puts even higher pressure into LMICs, where the FCTC implementation is often in its initial phases.²⁹⁷²⁹⁸

Noise around COP

Tobacco industry allies that could not attend COP 9 sessions, did not miss the opportunity to advocate on behalf of the industry´s interests on social media and through small scale street demonstrations²⁹⁹³⁰⁰ Attacks on WHO, COP and FCTC by tobacco industry allies aimed at undermining the importance of the work of WHO, the COP and the relevance of the FCTC, while at the same time requesting observer status to officially join COP.^301302303 Side events were organized to discuss what was happening at COP including parallel stream called “sCOPe” broadcast on YouTube.³⁰⁴

More detail on FSFW grantee activities during COP 9 can be found in the STOP FSFW COP 9 Monitoring Brief

Relevant Links

• World Health Organization’s (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)
• FCTC COP website
• WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products
• FCTC MOP website
• The tobacco epidemic has not gone away (WHO news, 1 November 2021)

TobaccoTactics 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 9 & MOP 2 appeared first on TobaccoTactics.