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

Key Points

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

The Philippines has made some progress on tobacco control, especially since the introduction of the reforms known as the Sin Taxes in 2013. These both greatly simplified tax structures and significantly increased excise on tobacco and alcohol products, with a substantial share of the new revenue being channelled into universal healthcare.¹ Tobacco use prevalence, which stood at 29.7% in 2009, had fallen to 23.8% by 2015, and again to 19.5% by 2021.²³ However, rising incomes and subsequent smaller increases in tobacco taxes have made cigarettes more affordable, slowing further progress.⁴ Other challenges include an illicit tobacco market larger than the global average;⁵ the growing popularity of newer nicotine and tobacco products (particularly e-cigarettes) amongst young people;⁶ and ongoing tobacco industry presence on the inter-agency committee responsible for implementing tobacco control regulation in the country.⁷ Philippine domestic law continues to fall short of what is required by the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) across a number of areas.⁸

Tobacco Use in the Philippines

In 2022, the population of the Philippines was 115.6 million.⁹ According to the 2021 Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS), tobacco use prevalence amongst Filipino adults was 19.5%.³ Prevalence is much higher amongst males (nearly 35%) than females (just over 4%).³ Amongst adolescents aged between 13 and 15, 12.5% were using some form of tobacco in 2019.¹⁰ Again, prevalence for males (over 18%) is higher than for females (nearly 7%).¹⁰

In the 2021 GATS, just over 2% of Filipino adults reported current use of e-cigarettes (3.6% males; 0.5% females).³ However, use of e-cigarettes is considerably higher amongst youth. In the 2019 Global Youth Tobacco Survey, the corresponding figure was over 14% – higher than for conventional cigarettes (10%).¹⁰ More than 20% of boys aged between 13 and 15 reported using e-cigarettes, compared to 7.5% of girls.¹⁰ Smokeless tobacco use in the Philippines also appears to be greater amongst the young: in 2019, 3% of young people reported current smokeless tobacco use, compared to 1.5% of adults in 2021.¹⁰³

There were an estimated 95,600 deaths attributable to tobacco use in 2019, accounting for nearly 15% of all mortality in the Philippines that year.¹¹ According to a 2018 study, the economic burden of tobacco use in the Philippines in 2012 was just under PHP₱270 billion (US$15.1 billion according to the purchasing power parity exchange rate) – equivalent to 2.5% of national GDP. This includes both direct costs resulting from tobacco use (e.g., hospitalisations and medication) as well as indirect costs (reduced productivity due to disability and mortality). The same study found that diseases attributable to tobacco use accounted for nearly 5% of total health expenditure.¹²

Tobacco in the Philippines

Market share and leading brands

PMFTC Inc. (PMFTC) dominates the Philippine cigarette market, with a market share of around 61% in 2022.¹³ PMFTC is a joint venture between Philip Morris International (PMI) and the Fortune Tobacco Corporation, the tobacco business of local conglomerate LT Group.¹⁴

Japan Tobacco International (JTI) has a market share of 38%, thanks to its 2017 acquisition of local company Mighty Corporation.¹³¹⁵ Together, PMFTC and JTI account for virtually all of the licit cigarette sales in the country.¹³

PMI’s flagship brand Marlboro is the most popular brand of cigarette, with a share of nearly 33% in 2022. In second place is another PMFTC brand, Fortune International, with a share of nearly 17%. JTI’s Winston is third, with a market share of around 14%. All other brands have market shares of less than 10%.¹⁶

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

At nearly 23%, the Philippines has one of the largest market shares for menthol cigarettes in the world.¹⁷¹⁸ Menthol cigarettes have been marketed in the Philippines since at least the 1970s, including in campaigns targeting young women.¹⁹ In more recent times, the menthol market share has increased year on year since 2014. Similarly, though the market for flavour capsule cigarettes is much smaller than for menthol, it has also been growing steadily, with yearly increases since 2015.¹⁷ These products are often more attractive to youth and young adults than conventional cigarettes; menthol in particular is associated with increased smoking initiation.¹⁸

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

Tobacco farming and child labour

Since the early 1960s, tobacco production in the Philippines has remained roughly stable, at between 40,000 and 70,000 tonnes a year. However, between 1981 and 1993 it increased to between 74,000 and 118,000 tonnes. Conversely, between 2006 and 2009 it dipped below 40,000, to a low of 32,000 tonnes in 2008.²⁰

Figure 1: Tobacco production, 1961 to 2021.²⁰ Source: UN Food and Agriculture Organization/Our World in Data | CC BY

Research has demonstrated that tobacco growing is not a profitable enterprise for most farmers. Despite this, farmers continue to grow tobacco due to a belief in its profitability and the reliability of the tobacco market; its perceived resilience to bad weather compared to other crops; and, in particular, access to credit.²¹ Filipino farmers interviewed for a study published in 2019 stated that tobacco farming allowed them to take out loans to which they would not have had access had they been growing other crops. Loans were also used to cover non-agricultural expenses such as school fees, buying food, and paying off other loans.²¹

As part of the Sin Tax reforms, 15% of the revenue collected from tobacco taxes is allocated to tobacco-growing communities to promote economically viable alternatives.²² However, this remains a challenge. Farmers have cited lack of capital, difficulties accessing credit, an absence of technical support and a perceived lack of markets for other crops as reasons for not transitioning away from tobacco.²¹

Tobacco is also one of 13 commodities produced in the Philippines which feature on the U.S. Department of Labor’s 2022 List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor.²³ However, comprehensive and up-to-date information on child labour in Philippine tobacco farming is not available.

Tobacco and the economy

The Philippines is a net importer of raw tobacco, importing about US$243 million of raw tobacco in 2022, compared to exports of around US$184 million.²⁴²⁵ However, the country is a net exporter of cigarettes, with exports in the same year of over US$232 million, compared to about US$22.6 million in imports.²⁶²⁷

Illicit trade

Illicit tobacco was estimated to form around 16% of the market in the Philippines in 2018.⁵ Though this is above the likely global average of 11 to 12%, it has changed little since 1998.⁵²⁸ Though industry-funded studies found significant increases in the Philippine illicit tobacco trade following the introduction of the Sin Taxes in 2013, there is no independent evidence to support this.⁵

Tobacco and the environment

The WHO reports that curing in tobacco agriculture is a leading cause of demand for wood from native forests in the Philippines.²⁹

Farmers cultivating the native batek variety of tobacco in the southern Philippines have been documented as using several toxic agrochemicals to control pests. These include some listed as hazardous by the WHO, such as cypermethrin and methomyl.³⁰

It has been estimated that between 30 and 50 billion cigarette butts are littered every year in the Philippines – 12.5 million on the resort island of Boracay alone.³¹ Boracay was closed for six months in 2018 for environmental rehabilitation, resulting in billions in lost revenues for both government and the private sector.³¹³²

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

Roadmap to Tobacco Control

The Philippines ratified the WHO FCTC in 2005 and the treaty entered into force later that year.³³³⁴ WHO FCTC ratification was a catalyst for strengthening tobacco control laws in the country and reducing industry influence on policy.³⁴ However, the Philippines is not a party to the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products.³⁵

The Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003 (RA 9211) is the country’s main tobacco control law, covering areas such as smoking in public places; tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship; and sales restrictions. Subsequent legislation built on the 2003 law, introducing further regulation on issues such as designated smoking areas, advertising and the packaging and labelling of tobacco products.³⁶

However, given that RA 9211 was enacted just three months before the Philippines signed the WHO FCTC, Filipino tobacco control advocates have argued that the law was both timed and designed to pre-empt the Convention. This has resulted in tobacco control regulations which, nearly 20 years later, still fall some way short of WHO FCTC requirements.⁷³⁷ Designated smoking areas are still permitted in indoor offices and workplaces; restaurants; and cafés, pubs and bars. Restrictions on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship remain incomplete. And at 50.6% of the retail value of the most popular brand of cigarettes, tobacco taxation is significantly below the 75% threshold recommended by the WHO.⁸

The tobacco industry, led by the Philippine Tobacco Institute (PTI), has also used RA 9211 as justification for delaying the introduction of more WHO FCTC-compliant measures (such as graphic health warnings), arguing that such measures contravene existing Philippine law.³⁷³⁸

In August 2020, the joint House Committees on Trade and Industry and on Health approved a bill regulating manufacture, sale and use of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products (HTPs).³⁹ This bill reversed an earlier decision to raise the purchase age from 18 to 21 and restrict flavourings to tobacco and plain menthol. It also shifted responsibility for regulation of these products from the Food and Drug Administration to the Department of Trade and Industry. Eight days after the bill was approved, the first of four stores dedicated to PMI’s flagship HTP IQOS opened for business.⁴⁰

This bill was a precursor to the Vaporized Nicotine and Non-Nicotine Products Regulation Act, which eventually became law in July 2022. E-cigarettes in hundreds of different flavours reportedly flooded the Philippine market in the months following the passage of the law.⁴¹ Leading Filipino tobacco control advocates argue that the law has undermined recent gains in tobacco control.⁴⁰

For more details, please see the following websites:

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

Tobacco Industry Interference in the Philippines

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

Conflict of interest

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

“It is the policy of the State to protect the populace from hazardous products and promote the right to health and instill health consciousness among them. It is also the policy of the State, consistent with the Constitutional ideal to promote the general welfare, to safeguard the interests of the workers and other stakeholders in the tobacco industry.”⁴²

However, the first principle of the implementation guidelines for Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC states that “There is a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the tobacco industry’s interests and public health policy interests.”⁴³ Any requirement for “balance” can only therefore hinder progress on tobacco control and undermine public health.

This may be seen in the composition of the Interagency Committee on Tobacco (IAC-T), a multisectoral body established by RA 9211 responsible for overseeing implementation of the legislation.⁴² One seat on the IAC-T is reserved for the National Tobacco Administration (NTA) – a government agency that sits within the Department of Agriculture – which has a mandate to “Promote the balanced and integrated growth and development of the tobacco industry to help make agriculture a solid base for industrialization.”⁴⁴

Another seat is reserved for a representative of the tobacco industry, specifically the Philippine Tobacco Institute (PTI), an association whose members over the years have included PMFTC and JTI, among others.^42454647 The PTI has a long history of undermining tobacco control measures, including successfully managing to reduce the size of graphic health warnings on tobacco products, opposing tobacco tax reforms and litigating over tobacco control regulations against public bodies such as the City of Balanga and the Department of Health.⁴⁶⁴⁸⁴⁹

Tobacco control advocates have called repeatedly for the removal of the PTI from the IAC-T, citing conflict of interest and alleging that it uses its position to actively weaken tobacco control policies.⁴⁶⁵⁰⁵¹ The WHO has supported this position, stating that the composition of the Philippine IAC-T “is blatantly in conflict with WHO FCTC Article 5.3”, which requires parties to protect their public health policies against the commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry.⁵²

Corporate social responsibility

As of 2023, there was still no ban on tobacco industry corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the Philippines.⁸ The tobacco industry has taken advantage of this shortcoming to try to enhance its reputation and influence both policy makers and the general public.

From 2017 to 2021, PMI spent nearly US$38 million on CSR in the Philippines. Nearly US$31 million of this total was spent in 2020 and 2021 alone.⁵³ Much of this funding is channelled through the Jaime V. Ongpin Foundation (JVOFI), a development NGO and partner of “Embrace”, PMFTC’s CSR programme.⁵³⁵⁴ During 2020, in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, JVOFI distributed ambulances, ventilators, PCR machines for COVID-19 testing, personal protective equipment, food supplies and rapid test kits throughout the country.⁵⁴

PMI was far from the only tobacco industry player carrying out this kind of work: by mid-April 2020, the LT Group – PMI’s partner in joint venture PMFTC – had spent PHP₱200 million (around US$4 million) on COVID-19 assistance.⁵⁴ The LT Group implements such initiatives in the Philippines via its CSR arm, the Tan Yan Kee Foundation.⁵⁵ Also in April 2020, Japan Tobacco International (JTI) donated 20,000 face masks to hospitals in the province of Batangas, where its manufacturing facilities are located.⁵⁴

An investigation published by the media and business intelligence organisation Eco-Business in 2021 revealed that a number of congressional representatives were involved in the distribution of COVID-19 relief donated by the tobacco industry and its associates.⁴⁰ These donations also coincided with several debates in Congress which addressed regulation for newer nicotine and tobacco products (see section “Roadmap to Tobacco Control”).⁴⁰³⁷

Both PMI and JTI also lobbied the Philippine Ministry of Finance for permission to continue their operations as normal during lockdown, though cigarettes were not considered to be an essential item.⁵⁴ In an April 2020 press release, JTI argued that lockdown restrictions were forcing smokers to buy illicit tobacco; were resulting in lower tax revenues for government; and were harming retailers, especially small and family-run businesses.⁵⁶ Restrictions on the transport and delivery of tobacco products were subsequently lifted.⁵⁷

This shows how industry arguments around the illicit trade were accepted by Filipino policy makers, allowing tobacco companies to operate even during an outbreak of a lethal respiratory disease to which smokers are more vulnerable.⁵⁸

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

Unnecessary interaction with high level officials

Hailing from the Ilocos region, where tobacco is a major cash crop, President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. has met with PMI at least twice since becoming president in June 2022.⁴¹⁵⁹ The most recent of these meetings was a lunch he and First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos hosted for PMI executives – including CEO Jacek Olczak – at the Malacañang Palace in November 2022, the first time a company CEO has been received at the Philippine presidential palace. Also present were PMFTC president Denis Gorkun and LT Group CEO Lucio Tan III.⁴¹

PMFTC’s director for global communications stated that the aim of the meeting was to outline the company’s plan “to expand our economic footprint in the Philippines.”⁴¹ PMI is reportedly investing US$150 million in the expansion of a manufacturing plant in Tanauan, Batangas. The new wing of the factory is to be used for the production of BLENDS, tobacco sticks used exclusively in PMI’s BONDS, a more affordable version of its flagship HTP IQOS.⁴¹

In 2012, the then Senator Marcos was photographed during a Senate debate on the Sin Taxes speaking to a lawyer representing PMFTC.⁶⁰⁶¹

Relevant Links

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

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco in LMICs

References

The post Philippines Country Profile appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

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

Key Points

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

Mexico significantly reduced smoking prevalence between 2002-2009, in the years around ratification of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC).⁶²⁶³⁶⁴ 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.⁶⁴⁶⁵ 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.⁶⁶ Mexico now has some of the most comprehensive tobacco control regulation in the world.⁶⁶⁶⁷

Tobacco Use in Mexico

In 2022, the population of Mexico was over 127.5 million.⁶⁸ 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.⁶⁹

There were an estimated 48,400 deaths attributable to smoking in 2019, accounting for 6.6% of all mortality in Mexico that year.⁷⁰ 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.⁷¹

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”).⁷²⁷³ 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).⁶⁹ 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.⁷⁴

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.⁷⁵ 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%.¹³

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%.⁷⁶

• 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 2012.⁷⁷ 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.⁶⁴⁷⁸ Research has shown that flavour capsules increase the appeal of cigarettes and stimulate a desire to try them, particularly amongst young people.⁷⁸⁷⁹

• 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 2020.⁸⁰ 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.⁸¹

• 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.⁸²⁸³

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.⁸⁴ 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.⁸⁵ However, the Comtrade figure for cigarette exports in 2020 is much lower.⁸⁶ 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.⁸⁴ Customs data also indicates these are the main export destinations for cigarettes manufactured in Mexico.⁸⁵

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 2018.⁸⁴

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.⁸⁷ 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.⁸⁸⁸⁹ 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%.⁸⁸

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.⁹⁰

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.⁹¹

• 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 2004.⁶³ However, it has not joined the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products.⁹²

In 2008, The General Law on Tobacco Control came into force, containing most of the provisions established in the WHO FCTC.⁹³ 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.⁹⁴ 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.⁹⁵⁹⁶

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.⁶⁶ 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.⁶⁷⁹⁷⁹⁸ With these two measures, Mexico made important progress towards full compliance with the WHO FCTC.⁶⁶

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.^99100101 Regulators have applied this law to e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products (HTPs), but it has been contested by both retailers and tobacco companies.⁷²⁹⁹ In 2020, the government banned imports of e-cigarettes and HTPs, bringing customs law into line with existing health regulations.¹⁰² 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.¹⁰³¹⁰⁴

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.⁹⁹¹⁰⁵

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.¹⁰⁶ In 2021, Philip Morris International (PMI) listed COPARMEX as one of the business and trade organisations in which it held a leadership role.¹⁰⁷

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.⁹⁷ 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.¹⁰⁸

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.¹⁰⁹ In 2023, the president of CONAINTA warned that there would be a “storm” of legal appeals against the updated tobacco control law.¹¹⁰

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.¹¹¹

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.¹¹²¹¹³ 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.¹¹²

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.⁹⁴ 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.”¹¹²

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.¹¹⁴ 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.¹¹²

• 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.¹¹⁵ Motorsport sponsorship is a longstanding and well-documented promotional strategy aimed at young people, particularly boys and young men.¹¹⁶

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.¹¹²¹¹⁷ 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.¹¹²¹¹⁸ Eco Filter states that it does not promote PMI’s products or encourage nicotine consumption amongst young people.¹¹²

In 2021, Eco Filter opened a new factory in Guadalajara, Jalisco, with support from PMM.¹¹⁷¹¹⁹ It will process waste from PMM’s manufacturing facility near Guadalajara, as well as cigarette butts from the street.¹²⁰¹²¹

• 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.¹²² 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.¹²³ BAT also provided food supplies in Guadalupe, Nuevo León.¹²⁴

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.¹²⁵¹²⁶

• 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.

On 28 April 2022 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced proposed standards for banning menthol as a characterising flavour in cigarettes and cigars with any characterising flavour other than tobacco.¹²⁷¹²⁸ The US had previously banned characterising flavours, except menthol in cigarettes in 2009 (see below).

The rules would come into effect one year after the final publication of the regulations (not yet provided).¹²⁹¹³⁰ This time period is similar to the EU ban which the tobacco industry exploited whereas the Canadian ban was implemented within six months.¹³¹

The proposed standards would also ban characterising flavours in components or parts of cigarettes and cigars (filters, filter wrapper, paper, filter tips, drops, capsules, flavour cards) whether or not they were sold separately.¹²⁹ This was not the case with the EU ban, an omission which provided a loophole for the industry to exploit.

The FDA stated that the ban would apply to products being manufactured, distributed or sold in the US.¹²⁸¹²⁹ It emphasised that enforcement would be at the company level (manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, importers and retailers) rather than at individual (smoker) level.¹²⁸¹²⁹ It would not restrict flavoured products intended for export.  The FDA suggested that replacing existing local bans with a nationwide ban would reduce opportunities for illicit trade.¹²⁹

Menthol cigarettes and tobacco products are yet to be banned US-wide. This is despite the Tobacco Control Act of 2009 making the issue of menthol in cigarettes an FDA priority, an FDA report detailing menthol’s harms in 2011, and efforts by health organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to push the FDA to ban menthol cigarettes.¹³²

Flavour and Menthol Bans in Place in the US

Cigarette flavours, excluding menthol, were banned US-wide in 2009 as part of the Tobacco Control Act.  At this time menthol represented nearly one third (27%) of the cigarette market.¹³³¹³⁴ By 2018, 36% of cigarettes sold in the US were menthol, and less than 1% of the US population lived in areas where menthol cigarettes were banned.¹³⁴¹³⁵

In 2020, Massachusetts was the first state to pass state-wide legislation banning all flavoured tobacco products, including menthol. Later the same year California passed a similar law, although some cigars and pipe tobacco were exempt.¹³⁶ There are multiple other local bans and restrictions in place across the country – for more information see the factsheet produced by the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids.¹³⁷

Industry Opposition to Menthol Bans in the US

The US continues to be an important market for tobacco companies’ menthol brands. In its 2018 Annual Report, BAT said that after it acquired US tobacco company RJ Reynolds in 2017:

“The sales of Newport, together with the other menthol brands of the Group’s operating subsidiaries, represent a significant portion of the Group’s total net sales”.¹³⁸

In the same report BAT repeatedly noted that any future flavour bans would risk having a negative impact on its business.¹³⁸ A proposed federal (nationwide) ban in 2016 led to a drop in the value of tobacco companies’ shares, although the ban was not implemented.¹³⁹¹⁴⁰

The tobacco industry claimed that stopping convenience stores selling menthol cigarettes as planned in Minnesota (by restricting their sale to adult only tobacco and stores selling alcohol) would lead to catastrophic financial and job losses.  However independent research suggested losses would be six times smaller: tobacco does not drive use of convenience stores as much as the tobacco industry claims.¹⁴¹

Arguments against a USA-wide ban from the tobacco industry, included that there was not enough scientific evidence to support the ban, because, they claimed, menthol does not increase the disease risk, or markers for dependence or addiction.¹²⁹¹⁴² Some argued there should be an exemption for premium cigars.¹³⁰

In April 2021, the FDA announced that it was “working towards” a full menthol and flavour ban in cigarettes and cigars, stating that:

“This decision is based on clear science and evidence establishing the addictiveness and harm of these products and builds on important, previous actions that banned other flavored cigarettes in 2009.”¹⁴³

Industry Lobbying and Interference in US Menthol Bans

Tobacco companies have extensively lobbied against legislation, both nationally and in individual states, in order to oppose or delay the implementation of regulations on menthol and flavour.

The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids (CTFK) has described tobacco companies repeated attempts to block or delay legislation by filing lawsuits and funding related campaigns, including in San Francisco in 2017, and California in 2019 and 2020.¹⁴⁴¹⁴⁵ This is a well-documented industry strategy.

Tobacco companies have targeted politicians and law makers with direct financial contributions, and funded third party organisations to lobby on their behalf.^{144145146147148} An investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) revealed how consultants working for Reynolds American did not always declare their links to industry.¹⁴⁵

In September 2020, the Los Angeles Times reported that the California Coalition for Fairness had submitted a request for a referendum to overturn the Californian ban.¹⁴⁹ The organisation did not provide details of its members, but the newspaper noted that ban was proposed by Attorney Aaron Agenbroad who has previously worked for RJ Reynolds (now BAT) and Jaime Rojas, a spokesman for a tobacco industry campaign to overturn a ban on flavoured tobacco in San Francisco.¹⁴⁹ RJ Reynolds also ran a television ad campaign against the ban.¹⁴⁹

Tobacco companies have also given financial support to organisations and individuals working within the Black community.¹⁴⁴ Some have gone onto to make claims of unexpected impacts of menthol bans on Black people, including criminalisation and harm to community relations.¹⁴⁴ The US Public Health Law Centre has rebutted some of this industry misinformation around this issue.¹⁵⁰

In June 2020, two US NGOs (African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council and Action on Smoking and Health) filed a lawsuit against the FDA to try to force it to introduce a ban in order to reduce health inequalities, noting that 85% of African American smokers smoke menthol cigarettes.¹⁵¹¹⁵² See also the STOP statement on this legal action and the Truth Initiative factsheet

The same figure has been used by the tobacco industry to lobby against the ban, arguing that it is discriminatory: “giving special treatment to the rich, and singling out communities of color”.¹⁵³ In September 2020, the American Medical Association (AMA) joined the lawsuit as co-plaintiffs.¹⁵⁴ The president of the AMA said that:

“For generations, tobacco companies have promoted menthol cigarettes to the African American community, preying especially on African American youth… This action is long, long overdue”.¹⁵⁴¹⁵⁵

Marketing of Menthol to the Black Community

There is a long history of targeted marketing of menthol by the tobacco industry. In the 1960s starter packs and discounts were distributed in newspapers and magazines popular in Black communities. Black models and famous Black sports people and entertainers have appeared on adverts.  Images relating to Black Power and Black History month have been used in marketing, and tobacco companies have made donations to music festivals. They have also given financial donations to  political and community organisations and leaders.¹⁵⁶¹⁵⁷

Marketing of flavoured tobacco products was still disproportionately found in Black neighbourhoods in Washington in 2018/19, while other tobacco advertising was not.¹⁵⁸¹⁵⁹

The BIJ investigation report stated that RAI consultants had “exploited concerns about police brutality against Black citizens”.¹⁴⁵¹⁶⁰

• See also the Long Read on Racism and the Tobacco Industry

Relevant Links

Food and Drug Administration, Tobacco Product Standard for Menthol in Cigarettes (United States, 5 April 2022)

Public Health Law Center: Menthol and Other Flavoured Products, PHLC website (United States), including FDA timeline of key events

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health Summary of Scientific Evidence: Flavored Tobacco Products, Including Menthol February (United States, 2021)

Truth Initiative, Menthol: Facts, stats and regulations (United States, April 2022)

TobaccoTactics Resources

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

References

The post Flavoured and Menthol Tobacco in the US 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).¹⁶¹¹⁶²

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,¹⁶³¹⁶⁴ and they are now available in other countries.¹⁶⁵¹⁶⁶

Flavoured tobacco is used in waterpipe, a device which originated in middle-eastern countries and is increasingly popular elsewhere, including among young people.¹⁶⁷

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.¹⁶⁸ 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).¹⁶⁹ 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.⁶⁷

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.¹⁶⁸¹⁷⁰  However, apart from rare exceptions the tobacco industry contributes little overall to the balance of payments.¹⁷¹¹⁷²

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.¹⁷³  The report points to likely opposition from the tobacco industry in countries or regions with an established menthol market.¹⁷³ 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.”¹⁷³

Research and data

As of 2021, when TCRG researchers conducted a review of evidence on menthol/flavour in LMICs,¹⁷⁴ 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.”¹⁷³

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.¹⁷⁵

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.¹⁷⁶

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.¹⁷⁶

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.¹⁷⁴ 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.¹⁷⁷ Most were mint and menthol flavour but with others the flavour was unclear from the product name.¹⁷⁷

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.¹⁷⁸

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.¹⁷⁴

Tobacco companies also use symbols on cigarette sticks to indicate that they contain capsules.¹⁷⁹ 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.¹⁷⁹

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 2017.¹⁷⁴ 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.¹⁷⁴

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.)¹⁷⁴

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”.¹⁸⁰

Zambia

JTI owned brand Sweet Menthol is the third most popular cigarette in Zambia.  It is cheap and is usually sold as single sticks.¹⁸¹  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.¹⁸²

ITC survey data showed a high prevalence of menthol smokers in Zambia, with 43% of smokers choosing the product.¹⁸³ 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.¹⁸³

Kenya

ITC survey data from Kenya also suggests a high prevalence of menthol smokers.¹⁸³¹⁸⁴ 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).¹⁷⁴  More women smoke menthol than men in Kenya, and two thirds of smokers believed that menthol is less harmful than other cigarettes.¹⁸³¹⁸⁴

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.¹⁶⁸ Flavoured products are not made in Ethiopia and more collaboration with customs is needed to prevent illicit importation.¹⁶⁸ There is also a lack of awareness that the ban includes waterpipe products.¹⁷³

Since 2017, two years after the ban was enacted, JTI has owned 70%  the state owned tobacco company, NTE.¹⁸⁵

Latin America

Menthol cigarettes are popular in Latin America, and increasingly so in some countries.¹⁷⁴ 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.¹⁷⁴

Use of flavour capsule cigarettes is particularly high in Chile and Mexico.¹⁸⁶  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.¹⁸⁷

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.⁶⁷ (Similar findings were reported in Uruguay, a high income country, immediately before the implementation of plain pack regulations in 2020.)¹⁸⁸

These products were frequently displayed near the point of sale, or confectionary. Some stores also had advertisements and price promotions.⁶⁷ Unconventional flavour descriptors such as “fusion blast” and “ruby ice” were very common.¹⁸⁹

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.¹⁹⁰ 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.¹⁹⁰

ITC survey data from the same period suggested that 8% of smokers with a regular cigarette brand smoked menthol.¹⁹¹ 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.¹⁹¹

An online sample of women aged 16- 26 (smokers and non-smokers) preferred packs with flavour descriptors.¹⁹²

• 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.¹⁷³

• 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.¹⁹³¹⁹⁴ 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.¹⁹⁵

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.¹⁹⁶

Guatemala

A study of convenience store retailers in Guatemala found that all sold flavoured tobacco products.¹⁹⁷

The majority (88%) of indoor tobacco advertisements in Guatemala were found to be for capsule cigarettes.¹⁹⁷

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.¹⁷⁴  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.¹⁹⁸

Philippines

Menthol has been advertised to appeal to young women in the Philippines since the 1970s with menthol brands common for many decades.¹⁹⁹ PMI, JTI, BAT and Korea Tobacco & Ginseng (KT&G) all sell flavoured capsule cigarettes in the Philippines.²⁰⁰

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,²⁰⁰ and packs were rated as more attractive by young adults.²⁰¹

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.²⁰¹  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.²⁰² An internal document from 1993 reveals how the company was developing sweet and fruit flavours for the Malaysian market. ²⁰²²⁰³ 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.²⁰⁴

In 2013, vanilla, mint and fruit flavoured cigarettes were on sale, and strawberry cigarette packs with pink packaging were documented.²⁰⁵

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.²⁰⁶

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 2004.²⁰⁷  In 2009 PMI and BAT acquired two domestic manufacturers which allowed them access to the kretek market.²⁰⁸ 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.²⁰⁸

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.²⁰⁹

Eastern Mediterranean

There is high market share growth in in Pakistan and Egypt .¹⁷⁴

• 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.¹⁷⁴

Other LMICs in the region with high market share growth are Ukraine, Bosnia Herzegovina, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.¹⁷⁴

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

Regulation of flavours that make smoking more palatable is recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (FCTC).¹⁷³¹³⁵ This page details regulation and interference in the EU in the pre and post the 2020 menthol ban.

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

Background

Regulation and Interference on Flavour in the EU and UK

An EU-wide ban on the sale of flavoured cigarettes was introduced in May 2016, including menthol, under the 2014 revised European Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), with a May 2016 deadline for EU countries to transpose the TPD into national law.²¹⁰ While retailers were allowed a year to sell existing stocks of other flavours, the phase-out period for menthol was extended for a further three years, and came into force across the EU in May 2020.²¹¹

Weaknesses of the EU menthol ban which could be exploited by industry included:^212213214

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

Menthol market share in Europe

Prior to the 2020 ban, Euromonitor analysis estimated the whole European menthol market to be worth around EU€9.7 billion (US$11 billion, nearly UK£8.5 billion).²¹⁵  The relative shares of menthol flavoured cigarettes versus those with capsules (menthol and other flavours) varied; while the market share for capsules exceeded the share for menthol flavoured tobacco in half of EU countries, in others the capsule share was very low or non-existent.¹³³ Menthol and capsule market share has tended to be higher for European countries outside the EU.¹³³

The International Tobacco Control (ITC) survey in 2016 (n=10,000 adult smokers, in 8 European countries) found that the countries with the highest menthol use were England (over 12% of smokers) and Poland (10%); the lowest levels were observed in Germany and Spain (Figure 1).²¹⁶

Figure 1: Prevalence of flavour of cigarettes smoked (usual brand of choice) in 2016 (%).(Source: EUREST-PLUS ITC Europe Surveys)²¹⁶

The ITC figures are supported by 2018 Euromonitor data, which show that the combined market share of menthol and capsules was generally higher in northern European countries, with the highest in Poland, at over 25%, followed by the UK, at over 20% .²¹⁷

The UK market

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

The UK cigarette market, is dominated by two tobacco companies, Imperial Tobacco (Imperial Brands) and Japan Tobacco International (JTI).²¹⁸ According to Euromonitor, in 2019, Imperial had a 44% share of the total cigarette market and JTI 37%, by retail volume. Although it is also based in the UK, British American Tobacco (BAT)’s share was much smaller, at just over 9%. Philip Morris International (PMI) had under 8%, mainly due to its Marlboro brand.²¹⁹

Prior to the ban, menthol cigarettes formed an estimated 21% of the UK market.¹³³ 2018 figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) indicate that there were 7.2 million smokers in the UK; based on the 2016 ITC survey data (detailed above) that would equate to nearly 900,000 smokers who usually smoke menthol cigarettes. According to market research survey based data, the figure was much higher in 2019, nearly 1.6 million in Great Britain,²²⁰

Six billion menthol cigarettes were sold in the UK in 2018.²²¹ According to the ITC survey, 17.5% of UK smokers said that they intended to quit after the ban (an average of 16% of smokers in the EU said the same).²¹⁶ As this could reduce annual sales by around 1 billion sticks (3% of the total UK cigarette market), tobacco companies had a clear interest in circumventing the ban and maintaining market share, particularly Imperial and Japan Tobacco International (JTI) (having over 80% of the total cigarette market between them).

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

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

Tobacco Companies Activities to Circumvent and Undermine the Menthol Ban

Lobbying and delay: four year phase-out for menthol

After protests against the TPD from the tobacco industry, and an (ultimately unsuccessful) legal challenge by Poland at the European Court of Justice, supported by Romania, implementation of the ban on menthol cigarettes was postponed to 2020.²²²²²³ This was agreed as a four-year transitional “phase-out” period for all flavoured products with more than a 3% market share in the EU, such as menthol.²²⁴ (There was a similar ‘sell-through period’, a period when soon to be non-compliant stock can be sold off, when plain, or standardised, packaging was introduced into the UK in 2016, although only for one year).²²⁵  Romania asked for the ban to be repealed shortly after the TPD was agreed, using evidence from PMI as justification.  JTI officials in Romania were making the same arguments at the time.²²⁶

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

“Member States shall prohibit the placing on the market of… cigarettes and roll your own tobacco… products with a characterising flavour… including… menthol [or those] containing flavourings in any of their components such as filters, papers, packages, capsules or any technical features allowing modification of the smell or taste of the tobacco products concerned…  However, products with characterising flavour with a higher sales volume should be phased out over an extended time period to allow consumers adequate time to switch to other products… In the case of tobacco products with a characterising flavour whose Union-wide sales volumes represent 3 % or more in a particular product category, the provisions of this Article shall apply from 20 May 2020… The Member States and the Commission may charge proportionate fees to manufacturers and importers of tobacco products for assessing [compliance].” ²¹⁰

Some member states, such as Germany and Finland, have gone beyond these requirements and prohibit menthol as an additive.²¹⁴ Hungary has also announced it has plans to ban cigarettes that contain any amount of menthol.²²⁷

In early May 2020, tobacco companies were reported to be lobbying for further postponement of the ban in the EU.²²⁸²²⁹ Tobacco industry front group Forest EU were also reported to be lobbying against the ban.²²⁹ In January 2019 it had described the ban as “unwarranted attack on consumer choice that will do little to deter children from smoking”.²³⁰ These attempts were not successful. Romania delayed implementing the ban for six weeks in 2020, without informing the EU.²²⁶

Promotion of menthol products through the derogation period

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

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

During this period the tobacco industry promoted new menthol products to UK retailers through the retail trade press. It appears that the tobacco industry was prolonging sales in the ‘phase out’ period in these countries rather than using the period for a phase out of flavours, thus calling into question the necessity of a long derogation (delay to implementation).^231232233

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

Despite being given four extra years by the EUTPD to get ready for the menthol ban, UK retailer group the Association of Convenience Stores stated, in advice to its members, that there was “no sell-through period”.²³⁴²³² Tobacco companies stated that they had, or were planning, ‘buy-back’ schemes, to encourage retailers to sell menthol cigarettes right up to the ban.²³²  However, tobacco companies were slow to inform UK retailers of their plans.

PMI’s UK affiliate Philip Morris Ltd (PML) supplied details of its scheme via a dedicated website, where it promoted PMI’s heated tobacco product (HTP) IQOS as an alternative product, and which required retailer registration (see below).²³⁵²³⁶ Further details were provided as late as the end of April 2020.^232236237 BAT said in November 2019 that it would swap small amounts of menthol stock after the ban came into force. However, when approached by trade publication Better Retailing in April, less than a month before the ban, BAT refused to give further details.²³⁷

Imperial Tobacco also gave no indication whether or how it would take back excess menthol products, other than that it would “be dealt with on an individual basis”.²³⁷ It was reported that some retailers had advised others to remove from their product lists those products supplied by companies which would not disclose their plans. Otherwise, they risked being left holding stock which they would not be able to legally sell after 20 May.²³⁷

In August 2021, fourteen months after the ban, some retailers were still waiting for the buyback and complaining of a lack of response from attempts to contact tobacco companies. ²³⁸²³⁹

Tobacco companies issued warnings of the risks of the ban leading to illicit trade. JTI, which said it would be buying back excess menthol stock, warned retailers that there was a risk of illicit trade in menthol cigarettes, claiming that “counterfeit menthol products [had been] seized in the UK already”.²³⁷²⁴⁰ However, Better Retailing stated that this was contrary to information from other tobacco companies earlier in the year.²⁴⁰ JTI’s anti illicit trade operations manager said that retailers should warn their customers not to buy fake products, using common tobacco industry arguments around product quality and safety.²⁴⁰

For more information see Illicit Tobacco Trade.

Product innovation & promotion of newer products

While the ban applied to cigarettes and roll your own tobacco, other tobacco products were exempt. Menthol accessories were only included in the ban if they were sold within the packaging of cigarettes or roll your own tobacco.²³¹²³⁴

Tobacco companies used product innovation as a way to circumvent the menthol ban and maintain a market for their menthol products, claiming that they were doing so to meet the needs of consumers.^215241242

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

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

CNTC identified Germany, France, Belgium, Spain and the UK as offering the largest variety of these alternatives in the EU.²¹⁷ Methods varied by company: Imperial and JTI developed new products; PMI used it as an opportunity to promote its own alternatives. All created ‘menthol ban’ websites or web pages (see below).

New menthol accessories

Tobacco accessories sold separately are not covered by the current TPD regulations, although they can still impart a menthol flavour. The tobacco industry has launched various new accessories since the TPD implementation in 2016, many relating to filters.²³¹²⁴³ Imperial launched menthol roll your own (RYO) filter tips in mid-2017.²⁴⁴ In January 2019, it launched a filter tip with a capsule, called “Polar Blast”.²⁴⁵

It originally appeared that new filter tips might be an attempt to encourage menthol cigarette smokers to switch to RYO rather than quit. However, IMB introduced a product which enabled it to circumvent the EU ban on pre-inserted flavour capsules in factory made cigarettes. In January 2019, Imperial launched the L&B Blue Bright Air Filter with a recess in the filter and a firm filter structure.²⁴⁶ Although the launch announcement did not mention it, this filter structure allows a menthol filter tip – designed for RYO – to be inserted.²⁴⁷

Independent company Republic Technologies, which specialises in RYO accessories, also introduced a new menthol filter tip under its Swan brand.²⁴⁸ (Republic Technologies bought Swedish Match UK in 2008, but does not sell tobacco).²⁴⁹ These have been advertised with Imperial’s L&B Blue Bright Air Filter cigarettes.²⁴⁷

Packets of flavour capsules are now being advertised to buy separately to be poked into the cigarette filter before combustion in websites targeted at Poland.²⁵⁰

Figure 3: Imperial’s Rizla menthol “infusion” cards (source: conveniencestore.co.uk)²⁵¹

Strips of cardboard, known as flavour cards, add flavour to cigarettes when they are added to a pack.  A Finnish firm ‘Frizc’ sells menthol, lime, liquorice and raspberry flavoured cards in Estonia.²⁵²  The company website states that the packs (which appeared on the market in May 2020) can be used to flavour tea, coffee and oatflakes but do not mention tobacco. However, they are sized exactly for a cigarette pack and retailers can recommend them to smokers.²⁵²

In January 2020, the launch of Imperial’s “Flavour Infusion cards” in two flavours: “menthol chill” and “fresh mint” was announced (Figure 3).²⁵³ These cards impart a menthol flavour into factory made cigarettes or RYO tobacco if inserted into product packs.²⁵⁴  Imperial stated it was selling 900,000 packs of flavour cards a week by mid-2021.²⁵⁵

The point of sale display ban exempts tobacco accessories (including branding) in England and Wales but in Scotland accessories must be hidden like other tobacco products.²⁵⁶ Imperial have made use of the exemption in England and Wales to recommend that flavour infusion cards are promoted in point of sale displays.²⁵⁴²⁵⁷ Imperial reported selling 900,000 a week in July 2021.²⁵⁸ Swan, an accessories manufacturer had also launched flavour cards by mid-2021.²⁵⁸ In July 2021, the UK tobacco accessories market was reported to be worth UK£314 million.²⁵⁸

Menthol and other flavour sprays, stones and drops have been developed for soaking filters or cards, and are on sale in the EU,²¹⁷²⁵⁹ and the UK ²⁶⁰²⁶¹

Exploiting the term ‘characterising flavours’

The TPD regulations state that:²¹⁰

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

In November 2020, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, working with the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) reported uncertainty and confusion in multiple European countries as to the level of menthol flavouring present in cigarettes that could be considered to be characterising.²²⁷²⁶² They presented evidence that the term ‘characterising’ was used after lobbying from the tobacco industry.²²⁷ Public health NGO Comité National Contre le Tabagisme (CNTC) accuses tobacco companies of exploiting the ambiguity around the definition of the term ‘characterising’.²¹⁷

Determining whether a product has a characterising flavour is difficult. The EU took nearly five years to put a methodology in place; a combination of sensory panels and chemical analyses.²¹⁴²⁶² Slow development of testing, and a lack of firm action, has left a regulatory vacuum for the tobacco industry to exploit. JTI launched products which, when challenged, it claimed did not have a characterising flavour.²⁶² The company later changed direction, saying it was able to sell these products because there was no way at the time to test for a characterising flavour.²⁶² Other tobacco companies and health campaigners have claimed that these new products do have flavours that would be characterising.²⁶³ The Direction Générale de la Santé (DGS, the French ministry of health) was reported to be investigating over 300 products suspected of containing prohibited flavours.²¹⁷ Sweden referred 21 JTI cigarette varieties to the European Commission to test for characterising flavour in June 2020.  In late 2021, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (the successor to Public Health England) was reported to be testing products from several manufacturers.²⁶²

UK

In the UK products began to be released at an early stage. In late March 2020, JTI promoted new ‘dual’ cigarette products with new blends, filters and two sections of 10 cigarettes, to appeal to menthol smokers looking for new products.²⁶⁴²⁶⁵ However it was unclear what these new ‘blends’ entailed.

JTI also developed a range of “Green” and “Blue” product variations under the same brand names as their menthol cigarettes.²⁶⁶ The Sun newspaper reported that these products tasted and smelled like menthol, without containing the substance.²⁶⁶ Scottish Local Retailer published a dedicated  publication for UK retailers in conjunction in conjunction with JTI, called “Making A Mint”, which detailed alternative products including cigarettes made with “distinctive blends” of tobacco but did not mention helping smokers quit; it did recommend selling cigarettes at low prices.(Figure 4 )²⁶⁷ These new cigarettes were promoted under the logo “menthol reimagined”, alongside  JTI’s newer nicotine and tobacco products (so called “Next Generation Products”).²⁶⁷ (Imperial Tobacco promoted its e-cigarette blu in this publication.²⁶⁷ See below for more on tobacco companies promoting newer products as menthol alternatives). JTI also ran an online training course for retailers, which featured their new cigarettes as direct replacements for existing menthol brands.²⁶⁶

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

A week before the May ban, Imperial Tobacco announced the launch of new “smooth” variants of their non-menthol brands, called “Bright” and “Green Filter”. The company said this was to “help retailers cater for their menthol and crushball customers when the ban comes into effect, by offering them new innovations from their brands of choice”.²⁶⁸ Imperial also said its research showed that 82% of menthol and crushball smokers would continue to smoke their usual cigarette brand despite reduced levels of menthol, and 70% percent were “expected to switch to a smooth or full flavour variant”.²⁶⁸

Better Retailing reported that, according to information from UK wholesalers, tobacco companies had between them created 29 new product lines to replace menthol products due to be banned, which was confusing for customers.²⁶⁹ While colour and branding can be used to promote products to retailers, cigarettes can only be sold in plain packs, and so the only noticeable difference for the customer with these new products would be a slight change of brand variant name.

Ireland

The Irish Times reported that JTI were selling a “green” version of their Silk Cut cigarette brand. JTI argued that this product complied with the ban, even though the company admitted that it used menthol flavouring in its manufacture.²⁷⁰ According to the newspaper, JTI stated that they: “conduct robust internal testing processes to determine that the use of flavourings in our products does not produce a clearly noticeable smell or taste other than one of tobacco.”²⁷⁰ BAT accused JTI of using the same tactic in France, with new versions of its Camel and Winston brands, to which JTI issued a similar denial.²⁷¹

The Irish Times also reported that PML was advertising a new cigarette in the retail press. Called “Marlboro Bright“, it was described by PMI as a “the Marlboro menthol blend – without methylation”.²⁷⁰²⁷² PMI later said that this advertisement was a “mistake” and it should have used the phrase “without menthol” rather than “methylation”.²⁷² The company insisted that it had “delisted all menthol cigarettes in the UK and Ireland – all of our cigarettes remaining on the market, including our latest variant Marlboro Bright, do not have any menthol in them and are in full compliance with the law”.²⁷³

BAT also developed new variations under its Pall Mall, Vogue and Rothmans brands which included new blends and changes to filters “providing meaningful differentiation for adult smokers who previously preferred menthol.”^274275276 A representative of BAT (P.J.Carroll) in Ireland said that it was “not launching any cigarette brands or accessories with menthol-type properties”.²⁷⁰

These attempts to adapt products were criticised by the Irish government with a spokesperson stating that the Health Minister believed the issue “should be dealt with at EU level”.²⁷⁰

Similar tactics from BAT, PMI and JTI have been noted in the following EU member states: France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Denmark and Ireland ²¹⁷, Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary,  Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden ²⁶³

In 2020, JTI’s brands in France,²¹⁷ and Ireland ²⁷⁷ had high sales, suggesting this has been a successful strategy for the tobacco industry.

New ‘cig-alike’ cigarillos

The only part of standardised packs legislation applicable to cigars and cigarillos was a larger health warning; legislation on branding, minimum pack size, and flavourings does not apply. Tobacco companies developed new product variations and promoted these products in the retail press.²³¹ From 2020, JTI and/or Landwyck cigarette-like cigarillos were launched in France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Denmark, Ireland, Romania, Netherlands, Poland and the UK.²¹⁷

Figure 5: JTI’s Sterling Dual menthol cigarillo (Source: talkingretail.com)²⁷⁸

Japan Tobacco International 

Stirling Dual Capsules are cigarette-like cigarillos with mentholated tobacco launched in the UK by JTI in early 2020 (figure 5).²⁷⁸ The product contains  a capsule filter which releases a peppermint flavour on crushing.²⁷⁹ Stirling is one of JTI’s most popular cigarette brands, which already included capsule options.  The cigarillos were legally allowed to be sold in 10 packs making them  approximately half the price of the cheapest cigarette packs on the UK market. Marketing to retailers framed them as an option to circumvent the menthol ban.²²⁵²⁴¹ Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) described this as a “cynical” move on the part of JTI, saying that its new cigarillo was essentially “a cigarette wrapped in tobacco leaf”.²⁴² JTI, quoted in retail magazine The Scottish Grocer, said that it was “committed to providing retailers with as much choice as possible by launching innovative new products that respond to current trends”.²⁸⁰

These cigarillos won retail industry awards and were described as having “a strong performance” and JTI released a 20 stick version in early 2021.²⁷⁹ In the second half of 2020, over 45% of cigar sales recorded by the Retail Data Partnership were Sterling Dual Capsule cigarillos.²⁶²

Scandinavian Tobacco Group

The Scandinavian Tobacco Group, a cigar specialist, launched Signature Dual in February 2020.²⁴⁸²⁸¹ This is a menthol capsule cigarillo, similar to JTI’s Sterling Dual Capsule.

Imperial Brands

In August 2020, Imperial Brands (previously Imperial Tobacco) added a 10-pack of menthol crushball cigarillos to its JPS Players range, with a price comparable to JTI’s product. Imperial’s UK market manager said that this product would: “help bridge the gap left by the ban”.²⁸²²⁸³

Impact of new cigarillo variants

According to Euromonitor data, the UK cigarillo market was in decline until the TPD came into force in 2016, but it is now growing. Euromonitor forecasts sales of cigarillos will carry on rising, whereas cigar sales will remain in long term decline.²⁸⁴²⁸⁵

Promoted newer products through menthol ban websites

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

As the UK does not allow open promotion and display of tobacco products, tobacco companies created websites and pages specifically to provide information about the ban to retailers and consumers, in addition to articles in the retail press.^235236285286 Although they are apparently set up to provide information, these websites also help companies to capitalise on the upcoming ban by promoting their newer products.²⁶⁵ These include heated tobacco products (HTPs) such as PMI’s IQOS and its HEETS tobacco sticks, to which the ban did not  apply.²⁴⁸²³⁷

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

What Next for Menthol in Europe?

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

UK: arguments for retrenchment

Since the EU 2016 TPD came into force, the UK has left the EU (known as Brexit).  Twitter activity and some media reports suggested Brexit could be an opportunity to repeal the menthol ban. ²⁸⁷²⁸⁸ It is not clear whether the tobacco industry intends to lobby to roll back this legislation after the transition period. However, traditionally the UK has gone beyond EU requirements regarding tobacco control, so repealing would require a change in political consensus.²⁸⁹ In July 2020, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care confirmed that “As the ban is part of United Kingdom legislation, it will remain in place when the UK exits the transition period with the European Union”.²⁹⁰

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

Finland: going beyond the TPD

Finland aims to end the use of tobacco and other nicotine products by 2030.  Policy makers have interpreted the 2016 TPD flavour ban as also applying to e-cigarette liquids.²⁹¹ There have been court cases in Finland as shops have been selling flavourings labelled for food use, but which have not been tested for possible toxicity when heated and inhaled.  These flavourings are labelled for use with e-cigarettes (vaping) in other countries.  Finnish researchers have called for the EU to reconsider regulation, product notification and prohibition of e-cigarette flavours.²⁹¹

Revision of the 2014 TPD

The TPD is under revision, in both the EU and the UK, as scheduled in the legislation. Tobacco industry activity implies that current regulation should be tightened to:²⁹²

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

As essentially a cigarette wrapped in brown leaf rather than white paper, cigarillos are likely to be very attractive to the tobacco industry; not only are they currently exempt from EU and UK standardised packs legislation, but they are also subject to lower taxes.²³¹²²⁵ It has also been recommended that the ban is extended to waterpipe where flavours are a key attraction and young people, and some European populations have a particularly high level of use.²⁹³

Extending the ban to accessories could be more difficult given their variety, but there are already a bans on  their display at point of sale in Denmark and Scotland.²⁹⁴²⁹⁵ Some accessories such as cigarette filters, where the tobacco industry has made false health claims, could themselves be banned completely.²⁴³

Tobacco industry strategies during revision development

Reinskje Talhoot from the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, (Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu, RIVM) in the Netherlands stated that the tobacco industry has been focussing on the toxicity of tobacco additives like menthol. There is little evidence of toxicity and this helps draws attention away from studies that show that menthol encourages young smokers to continue smoking.²¹³

From May 2020, manufacturers were required to disclose additives in tobacco products and additional information about the harmful and addictive effects of 15 priority additives including menthol.  The EU Commission asked an independent group of experts, called WP9 and led by RIVM, to assess the research reports.²¹³ WP9 concluded that there was strong independent evidence that low amounts of menthol (which would be insufficient to make a characterising flavour) still facilitates smoke inhalation making smoking easier for novice (new) smokers.²¹³ WP9 noted that tobacco industry reports did not come to the same conclusion because they left out some independent studies. There were also limitations in the research methods and statistical analyses.²¹³ WP9 therefore concluded that the industry reports were unreliable and should not be used to guide EU member states’ policies. WP9 instead advises that menthol in cigarettes should be banned completely.²¹³

EU ban on flavoured heated tobacco products

Heated tobacco products (HTPs) were exempted from the flavour ban. However, the Commission published a report in June 2022 which found that the sales of HTPs had increased by more than 10% (by volume) in 10 member countries, and were making up over 3% of total tobacco product sales.²⁹⁶

This was classified as a “substantial change of circumstances” enabling the Commission to propose a ban on flavoured HTPs, as part of Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan.^{297298 299} The Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, Stella Kyriakides, said:

“With nine out of ten lung cancers caused by tobacco, we want to make smoking as unattractive as possible to protect the health of our citizens and save lives. Stronger actions to reduce tobacco consumption, stricter enforcement and keeping pace with new developments to address the endless flow of new products entering the market – particularly important to protect younger people – is key for this. Prevention will always be better than cure.”²⁹⁷

After a period of scrutiny, a Delegated Directive was published in November 2022 and entered into force the same month, which banned HTPs with a characterising flavour in any of their components (referring to components closes a potential loophole for flavoured accessories).³⁰⁰³⁰¹ EU member countries were required to adopt national laws by 23 July 2023, and enact the ban 3 months later, by 23 October.²⁹⁸ Germany was the first country to pass the ban into law,³⁰²

Extended transition period in Italy

The directive included a 3 month transitional period.³⁰⁰ Market analysts Tobacco Intelligence reported that Italy allowed an extended transition period to sell existing stocks of flavoured products: ³⁰¹

“…manufacturers can supply these to tax warehouses until 31st December 2023, tax warehouses can provide them to retailers until 1st March 2024, and retailers can sell existing stocks.”³⁰¹

Tobacco industry response

Legal challenges

In January 2023, BAT was granted permission to challenge the ban in the Irish high court (as the Republic of Ireland is part of the EU).³⁰³³⁰⁴ BAT stated that the ban would undermine its investment in “products with a reduced-risk profile” and have implications for public health policy.³⁰³ In March, Philip Morris Group was given permission to join the legal challenge. Philip Morris did not market HTPs in Ireland at the time, but said it intended to do so.³⁰⁵  In October 2023, media reported that the case had been referred to the European Court of Justice, with the tobacco companies accusing the EU of regulatory ‘overreach’.^306307308

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

On its website PMI stated that Northern Ireland was affected by the ban, but not the rest of the UK.³⁰⁹ It noted that as the ban was on sales, not use,  “[a]dult users may still be able to buy heated tobacco products with a characterising flavour abroad and use them in the EU.”³¹⁰

Tobacco industry journal Tobacco Journal International also highlighted the potential for cross-border purchasing of flavoured products from neighbouring countries without a ban in place.³¹¹

Launched new nicotine sticks

In the months before the ban came into force, PMI and BAT launched flavoured sticks for using in HTP devices that do not contain tobacco. Instead, the sticks contain nicotine infused leaves (including rooibos tea) apparently developed in order to circumvent the HTP flavour ban.³¹²³¹³

For details see:

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

TobaccoTactics Resources

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

Relevant Links

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

TCRG Research

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

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

References

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