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).² These countries are important sources of new customers for tobacco companies as markets in higher income countries where consumption is generally falling.³⁴⁵

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.¹⁶⁷

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”.⁸ 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.⁸  The guidelines also recommend parties treat state-owned tobacco companies in the same way as any other tobacco company, including avoiding any “preferential treatment”.⁸

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”.⁸

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.”⁹ Another decision required governments to “take into account their public health objectives in their negotiation of trade and investment agreements”.¹⁰

Nevertheless, diplomats continue to lobby for tobacco companies around the world.¹

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,¹¹ 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),¹² the guidelines were revised in 2013.¹³ 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”.¹³

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,¹⁴¹⁵ Hungary,¹⁶ and Pakistan.^1217181920

UK officials have also disclosed contact with tobacco companies in Panama and Venezuela,²¹²² Laos,²³ Cuba,²⁴ and Burundi.²⁵

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.²⁶

• 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)”.¹³

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.^1272829

In 2020, staff from the UK high commission in Pakistan attended a promotional event for a BAT product in Pakistan.³⁰

• 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.³¹  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).²¹  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,¹⁴¹⁶ It may simply be described as relating to ‘doing business’ in the country.²²

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.¹³ One of the activities used to justify interaction by UK diplomats is “resolving business problems that are potentially discriminatory”.^1214163233 This has been criticised as running counter to the WHO FCTC guidelines.¹³⁴

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”.³⁵³⁶³⁷  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.¹²⁹

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.³⁸

• 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.³⁹ Japanese diplomats have also toured tobacco farms and JTI factories in Tanzania and Zambia.⁴⁰⁴¹

Japan Tobacco International is the overseas subsidiary of Japan Tobacco (JT), which is one third-owned by the Japanese government.⁴²

Germany

In May 2022, the German ambassador to Beirut visited the offices of Regie, the Lebanese Tobacco and Tobacco Inventory Administration.¹⁴³

Denmark

The Imani Centre for Policy and Education, a Ghana-based think tank,  received money from the Danish embassy while lobbying against tobacco control.³¹⁴⁴

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.⁴⁵⁴⁶⁴⁷  The proposed legislation included significant tax increases on heated tobacco products, in which PMI has invested.⁴⁵⁴⁸

The same year, PMI helped fund an inaugural event for the new Swiss Embassy in Moscow.⁴⁹⁵⁰

• 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.^51525354 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.⁵¹  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.⁵¹⁵⁵

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.¹

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.¹

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”.⁵⁶

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).⁶¹⁶²

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,⁶³⁶⁴ and they are now available in other countries.⁶⁵⁶⁶

Flavoured tobacco is used in waterpipe, a device which originated in middle-eastern countries and is increasingly popular elsewhere, including among young people.⁶⁷

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.⁶⁸ 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).⁶⁹ 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.⁷⁰

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.⁶⁸⁷¹  However, apart from rare exceptions the tobacco industry contributes little overall to the balance of payments.⁷²⁷³

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.⁷⁴  The report points to likely opposition from the tobacco industry in countries or regions with an established menthol market.⁷⁴ 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.”⁷⁴

Research and data

As of 2021, when TCRG researchers conducted a review of evidence on menthol/flavour in LMICs,⁷⁵ 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.”⁷⁴

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.⁷⁶

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.⁷⁷

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.⁷⁷

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.⁷⁵ 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.⁷⁸ Most were mint and menthol flavour but with others the flavour was unclear from the product name.⁷⁸

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.⁷⁹

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.⁷⁵

Tobacco companies also use symbols on cigarette sticks to indicate that they contain capsules.⁸⁰ 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.⁸⁰

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 2017.⁷⁵ 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.⁷⁵

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.)⁷⁵

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”.⁸¹

Zambia

JTI owned brand Sweet Menthol is the third most popular cigarette in Zambia.  It is cheap and is usually sold as single sticks.⁸²  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.⁸³

ITC survey data showed a high prevalence of menthol smokers in Zambia, with 43% of smokers choosing the product.⁸⁴ 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.⁸⁴

Kenya

ITC survey data from Kenya also suggests a high prevalence of menthol smokers.⁸⁴⁸⁵ 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).⁷⁵  More women smoke menthol than men in Kenya, and two thirds of smokers believed that menthol is less harmful than other cigarettes.⁸⁴⁸⁵

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.⁶⁸ Flavoured products are not made in Ethiopia and more collaboration with customs is needed to prevent illicit importation.⁶⁸ There is also a lack of awareness that the ban includes waterpipe products.⁷⁴

Since 2017, two years after the ban was enacted, JTI has owned 70%  the state owned tobacco company, NTE.⁸⁶

Latin America

Menthol cigarettes are popular in Latin America, and increasingly so in some countries.⁷⁵ 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.⁷⁵

Use of flavour capsule cigarettes is particularly high in Chile and Mexico.⁸⁷  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.⁸⁸

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.⁷⁰ (Similar findings were reported in Uruguay, a high income country, immediately before the implementation of plain pack regulations in 2020.)⁸⁹

These products were frequently displayed near the point of sale, or confectionary. Some stores also had advertisements and price promotions.⁷⁰ Unconventional flavour descriptors such as “fusion blast” and “ruby ice” were very common.⁹⁰

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.⁹¹ 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.⁹¹

ITC survey data from the same period suggested that 8% of smokers with a regular cigarette brand smoked menthol.⁹² 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.⁹²

An online sample of women aged 16- 26 (smokers and non-smokers) preferred packs with flavour descriptors.⁹³

• 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.⁷⁴

• 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.⁹⁴⁹⁵ 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.⁹⁶

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.⁹⁷

Guatemala

A study of convenience store retailers in Guatemala found that all sold flavoured tobacco products.⁹⁸

The majority (88%) of indoor tobacco advertisements in Guatemala were found to be for capsule cigarettes.⁹⁸

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.⁷⁵  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.⁹⁹

Philippines

Menthol has been advertised to appeal to young women in the Philippines since the 1970s with menthol brands common for many decades.¹⁰⁰ PMI, JTI, BAT and Korea Tobacco & Ginseng (KT&G) all sell flavoured capsule cigarettes in the Philippines.¹⁰¹

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,¹⁰¹ and packs were rated as more attractive by young adults.¹⁰²

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.¹⁰²  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.¹⁰³ An internal document from 1993 reveals how the company was developing sweet and fruit flavours for the Malaysian market. ¹⁰³¹⁰⁴ 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.¹⁰⁵

In 2013, vanilla, mint and fruit flavoured cigarettes were on sale, and strawberry cigarette packs with pink packaging were documented.¹⁰⁶

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.¹⁰⁷

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 2004.¹⁰⁸  In 2009 PMI and BAT acquired two domestic manufacturers which allowed them access to the kretek market.¹⁰⁹ 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.¹⁰⁹

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.¹¹⁰

Eastern Mediterranean

There is high market share growth in in Pakistan and Egypt .⁷⁵

• 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.⁷⁵

Other LMICs in the region with high market share growth are Ukraine, Bosnia Herzegovina, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.⁷⁵

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.¹¹⁵ 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.¹¹⁶

• 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).¹¹⁷

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.¹¹⁸

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.¹¹⁹¹²⁰

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”.¹¹⁹ INNCO received a further US$52,000 for this grant in 2021.¹²⁰ During COP 9, INNCO organised some lobbying activities:
  • Published a report titled “Misinfodemic Dossier” criticising the WHO and Bloomberg Philanthropies.¹²¹¹²²
  • Organised a demonstration outside the UK Parliament.¹²³
  • Participated in a parallel event organised by CAPHRA.¹²⁴

INNCO again had its application rejected for observer status at COP.¹²⁵

Knowledge Action Change

• Another major FSFW grantee,¹¹⁹¹²⁰  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 2021.¹²⁶ 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 9.¹²⁷

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.¹¹⁹

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”.¹²⁸ It received a further US$193,760 in 2021.¹²⁰

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”.¹¹⁹ It received a further US$11,699 in 2021.¹²⁰

Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey – Turkey

• In September 2021, the Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey (TEPAV), another FSFW grantee, ¹²⁹ launched a report titled “The Economics of Curbing Smoking in Turkey: A Scoping Review”.¹³⁰ 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.¹³¹ 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”.¹³²Civil 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.¹³²¹³³CONICQ 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” ¹³³ 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.¹³⁴ 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.¹³⁴ 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.¹³⁵

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.¹³⁶

Interference Within the Conference of Parties

Statements by the delegations of some parties argued for the  inclusion of “all” stakeholders in tobacco control discussions.¹³⁷ 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),¹³⁸¹³⁹ and from non-parties to the FCTC.¹⁴⁰ Evidence shows that the tobacco industry puts even higher pressure into LMICs, where the FCTC implementation is often in its initial phases.¹⁴¹¹⁴²

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 demonstrations¹⁴³¹⁴⁴ 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.^145146147 Side events were organized to discuss what was happening at COP including parallel stream called “sCOPe” broadcast on YouTube.¹⁴⁸

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.

Links to the tobacco industry

Funded by the Foundation for a Smoke-free World

The organisation has received funding on several occasions from the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW), an organization solely funded by Philip Morris International (PMI). In 2018, ARI received U$S285,200 for “mapping the status of harm reduction products framework in Pakistan” and to conduct a study on smoking cessation and harm reduction products in marginalized communities in Pakistan.¹⁵⁵ In 2019, FSFW granted US$123,420 to  the Alternative Research Initiative, to “conduct a knowledge, attitudes and practices survey evaluating the use of harm reduction products (HRPs), mainly e-cigarettes, in 11 urban districts of Pakistan” and to “conduct a qualitative survey barriers to smoking cessation in marginalized areas of Islamabad, and assess the possible use of e-cigarettes in these areas”.¹⁵⁵

During 2020, ARI received US$340,960 from the Foundation for a Smoke-free world for two different grants: one to “study on barriers to smoking cessation and reduced risk products in marginalized communities in Pakistan” and a second one, more focused on advocacy, to “Garner consensus and support for COP9 to consider harm reduction as integral to tobacco control”.¹⁵⁵ This last grant is one of fifteen grants awarded in 2020 by FSFW that focusses on influencing the Conference of Parties of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).¹⁵⁵ ARI received a further US$193, 760 for this activity in 2021.¹²⁰ In 2022 ARI received US$259,981 to “Support capacity of PANTHR (Pakistan Alliance for Nicotine and Tobacco Harm Reduction) to increase access to tools that support cessation and tobacco harm reduction in Pakistan, including engaging with health professionals to reduce impediments to access”.¹⁵⁶

Pakistan Alliance for Nicotine and Tobacco Harm Reduction (PANTHR)

The Pakistan Alliance for Nicotine and Tobacco Harm Reduction (PANTHR) is a project of the Alternative Research Initiative (ARI) with the stated aim of promoting solutions for smoking cessation in Pakistan and EMRO region (PANTHR EMR).¹⁵⁷ The organisation’s purpose is stated as follows:

“The alliance serves as a platform for advocating and promoting all innovative solutions for ending smoking whether counselling, NRTs, or harm reduction”.¹⁵⁸

For more information, go to Pakistan Alliance for Nicotine and Tobacco Harm Reduction (PANTHR)

Relevant Link

Alternative Research Initiative website

Tobacco Tactics Resources

Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW)

Philip Morris International

Pakistan Alliance for Nicotine and Tobacco Harm Reduction (PANTHR)

References

The post Alternative Research Initiative appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

The South East Asian Region (SEAR) includes eleven countries and hosts more than a quarter of the world’s population.¹⁶³ The region includes one of the largest countries (India), and one of the smallest (Maldives).¹⁶⁴¹⁶⁵ The full list of countries included in SEAR are Bangladesh, Bhutan, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPR Korea), India, Indonesia, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Timor-Leste. ¹⁶⁶

Smoking in SEAR

In 2020, the highest prevalence of tobacco use in the world, was reported in SEAR and it was around 27.9%.¹⁶⁷ The average prevalence of tobacco use among males and females reported in SEAR was 46% and 9.7%, respectively.¹⁶⁷ Based on the declining trend of the prevalence rates in all regions, World Health Organization expects the prevalence of tobacco use in SEAR to decrease to 25.1% by 2025.¹⁶⁷

The 2019 WHO tobacco trends report estimated the population of people aged >15years in SEAR smoking tobacco to be 241 million (15.9% of total population) in 2020. The same report projected the smoking prevalence among males and females in 2020 to be 30.5% (231 million people) and 1.3% (10 million people), respectively.¹⁶⁷

The tobacco smoking prevalence indifferent countries in the region varies from 11.8% in India to 38.2% in Timor-Leste. According to the same estimates, the highest and lowest smoking prevalence among males were seen in the same two countries(Timor-Leste 63.3% and India – 21.7%). However, when the number of smokers is considered, the pattern reverses, with the highest number of smokers in India (115.8 million people) and the lowest in Timor-Leste (0.3 million people).¹⁶⁷

With regards to use of smokeless tobacco, it is estimated that 81% of the world’s smokeless tobacco users are in SEAR.¹⁶⁸Pan masala (mixture of ingredients wrapped in a betel leaf or pre-packaged in foil), gutkha (industrially manufactured product), khaini (dry tobacco leaves and lime), and chewing tobacco mixed with areca nuts are the common varieties of smokeless tobacco products used in the region.^{169 170}

Tobacco Production in SEAR

All countries in the region, except Bhutan and Maldives, cultivate tobacco and manufacture tobacco products. India, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Thailand are among the largest tobacco producers in the world. India is the largest tobacco grower in SEAR and the second largest in the world while Indonesia and Bangladesh are in the 6^th and 8^th places.^171172173 It is reported that small-scale household production of ‘Bidi’ and sheesha still happens in Maldives, despite the cultivation and manufacturing ban.¹⁷⁴ The number of imported cigarettes contain tobacco was 465,597,841 in Maldives in 2018.¹⁷⁵

Dozens of domestic companies in DPR Korea are involved in the tobacco industry and some involved in export and import. There are allegations of large scale counterfeit cigarette production without a prominent presence of transnational companies.^176177178179

An accelerated cigarette production was reported despite the declining trend of production of raw tobacco in Myanmar.¹⁸⁰

The following table shows a summary of cultivation and production of tobacco in all countries in the SEAR (Table 1).

Table 1: Summary of farming and production of tobacco in the SEAR ^{181182183184185}.¹⁸⁶

*N/A = Information not available

Who dominates the market?

The tobacco products that destroy so many people’s lives are the result of the activities of a number of companies around the world. The Tobacco Supply Chain Database enables tobacco control researchers and advocates to understand what the supply chain is, where it is located and who is involved. For more information, access the database here.

In majority of countries, markets are dominated by subsidiaries of transnationals. In Bangladesh, British American Tobacco (BAT) dominates the market and Japan Tobacco International (JTI) also owns a share via the Dhaka Tobacco Industries (DTI).¹⁸⁷¹⁸⁸ In India, tobacco market is dominated by the Indian Tobacco Company (ITC) Limited India, established as a subsidiary of British American Tobacco (BAT). Government of India holds 27.84% of ITC shares.¹⁸⁹¹⁹⁰ In Indonesia, market is led by Philip Morris International (PMI) and British American Tobacco (BAT), amidst the presence of over 5,000 local manufacturers.¹⁹¹¹⁹² Surya Nepal Pvt Ltd, the key manufacturer of tobacco in Nepal, is a collaboration of the ITC and the BAT.¹⁹³ Ceylon Tobacco Company PLC (CTC), a subsidiary of BAT, holds the monopoly of cigarette manufacturing and trade in Sri Lanka.¹⁹⁴

Myanmar and DPR Korea markets are dominated by local companies. Local companies produce around 30 types of cigarettes in DPR Korea. Ryongsung, Sungcheon and Koksan are the factories that lead the cigarette production. ¹⁷⁸¹⁷⁷ A local company, ‘Rothmans of Pall Mall Myanmar’, dominates the cigarette market in Myanmar with a 50% share. ‘Japan Tobacco Myanmar’, a subsidiary of Japan Tobacco International and BAT also owns market shares.¹⁸⁰

Thailand market is dominated by the state-owned Tobacco Authority of Thailand (TOAT), formerly known as Thailand Tobacco Monopoly (TTM). Philip Morris International also has a significant market share (39.4%).¹⁹⁵ According to a survey conducted in 2018, Marlboro is the most smoked brand in Thailand with Winston and Camel following closely.¹⁹⁶

In Bhutan, the market depends on the cigarette brands imported by the individuals, mainly from India.¹⁹⁷ As it’s prohibited to produce tobacco products by the tobacco control laws in Maldives, tobacco industry comprises of the importers, distributors and wholesalers only. CGT Pvt Ltd, Grape Expectations and Ocean City Cigars are the main distributors of tobacco products.¹⁹⁸

The following table shows a summary of most sold cigarette brands and the owning companies in the SEAR (table 2).

Table 2: summary of most sold cigarette brands and the owned companies in the SEAR ^{199188172200178177189201 202203204 205192206 198180 207208 185195 196209210}

*N/A – Information not available

 Presence of Transnational Tobacco Companies (TTCs)

Table 3 summarises the presence of ‘big tobacco’- transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) in SEAR. These companies are present in the region through having either manufacturing facilities, full/partial ownership in local entities or distribution rights. Philip Morris International (PMI), British American Tobacco (BAT) and Japan Tobacco International (JTI) are present in SEAR. BAT is present in eight countries in the region, followed byPMI in seven and JTI in six (Table 3). Even though Maldives has banned tobacco cultivation and production, all three ‘big’ transnationals in the region have a presence there. The presences of all three ‘big’ TTCs are only seen in two other countries in the region – Bangladesh and India.

Table 3: Presence of ‘big’ transnational tobacco companies in SEAR^{188211189192198180212185195196172}

Links to the government

There are examples in SEAR of senior government officials taking up leadership positions in tobacco companies, examples of the Revolving Door phenomenon. It is observed that those positions act as lobbyists or consultants to the industry and take the advantage of existing contacts with the government/ officials to stop or delay the tobacco control measures. In Bangladesh, the former Senior Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture (2016) and the former Secretary of the Ministry of Industries (since 2012) are both Independent Directors of British American Tobacco – Bangladesh (BATB).²¹³Similar incidents were reported from India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand.^{214215213216217}

*Please see our page on TPD: Revolving Door Cases for more information on similar cases in the world.

Tobacco Authority of Thailand (TOAT), is a state-owned tobacco enterprise involved in tobacco production and distribution under the jurisdiction of Ministry of Finance in Thailand. As of 2018, TOAT had 55.4% of the cigarette market share.²¹⁸¹⁹⁵

The state has a share in the tobacco industry in both Bangladesh and India. The Indian government owns 27.84% of the Indian Tobacco Company Limited (ITC), through government-owned financial institutions.²¹⁹ The Bangladesh government holds a 10.85% shares in BAT Bangladesh (BATB). ²¹⁶ Bangladesh government holds a 10.85% shares in BAT Bangladesh.

Participation of Industry on Policy/Decision Making Processes

The industry is known to lobby the government or higher ranked officials in decision-making processes, especially in policy development and implementation. For example, it was reported that the National Board of Revenues (NBR) in Bangladesh requested the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to consider the industry opinion in finalising National Tobacco Control Policy in 2019. This was made following a request from the Bangladeshi Cigarette Manufacturers’ Association.²²⁰

Two transnational industries operating in Bangladesh, BAT and JTI lobbied the Ministry of Industries to continue manufacturing and trade of tobacco products during the COVID 19 pandemic, via letters highlighting the exaggerated contribution to the national economy.²²¹

Participation of industry in policy making processes also reported in India, Indonesia and Myanmar.²²²²²³

Getting benefits/image promotion via CSR activities

Representatives of BAT Bangladesh donated money to Bangladesh Labour Welfare Foundation. Acceptance of the cheque by the State Minister for Labour and Employment received publicity including through the official social media channel of the Ministry.²²⁰

ITC launched a CSR program in schools to raise awareness on waste segregation and management. The program was supported by the Ministry of Urban Development and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation in India.²²³

In Indonesia, PT Djarum company sponsored Badminton sporting activities continuously with the blessings of The Minister of Youth and Sport.²²²

Many similar incidents of CSR activities were reported from Nepal, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Thailand.^{222 213216}Some countries in SEAR, Myanmar, Nepal and Thailand, have completely banned the CSR activities of the tobacco industry. ²¹³

During COVID 19, ITC Limited India donated money for the COVID contingency fund.²²⁴ Health Hygiene brand of ITC, Savlon, sponsored Kerala government’s COVID-19 awareness programmes and hand washing booths.²²⁵ Philip Morris International (PMI) donated an Ambulance to Indonesian Red Cross and a tobacco manufacturer (Djarum) donated Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) to Pamekasan Regional Hospital  in Indonesia.²²⁶²²⁷

*Please see our pages on CSR Strategy and Covid 19 for more information on similar cases in the region.

Examples of good practices:

Bhutan has prohibited cultivation, manufacture, distribution and sale of tobacco products (both smoked and smokeless forms) within the country.²²⁸ The Maldives has also banned cultivation of tobacco and manufacturing of tobacco products.²²⁹

In 2010, India prohibited foreign direct investments (FDI) from cigarette companies to prevent foreign funded expansion of the industry.²³⁰ India has also issued a complete ban on e-cigarettes in September 2019, citing the potential risk they posed to India’s youth.²³¹

Maldives has banned the sale of single sticks in2019.²³²

Nepal, Maldives and Thailand have complete bans on advertising, promotions and corporate social responsibility activities (CSR).²³³

It is prohibited to give or accept gifts or reward from any tobacco industry under Rule 48 of Article 5 of Tobacco Products Control and Regulation Directive 2071 in Nepal. ²³⁴

In Thailand, it is banned to carry out any tobacco related CSR activities under the Tobacco Product Control Act 2017, though the industry is owned by the government. ²¹⁷Thailand is the first country in Asia that implemented plain packaging in December 2018.²³⁵

Roadmap to tobacco control

All countries in SEAR except Indonesia, are parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) treaty.²³⁶ Three countries, India, Myanmar and Sri Lanka, are additionally Parties to the “Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products (The Protocol) which is an international treaty negotiated by Parties to the FCTC with the objective of eliminating all forms of illicit trade in tobacco products through cooperation of countries. Sri Lanka was the first be a party to “The Protocol” from the region.²³⁷²³⁸

Cultivation of tobacco and manufacture of products are banned by the national tobacco control laws in Bhutan and Maldives. In 2004, Royal government of Bhutan banned cultivation, production and sales of tobacco and related products.²³⁹ In Bhutan, importing a defined quantity of tobacco products are allowed for personal consumption and 57,096 of cigarette sticks were imported in 2019.^{228 240} Import, export and sales of tobacco products are regulated in Maldives.²²⁹

Bhutan, Indonesia, Maldives, Myanmar and Thailand comprehensively prohibited sponsorships for the government from the tobacco industry or any entity representing them. Countries like Sri Lanka and Timor-Leste have some restrictions on sponsorships.²⁴¹²⁴²

As of 2020, all countries in SEAR have national level tobacco control laws in place.²⁴³WHO introduced MPOWER measures comprise the essential six elements (Monitor use and control measures, Protect from tobacco smoke, Offer help to quit, Warn against negative consequences, Enforce ban on advertisements and promotions and Raise tax) to implement FCTC effectively at country level.²³⁵However, the 2019 WHO report on the tobacco epidemic shows that SEAR has a considerable gap in achieving complete implementation of policies as per the FCTC directive thus maintaining compliance. Except for health warnings, other policy areas are less well-developed in most countries. The compliance scores for each policy area suggest that there is a considerable gap between definition and enforcement of the control policies. For example, none of the countries have reached “fully compliant” (i.e. score of 10) in terms of implementing taxation policies as per the FCTC directive.²³⁵

The following table shows a summary of implementation of MPOWER strategies in each country in the SEAR (Table 4).A level above zero is considered as implementation.

Table 4: Summary of implementation of MPOWER policies in the SEAR ^235236244

Two out of seven WHO FCTC Secretariat’s Knowledge Hubs to assist the Parties to implement FCTC are established in the SEAR. National Institute of Cancer Prevention and Research, a government institute in India hosts the WHO FCTC Secretariat’s Knowledge Hub on Smokeless Tobacco. WHO FCTC Secretariat’s Knowledge Hub for Article 5.3 is hosted by the Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control (GGTC) at Thammas at University, Thailand.²⁴⁵

The region also hosts one of the three WHO-FCTC Secretariat’s tobacco industry monitoring observatories that were established to monitor tobacco industry interference and implementation of the WHO FCTC Article 5.3. The Centre for Combating Tobacco (CCT), is the observatory thus established in Sri Lanka with a mandate to work in the South Asian Region with its networking agencies, South Asian Regional Consortium Centre for Combating Tobacco (SARC-CCT).²⁴⁵

All countries which have ratified FCTC in SEAR except Timor-Leste have established a National Coordination Mechanism (NCM) and a FCTC focal point for tobacco control. Timor-Leste has only a focal point for tobacco control.²⁴⁶²⁴⁴

Industry Interference

Transnational Tobacco Companies (TTCs) have either manufacturing or distribution facilities in ten of eleven countries in SEAR. The industry has employed aggressive marketing techniques: digital and social media advertising, promotion, sponsorships, introducing flavoured products and CSR activities in the region to establish and sustain the trade.²⁴⁷

The following are a selection of themes and examples of tobacco industry interference in the region:

Delaying tobacco control measures through litigation

Litigation has been a commonly used strategy by the industry to block and delay tobacco control measures. In India, front groups and associations representing both cigarette and bidi companies filed lawsuits in 2007 against the effective implementation of graphic health warning labels (GHWL). GHWL was delayed until 2009.²⁴⁸ Similarly, Implementation of GHWL got delayed in Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka owing to industry interference. ^249223222216

Interference with tobacco control measures through front groups and trade associations

The International Tobacco Growers Association (ITGA) is a well-known global front group for the tobacco industry. Members in the region include the Tobacco Institute of India Tobacco Board.^250251252 In India and Bangladesh, implementation of GHWL has been delayed due to interference of  organisations including Tobacco Institute of India, All India Bidi Federation, Federation of Andhra Pradesh Tobacco Farmers and following a review petition by Bangladesh Cigarette Manufacturers’ Association respectively²²³²⁴⁸

The American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) has country chapters in the SEAR, namely, in Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Thailand.²⁵³ Senior managers from tobacco industries have served in AmCham leadership positions across the region.²⁵⁴ In Nepal, when the Ministry of Health and Population proposed to increase graphic warnings from 75% to 90%, the US Chamber of Commerce sent a letter to the deputy prime minister threatening to take legal action. ^255256257 Other than AmCham, some trade associations such as Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) and Federation of Bangladesh Chamber of Commerce & Industries (FBCCI) in Bangladesh have interfered with tobacco control measures. ²⁵⁸

*For more details on front groups and trade associations in the region and across the globe, see our pages on Front Groups, Trade Associations and the US Chamber of Commerce.

Linking to illicit trade in tobacco products

Studies based on industry documents have found that illicit trade is used by the tobacco industry as a strategy to enter into closed markets, undermine regulation and reap higher profits in many regions.^259260261

It is revealed how BAT used its distributors and international hotel chains for non-legal sales in South-East Asia/Indian sub-continent and evaded tax by smuggling billions of cigarettes in Asia.^{262 263}

*For more information on tobacco industry involvement in smuggling CSR, see our Tobacco Smuggling and BAT Involvement in Tobacco Smuggling pages.

Conducting Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities

Only Nepal, Maldives and Thailand have a complete ban on CSR activities by tobacco industry. The combination of not banning CSR activities and a lack of compliance with tobacco control policy in SEAR has given space for tobacco companies to conduct social responsibility activities in communities in order to build their public image and promote their brands. In Bangladesh, the Agriculture Secretary, Labour Secretary and Additional Secretary of the government’s Finance Division are members of BAT’s CSR Committee and participated in their activities.²⁶⁴ Similarly, government participation in CSR activities are reported from India and Sri Lanka ²⁶⁵²¹³

* For more information on tobacco industry and CSR, see our CSR Strategy page.

Funding research institutes and think tanks

The tobacco industry’s usage of research and policy forums to promote its own agenda is a well-known strategy used to influence policy making processes. The Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW) is a Phillip Morris International-funded organization. In SEAR, FSFW have funded institutes in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia and Maldives to conduct tobacco smoking related research beginning since 2018. ²⁶⁶²⁶⁷

*Read more about the Foundation and the projects it funds on our pages Foundation for a Smoke-Free World and Foundation for a Smoke-Free World Grantees.

Tobacco tactics resources

* Tobacco Smuggling

* CSR Strategy

* Foundation for a Smoke-Free World Grantees

* Think Tanks

* Trade Associations

* Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India

* US-ASEAN Business Council

*Sri Lanka- Country Profile

*UK Diplomats Lobbying for BAT: Bangladesh

References

The post South East Asian Region appeared first on TobaccoTactics.