TobaccoReporter logo

Year: 2023

  • Bangladesh Set to Ban Vapes

    Bangladesh Set to Ban Vapes

    Image: luzitanija

    Bangladesh is set to ban vapes and nicotine pouches, according to Filter.

    The government has been considering a vape ban since 2019 when the U.S. e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury outbreak occurred—later determined to be caused by adulterated illicit products.

    The health ministry has now drafted an amendment to Bangladesh’s Smoking and Using of Tobacco Products (Control) Act, which has been reviewed by the cabinet and must now be approved by parliament.

    If the proposed ban is approved, anyone caught vaping, regardless of nicotine content, will be subject to a fine of BDT5,000 ($46). Sales, production, import, export, storage and transportation of vapes would also be banned, with penalties starting at a higher fine, three months’ incarceration or both. Larger scale activity or repeat offenses would face longer sentences.

    The amendment would also ban flavors in tobacco products, increase the fine for smoking in public places and include further penalties for unlicensed tobacco sales.

    Organizations like the Bangladesh Medical Association support the proposed ban, equating vaping with smoking cigarettes.

    “A ban on vaping devices will have disastrous consequences for people trying to quit smoking cigarettes,” said Nafis Farhan, a member of Voice of Vapers Bangladesh. He attributed continued high smoking rates in the country to “limited availability of cessation tools, such as vapes.”

    The proposed ban represents “a missed opportunity for harm reduction and a setback for public health,” according to Michael Landl, director of the World Vapers’ Alliance.

  • TIMB Raises Red Flag On ‘Bogus Association’

    TIMB Raises Red Flag On ‘Bogus Association’

    Image: yganko

    Zimbabwe’s Tobacco Industry and Marketing Board (TIMB) has called out the Golden Leaf Advisory (GLA) as a suspected “bogus association” that is not mandated to represent farmers or the tobacco regulatory board, according to The Herald.

    According to the TIMB chief executive, Emmanuel Matsvaire, “there is no relationship whatsoever” between his organization and the GLA. He urged farmers to avoid the entity.

    “We have so many complaints from farmers who have been fleeced of their money by this organization purporting to represent tobacco growers,” said Matsvaire. “The organization has no mandate either from our Ministry (of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Development) or from the TIMB to represent the farmers.

    “It is a bogus institution that has been extorting money from farmers and other stakeholders.”

    In April, the TIMB rejected a request from GLA to meet with farmer associations and contractors before loan disbursements. “We take note of your proposal and would like to inform you that it is regrettably rejected,” the TIMB informed the GLA. “GLA is not properly registered by either TIMB of the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Development.”

  • Party Time

    Party Time

    Photo: Hanohiki

    The industry will not be present as the FCTC parties debate future tobacco and nicotine policies in Panama this autumn.

    By Taco Tuinstra

    From Nov. 20 to Nov. 25, delegates representing the countries that have signed to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) will gather in Panama City to discuss tobacco and nicotine policies at the 10th Conference of the Parties (COP10). It’s an event that warrants close scrutiny because the decisions taken at the COP tend to have profound implications on the nicotine business and its customers, impacting the future of manufacturers, suppliers and tobacco growers along with stakeholders such as smokers and vapers.

    “COP is a highly influential global policy center for tobacco,” explains Flora Okereke, head of global insights and foresights at BAT. “It covers everything in the tobacco value chain from ‘seed to smoke.’” Even though the forum’s guidelines are just recommendations, many of the guidelines make it into national legislation.

    Major policies, such as plain packaging and flavor restrictions, were floated at the COP before they were adopted by leading markets. The COP also inspired the bans on industry science that have proliferated in recent years—a development that Okereke considers to be even more detrimental to the cause of tobacco harm reduction (THR) than the event’s well-established restrictions on industry engagement.

    In addition to impact at the national level, the COP also holds considerable institutional sway globally. “The FCTC is lodged not under the WHO but under the U.N., which means it has implications for trade, agriculture and finance as well,” notes Derek Yach, a global health expert who was deeply involved in the crafting of the treaty two decades ago. Through its interactions with bodies such as the World Health Organization, the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Bank, the COP is able to spread its tobacco control philosophies, which tend to favor prohibition over more progressive approaches.

    All this implies that the COP bears an outsized influence on the future of the nicotine business.

    So, what can the industry expect from COP10? Experts who have been following the preparations expect debates about the “tobacco endgame,” which includes nicotine reduction, retailer quotas and generational tobacco purchasing bans. They also anticipate talks on contents and emissions testing and measurements, filters and ventilation, and pricing and tax increases.

    At press time, documents had been released for discussions about extending advertising/sponsorship restrictions to corporate campaigns and newer media; supporting anti-tobacco litigation; and discouraging industry diversification into pharmaceuticals and other areas. Also on the agenda: a proposal to redefine aerosol from tobacco-heating products as smoke—a move that critics have described as an attempt to rewrite basic scientific principles.

    In addition, the COP delegates will consider recognizing tobacco control as fundamental to the right to health, clearing the way to attack the industry as a violator of human rights and subject it to additional liability. However, they will not discuss the negative impact of such an approach on smokers and tobacco farmers—two highly stigmatized groups. Participants in the Panama event will likely also debate emerging evidence on new products. Worryingly, they may push for e-cigarettes and tobacco-heating products to be regulated like combustible cigarettes, a development that critics say is not based on science and would discourage the THR that has been underway in many countries.

    Rejecting Harm Reduction

    To tobacco harm reduction proponents, the COP’s growing aversion to THR and the potential of new nicotine products is among its most disturbing characteristics. Even though FCTC Article 1(d) identifies harm reduction as a fundamental tobacco control strategy, THR has been given short shrift during the biennial conferences, with delegates pushing increasingly prohibitionist policies with each subsequent gathering.

    That attitude, says Okereke, is particularly unwarranted considering the emergence of reduced-risk alternatives to smoking. While acknowledging that the first port of call should be smoking cessation, she believes that those who do not wish to quit using nicotine deserve access to better alternatives. “Despite years of tobacco control, more than 1 billion people continue to smoke,” says Okereke. “What do we do with those people? Can we at least offer them alternatives to reduce risks? Years ago, there would have been no options. But thanks to technology, smokers now have real alternatives.”

    Yach is bothered by the inability of the COP delegates to engage in the science. “That’s a failure of imagination,” he says, especially when considering how their colleagues in medicine and other areas have embraced the concept of harm reduction. According to Yach, some of the ambassadors who negotiated the FCTC were also involved in the WTO Doha round about AIDS drug pricing at the start of the new millennium. But whereas the WTO approach was all about patents and innovation, the FCTC never mentions those words. “The people negotiating that treaty simply assumed there was no possibility for improvement in tobacco,” he says.

    Despite years of tobacco control, more than 1 billion people continue to smoke. What do we do with those people? Can we at least offer them alternatives to reduce risks? Years ago, there would have been no options. But thanks to technology, smokers now have real alternatives.

    Flora Okereke, head of global insights and foresights, BAT

    Yach suspects that the resistance to progressive policies is fueled by the fear that THR is an industry trick to sustain sales. But while there may have been legitimate concerns in the early years of THR, he says those should have evaporated as more science became available. “Once we started seeing the big shift out of combustibles and better science showing that the exposure levels [of the new products] were almost unmeasurable, one would expect change.”

    The other factor that has pushed hostility to THR, according to Yach, is the U.S. response to e-cigarettes. “The U.S. approach puts kids—even the theoretical concern about underage vaping—above the real gain to adult smokers who could benefit from new products,” he says. “This ‘kiddification’ policy became the norm internationally once the billionaire philanthropist Michael Bloomberg started pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into extending the campaign across India, Pakistan and other countries. The impact was significant. In 2019, India, one of the world’s largest tobacco markets, banned e-cigarettes, depriving some 100 million combustible cigarette smokers of safer alternatives.

    Bloomberg’s resistance to THR is puzzling given that his charitable foundation funds some of the best harm reduction programs outside of tobacco control, tackling tough issues such as HIV and drug abuse, for example. Reliable sources indicate that the foundation’s unwillingness to extend the harm reduction philosophy to tobacco control has caused divisions even within the organization, providing a sliver of hope that Bloomberg may over time become more amenable to THR.

    Resisting Engagement

    For the time being, however, the COP’s opposition to THR is likely to persist, especially in light of its reluctance to hear dissenting views. Just like the rejection of THR, the ban on industry engagement is not spelled out in the treaty. FCTC Article 5.3 instructs parties to protect public health polices from the tobacco industry’s commercial and other vested interests, but it does not prohibit discussions or engagement outright, which the framers of the treaty realized would be unworkable. “We knew at the time that such a ban was impossible in the case of the Chinese government [which operates the world’s largest tobacco conglomerate] and other countries with state monopolies,” says Yach. Yet the Secretariat took an extreme interpretation of Article 5.3., and it is the nonbinding guidelines—but not the treaty itself—that contain the words “prohibit,” “ban” and “do not involve,” according to him.

    As a result, the FCTC is the only treaty in the UN system where key stakeholders often lack the ability to share their views and insights. Whereas energy companies, including those working in fossil fuel industries, have had ample opportunity to engage during the U.N. Climate Change Conferences and share their insights into how to bring about the desired transition to green energy, the tobacco industry and the rest of the general public will be excluded from having input in Panama, just like at virtually every COP since the creation of the FCTC.

    Such exclusion is detrimental because it means the best available science on tobacco issues will not be taken on board during the COP discussions. Conducting research is expensive—often prohibitively so for noncommercial actors. The industry spends a lot of money on science, according to Okereke. “Nobody else will do that level of research except if they are paid,” she says. But if the industry pays a third party to conduct science, that work will still be treated with suspicion. “Despite industry conducting most science related to new products, COP has historically dismissed our research. Industry is also unable to communicate its findings to consumers because it is prevented from doing so.”

    This situation, says Okereke, has contributed to unhelpful misperceptions, even among specialists. For example, a recent survey commissioned by the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World found that nearly 80 percent of doctors worldwide mistakenly believe that nicotine causes lung cancer, thwarting efforts to help smokers quit with the help of less harmful products.

    Remember the Mandate

    Okereke and Yach believe COP delegates should remember their original mandate—to reduce the death and disease caused by tobacco use. Over the years, the FCTC has expanded its scope from a narrow focus on tobacco to targeting nicotine and the industry as such. This has led to bizarre positions such as opposition to diversification. “On the one hand, they want industry to move out of tobacco—yet when the industry takes steps to do that, they try to block it,” says Okereke. The ultimate objective of the FCTC, she notes, is not to increase the number of laws or to turn the screws on industry but to improve public health.

    In this context, it is telling that some of the countries with the most progressive approaches to new nicotine products have made the greatest progress. Smoking rates in Japan, the United States and Britain, for example, have fallen to record low levels without the prohibitionist measures recommended by the COP. In Japan, the slump in smoking is attributed largely to the success of heat-not-burn products while e-cigarettes are likely to have contributed to the declining popularity of traditional cigarettes in the U.S. Britain’s success in lowering smoking—by the end of 2022, prevalence had fallen to just 13.3 percent—is widely credited to that country’s progressive regulatory approach to vaping.

    By contrast, many early adopters of the FCTC that have been attending the COP for the past 17 years continue to struggle with high smoking rates. With a smoking prevalence of more than 80 percent among adult men, Jordan, which ratified the FCTC in June 2004, has the world’s highest share of male cigarette consumers, for instance.

    The moment you use the phrase ‘appropriate for the protection of public health,’ you run against the rationale given for banning involvement of the industry, which is that there is an irreconcilable difference between the tobacco industry and public health. If something is APPH, then there is no irreconcilable conflict—there is a way to reconcile it through reduced-risk products.”

    Derek Yach, global health expert

    Given the prevailing restrictions on industry engagement, THR activists hope that representatives of countries with progressive policies toward new products will share their success stories with other COP delegates, many of whom come from developing countries with particularly high smoking rates and more limited regulatory capacity. The U.K. is particularly well placed in this regard because its government has actively supported moving smokers to less harmful products. Sweden’s success in reducing smoking is also worthy of discussion at COP10; thanks to snus, smoking prevalence in Sweden is poised to dip below the 5 percent that is widely considered to be the hallmark of a smoke-free society.

    The other candidate is the U.S. Having signed the FCTC but not yet ratified it, that country is entitled to intervene during the COP discussions. “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration simply needs to highlight the products it has authorized based on the phrase ‘appropriate for the protection of the public health,’ or APPH,” says Yach. “If something is APPH in the U.S., it must be APPH everywhere. The moment you use that phrase, you run against the rationale given for banning involvement of the industry, which is that there is an irreconcilable difference between the tobacco industry and public health. If something is APPH, then there is no irreconcilable conflict—there is a way to reconcile it through reduced-risk products [RRPs].”

    Yet, while Yach believes that the U.K., the U.S. and other countries with more progressive tobacco control policies have an obligation to speak about their successes, he is not holding his breath. The demonization of the industry runs so deep, he notes, that they may hesitate to boast about the success of their accommodative regulatory frameworks.

    So, deprived of a voice, the nicotine business will be left off of the guest list again as COP delegates descend on Panama this autumn. The worst outcome of this conference, from the industry’s perspective, would be a series of prohibitionist policy recommendations, with delegates urging bans on flavors and disposable e-cigarettes, for example, along with tax structures that would make it unviable to move ahead with RRPs. Without flavors and risk-proportionate taxation, smokers will have fewer incentives to switch to smoking alternatives, and if governments ban RRPs altogether, the only product available will be the riskiest of all—the combustible cigarette.

    A better outcome would be for COP delegates to acknowledge that THR has a role to play in mitigating the health impact of tobacco use and to provide for an unbiased review of evidence related to new products. For example, an independent commission could be convened to review the scientific evidence on RRPs that has come out since the last COP, including the FDA product authorizations and the decisions of the U.K. government and others based on science.

    Though clearly concerned about what might transpire in Panama, Okereke and Yach remain optimistic about the outlook for THR in the longer term. “I believe the story we are telling is compelling,” says Okereke. “The data and the narrative support our positions. In the 10 years since BAT launched its first e-cigarette, we now count over 24 million adult consumers of less risky alternatives to smoking.” While acknowledging concerns about youth uptake and the environment, she is convinced that these issues can be addressed without resorting to prohibition and depriving smokers of such alternatives. Yach, too, sees reason to be hopeful, albeit not immediately. The data, he says, speaks for itself: “In the end—after everything else has been tried—science does win.”

    The millions of smokers looking for less harmful alternatives will be hoping that victory comes sooner than later.

    Welcome to the Party: Meet Your Hosts

    The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) is an international agreement established to combat the global health problems caused by tobacco use. A framework convention establishes broad commitments and leaves the setting of specific actions and targets either to subsequent more detailed agreements (usually called protocols) or to national legislation.

    The first treaty to be negotiated under the auspices of the World Health Organization, the FCTC defines tobacco control as “a range of supply demand and harm reduction strategies that aim to improve the health of population by eliminating or reducing their consumption of tobacco products and exposure to tobacco smoke.”

    The FCTC was adopted by the World Health Assembly (the highest decision-making body of the WHO) on May 21, 2003, and entered into force on Feb. 27, 2005. To date, 182 countries have signed and ratified the FCTC. Six countries have signed the convention but not ratified it; nine have done neither. This makes the FCTC one of the most widely adopted U.N. treaties.

    The Conference of the Parties is the governing body of the convention. Meeting every two years, it is the venue for discussions about the implementation of the FCTC. All countries, whether they have ratified the treaty or not, can actively participate in discussions. Countries that have ratified the convention are known as “parties.” Countries that have not ratified have observer status and may intervene during the discussions. Delegations typically comprise health officials, although other domestic departmental interests along with nongovernmental organizations and subject specialists might also attend. Past COPs have taken place in Geneva, Durban and Seoul, among other cities. The 2021 gathering took place virtually due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

    The FCTC Secretariat supports and implements the business of the COP between meetings. While in theory, this body simply administers the COP, it plays a significant role in determining the agenda of each meeting.

    The above descriptions are based on a COP10 briefing paper published by The Global State of Tobacco Harm Reduction, which is available in multiple languages. The full text of the FCTC is here.

    Taco Tuinstra is Tobacco Reporter’s editorial director. Based in Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, he coordinates the work of staff writers and contributors. On his watch, Tobacco Reporter has won several awards for editorial excellence. Since joining the magazine in 1997, Taco has visited more than 75 countries to meet industry representatives in their markets and to report tobacco news firsthand.
  • 22nd Evaluates Alternatives for Tobacco Assets

    22nd Evaluates Alternatives for Tobacco Assets

    Photo: 22nd Century

    22nd Century Group has initiated a process to evaluate strategic alternatives with respect to the company’s tobacco assets. The process will include consideration of a range of strategic, operational and financial transactions and alternatives, such as business combinations, asset sales, licensing agreements, alternate financing strategies and other options.

    “We believe the current market capitalization of the company does not appropriately reflect the value of our assets or their long-term potential. After extensive discussion, our board has determined that the best way to maximize value for shareholders is to comprehensively evaluate the company’s strategic alternatives,” said Nora Sullivan, chair of the board of 22nd Century, in a statement.

    “Through the strategic alternatives process, we hope to identify ways to monetize the value or more effectively expand the market reach of our tobacco portfolio, including our innovative VLN tobacco harm reduction products, the first and only combustible tobacco product to receive a modified-risk tobacco product designation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.”

    The company has engaged TD Cowen as advisors in its review of strategic alternatives. There is no assurance that the strategic alternatives process will result in the approval or completion of any specific transaction or outcome.

    The company has not established a timeline for completion of the review process and does not intend to disclose developments unless and until its board of directors approves a specific transaction, concludes the review or determines that further disclosure is appropriate or is required.

  • CAPHRA Calls for Dismantling Regulator

    CAPHRA Calls for Dismantling Regulator

    Photo: Tonis Pan

    The Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA) is calling for the disbanding of the Ministry of Health’s Vaping Regulatory Authority (VRA) in light of the recent court case involving VAPO. The Ministry of Health admitted to incorrectly threatening vape retailers, resulting in a legal victory for VAPO.

    “CAPHRA believes that the VRA’s incorrect interpretation of regulations and subsequent actions against vape retailers demonstrate a lack of competence and effectiveness in fulfilling its role and responsibilities,” said Nancy Loucas, a prominent New Zealand public health consumer advocate and executive coordinator of the CAPHRA.

    The organization emphasizes the potential negative impacts of the Ministry of Health’s actions on public health and the vaping industry as well as the need for a more effective regulatory body.

    Loucas states, “The recent court case involving VAPO highlights the VRA’s inability to effectively regulate the vaping industry. It is time for the Ministry of Health to disband the VRA and establish a more competent and effective regulatory body that can protect public health and support the growth of a responsible vaping industry and includes consumer stakeholders.”

    “Hiding behind Article 5.3 of the WHO’s [World Health Organization] Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and not engaging with those affected is a blatant cop-out and seeks to cover up their own incompetence,” said Loucas.

    The court case involving VAPO revealed that the Ministry of Health had incorrectly interpreted regulations, leading to the court’s declaration in favor of VAPO. This outcome raises concerns about the VRA’s ability to effectively regulate the vaping industry and protect public health.

    “CAPHRA urges the Ministry of Health to take immediate action to disband the VRA and establish a more effective regulatory body that can better serve the interests of public health by being inclusive of all stakeholders, including the vaping industry and consumer stakeholders,” Loucas said.

  • France to Ban Disposables

    France to Ban Disposables

    Photo: YarikL

    France will ban disposable electronic cigarettes, according to a Reuters report citing comments by French Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne.

    “It’s an important public health issue,” Borne said, noting that the government is putting together plans for a national program to fight tobacco usage.

    Borne said “puff” devices create habits among youth that can lead to tobacco addiction.

    Following a tobacco tax increase this year, the government does not plan to raise taxes next year.

    Source:

  • Activist Group Touts THR Benefits

    Activist Group Touts THR Benefits

    Photo: Rawpixel.com

    Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) released a new issue brief, “Tobacco Harm Reduction Products Should Be Promoted Not Prohibited,” co-authored by CAGW President Tom Schatz and Director of Health and Science Policy Christina Smith, which details the benefits of tobacco harm reduction (THR) products.

    “CAGW’s issue brief continues CAGW’s longstanding work on the benefits of THR products. Despite the evidence of their effectiveness in saving lives, state and federal bureaucrats have instituted regressive taxes, strict regulations and outright bans on harm reduction products, Schatz and Smith wrote in their statement.

    “Restrictions on THR products have led to the creation of a dangerous and unregulated market that puts consumers at risk. And even with a crackdown on these products, the number of unique e-cigarette devices sold in the U.S. has tripled to more than 9,000 since 2020, driven mainly by unauthorized disposable vaping products from China. Instead of continuing and expanding strict laws and regulations, government officials should approach the issue of harm reduction products with evidence-based data and logical reasoning and promote policies that have helped millions of adult smokers quit.”

    CAGW is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, mismanagement and abuse in government. The organization is based in Washington, D.C.

  • Menthol Rule Expected ‘in Coming Months’

    Menthol Rule Expected ‘in Coming Months’

    Photo: Luis Pinto

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will finalize its rules to prohibit the sale of menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars “in the coming months,” according to a spokesperson quoted by CBS News.

    When the FDA in April 2022 announced that it was going to ban the flavor, it set a deadline of August 2023 to work out the details. However, the agency made no announcements last month.

    While the number of people who smoke cigarettes in the U.S. has fallen to historical lows, the proportion of people who smoke menthols has been increasing, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

    Tobacco companies insist there are better ways to reduce the health impact of smoking than banning menthol in cigarettes. “Evidence from other markets including Canada and the EU where similar bans have been imposed, demonstrates little impact on overall cigarette consumption,” Luis Pinto, vice president of corporate communications and media relations at Reynolds American Inc., told CBS News in an e-mail.

    Experts say that even when the FDA enacts a nationwide ban, it could be many years before it goes into place, as tobacco companies are likely to challenge the measure in court.

  • Special Report: COP10

    Special Report: COP10

    Image: Maksym Yemelyanov

    From Nov. 20 to Nov. 25, delegates representing the countries that have signed to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) will gather in Panama City to discuss tobacco and nicotine policies at the 10th Conference of the Parties (COP10). It’s an event that warrants close scrutiny because the decisions taken at COP tend to have profound implications on the nicotine business and its customers, impacting the future of manufacturers, suppliers and tobacco growers along with stakeholders such as smokers and vapers.

    In this section, Tobacco Reporter features a selection of its COP10 coverage.

    Arizona Advances Landmark Vape Bill

    The Arizona Senate passed House Bill 4001 on May 26 with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 24-2, establishing the state’s first formal regulatory framework for

  • Brazilian Stakeholders Speak Up for Tobacco

    Brazilian Stakeholders Speak Up for Tobacco

    Photo: SindiTabaco

    Industry representatives stressed the importance of considering tobacco growers viewpoints in the tenth Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which is scheduled to take place Nov. 20-25 in Panama City.

    During a panel discussion at the Expointer 2023 agricultural and livestock exposition in Esteio, Rio Grande do Sul, which concluded Sept 3, experts highlighted the economic significance of the tobacco industry to Brazil in general and the country’s southern provinces in particular.

    “We have almost 600,000 people living directly from the crop,” said Marcilio Drescher, president  of the Brazilian Tobacco Growers Association, Afubra, according to a SindiFumo report.

    “On average, 51 percent of our income comes from tobacco and is supplemented by diversification. The average property is 10.5 hectares. Farmers support their families on this small area of land and use an average of just 3.29 hectares for tobacco. A small area under tobacco provides an excellent income combined with diversification. In the last harvest, the farmer’s gross income reached BRL88,000 [$17,859] per capita per family, on average, and there’s also the income from diversification,” he said.

    The topic of diversification is likely to feature prominently during the COP discussion, given that the FCTC encourages countries to move tobacco farmers into other crops. While supporting agricultural diversification, participants in the Expointer panel discussion lamented the exclusion from the discussions of those most impacted by COP decisions. “We cannot have a discussion on producer diversification without involving the primary stakeholders,” said one panelist.

    Rio Grande do Sul’s secretary for economic development, Ernani Polo, stressed his government’s commitment to protecting the tobacco sector.  “We know that the industries and the sector are working hard to diversify, but tobacco production is still what keeps producers in the countryside,” he said.

    The event was also attended by Iro Schunke, president of the Interstate Tobacco Industry Union; Vinicius Pegoraro, the president of the Association of Tobacco Producing Municipalities; Giuseppe Lobo, executive manager of the Brazilian Tobacco Industry Association; and Gualter Batista Júnior, the president of the Federation of Tobacco Industry Workers and the Santa Cruz do Sul and Region Tobacco and Food Industry Workers Union.