Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

Tobacco Company

British American Tobacco’s lab has been used by Australian Border Force to test evidence in black market cases

Australian Border Force (ABF) and Commonwealth prosecutors have been relying on evidence provided by Australia’s biggest tobacco company to charge black market traders.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-31/tobacco-giants-testing-evidence-for-border-force-cases/8856834

ABF has handed seized tobacco to British American Tobacco (BAT) to be tested in its laboratory, an ABC investigation has revealed.

BAT has analysed the product and then provided documentary or expert evidence which has then been produced in court.

It raises questions about independence and integrity and potentially breaches a major global agreement.

The World Health Organisation treaty limits tobacco companies’ involvement with law enforcement to only what is strictly necessary.

Tobacco companies argue they are being good corporate citizens by helping in the fight against the black market trade, but anti-smoking advocates say they are just protecting their bottom line.

Earlier this week, the ABC revealed big tobacco companies were propping up law enforcement by providing high-level intelligence and paying for surveillance technology.

There is a government agency called the National Measurement Institute that provides analysis for law enforcement.

A spokesperson for ABF said it used the agency “where possible”, but conceded there were times it had relied on the tobacco companies.

“There are instances in which tobacco companies have provided assistance in identifying counterfeit or illicit tobacco and have supplied statements for court proceedings,” the spokesperson said.

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions represents the agency in most court matters and, in a statement, said it “relies on evidence obtained from investigative agencies”.

“The identification of suitable experts is normally a matter for the relevant investigative agency … [and] is fully disclosed during the course of any prosecution.”

BAT confirms laboratory services loaned to ABF and others

When contacted by the ABC, BAT confirmed it had loaned its facilities to more than one law enforcement agency.

“That was about establishing whether the products were tobacco products, which is important to know before they can proceed with prosecution,” BAT spokesman Josh Fett said.

“We were pretty happy to help out, because the tobacco black market is huge.”

He said BAT approached law enforcement with the offer, and did not charge them for the service.

“I certainly don’t think there’s any conflict … it’s up to law enforcement agencies whose service they use and in these cases it was us,” he said.

“We have a clear interest in combating and assisting anyone that’s willing to fight criminals selling illicit tobacco in Australia, we don’t have any issue with helping anyone we can.”

Tobacco company ‘drafts warrant request’

The ABC has obtained more documents showing the level of the tobacco giants’ involvement in police operations.

An Imperial Tobacco PowerPoint presentation boasted its company and Philip Morris “assisted NSW Police to conduct raids” at six locations in Sydney in 2015.

PHOTO: The raids purportedly seized $60,000 worth of black market tobacco. (ABC News)

“Our role … provide a brief of evidence to police,” it read.

“Draft warrant request.

“Store seized product.”

PHOTO: Imperial Tobacco analysed the product for police. (ABC News)

PHOTO: Imperial Tobacco analysed the product for police. (ABC News)

Imperial Tobacco emailed the presentation to New South Wales Labor MP Paul Lynch in October 2015.

“I was astonished I must say, I had no idea that the cooperation between a large tobacco company and the police was as intense as it is,” he said.

“This is a relationship that’s way too close.”

He said NSW police needed to own up about the level of cooperation they had with the tobacco companies.

“The police have to be entirely transparent about what exactly they’re doing and upfront about the reality that tobacco companies are making profit out of their activities,” he said.

“Police need to behave as the police and conduct their own investigations, prepare their own briefs and execute their own warrants.

“That’s not a function of the state that should be farmed out to private corporations.”

Police, Imperial Tobacco decline to answer questions

New South Wales police declined to answer the ABC’s questions about the cooperation and declined to specifically comment on the tobacco industry.

They sent a statement saying they regularly worked with many industries.

“Their involvement is non-operational,” the said.

“Just as a member of the community may provide information to law enforcement about crime impacting the community, so too will industry.”

Imperial Tobacco Australia also declined to answer the ABC’s specific questions.

It also sent a statement, in which it says [the industry] will continue to provide intelligence on the black market.

“Imperial Tobacco Australia makes available to relevant enforcement and prosecuting authorities our personnel who hold expert knowledge in respect of tobacco products.

“It is our view that the cooperation of our industry with enforcement and prosecuting personnel is vital to combatting serious and organised crime that is responsible for much of the trade in illicit tobacco.

“The documents you refer to were designed to give transparency and shine a light on this alarming issue.”

Management overhaul follows BAT’s acquisition of Reynolds America

Tobacco firm British American Tobacco (BAT) said on Thursday it had overhauled its organisational and management structures following the successful acquisition of Reynolds America.

https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/companies/2017-08-31-management-overhaul-follows-bats-acquisition-of-reynolds-america/

The company has now created three regions to encompass activities, with sub-Saharan Africa now paired with the Americas.

The new structure would enable better, more integrated resource allocation and decision making across geographies and categories, BAT said.

Jack Bowles, regional director, Asia-Pacific, would be appointed to the newly created role of chief operating officer for the international business, excluding US, BAT said in a statement. This would take effect on October 1.

Ricardo Oberlander, regional director for the Americas, would lead the Americas and sub-Saharan Africa region.

Tadeu Marroco, regional director, Western Europe, would be appointed director for Europe and North Africa.

Johan Vandermeulen, regional director for Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa, would be appointed director for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East.

The tobacco firm has come under pressure recently, after news in August that UK authorities would investigate allegations of misconduct made against BAT over its African activities. That news came after the US Food and Drug Administration said it was considering regulating the level of nicotine in cigarettes to nonaddictive levels.

In mid-morning trade the company’s share price was down 0.11% to R800.33. The company has lost 16.03% in the past three months, but remains up 2.91% so far this year.

Bosnian tobacco company Fabrika Duhana Sarajevo swings to H1 net loss

Bosnian tobacco company Fabrika Duhana Sarajevo [SAJ:FDSSR] said on Thursday it turned to a net loss of 620,700 marka ($376,300/317,400 euro) in the first half of 2017, from a profit of 675,500 marka in the like period of last year.

https://seenews.com/news/bosnian-tobacco-company-fabrika-duhana-sarajevo-swings-to-h1-net-loss-581795

Operating income fell 27.8% year-on-year to 11.7 million marka in January-June, while operating costs decreased 17.8% to 13.8 million marka, Fabrika Duhana Sarajevo said in a statement.

The company operates in Bosnia’s Federation, one of the two autonomous entities forming Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnia has one more tobacco factory, Fabrika Duvana Banja Luka, which operates in the other entity, the Serb Republic.

Tobacco Consumption: Going Up in Smoke

In a reassuring move, the Delhi government has warned of legal action against tobacco companies if they violate laws and advertise at outlets selling their products

http://www.indialegallive.com/health-updates/tobacco-consumption-going-up-in-smoke-34241

We all know how tobacco companies sneak in surrogate advertising as they are not allowed to advertise their products. But Philip Morris International (PMI) Inc., the 160-year-old tobacco giant, pushed its top cigarette brands like Marlboro blatantly. It approached small shops and kiosks selling cigarettes and gave them free attractive boards with its advertisement to adorn the front of their shops and paid shopkeepers around Rs 500 as an incentive to break the law. The tobacco major roped in smart, young executives, mainly girls, to gift cigarette packs to youngsters in bars, discos and at parties.

However, after the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products Act of 2003, which allowed tobacco companies to advertise in shops, was amended, these ads were prohibited. And in mid-August, the Delhi government’s Directorate General of Health Services shot off a stern warning to Philips Morris threatening legal action if it did not remove advertisements from kiosks and other point of sale outlets. The letter asked the company why appropriate punitive action could not be initiated against it and its directors. The letter was sent when the health ministry realised that the tobacco company was violating India’s tobacco control law by advertising at outlets where it was selling its products. It also sent these notices to two other tobacco companies, Indian Tobacco Company Ltd., and Godfrey Philips.

But this was after a series of earlier warnings which were ignored by these tobacco companies. On March 24 this year, the government had told them to get the ads removed. This was largely ignored. Their stand was that the law only stipulated that the ads should not be outside the outlets and did not mention that these could not be carried within the establishments or shops. Last month, the government shot of another letter reiterating the same, but this too was ignored. An internal document of Philip Morris said that the India market had high potential.

Dr SK Arora, additional director, health, Delhi, and also the state tobacco control officer, told India Legal: “In the last three years, we have been constantly writing to tobacco companies like Philips Morris, Indian Tobacco Company and Godfrey Phillips that their ads on posters and billboards were not allowed as they were violating Section 5 of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA-2003). Our teams used to challan vendors who displayed these ads. But they would again put up the ads after we left as they were paid by the tobacco companies.”

Though the government told the companies that they would be held responsible and legal action could be initiated against them, it made no difference as they said it was not being done by them, but by distributors and vendors. When the Act was amended in 2005, it clearly said that there would be no such ads outside shops.

Though the government told the companies that they would be held responsible and legal action could be initiated against them, it made no difference as they said it was not being done by them, but by distributors and vendors. When the Act was amended in 2005, it clearly said that there would be no such ads outside shops.

Arora added: “So the tobacco companies removed the ads outside the shops, but started putting them inside, arguing that the Act did not mention that they should not be within shops or point of sale counters. Recently, the government clarified there should be no such ads both outside and inside. The tobacco companies are now pleading that they be allowed to advertise within the shop or on counters. We have no fight with these companies as long as cigarettes can be sold legally. But they have to sell them within the legal provisions.”

A source from the health ministry said that as far as Delhi was concerned, most of the ads had now been taken off and if they spotted any new ones, legal action would be initiated. Till the Delhi government carries out its threat of cracking down on violators, it is unlikely they will ever comply with the rules.

This is not the first controversy that PMI has faced. In 2010, the tobacco giant admitted to using child labour at its production facility in Kazakhstan. Human Rights Watch documented 72 cases of children used as forced labour.

India alone has some 100 million smokers. Government data says that tobacco use annually kills over 9,00,000 people. WHO estimates that tobacco-related diseases annually cost India $16 billion. Arora warned: “Tobacco is a leading cause of 40 percent of all cancers, 90 percent of oral cancer, 30 percent of tuberculosis, and 20 percent of diseases like heart attack, diabetes and hypertension apart from other respiratory diseases. While we are rapidly developing curative strategies like setting up huge cancer, diabetics and hypertension clinics, we are not doing enough to work on a preventive strategy to ensure that these diseases do not happen.”

The reach and marketing power of tobacco companies is huge. According to a 2002 study in the American Journal of Public Health, the tobacco industry in the 1990s increasingly sponsored entertainment events in bars and nightclubs where it displayed cigarette brand paraphernalia and advertisements.

Globally, anti-tobacco campaigners have accused PMI of breaking an ethical code when it deliberately targeted new young smokers. Often, cigarettes were given free to those who had just entered the legal age to smoke. The company had earlier aggressively run an advertising campaign in about 50 countries, cleverly targeting the young. Internal documents of the company indicated that those between 18 and 24 years had to be zeroed in. Company executives were specifically told that they must never use the word “promotion or advertising” when they were interacting with sellers or potential users.

In 2013, Germany banned promotional images of Marlboro, saying it encouraged children as young as 14 to start smoking. But other countries did not do so despite the fact that seven anti-tobacco organisations in a report charged that Philip Morris was trying to get a new generation hooked to tobacco. The ads of PMI appealed to teenagers as they used attractive models partying, falling in love, travelling, exploring, being cool and even confused. PMI violated its own ethical code which stated that it would not use images and content that would appeal to minors.

India enacted the national tobacco control law in 2004 before being one of the first countries to ratify WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control treaty. It contains a raft of anti-smoking provisions, including tobacco taxes, warning labels on cigarette packs and advertising bans. India, thereafter, strengthened the law in line with the provisions of the treaty. It was ultimately signed by 181 countries.

A group of cigarette distributors challenged the law. But in 2013, the Supreme Court ordered that the law be implemented. It said advertisement of tobacco products would attract the younger generation and innocent minds who were not aware of the grave and adverse consequences of consuming it.

Delhi has acted strongly, but what about other states? The central government is supposed to monitor and supervise implementation of the Act all over India. Had it done that, all states would have cracked down on tobacco companies the way Delhi has done.

The Tobacco Control Programme has the infrastructure and manpower, but lacks commitment to crack down on the tobacco lobby. An anti-tobacco activist said these companies used to set aside a budget to ensure that monitoring officials were well-inclined towards them.

It is time to act before matters go up in smoke.

Tobacco companies interfere with health regulations, WHO reports

Tobacco industry is interfering with government attempts to regulate products and aggressively pursuing new markets in Africa, World Health Organization says

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/19/tobacco-industry-government-policy-interference-regulations

Cigarette manufacturers are attempting to thwart government tobacco controls wherever possible, even as governments make progress regulating the products, a new World Health Organization report has found.

World health officials also warn that tobacco companies have moved their fight to the developing world, such as Africa, where smoking rates are predicted to rise by double digits in the coming decades.

“Tobacco industry interference in government policymaking represents a deadly barrier to advancing health and development in many countries,” said Douglas Bettcher, director of the WHO’s department for the prevention of noncommunicable diseases. “But by monitoring and blocking such activities, we can save lives and sow the seeds for a sustainable future for all.”

Tobacco-related diseases are the leading preventable cause of death worldwide. The products kill more than 7 million people each year – more than HIV and Aids, tuberculosis and malaria combined. The effects of the substance are also costly. Researchers believe that tobacco-related harm costs the world $1.4tn in healthcare costs and lost productivity.

A recent investigation by the Guardian found that tobacco companies, including British American Tobacco, threatened African countries with domestic and trade lawsuits if certain anti-smoking measures were put in place. BAT says it is not against all regulations but needs to take action from “time to time”.

A Reuters investigation found that BAT’s arch-rival, Philip Morris International, developed a vast lobbying campaign to delay and prevent tobacco controls. PMI says there is nothing improper about its executives engaging with government officials.

Wednesday’s WHO report, which was funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies, comes on the same day as a shareholder vote on a $49bn merger between BAT and Reynolds American Incorporated, a deal that would make BAT the largest listed tobacco company in the world.

“The epicentre of this epidemic has moved to the developing world,” said Dr Vera Luiza da Costa e Silva, head of WHO’s convention secretariat. “Low- and middle-income countries struggle to combat a tobacco industry seeking to pursue new markets, often through shameless interference with public health policymaking.”

Currently, the World Health Organization recommends countries put in place six regulations health officials see as critical to reducing smoking: systems to monitor smoking rates; laws to protect people from secondhand smoke; tools to help people quit; warnings about the dangers of tobacco use; enforcement of advertising bans, and increased taxes on tobacco products.

Six in 10 countries have implemented at least one of the six protections, officials said, four times the population that was protected in 2007.

However, progress is lopsided. Some recommendations have been far more widely accepted than others. For example, 3.5 billion people in 78 countries are protected by graphic warnings on cigarette packs, but only 15% of the world’s population is protected by a comprehensive advertising ban, and high tobacco taxes, while very effective, are one of the least-implemented measures.

Even some wealthier nations have had trouble getting tobacco control measures in effect. In the United States, for example, there are no graphic warnings on cigarette packs because of industry lawsuits and regulatory delay, and tobacco taxes remain low.

Anti-tobacco lawmakers and campaigners in the US blame the slow progress on “pervasive” tobacco industry influence, which reaches all the way to top officials in the Trump White House.

“Working together, countries can prevent millions of people from dying each year from preventable tobacco-related illness,” said Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO director-general. “Governments around the world must waste no time”.

Bloomberg Philanthropies funds Vital Strategies, which part funds the Guardian’s Tobacco: a deadly business series, the content of which is editorially independent.

Philip Morris takes aim at young people in India, and health officials are fuming

The tobacco giant is pushing Marlboros in colorful ads at kiosks and handing out free smokes at parties frequented by young adults – tactics that break India’s anti-smoking laws, government officials say. Internal documents uncovered by Reuters illuminate the strategy.

http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/pmi-india/

S. K. Arora spent more than three years trudging through the Indian summer heat and monsoon rains to inspect tobacco kiosks across this sprawling megacity, tearing down cigarette advertisements and handing out fines to store owners for putting them up.

But as fast as he removed the colorful ads, more appeared.

The chief tobacco control officer at the Delhi state government, Arora asked the major cigarette companies to put a stop to the cat-and-mouse routine. In official letters and face-to-face meetings, he told them India’s tobacco control laws barred such public advertising and promotion of cigarettes.

That included the Indian arm of Philip Morris International Inc, the world’s largest publicly traded tobacco company. Early last year, Arora said, he met with a Philip Morris director for corporate affairs in India, a man named R. Venkatesh, and told him the signs were an unequivocal violation of Indian law.

Like other tobacco companies, Philip Morris kept up its ad blitz.

Venkatesh says Philip Morris is doing nothing wrong. In response to questions from Reuters, he said the company’s advertising is “compliant with Indian law” and that Philip Morris has “fully cooperated with the enforcement authorities” on the matter.

But Indian government officials say Philip Morris is using methods that flout the nation’s tobacco-control regulations. These include tobacco shop displays as well as the free distribution of Marlboro – the world’s best-selling cigarette brand – at nightclubs and bars frequented by young people.

In internal documents, Philip Morris International is explicit about targeting the country’s youth. A key goal is “winning the hearts and minds of LA-24,” those between legal age, 18, and 24, according to one slide in a 2015 commercial review presentation.

As with the point-of-sale ads at kiosks, public health officials say that giving away cigarettes is a violation of India’s Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act and its accompanying rules.

Philip Morris’ marketing strategy for India, which relies heavily on kiosk advertising and social events, is laid out in hundreds of pages of internal documents reviewed by Reuters that cover the period from 2009 to 2016. In them, Philip Morris presents these promotions as key marketing activities. In recent years, they have helped to more than quadruple Marlboro’s market share in India, where the company is battling to expand its reach in the face of an entrenched local giant. Reuters is publishing a selection of those documents in a searchable repository, The Philip Morris Files.

The company’s goal is to make sure that “every adult Indian smoker should be able to buy Marlboro within walking distance,” according to another 2015 strategy document.

In targeting young adults, Philip Morris is deploying a promotional strategy that it and other tobacco companies used in the United States decades ago. A study published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2002 found that during the 1990s, “tobacco industry sponsorship of bars and nightclubs increased dramatically, accompanied by cigarette brand paraphernalia, advertisements, and entertainment events in bars and clubs.”

With cigarette sales declining in many countries, Philip Morris has identified India, population 1.3 billion, as a market with opportunity for significant growth. “India remains a high potential market with huge upside with cigarette market still in infancy,” says a 2014 internal document.

According to government data, India has about 100 million smokers. Of those, about two-thirds smoke traditional hand-rolled cigarettes. Tobacco use kills more than 900,000 people a year in India, and the World Health Organization estimates that tobacco-related diseases cost the country about $16 billion annually.

Philip Morris is not alone in using marketing methods that Indian officials say are illegal. The country’s largest cigarette maker, ITC Ltd, uses similar tactics, such as advertising at kiosks. British American Tobacco Plc and Indian state-run companies have large, passive stakes in ITC, which controls about 80 percent of the market.

Tobacco-control officer Arora, a short, mustachioed man with a gruff demeanor, sent a letter to Philip Morris and other tobacco companies in mid-April, giving them until the end of the month to remove all advertisements. “Legal action will be initiated against the company” if it did not comply, he wrote in the letters, copies of which were reviewed by Reuters.

A day after Arora’s deadline passed, he and his team conducted a raid in an affluent area of cafes and coffee shops in New Delhi that showed his letters did not have the desired effect.

On that hot afternoon in May, the team cut down about a dozen advertisements for Marlboro and various ITC brands. As word of the raid spread, worried vendors covered their ads with newspapers or took them down.

One kiosk owner, Rakesh Kumar Jain, removed his Marlboro ads before Arora’s team arrived. Jain said the signs had been put up by Philip Morris representatives. In return, he said, he received free cigarettes each month worth about 2,000 rupees (about $30). Jain knew that putting up the posters was illegal, but they helped improve sales, he said.

About a dozen kiosk owners interviewed by Reuters said that tobacco companies paid them a monthly fee for advertisements and product displays, with the amount determined by factors such as location, volume of business and type of promotional material.

In payment receipts seen by Reuters, Philip Morris’ India unit promised to pay 500 Indian rupees ($7.50) a month to a cigarette seller with a small roadside kiosk in New Delhi for putting up Marlboro ads. The receipts were signed by a company representative.

During the raid, fines were issued to some vendors, many of them repeat offenders, and they were threatened with court action if the ads went up again.

Like Philip Morris, ITC says that it is in full compliance with India’s 2003 tobacco control law. If it wasn’t, the company said in a statement to Reuters, then “the relevant government authorities would have initiated action.”

Since Arora’s threat of legal action in April, there are fewer Philip Morris advertisements outside cigarette shops in the capital. But both Philip Morris and ITC say that advertising inside a shop is allowed.

“Advertisements of tobacco products at the entrance and inside the shops selling tobacco products are clearly and categorically permitted,” ITC said in response to questions from Reuters.

Arora, however, said all advertising is prohibited – “There are no two ways about it,” he insisted – but he can’t start legal proceedings until getting further guidance from the federal government. He has yet to receive an answer.

Federal health officials say in interviews that the ads are out of bounds. Amal Pusp, a director for tobacco control at the health ministry, told Reuters that “there is no confusion”: All advertisements – inside and outside shops – are illegal.

The 2003 law allows tobacco companies to advertise at shops, but subsequent rules issued by the government prohibit it.

“India remains a high potential market with huge upside with cigarette market still in infancy.”

From a 2014 internal Philip Morris document

In 2004, India became one of the first countries to ratify the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) treaty. The pact has 181 members and contains a raft of anti-smoking provisions, including tobacco taxes, warning labels on cigarette packs and advertising bans. The country enacted its national tobacco control law the year before ratifying the FCTC, and since then the government has added rules to strengthen the law in line with the treaty’s provisions.

The health ministry published rules in 2005 that banned any display of brand names, pack images or promotional messages. The rule specified that tobacco retailers could only display a 60-by-45 centimeter board, roughly 24 by 18 inches. The sign can have a description of the type of tobacco products sold – such as cigarettes or chewing tobacco – but cannot include any brand advertising and must carry a large health warning.

The health ministry’s rules were challenged in court by a group of cigarette distributors and put on hold by a state-level High Court for seven years. They finally came into force in 2013 on orders of India’s Supreme Court.

The High Court had overlooked the fact that advertisement of tobacco products “will attract younger generation and innocent minds, who are not aware of grave and adverse consequences of consuming such products,” the Supreme Court said in its ruling.

Philip Morris has lobbied against the passing of stricter tobacco control rules by the Indian government. In documents detailing the company’s plans for the biennial FCTC treaty convention in India last November, Prime Minister Narendra Modi emerges as a prime target. A key goal: to pre-empt Modi from taking “extreme anti-tobacco measures” before delegates were to gather from around the world for the treaty meeting, according to a 2014 corporate affairs PowerPoint presentation.

Excerpts from the Philip Morris Files

Reuters reviewed hundreds of pages of internal Philip Morris International documents relating to India. These excerpts show the company’s marketing and lobbying tactics, which are aimed at bolstering the Marlboro brand among young adults and blocking the “enactment of extreme anti-tobacco measures.” Letters from Indian officials detail the government’s efforts to enforce the country’s tobacco control regulations. (Some documents include highlighting by Reuters.)

A slide from a Philip Morris training manual shows the kinds of people the company aims to target for Marlboro sales in India. LAS = legal age smokers.

A slide from a Philip Morris training manual shows the kinds of people the company aims to target for Marlboro sales in India. LAS = legal age smokers.

A slide from a 2014 strategy presentation shows Philip Morris’ goals for marketing Marlboro Red in India. LA-24 = legal age to 24-year-old smokers.

A slide from a 2014 strategy presentation shows Philip Morris’ goals for marketing Marlboro Red in India. LA-24 = legal age to 24-year-old smokers.

This slide from a 2012 marketing presentation shows where Philip Morris planned to target 18-to-24-year-old smokers in India.

This slide from a 2012 marketing presentation shows where Philip Morris planned to target 18-to-24-year-old smokers in India.

A Philip Morris training manual lays out rules for how those marketing its cigarettes should look. FWP = field work personnel.

A Philip Morris training manual lays out rules for how those marketing its cigarettes should look. FWP = field work personnel.

Another slide from the Philip Morris training manual includes instructions for company representatives handing out free cigarettes at kiosks as part of brand promotion. (IPM = India Philip Morris; GPI = Godfrey Phillips India; POS = point of sale.)

Another slide from the Philip Morris training manual includes instructions for company representatives handing out free cigarettes at kiosks as part of brand promotion. (IPM = India Philip Morris; GPI = Godfrey Phillips India; POS = point of sale.)

Kiosk owners in Delhi say that Philip Morris pays them a monthly fee to put up its advertisements. Names have been redacted on this Philip Morris receipt.

Kiosk owners in Delhi say that Philip Morris pays them a monthly fee to put up its advertisements. Names have been redacted on this Philip Morris receipt.

Keshav Desiraju, then a senior health ministry official, wrote to state governments in January 2013, instructing them to stop all tobacco advertisements.

Keshav Desiraju, then a senior health ministry official, wrote to state governments in January 2013, instructing them to stop all tobacco advertisements.

 In April, S.K. Arora, the chief tobacco control officer in Delhi, warned Philip Morris International in a letter that it could face legal action over its advertising.

In April, S.K. Arora, the chief tobacco control officer in Delhi, warned Philip Morris International in a letter that it could face legal action over its advertising.

An excerpt from a 2013 letter from a health ministry official to state governments shows specifications for the board that can be displayed at shops selling tobacco products. According to Indian law, the board cannot include any brand names. Beedis are traditional hand-rolled cigarettes.

An excerpt from a 2013 letter from a health ministry official to state governments shows specifications for the board that can be displayed at shops selling tobacco products. According to Indian law, the board cannot include any brand names. Beedis are traditional hand-rolled cigarettes.

Ahead of the World Health Organization’s global tobacco control treaty meeting in India last November, Philip Morris planned to engage Prime Minister Narendra Modi in an effort to head off new anti-tobacco measures. The slide is from a 2014 corporate affairs document. CoP7 = Conference of the Parties, the biennial treaty meeting.

Ahead of the World Health Organization’s global tobacco control treaty meeting in India last November, Philip Morris planned to engage Prime Minister Narendra Modi in an effort to head off new anti-tobacco measures. The slide is from a 2014 corporate affairs document. CoP7 = Conference of the Parties, the biennial treaty meeting.

The company planned to gain Modi’s ear through those close to him. It identified several people in this group, including Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, Health Minister Jagat Prakash Nadda, and Amit Shah, president of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

Modi and the other politicians didn’t respond to requests for comment. Philip Morris International also didn’t comment on the plan.

The tobacco giant’s efforts to fend off anti-smoking steps have had limited impact so far. Last year, for instance, India ordered manufacturers to cover 85 percent of the surface of cigarette packs with health warnings, up from 20 percent. The rule, which is still being challenged in a state court by the tobacco industry, including Philip Morris’ India partner, was implemented by order of the Supreme Court.

Marlboro has just a 1.4 percent share of the almost $10 billion cigarette market in India. The industry is dominated by ITC, which has a strong grip on distributors and retailers.

One major method Philip Morris is deploying to gain ground, the marketing documents show, is the free distribution of cigarettes at bars and nightclubs – known as Legal Age Meeting Points, or LAMPs, in company jargon. The hiring of young women and men to work at these gatherings is outsourced to event management companies, according to people with knowledge of the gatherings.

Some of the recruiting takes place online. “Hey girls…We are searching A++ Hot & Gorgeous girls for the Marlboro pub activity…Pay: 2000/day…Work: Promotion in clubs in Delhi,” read one post on a Facebook public group in June last year. There was no company name attached to the ad.

At several parties attended by Reuters in Delhi and Mumbai, young women dressed in the colors of the latest Marlboro variant handed out packs of cigarettes. During one party at a nightclub in a Delhi hotel, a young woman walked around with a tablet showing an ad that highlighted Marlboro features. A television screen played a video promoting the brand: “For trendsetters, for forward thinkers, a smooth and balanced smoking experience.”

In many ways, it was right out of the Philip Morris 1990s playbook. The American Journal of Public Health study, drawing on previously secret industry documents, found that Philip Morris ran bar promotions in 1990 using racing jackets, and added “neon message boards and cocktail trays” in 1991. The study described methods for collecting names for a company database “to generate smoker profiles, direct mailing campaigns, and conduct telephone research studies after the bar events.”

At the parties in India, people who took the Marlboro packs were asked their names, ages and preferred brands. Philip Morris calls this distribution of free cigarettes “sampling,” which it says in an internal document is allowed under the law.

The company has spent millions of dollars on these activities. In 2014, for example, Philip Morris estimated it spent $1.6 million on LAMP events and sampling at kiosks in India, according to the 2015 commercial review presentation.

The company planned to use LAMPs in 2015 to generate 30,000 “trials,” or samplings of cigarettes. And it planned to generate another 500,000 trials that year through sampling at cigarette shops and kiosks, according to the 2015 strategy document.

The company instructs employees to watch their words. An undated training manual for market researchers says: “Do not say this is a ‘PROMOTION’ or ‘ADVERTISING’.”

Indian health ministry officials say that anyone who hands out free cigarettes, whatever the circumstances, is breaking the law.

The Health Ministry’s Amal Pusp says the law against distribution of free cigarettes is unambiguous. He cites Section 5 of the country’s tobacco control act, which says: “No person, shall, under a contract or otherwise promote or agree to promote the use or consumption of” cigarettes or any other tobacco product. The law carries a fine of up to 1,000 rupees (about $15) and a sentence of up to two years in prison for a first conviction.

“We believe we market our products in a responsible manner, and in compliance with Indian regulations,” Philip Morris’ Venkatesh said, without elaborating.

In October last year, the month before India was due to host delegations from around the world at the biennial FCTC tobacco control conference in Delhi, tobacco-control officer Arora said he suddenly started getting traction.

The cigarette ads vanished and Delhi was “cleaned,” he said.

That success couldn’t have come at a better time for Arora and his colleagues at the federal health ministry: They wanted to make sure foreign delegates visiting India saw the country was serious about its tobacco regulations.

Weeks after the FCTC delegates left town in November, however, kiosks in the capital were again displaying ads for Marlboro.

STOREFRONT ADS: Marlboro advertisements can be seen on this kiosk in a marketplace in New Delhi in April. Despite warnings from health officials, Philip Morris has continued to advertise its Marlboro cigarettes. REUTERS/Adnan Abidi

STOREFRONT ADS: Marlboro advertisements can be seen on this kiosk in a marketplace in New Delhi in April. Despite warnings from health officials, Philip Morris has continued to advertise its Marlboro cigarettes. REUTERS/Adnan Abidi

Additional reporting by Aditi Shah in New Delhi, and Abhirup Roy and Swati Bhat in Mumbai.

The Philip Morris Files
By Aditya Kalra, Paritosh Bansal, Tom Lasseter and Duff Wilson
Design: Troy Dunkley
Photo Editing: Tom White and Altaf Bhat
Edited by Peter Hirschberg

Big tobacco bullies the global south. Trade deals are their biggest weapon

The industry has a long history of using trade to force their products into new markets. This has led to at least a 5% increase in cigarette deaths

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/17/big-tobacco-trade-deals-new-markets-bat

Cigarette packets often carry the warning to “protect children: don’t make them breathe your smoke”. In 2014, the Kenyan government attempted to do just that – banning the sale of single cigarettes, banning smoking in vehicles with a child and keeping the tobacco industry out of initiatives aimed at children and young people.

But as the Guardian reported last week, British American Tobacco, in an effort to keep Kenyans breathing their smoke, fought the regulations on the grounds that they “constitute an unjustifiable barrier to international trade”.

In fact, big tobacco has a long history of using trade and investment rules to force their products on markets in the global south and attack laws and threaten lawmakers that attempt to control tobacco use.

Back in the 1980s, as cigarette consumption fell off in North America and western Europe, US trade officials worked aggressively to grant American companies access to markets in Asia, demanding not only the right to sell their products, but also the right to advertise, sponsor sports events and run free promotions. Smoking rates surged.

In the 1990s, World Trade Organisation agreements led to a liberalisation of the international tobacco trade, with countries reducing import tariffs on tobacco products. The impact, according to a joint study of the World Health Organisation and the World Bank, was a 5% increase in global cigarette consumption and accompanying mortality rates.

Big tobacco’s lawyers were quick to discover the value of “next generation” trade agreements. In the 1990s, Canada dropped a plain packaging initiative after US manufacturers threatened a suit using the first next-gen trade deal, the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). A few years later, Philip Morris threatened Canada again after it prohibited terms such as “light” and “mild” cigarettes. Philip Morris argued it would be owed millions in compensation for damage to its brand identity.

Philip Morris was able to credibly wield this threat because of the extraordinary powers that Nafta grants international corporations: the right to sue governments in private tribunals over regulations that affect their profits.

A toxic combination of far-reaching and poorly defined “rights” for investors, eye-watering legal costs, and tribunals composed of corporate lawyers with the power to set limitless awards against governments makes investment arbitration and the modern “trade” agreement a formidable weapon to intimidate regulators.

And what big tobacco learned in the global north it has been replicating in the global south, where threats carry greater force against poorer countries that may lack the resources to see down a legal challenge.

In 2010, Philip Morris launched a $25m claim against Uruguay after it introduced graphic warnings on cigarette packs. Though Uruguay successfully defended the measure, it still faced millions in legal costs. And Philip Morris effectively won, as Costa Rica and Paraguay held off introducing similar measures.

Such are the fears around big tobacco’s aggressive use of trade and investment rules that the US-negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal featured a carve-out excluding big tobacco from investment protections – an explicit admission of the problem.

But this does not go far enough. The important thing to realise is that the problem goes beyond big tobacco. Big oil, big pharma and big mining follow the same playbook, launching investment arbitration cases to defend their business models from governments that would regulate to protect public health, the local environment or the climate.

Rather than target individual companies or sectors, we must push our governments to reform trade and investment rules that grant such extraordinary powers to corporations. That means removing special investor rights and investment courts from trade agreements. It means removing limits on the freedom of governments to protect public health, labour and human rights and the environment.

Of course, this is easier said than done. Robert Lighthizer, US trade representative, served as deputy in a Reagan administration that pressured countries to open their tobacco markets to US exporters in the 1980s.

Vice-President Mike Pence’s record includes opposing smoking regulation, taking huge campaign donations from big tobacco, and denying the causal link between smoking and lung cancer. The EU commission, meanwhile, has been criticized for its meetings with big tobacco while it was negotiating EU-US trade talks.

The good news is that from Brazil to India to Ecuador, countries are stepping away from outdated trade and investment rules. In the UK, the Labour party manifesto opposes parallel courts for multinationals and proposes to review the UK’s investment treaties.

But until we scrap the powers that we grant big tobacco and others to frustrate and bypass our laws, efforts around the world to protect public health will continue to go up in smoke.

ANTI-TOBACCO : THE PR DAUTZENBERG DENOUNCES THE ACTIONS OF BAT

After the revelations from Reuters about the methods of lobbying from Philip Morris International, it is the turn of British American Tobacco (BAT) to suffer the blowback of its business strategy. And it was Professor Bertrand Dautzenberg, pulmonologist at the Pitié-Salpêtrière hospital in paris and secretary general of the Alliance against tobacco, which denounces the strategy of BAT.

https://sivertimes.com/anti-tobacco-the-pr-dautzenberg-denounces-the-actions-of-bat/54893

In a message posted on Twitter and an article in the Figaro, he denounces the attempt to approach the world leader in tobacco, which has sent a registered letter inviting him to discuss ” new product to reduced harm “, to ” change the software regarding the fight against smoking “.

Disagreement on the substance…

Ploom Japan Tobacco, iQos, Philip Morris, Glo BAT : these new devices are the link between the cigarette and the electronic cigarette. They do not use combustion but still contain tobacco. An electrical resistance heater at a low temperature, which would, inter alia, to delete the inhalation of tar and carbon monoxide, according to the manufacturers.

A statement that the Pr Dautzenberg contests. “The industry we swear that this heated tobacco is less toxic than cigarette smoking, but this is not proven at all, and there must be a little bit of burning still, since they found traces of carbon monoxide in the fumes, he said in Le Figaro. Today, tobacco kills one of its faithful consumers. Even if the tobacco said to be less of a risk” not to kill that one in three or one in ten, or even one in a hundred, it’s still unacceptable. “

The doctor also points out that this type of reflection had been carried out on cigarettes light. A reflection at the time supported by a part of the medical community, before it can be recognized that the risk was ultimately the same. Cigarettes light favored only other cancers of the respiratory tract.

Big Tobacco Accused of ‘Dirty War’ Against Smoking Prevention in Africa

In the past, Big Tobacco has been accused of covering up the true extent of the health risks associated with smoking, as well as fighting government restrictions. Now, a new investigation suggests that Big Tobacco is using strong-arm tactics to resist regulations in many parts of Africa.

http://www.care2.com/causes/big-tobacco-accused-of-dirty-war-against-smoking-prevention-in-africa.html

The Guardian reports that after reviewing court documents and other materials, it has uncovered a systematic wave of bullying and intimidation by British American Tobacco. And BAT is soon to close a deal that would make it the world’s leading tobacco company.

The exposé highlights attempts made by BAT to defang, or resist outright, regulation and restriction. For example, the company used threats of economic damage to fight higher taxes on cigarettes, a plan that is standard in the U.S. and much of Europe.

The Guardian reports:

In one undisclosed court document in Kenya, seen by the Guardian, BAT’s lawyers demand the country’s high court “quash in its entirety” a package of anti-smoking regulations and rails against what it calls a “capricious” tax plan. The case is now before the supreme court after BAT Kenya lost in the high court and the appeal court. A ruling is expected as early as next month.

The Guardian has also seen letters, including three by BAT, sent to the governments of Uganda, Namibia, Togo, Gabon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia and Burkina Faso revealing the intimidatory tactics that tobacco companies are using, accusing governments of breaching their own laws and international trade agreements and warning of damage to the economy.

But we have seen these tactics before.

Starting as early as the 1970s, health warnings about cigarettes began to grab national attention. At that time, tobacco companies used every advertising and legal mechanism they could to prevent further regulation and to avoid plain packaging. As a result, some 70 years after the health dangers of cigarettes came to light, we are only now restricting tobacco in a way that seems appropriate to its risks.

While tobacco companies are in retreat in the West, African, Latin American and now Asian markets have become key areas of interest. As well as exploiting labor in these regions, tobacco companies now want to ensure that their products last long after the West has rejected cigarettes.

For its part, British American Tobacco has always claimed to abide by strict codes of conduct. The company has defended its use of the courts as a means to clear up ambiguous interpretations in local regulation and to ensure international regulations are being followed where appropriate.

British American Tobacco maintains that it does not oppose regulation per se and believes that reasonable restrictions on tobacco are warranted as, tobacco is a harmful product.

However, campaigners have long said that BAT falls short of that standard. Many African nations have signed on to the World Health Organization’s treaty on tobacco control, but that status still needs to be ratified, meaning that no uniform policies exist. Sub-Saharan Africa in particular has shown its vulnerability to manipulation by outside businesses with money.

The Guardian exposé highlights this clearly in one extract regarding tobacco regulation in Kenya:

Extract – letter
“If these measures are brought into effect, the economic and social impact will be extremely negative. They could even threaten the continuation of our factory which has operated in Bobo Dioulasso for more than fifty years with more than 210 salaried employees.”

Excerpt from letter from Imperial Tobacco to the prime minister of Burkina Faso, 25 January 2016, concerning new regulations on plain cigarette packaging and large graphic health warnings.

The Sunday Times has previously reported on an investigation which found that BAT sold cheaper, highly addictive cigarettes to Africans in the 1990s. The company also allegedly marketed smoking without sufficient health warnings.

BAT may dispute such claims or suggest that these are simply past infractions. However, more recent reports claim that people affiliated with BAT have attempted to bribe African officials to advance tobacco products in sub-Saharan Africa and to avoid certain regulations.

As of 2016, these allegations — made both by former BAT employees and by outside investigators — even prompted lawmakers in the U.S. Congress to call for a full investigation to determine whether BAT breached any laws due to its involvement in Africa.

Overall, tobacco use remains low across Africa. A major “Lancet” study published in 2010 puts cigarette smokers at about 14 percent of the total population — far below that seen in the Americas. However, data suggests that the rate of smoking uptake is rising at an alarming rate — by as much as four percent per year.

Will the Guardian’s revelations prompt further action against British American Tobacco? That remains to be seen, but we must do everything we can to help African nations get the full facts on tobacco’s health impacts and resist Big Tobacco’s strong-arm tactics.

Tobacco Industry Makes Strides in Trump’s Washington

President Trump may have promised to “drain the swamp” of lobbyists in Washington, but six months into his administration it seems the swamp is winning.

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/tobacco_companies_trump_administration_20170713

A new report published in The Guardian exposes how tobacco companies are gaining significant political victories under Trump, due to lobbying efforts and the fact that tobacco business insiders have been appointed to top positions in the president’s administration. Jessica Glenza explains:

America’s largest cigarette manufacturers, Reynolds American and Altria Group, donated $1.5m to help the new president celebrate his inauguration. The donations allowed executives to dine and mingle with top administration officials and their families.

Not long after Trump promised to transfer power from Washington to the American people, a wave of spending in pursuit of influence was unleashed. In the first quarter of 2017, tobacco companies and trade associations spent $4.7m lobbying federal officials. Altria, the company behind Marlboro, hired 17 lobbying firms. Reynolds, makers of the Camel brand, hired 13, according to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids.

Since then, tobacco companies have been putting points on the scoreboard. Politicians and officials with deep ties to the tobacco industry now head the US health department, the top attorney’s office and the Senate, even as tobacco use remains the leading preventable cause of death.

Agencies in charge of reviewing large mergers let a window slip by in which they might have requested information about a $49bn merger between Reynolds and British American Tobacco (BAT). That merger, expected to be voted through by shareholders next week, will make BAT the biggest listed tobacco company in the world, and puts proceeds from eight out of 10 cigarettes sold in the US into the pockets of two companies: Altria and BAT. …

The Food and Drug Administration has twice delayed legal briefs to defend regulations of e-cigarettes, products cigarette makers say are the future. Summer deadlines for cigar and e-cigarette makers to file applications with the FDA, which regulates the products, have all been delayed by the Trump administration.

And the high-profile attorney Noel Francisco, who once argued for Reynolds that including a quit-line phone number on cigarette packs amounted to government advocacy against smoking, has been nominated for the post of solicitor general, the government’s top attorney.

The companies now securing regulatory wins are also partly responsible for Trump’s victory in the 2016 election. “For Trump’s inaugural celebration, Reynolds American gave $1m. Altria Group gave $500,000,” Glenza reports. “The US Chamber of Commerce, which has been fiercely pro-tobacco in recent years, gave $25,000.”

Prior to becoming president, Trump profited from tobacco companies, Glenza says. His past financial disclosures “show he earned up to $2.1m from tobacco holdings in diversified portfolios,” although he has since claimed (without offering any proof) to have sold his stocks.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and members of Trump’s administration including Vice President Mike Pence have deep ties to the tobacco industry. Glenza shows the links between tobacco company donations and pro-tobacco policymaking.

“Tobacco industry influence in Washington is pervasive, in many different ways,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., a longtime opponent of smoking, tells The Guardian. “As in so many areas, the promise to drain the swamp has been an extraordinary hypocrisy.”