Indicators of tobacco industry interference

The tobacco industry repeats the same tactics in multiple jurisdictions to interfere with tobacco control.

Learn More

The tobacco industry repeats the same tactics in multiple jurisdictions to interfere with tobacco control. Indicators of the extent of tobacco industry interference include:

Signs of interference in government procedures

Numerous scientific studies show the various ways by which the tobacco industry interferes in order to undermine tobacco control measures. The Guidelines for Implementation of WHO FCTC Article 5.3 provide clear recommendations designed to address the most common tactics used by the tobacco industry. Based on the WHO FCTC Article 5.3 Guidelines, tobacco industry interference in government procedures can be identified using the following indicators:

  • Accepts, supports or endorses any offer for assistance by or in collaboration with the tobacco industry or voluntary arrangements in setting or implementing public health policies in relation to tobacco control
  • Accepts, supports or endorses policies or legislation or voluntary codes drafted by or in collaboration with the tobacco industry.
  • Allows/invites the tobacco industry to sit in government body/interagency/multisectoral committee/advisory group that sets public health policy
  • Nominates or allows representatives from the tobacco industry (including State-owned) in the delegation to the COP or other subsidiary bodies or accepts their sponsorship for delegates

Government allows so-called CSR activities

  • The government agencies or their officials endorse, support, form partnerships with or participate in so-called CSR activities or initiatives organized by the tobacco industry including allowing public disclosure of the same).
  • The government (its agencies and officials) receives contributions, including so-called CSR contributions. Contributions can include political, social, financial, education, community, technical expertise or training to counter smuggling, or any other forms of contributions from the tobacco industry.

Government gives benefits and preferential treatment to the tobacco industry

  • The government grants preferential treatment, for example, accommodates requests from the tobacco industry for a longer time frame for implementation or postponement of tobacco control law.
  • The government gives privileges, incentives, exemptions or benefits to the tobacco industry, including tax exemptions.

Government officials engage in unnecessary interaction with the tobacco industry

  • Top-level government officials (such as president/prime minister or ministers) meet with/foster relations with tobacco companies and officials even when not strictly necessary for regulation, such as attending social functions and other events sponsored or organized by tobacco companies or those furthering their interests.
  • The government accepts assistance/offers of assistance from the tobacco industry on enforcement, for example, on tobacco smuggling or enforcing smoke-free policies or no sales to minors.
  • The government accepts, supports, endorses or enters into partnerships or agreements with the tobacco industry.

Government meetings with the tobacco industry are not transparent

  • The government does not publicly disclose meetings/interactions with the tobacco industry in cases where such interactions are strictly necessary for regulation.
  • The government does not require rules for the disclosure or registration of tobacco industry entities, affiliated organizations and individuals acting on their behalf, including lobbyists, and provides no penalties for false or inaccurate information.
  • The government has no policy to avoid conflict of interest.
  • The government has no policy to prohibit contributions from the tobacco industry or any entity working to further its interests to political parties, candidates or campaigns, or to require full disclosure of such contributions .
  • Retired senior government officials work for the tobacco industry (e.g. former prime minister, minister, attorney general).
  • Current government officials or relatives hold positions in the tobacco business, including consultancy positions, or those with previous links to the tobacco industry are given a role in setting or implementing public health policies concerning tobacco control.

Government does not have preventive measures

  • The government has no procedure for disclosing the records of interactions (such as agenda, attendees, minutes and outcome) with the tobacco industry and its representatives.
  • The government has no code of conduct for public officials, prescribing the standards with which they should comply in their dealings with the tobacco industry.
  • The government has no policy that requires applicants to declare any past or present occupational activities with the tobacco industry.
  • The government has no requirement for the tobacco industry to periodically submit information on tobacco production, manufacture, market share, marketing expenditures, revenues and any other activity, including lobbying, philanthropy, political contributions and all other activities.
  • The government has no programme/system to raise awareness within its departments on policies relating to WHO FCTC Article 5.3 Guidelines.
  • The government has no policy to disallow the acceptance of all forms of contributions/gifts from the tobacco industry, including offers of assistance, policy drafts or study visit invitations given or offered to the government, its agencies, officials and their relatives.

Signs of interference in policy

The level of industry interference in policy can be indicated by elements of legislation/policy that favour the tobacco industry. It is particularly evident when a multinational tobacco company receives preferential treatment in one country that is not granted to them in another.

  • Low rates, multi-tiers, varied tax for different products, gradual increases, tax holidays.

  • Designated smoking areas, unwieldy listing of smoke-free areas, maximizing exceptions (especially in bars, restaurants, hotels), weak enforcement mechanisms.

  • Text warning or graphic warnings not exceeding 30–50% of the pack, warnings in English only (not local language), no restriction on conveying “light”, “mild “or other indication of “less harm”.

  • So-called CSR is allowed or exceptions to the ban are allowed (e.g. during disasters and emergency situations).

  • Point-of-sale advertising is allowed as an exception to advertising bans, no ban on CSR or sponsorships.

  • Only promotion to minors is prohibited

  • No prohibition on tobacco industry linked track-and-trace systems, voluntary arrangements in enforcing anti-smuggling laws

The STOP Tobacco Industry Interference Index

The Global Tobacco Industry Interference Index is a review of how governments are responding to influences from the tobacco industry and protecting their public health policies from commercial interests. This Global Tobacco Index, originally initiated by the Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance, is produced by the Global Centre for Good Governance in Tobacco Control as part of the STOP (Stopping Tobacco Organizations and Products) global tobacco industry watchdog.

  • At least one country in each WHO region successfully resisted tobacco industry interference while others have succumbed.
  • Lack of transparency facilitated industry interference.
  • The tobacco industry targeted nonhealth departments.
  • Tax breaks benefit the industry and delayed legislation results in more tobacco sales.
  • A whole government commitment (commitment by every department) is needed to withstand industry interference and better protect tobacco control measures.

Five countries within the Eastern Mediterranean Region are included in the 2019 Global Tobacco Industry Interference Index. Each country is given an overall score and ranked against other countries based on their performance across the following indicators:

  • Industry participation in policy development.
  • Tobacco industry-related CSR activities.
  • Benefits given to the tobacco industry.
  • Unnecessary interaction given to the tobacco industry.
  • Procedure for transparency measures.
  • Avoiding conflicts of interest.
  • Preventive measures.

A lower score means the country sees less industry interference and is better prepared to stop it occurring in the future. The lowest score given was 26 (to the UK).

Islamic Republic of Iran

30
(3/33 countries)

Pakistan

66
(17/33 countries)

Egypt

73
(23/33 countries)

Lebanon

75
(30/33 countries)

Jordan

79
(32/33 countries)