Whether selling its new products or traditional cigarettes, the tobacco industry uses the same tactics to create barriers to life-saving tobacco control measures.
Whether selling its new products or traditional cigarettes, the tobacco industry uses the same tactics to create barriers to life-saving tobacco control measures.
The tobacco industry aims to defeat or weaken evidence-based tobacco control policies. When it fails to succeed, the tobacco industry will work to either delay implementation.
Tobacco industry interference has been particularly strong against efforts to increase tobacco taxes. The industry aims to ensure that tobacco products remain affordable, while protecting their own profits – at the expense of public health.
Price and tax increases remain the single most effective means to reduce tobacco use.
In 2017, countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) agreed on significant increases in excise taxes on tobacco, and are now in different stages of implementation. However, in other countries of the Eastern Mediterranean Region tobacco taxes remain low.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the industry directed its lobbying activities to Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates, specifically aiming to prevent consensus on harmonized and unified tobacco taxation.
“Higher taxes lead to illicit trade”
Tobacco companies use this argument despite being complicit in illicit trade. Countries with high taxes do not necessarily have high smuggling levels. In Europe, high levels of illicit tobacco trade are found in the countries with the lowest tobacco taxes.
“Tobacco taxes are unfair on poorer people”
Tobacco tax increases are considered progressive, because poorer smokers are more price-sensitive. Therefore, high taxes discourage smoking due to related costs.
“Tax increases will lower government revenue”
Tobacco tax increases have led to increases in government revenue (as seen in the Philippines and South Africa)
“Tax increases will have negative economic impacts on local businesses and employment levels”
The public health benefits and net economic gain from tobacco tax increases are far more significant than any potential business loss.
“Farmers will lose their livelihoods”
Tax revenues can be used to support alternative livelihoods for tobacco growers.
Tobacco packs are key to marketing and advertising. The tobacco industry challenges large, graphic warnings and pack size/colour restrictions using intellectual property and “slippery slope” arguments. Through litigation, or threat of litigation, the industry seeks to delay implementation of packaging and labelling restrictions.
The tobacco industry has delayed and watered-down health warning policies (in Bahrain, Kuwait, Lebanon, United Arab Emirates and Yemen) and attempted to manipulate Saudi Arabia and Iraq’s positions to defeat health warning proposals at the Arab Gulf Health Ministers Conference.
“Packaging regulations violate intellectual property rights”
In nearly all cases, courts have upheld the government’s right to impose packaging restrictions, recognizing them as a public health measure to protect against the adverse effects of tobacco use.
“Graphic warning do not work”
Tobacco tax increases are considered progressive, because poorer smokers are more price-sensitive. Therefore, high taxes discourage smoking due to related costs.
“Graphic warning do not work”
A 60-country study shows that pictorial or graphic health warnings are associated with smoking reduction. Picture-based warnings have been found to be particularly effective among children and youth, as well as among people with lower literacy rates or lower levels of education.
“Graphic warnings encourage smuggling”
There is no evidence that graphic health warnings have led to an increase in smuggling in any jurisdiction. Large picture warnings may help to reduce smuggling, because each country has a unique set of warnings and make contraband cigarettes easier to identify .
The tobacco industry’s key strategy to challenge anti-tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship (TAPS) policy is arguing against comprehensive bans. This aims to ensure sufficient loopholes to allow continued marketing of tobacco products through points of sale, targeted promotions and sponsorship.
The tobacco industry’s key strategy to challenge anti-tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship (TAPS) policy is arguing against comprehensive bans. This aims to ensure sufficient loopholes to allow continued marketing of tobacco products through points of sale, targeted promotions and sponsorship.
The tobacco industry uses Corporate Social Responsibility to give a positive impression about their company and products, including to youth, by portraying the “positive” elements of their business practices (such as good employee–employer relations or environmental stewardship).
The likely effect of such so-called CSR is the promotion of tobacco products. As such, banning so-called CSR activities as part of a comprehensive ban on TAPS is crucial.
So-called CSR is also used to access policy-makers to influence tobacco control policy. In 2017, Philip Morris International reportedly used so-called CSR to access high-level officials in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates.
Tobacco companies continue to use the same strategies, adapted to new media, to highlight their new products
The tobacco industry uses “accommodation policies”, such as designated smoking areas, to promote the “social acceptability” of smoking and encourage smoking or smoking initiation.
“Smoke-free laws harm businesses”
Studies of the impact of smoke-free policies in bars and restaurants in some jurisdictions show that the policy improved health and productivity of workers, as well as resulted in increased revenues for employers, thus negating the industry arguments.
“Smoke-free policies should be introduced gradually”
Many case studies show that jurisdictions can go and have gone from virtually no smoke-free legislation to comprehensive 100% smoke-free legislation in a single step (e.g. Scotland, Uruguay).
“Smoke-free policies are against smokers’ right to smoke.”
There is no “right to smoke” in any national constitution. The right to life, the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and the right to a healthy environment are found in numerous international human rights laws.
“Laws should allow ventilated indoor designated smoking rooms”
Evidence shows that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke and accommodation policies recommended by the tobacco industry have not been proven to work. The tobacco industry has long known that filtration and ventilation systems are ineffective in removing harmful constituents of secondhand smoke.
“100% smoke-free environments are not enforceable”
100% smoke-free policies are simpler to enforce as it is easy to visually determine compliance by observing if anyone is smoking indoors. Weaker smoke-free laws are often unclear and confusing.
“E-cigarettes and heated tobacco products should not fall under smoke-free laws”
The WHO recommends extending the scope of smoke-free legislation to include waterpipes, e-cigarettes and all other novel tobacco products.