Author: Taco Tuinstra

Second Lawsuit for Menthol Inaction
U.S. health groups filed a second a second lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration for the agency’s inaction on banning menthol cigarettes. The case comes more than seven months after the FDA’s initial date for finalizing the new rule.
“The relentless and racist tobacco industry targeting has killed too many members of the Black community,” said Carol McGruder, co-chair of the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council, which filed the suit along with Action on Smoking and Health and the National Medical Association. “If Black lives truly matter, then we must end the sale of menthol cigarettes and do it now.”
The plaintiffs’ first lawsuit was filed on June 17, 2020. The initial complaint sought to compel the FDA to act on its earlier conclusions that removing menthol cigarettes from the marketplace would benefit public health. The lawsuit asked the court to compel the FDA’s determination on whether to add menthol to the list of prohibited characterizing flavors—a determination that the FDA delayed making for over 10 years. The joint lawsuit followed the 2013 Citizen Petition from the Public Health Law Center, which called on the FDA to prohibit the sale of menthol cigarettes.
“We’re extremely disappointed to be forced to file this second lawsuit against the FDA in support of protecting Americans from menthol cigarettes,” said Laurent Huber, executive director of Action on Smoking and Health, in a statement. “The FDA’s own research confirms that a menthol ban would save lives; there is no scientific reason to delay finalizing this rule.”
In 2011, the FDA’s scientific advisory committee concluded that the “Removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace would benefit public health in the United States.”
As a result of the plaintiffs’ first lawsuit, the FDA made the landmark determination to add menthol to the list of banned characterizing flavors in cigarettes. To begin that rulemaking process, the FDA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to ban the sale of menthol cigarettes in the marketplace. In response, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their initial lawsuit.
After setting an initial date of August 2023 to issue its menthol rule, the FDA has unreasonably and unlawfully delayed this life-saving rule, according to the plaintiffs.
“As African American physicians, we are deeply disturbed at the continuing delays in FDA’s finalizing of the ban on menthol cigarettes,” said Yolanda Lawson, president of the National Medical Association. “Our patients, more than any other group, become disabled and die prematurely due to the continued use of these cigarettes,” she said.
The plaintiffs accuse the Biden Administration of falling for “disinformation and fear-mongering” by the tobacco industry. “The industry is sowing doubt and confusion and taking advantage of real issues in our country and claiming that removing menthol will harm Black lives, when just the opposite is true,” the groups wrote in a statement. “We remain disheartened to be forced to call on the Biden Administration to prioritize human life.”
April 2, 2024
Tea Sticks Under Scrutiny

Photo: cirquedesprit
European legislators are mulling restrictions on herbal heating products, which have been gaining popularity across the continent and elsewhere, reports Reuters.
In the wake of an EU ban on flavored tobacco-heating products last year, tobacco companies have been developing tobacco-free alternatives made from nicotine-infused substances such as rooibos tea.
The European Commission said it is currently evaluating EU tobacco laws, and any changes would be subject to the findings of that effort, public consultation and an impact assessment.
Already, some member states are looking to tighten national legislation.
In Latvia, for example, a draft bill would classify the zero-tobacco sticks as tobacco substitutes and subject to related controls. Croatia, too, intends to regulate herbal heat sticks, according to that country’s health ministry.
Regulation of such products is also being discussed internally in Lithuania.
German authorities, meanwhile, are arguing with manufacturers over whether existing tobacco tax laws cover the new products, according to a spokesperson for the Federal Customs Authority.
BAT said it supports the introduction of evidence-based regulation and appropriate excise taxes for its zero-tobacco sticks, adding that 15 EU member states have already introduced excise duties.
Philip Morris International also believes any nicotine-containing cigarette alternative should be regulated and taxed appropriately, a spokesperson said. The multinational notes that flavors play an important role in encouraging adult smokers to switch away from smoking.
April 2, 2024
Malawi 2024 Volume Up 17 Percent

Photo: Taco Tuinstra
Malawi will produce 17 percent more tobacco this year than it did in the 2023 growing season, reports Malawi24, citing a survey conducted by the Tobacco Commission (TC).
The TC projects production of 140 million kg this season. Last year, the country’s farmers sold 120 million kg.
While the projections are up over those of last year, they are down from earlier estimates. The first crop survey conducted in January 2024 showed a 21 percent increase in 2024 tobacco production from that of 2023.
TC Public Relations Officer Telephorus Chigwenembe attributed the decrease to prolonged dry spells in most parts of the country and the poor establishment and performance of some dark fire cured tobacco in the Malawi’s northern region
The report of the first nationwide survey credited the good prices offered in 2023, increased number of growers, increased sponsorship and availability of inputs as reasons for the larger crop estimates.
Tobacco estimate surveys in Malawi are conducted by players in the industry and are coordinated by the Tobacco Commission.
April 2, 2024
Celebrating Two Decades of Excellence

Odiri Erewa-Meggison
Odiri Erewa-Meggison reflects on the significance of BAT’s Ibadan factory in Nigeria as it celebrates its 20th anniversary.
Contributed
This year, BAT celebrates the 20th anniversary of its Ibadan factory in Nigeria. To mark the occasion, Precise Platform, a PR agency, interviewed Odiri Erewa-Meggison, external affairs director of BAT West and Central Africa.
Precise Platform: Please tell us about the significance of celebrating 20 years of manufacturing excellence for your organization.
Odiri Erewa-Meggison: Celebrating 20 years of manufacturing excellence holds immense significance for BAT West and Central Africa on several fronts. Firstly, it marks a significant milestone in our journey, showcasing two decades of dedication, innovation and resilience in the manufacturing industry within the region. This achievement underscores our commitment to quality, responsible and sustainable business practices in all aspects of our operations.
[We are] celebrating our two decades of quality output, impacts and milestones despite the economic challenges and regulatory changes that have made a lot of foreign companies quit their investments in the country. We are able to adapt to the market dynamics and impact on our operating environment with over 350,000 job opportunities and boost the economy of the nation through our export operation.
From the excellent productions in our Ibadan factory, we export to 11 West and Central Africa countries and recently to the USA, with $110 million annual foreign exchange from export, among other socioeconomic impacts. These achievements, which are worth celebrating, speak volumes of our strong contributions and the vital roles British American Tobacco has played in driving economic growth with social progress in our operating environment and also provide an opportunity for us to express gratitude to our employees, partners and stakeholders, whose unwavering support and dedication have been instrumental in our success. Their commitment and passion have been integral to our journey toward manufacturing excellence.
In essence, celebrating 20 years of manufacturing excellence is not just about looking back at past achievements but also about looking forward with optimism and determination toward a future of continued success and positive impact as BAT Nigeria is here for the long haul.
How has BAT Nigeria’s Ibadan factory evolved and grown its manufacturing capabilities while achieving sustainability milestones over the past two decades?
British American Tobacco Nigeria has undergone substantial evolution and growth in terms of its manufacturing capabilities, reflecting its commitment to meeting the dynamic needs of the market and its stakeholders. BAT Nigeria has continually invested in upgrading its manufacturing facilities with cutting-edge technologies. These advancements have enhanced production efficiency and quality control measures, enabling the company to stay competitive in the manufacturing industry.
Also, BAT Nigeria places a strong emphasis on maintaining high-quality standards across its manufacturing operations. The company adheres to stringent quality control protocols and certifications to ensure that our operations meet or exceed both regulatory requirements and consumer expectations for safety.
We have also integrated sustainability practices into our manufacturing processes, aiming to minimize environmental impact and promote social responsibility. In order to reduce our carbon footprint, in 2022, we transitioned from diesel[-powered] to gas-powered generation, and in 2023, we installed our 1.4-megawatt solar plant in our manufacturing facility, which was recently launched by the executive governor of Oyo State, Seyi Makinde, during our 20th anniversary celebration. We also installed a wastewater treatment plant with a 30,000-cubic-meter storage capacity to recycle and reuse all wastewater. This earned us the Alliance for Water Stewardship (AWS) certificate. These initiatives encompass our evolution and efforts to reduce energy consumption, minimize waste generation [and] support local communities, to promote responsible business practices within the manufacturing sector.
The success of BAT Nigeria’s manufacturing operations, particularly at the Ibadan factory, can be attributed to several key strategies and initiatives that have been instrumental in achieving milestones, beginning with our investment in the state-of-the-art manufacturing facility and sustainable technologies that enable efficient resource utilization and minimize environmental impact. These strategies have led to 100 percent waste recycling and transitioning from diesel to gas operation at our Ibadan facility.
BAT fosters a culture of continuous improvement, where employees are encouraged to identify opportunities for optimization and innovation across all aspects of manufacturing operations. We also work closely with our suppliers and partners to promote responsible sourcing practices and ensure the integrity of our supply chain. This proactive approach enables the implementation of cost-saving measures, quality enhancements and sustainability initiatives.
Another factor that has contributed to the success we are celebrating is our large investments in human capital training and development programs to equip employees with the skills and knowledge necessary to excel in their roles and contribute to manufacturing excellence. This includes technical training on operating equipment, safety protocols and environmental stewardship practices.
How does BAT Nigeria guarantee the highest quality standards in its manufacturing processes while simultaneously prioritizing sustainability and environmental considerations, as outlined by the AWS and the International Renewable Energy Certificates (IREC)?
We implement rigorous quality control measures at every stage of the manufacturing process, from sourcing raw materials to packaging finished products. This includes comprehensive testing, inspections and audits to ensure that our products meet or exceed regulatory requirements and consumer expectations for safety, consistency and quality.
By adhering to internationally recognized certifications and standards for quality management, environmental management, and occupational health and safety, we foster a culture of continuous improvement, where employees are empowered to identify opportunities for enhancing quality, efficiency and sustainability in manufacturing operations. This includes implementing lean manufacturing principles, conducting root cause analyses and investing in training and development to drive continuous improvement initiatives.
By prioritizing quality, sustainability and environmental considerations in our manufacturing practices, we not only meet regulatory requirements and consumer expectations but also contribute to the long-term viability and resilience of our business and the well-being of the communities and environments in which we operate.
BAT Nigeria prioritizes maintaining the highest quality standards in its manufacturing processes while adhering to sustainability and environmental principles outlined by the Alliance for Water Stewardship and the International Renewable Energy Certificates.
Our dedication to sustainability extends beyond energy efficiency and waste reduction. We prioritize responsible water management practices, evident in our state-of-the-art wastewater treatment plant. This impressive facility boasts a 30,000-cubic-meter storage capacity, allowing us to capture and treat all effluent wastewater generated during production. This commitment to water stewardship ensures no untreated wastewater is released into the environment.
More importantly, we don’t simply treat the wastewater; we reuse it. In 2023 alone, we successfully recycled a significant amount—17,388 cubic meters of treated wastewater. This recycled water is likely used for noncritical processes within the factory, reducing our dependence on freshwater resources.
This approach exemplifies our commitment to minimizing our environmental impact and operating responsibly. By effectively managing our wastewater, we not only conserve precious freshwater resources but also demonstrate our alignment with the principles set forth by the AWS certification that we hold.
The IREC compliance translates to our using energy-efficient machinery and exploring renewable energy sources in line with the recently commissioned 1.4 MW solar plant. This reduces the factory’s dependence on fossil fuels and lowers our carbon footprint.
This multifaceted approach allows BAT Nigeria to be a leader in manufacturing excellence. We believe this commitment to quality, sustainability and responsibility sets us apart and contributes to a brighter future.
As BAT Nigeria celebrates two decades of manufacturing excellence in a multi-category industry, how will you leverage your achievements to further enhance and sustain your competitive advantage? Additionally, how does your annual environmental, social and governance (ESG) forum contribute to this strategy, fostering collaboration and innovation for a sustainable future?
As we celebrate 20 years of manufacturing excellence, we are committed to further enhancing and sustaining our organization’s competitive advantage in the industry through strategic initiatives and forward-thinking plans. Here are some of our key plans:
We will continue to invest in cutting-edge technologies beyond what we have achieved so far and innovation to optimize our manufacturing processes, improve efficiency and enhance product quality.
We will reinforce our commitment to sustainability and environmental stewardship by implementing additional initiatives to minimize our environmental footprint, reduce waste generation and promote responsible sourcing practices. With a steadfast commitment to sustainability, we will sustain our recycling cigarette butts initiative and annually hold our private sector ESG forum to continually drive our advocacy for a sustainable environment in alignment with the sustainable development goals.
By implementing these plans and initiatives, we aim to further enhance and sustain our organization’s competitive advantage in the industry, ensuring continued success and growth for the next 20 years and beyond.
Our annual ESG forum plays a critical role in these strategies by fostering collaboration and innovation for a sustainable future. The forum brings together industry stakeholders, experts and thought leaders. This allows BAT Nigeria to share its own sustainability journey and learnings while also gaining valuable insights from others.
Added to this, by facilitating open discussions on key ESG challenges and solutions, the forum fosters collaboration across the industry. This can lead to the development of innovative approaches to tackling environmental and social issues.
The ESG forum allows BAT Nigeria to stay abreast of emerging trends and best practices in sustainability. This ensures we can continuously adapt and improve our strategies to maintain a competitive edge in a future increasingly focused on ESG performance.
Is there any message or reflection you would like to share with the employees, stakeholders and customers who have been a part of this 20-year journey of manufacturing excellence?
I would like to extend my appreciation to all our employees and stakeholders, who have been integral to our 20-year journey of manufacturing excellence. The BAT Nigeria team’s unwavering support, dedication and commitment have been instrumental to our success and achievements over the years.
As we reflect on this milestone, we are reminded of the collective efforts, resilience and passion that have propelled us forward, even in the face of challenges and uncertainties. Together, we have overcome obstacles, embraced opportunities, and [we] continuously strive for excellence in everything we do.
As we embark on the next phase of our journey, we remain committed to upholding the highest standards of excellence and sustainability in all aspects of our operations. Together, we will continue to innovate, collaborate and lead the way toward a future of continued success and positive impact.
Thank you for being a part of our 20-year journey of manufacturing excellence. Here’s to many more years of partnership, growth and shared achievements ahead.
April 1, 2024
Half Measures

Photo: Be Free
Though a generational tobacco ban is not without merit, the U.K. will not allow it to work in the way that it could—and thus the measure should be shelved.
If I have this correctly, the U.K.’s proposed generational tobacco sales (GTS) ban has been attacked by libertarians as being contrary to the principles that people should be allowed to make their own choices about the risks they are prepared to take in life and to take responsibility for the consequences of those choices, providing they act within the law and their actions do not harm others.
These are powerful arguments, but are they enough to defeat the proposal, which, as currently envisaged, would mean that from Jan. 1, 2027, anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 2009, could never be sold tobacco products legally in the U.K.? I suspect not.
One problem arises because the first duty of the government is to protect U.K. citizens, and while, by not allowing smoking in public places, the U.K. government might be seen mostly to have discharged that responsibility in the case of smoking, it is not difficult to imagine how some might argue otherwise. Smokers may still smoke at home, affecting family members, and because, we are told, smoking has a negative economic impact on society, it must be seen as causing harm to nonsmokers by robbing society of the funds to help those in need.
These are powerful arguments, but are they enough to support the radical idea of a GTS ban? I suspect not.
A major problem to my way of thinking is that the GTS ban is based, as is much else to do with tobacco and vaping, on faulty statistics and information and on ideological rather than rational ideas. Regulatory skyscrapers have been and are being built on dodgy foundations.
Here is an example. The first words of a GTS ban blog post from the U.K. Department of Health on Jan. 30, titled “Creating a smoke-free generation and tackling youth vaping: What you need to know,” had it that “The prime minister has set out plans to build a better and brighter future for children.”
I find it intolerable that I am being told by a government department that I need to know something that is misleading. A Feb. 20 story by social policy editor Patrick Butler published in The Guardian newspaper and quoting the Association of Directors of Children’s Services had this to say: “In a withering assessment of the government’s record over the past few years, they said ministers had presided over deepening child poverty, crumbling schools and an exploding health and well-being crisis in young people, with low-income families worst affected. The government’s failure to prioritize the post-pandemic needs of children in England was a ‘massive missed opportunity’ that would leave many thousands of youngsters ‘left behind.’”
The prime minister referred to in the blog is Rishi Sunak, who has been either prime minister or chancellor of the exchequer during almost the entire time frame referred to in The Guardian piece. Does it really sound like he has been building a better and brighter future for children?
Of course not. So the question arises as to why anybody should believe anything else in the blog or any of the other so-called information put out by the government in relation to the GTS ban. And the answer is that there is no reason to believe and every reason to suspect one is being conned. You have only to gaze briefly at the graphic “warnings” on tobacco packages to realize how misleading they are and, I would contend, are meant to be. And the statistics linking diseases and death directly to smoking and to no other causes (drinking, eating highly processed food and taking nonprescription drugs, etc.) are clearly misleading.
But as they say, we are where we are, and whether you accept the necessity of the GTS ban will probably depend largely on whether you believe the information put out by the government. So let’s for the moment accept the government’s position and say that because of the tragic consequences of smoking, and smoking alone, it is necessary to put an end to the habit.
At this point, we need to ask whether the GTS ban is the best approach, and I think you have to say that probably it is. Nearly everyone dismisses the idea of outright prohibition because they say it would not work, and once you say that, you know it won’t be allowed to work—you have set yourself up to fail. Another idea would be to employ tobacco harm reduction (THR), but this will take forever because there are so many people opposed to it, and even those who believe in it can be made to jump and think again simply by saying, “Boo! Children!”
So a GTS ban is the best game in town? Possibly, but that is not to say that even it would work. Let’s take a look. Despite what I wrote in the second paragraph, the blog actually says that from Jan. 1, 2027, anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 2009, “will never be able to legally sold tobacco.” That does not make sense, of course, and it makes you wonder how much effort has gone into the GTS proposal, which is being hurried along in an election year. But, no matter, the idea is not without merit. It has the advantage that, in theory, nobody who has taken up smoking after being sold tobacco products legally will ever be forced to quit.
It has the advantage, too, that it is not really a ban. Smokers, we are told, smoke for the nicotine, and, as things stand and in theory, those who are born after Jan. 1, 2009, will still be able to buy nicotine in inhalable and possibly other forms once they have turned 18. I write that with a feeling of trepidation, however, because a U.K. representative at the February meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control said that no nonsmoker should use a vape. Whether this was meant to be simply a moral judgement whose basis was not spelled out or whether it heralded a regulatory extension of the GTS to cover vapes was not clear. If the latter is the case, GTS is probably dead in the water.
If, on the other hand, the former is the case, it looks like GTS is set to roll, right? Not so fast. One of the major objections made against the ban is that it would create a two-tier society where some people are allowed to buy tobacco products and some are not. I am not sure that this should be seen as a huge problem because we already have age-determined dividing lines in our society in respect of many products and activities; it would just be the case that the dividing line would be on a sliding scale in respect of one product, which is not something that should send us into an intellectual death spiral. After all, the pension age has also been moved on to such a scale.
A connected and more concerning issue to my mind is that the ban would put retailers in an invidious position because they would be required to tell the difference between two adults, one of whom was one year older than the other. There is age estimation technology available that can reliably tell if somebody is under 25 and therefore trigger a request for that person to prove they are over 18, but it seems unlikely that it could split, say, a 40-year-old from a 41-year-old.
There are ways around this problem using some form of identity documents but none that I can think of that would be foolproof in a society where not everybody has such documentation and where not everybody who does carries it with them. And it would be a brave politician who raised the specter of a universal system of identity cards in the U.K. simply to help smokers.
The only answer to this problem as I can see it is to make it illegal for anyone born after Jan. 1, 2009, to buy tobacco products, putting the onus on the buyer rather than the seller, who would nevertheless still be required not to sell to those under the age of 18.
The objection here would be that people would ignore the rules and buy tobacco products illegally. But would this really matter? The law would be in place in large part to protect the individual so that if an individual decided to sidestep the law, it would be their fault if they fell ill from smoking, were fined, not an unlikely outcome at some time given that they would need to buy a pack every day or two, or if somewhere down the line they were forced to quit because the last licit smoker had died or if manufacturers withdrew cigarettes on the grounds that there were too few people left who could buy tobacco legally.
So, we are back on track? A GTS ban it is? No, sorry, there are still a few things we need to clear up. For a GTS ban to work, in my view, it is necessary to have a long-term THR policy in force that provides a range of attractive, reasonably priced, less risky alternative products to help those who want to quit smoking and, importantly, so as not to discriminate against people based on age—one year of age. And despite the U.K.’s reputation of having embraced THR, we are nowhere near having a comprehensive policy that people can rely on to still be in force next month. Snus is banned, and the government continues to dither over heat-not-burn products. Even vapes are subject to winds of change. The government is going to ban disposable products, it is set as I write this piece to further tax these products, and, because the middle classes said, “Boo! Children!,” it is going to ban various flavors.
And worse is to come. Because, despite what it says, the government will not adequately fund the organizations charged with controlling the retail sale of products to those underaged, the general media will soon be crawling with stories about how little Johnny, the light of his mother’s life, was sold vaping products laced with crack, drawn into a den of vice and reduced to a life that was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
Let’s face it: Though GTS is not without merit, it is not going to be allowed to work in the way that it could, and it needs to be shelved. It is true that it is simply too risky to design policy initiatives when politicians are trawling for votes, as they currently are in the U.K.
George Gay is Tobacco Reporter’s European editor, but his territory spans the globe. Based in London, George has covered the tobacco industry since 1982, initially for a U.K.-based publication and since 2004 for Tobacco Reporter. George’s understanding of industry issues, combined with his keen sense of observation and dry wit, have earned him a loyal following among Tobacco Reporter’s readers.

April 1, 2024
Zimbabwe Aims for $60 Billion Tobacco Industry
Zimbabwe plans to create a $60 billion tobacco industry by 2028, according to The Herald.
The government is currently working to increase processing and value addition of tobacco from 2 percent to more than 30 percent to boost earnings.
Zimbabwe currently earns about $1 billion from its annual tobacco exports, which is 6 percent of the global market.
“In terms of the value transformation strategy, we must tap into the value of our tobacco,” said Obert Jiri, permanent secretary for Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Development, noting that the tobacco produced is worth over $60 billion when fully processed across the value chain.
“We understand that most of our tobacco is exported, and the strategy is to tap into that value chain. We are happy that some are doing cigars, some little value addition in terms of cigarette production. The strategy we have as a government is really to ensure that we encourage investments in proper value addition so that we don’t export our raw materials.”
According to Kutsaga CEO Frank Magama, the board is breeding tobacco seeds for international markets. “We have trials that are happening in Italy, Brazil, China, and our varieties are also grown in China. The direction that we take from the government, in terms of breeding, is that we must make sure that we have quality products. We excel in tobacco, so our products are now found in the region where we are able to earn foreign currency for the country,” he said.
The Kutsaga Tobacco Research Board recently introduced climate-smart tobacco varieties, enabling farmers to continuously have good harvests despite climate change and new pathogens.
Zimbabwe’s plans are part of the government’s ambitious Tobacco Value Chain Transformation plan.
April 1, 2024
Kaival Revenues and Profits Up

Photo: David
Kaival Brands Innovations Group reported revenues of $3.2 million for the first quarter of fiscal year 2024 compared with $2.5 million in the same period of the prior fiscal year. Gross profit was approximately $1.2 million in the quarter, up from $500,000 gross profit for the first quarter of fiscal year 2023. The increases in revenues and gross profit was due primarily to a decrease in credits being issued to customers, according to the company.
Nirajkumar Patel, who was recently appointed CEO at Kaival, assured investors that despite recent challenges, the company remains focused on preserving and improving shareholder value.
“We have experienced a number of stalled starts related to the FDA’s [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] denial of Bidi Vapor’s premarket tobacco product application for Bidi Vapor’s ‘Classic’ tobacco-flavored Bidi Stick ENDS [electronic nicotine-delivery system] device, and we are navigating a number of transitions,” Patel said in a statement.
Patel also noted the company is appealing the FDA decision on Bidi Stick.
“However, we continue to believe there is tremendous value related to our international business as well as new, potential opportunities to monetize the extensive and valuable inhalation patent portfolio that we acquired from GoFire in May of last year.”
According to Patel, the purchase of the portfolio marks the beginning of Kaival’s diversification efforts and move away from reliance on revenues from Bidi Sticks. “Our efforts to explore profitability of this portfolio are underway, and we are incredibly energized by the interest and revenue opportunities we believe could be available to us through this portfolio,” said Patel.
April 1, 2024
Harare to Hosts First WT Africa Conference
Zimbabwe will host Africa’s first World Tobacco Africa Conference and Expo May 15–16, reports The Sunday Mail. The conference is set to host over 2,000 senior tobacco professionals from across Africa.
The conference is organized by Quartz Business Events and held in partnership with the Tobacco Industry and Marketing Board (TIMB).
The event’s theme is “From Seed to Success: A New Era for African Leaf Tobacco.” The conference will serve as a platform for industry leaders to share knowledge, address challenges and discover innovative solutions to ensure the continued prosperity of the African tobacco industry, according to The Sunday Mail.
“Zimbabwe has been afforded the opportunity to host the first-ever World Tobacco Africa Expo, and this will be an opportune time for the country to showcase a new business platform for the African leaf tobacco industry,” said Tapiwa Chimedza, TIMB head of business development. “As the host country, we will create a platform for discussion on a new era for African leaf tobacco.”
“At least 2,000 senior and key professionals will take part in the program, which is a huge resource to tap from,” he said.
“Hosting such a global event here in Harare brings with it more opportunities for our country,” he added.
“The enthusiasm and the wealth of ideas shared with associations, merchants and growing groups alike have solidified our conviction that the inaugural World Tobacco Africa Conference is poised for great success,” said Tony Crinion, Quartz Business Events managing director, after a tour of local manufacturers and industry stakeholders in Harare.
Zimbabwe is Africa’s largest tobacco producer, followed by Zambia, Tanzania, Malawi and Mozambique.
For more information about the WT Africa conference, click here.
April 1, 2024
Taking Stock

Image: blacksalmon
Where are we with ESG?
By Cheryl K. Olson
It was once novel, even radical, to talk about making good environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices central to business and investment decisions. Today, ESG is literally front and center on the websites of major tobacco companies.
Under the heading “Winning with ESG,” Turning Point Brands states, “We recognize that incorporating ESG into our business strategy will support our operating principles of winning with accountability, integrity and responsibility.” Altria has set up a Responsibility Progress Dashboard to track and manage ESG issues.
Sustainability is now the trending term. Witness Philip Morris International’s Sustainability page, which begins, “For PMI, sustainability is more than just a means to minimize negative externalities and mitigate risks while maximizing operational efficiency and resource optimization.” At Universal Leaf, the first-listed “core belief” is “We believe in our responsibility to make a sustainable impact on our planet.”
Whether ESG or sustainability, is something meaningful going on here for the nicotine product industry? What are the biggest concerns on the “E” side of things? Below are several perspectives.
Investor Viewpoints
Pieter Vorster, managing director at Idwala Research, focuses on tobacco harm reduction and industry transformation. When it comes to tobacco companies, says Vorster, investors may look at ESG from several angles. One is the Tobacco-Free Portfolios perspective, which assumes that there are no good tobacco companies, and all should be excluded from portfolios. Another approach, he says, is “to encourage companies to change, as with the oil industry, and invest in the least bad ones.”
A third viewpoint looks more at process than product. Tobacco companies can end up in ESG portfolios via “good credentials on other measures like carbon footprint and water,” says Vorster. “BAT, for example, has been in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index for over 20 years.”
Why the shift from ESG to sustainability? “From an investor perspective, the whole ESG movement is probably slowing,” Vorster says, because it’s no longer a differentiating factor. Rather, environmental and social consciousness is something that’s assumed by both investors and consumers.
This is why he feels that measures of movement toward reduced-risk nicotine products, such as the Tobacco Transformation Index, can benefit industry. They can help companies stand out on another dimension of ESG. (More on this later.)
“I think the sustainability label is a bit broader than ESG,” says Vorster. “For me, from an investor perspective, sustainable would be, how long can this business exist? How long can it grow?”
“Ultimately, most investors care about performance,” Vorster says. “If a company’s environmental credentials are going to impede their share price performance, then they will care.”
He adds, “That’s also why they care about tobacco companies transforming, because they want a more sustainable business long term. You know, it’s not good business if your products kill half your customers.”

Investors care about tobacco companies transforming because they want a more sustainable business long term. You know, it’s not good business if your products kill half your customers.
Pieter Vorster, managing director Idwala Research
The Litter Issue
When I was a child, environmental awareness meant “Keep America Beautiful” (KAB) campaigns, telling us “every litter bit hurts.” This included cigarette ends tossed from car windows. To my surprise, KAB is still going. Its website says that “cigarette butts account for 88 percent of litter four inches or smaller.”
Concerns about cigarette litter have shifted from aesthetics to preventing chemical and plastic pollution. Cigarette filter waste was on the agenda this year at the 10th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Citing a 2010 study, a COP10 news release says, “An estimated 4.5 trillion cigarette butts are thrown away annually worldwide, representing 1.69 billion pounds of toxic trash containing plastics.”
Cigarette filters are also the focus of most research literature on tobacco and sustainability. A 2022 editorial in the journal Addiction on the environmental impact of tobacco products advocates banning the sale of filtered cigarettes, or having industry pay for cleanup. As an example of the latter, the writers point to a San Francisco “cigarette litter abatement fee,” which is currently $1.50 per pack, paid quarterly by local cigarette retailers.
The European Union’s Single Use Plastics Directive has helped spur efforts to develop biodegradable filters. Experiments in recycling are underway, such as a project in Slovakia that plans to mix recycled cigarette filters into asphalt for surfacing roads.
Sidelining of cigarettes by noncombustible alternatives should gradually reduce filter waste. What about litter issues with newer nicotine alternatives?
“Next-generation, or reduced-risk, products were generally not a major source of concern on the environmental side until the rise in popularity of disposable vapes,” says Vorster. Waste from disposables is particularly difficult to address because so many are sold illicitly.
The website of the U.K. Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) criticizes the lack of interest in and resources for vape recycling from local councils. The UKVIA will host a webinar on April 15 to address the future of vape waste management.
Concerns about e-cigarette waste have yet to catch fire (pardon the pun) in America. Sustainability is not listed among the “top issues” on the website of the Truth Initiative. Their brief 2023 report on “tobacco and the environment” mentions disposable e-cigarette waste and battery risks but zooms in on pollution and litter from cigarettes.
David Sweanor, who chairs the advisory board of the Centre for Health Law, Policy and Ethics at the University of Ottawa, views this issue skeptically. “People look for something new to beat up nicotine companies on,” he says. “But your real concern isn’t about disposable e-cigarettes; it’s about batteries. Something less than 5 percent of household batteries sold in the U.S. are properly disposed of. So don’t throw it at the nicotine business or consumers.”
During a visit to Finland, Sweanor happened upon a creative art installation that turned out to be a battery recycling station. “Because batteries are all different colors, as the container filled up, it’s a beautiful sculpture,” he recalls. “Whoever puts these in hockey arenas and shopping malls—why aren’t we doing things like that?”

Waste from disposables is difficult to address because so many are sold illicitly. (Photo: Bennphoto)
Concern About Carbon/Water Footprint
Nowadays, we care less about “litterbugs” and more about carbon footprints. In her 2024 closing address to COP10, Adriana Blanco Marquizo, head of the FCTC Secretariat, emphasized environmental protection. She cited the “historic decision” to “take account of the environmental impacts arising from the cultivation, manufacture [and] consumption of tobacco products as well as the waste they create.”
Six years ago, a groundbreaking report from Imperial College London turned attention from smoking’s health harms to the environmental harms from producing 6 trillion cigarettes per year. Researcher Maria Zafeiridou and colleagues looked at “resource needs, waste and emissions of the full cradle-to-grave life cycle of cigarettes” across the globe. As Imperial College’s news release noted, those 6 trillion cigarettes required 22,200 megatons of water, 5.3 million hectares of land, 62.2 petajoules of energy and 27.2 megatons of material resources.
Synthetic nicotine maker Zanoprima Life Sciences recently released a report comparing the environmental impact (from the raw materials to the factory gate) of their laboratory-made nicotine and nicotine from plants. The report’s author, Eric Johnson of Atlantic Consulting of Zurich, routinely does life cycle assessments of products and services.
“In some of the work I do, I know what the answer will be before I start,” says Johnson. “But I hadn’t looked at this issue closely.”
Drawing on data used in the Imperial College study, Johnson found that tobacco-based nicotine (especially when fuel cured) had a substantially larger carbon footprint. Also, synthetic nicotine production doesn’t use up water.
Johnson was struck by the size of the difference. “When it’s ‘this product has a 15 percent lower footprint than the other guy’s product,’ it’s hard to know,” he says. “But tobacco nicotine’s footprint is multiple times larger. Even with normal error and uncertainty, the result is solid.”

Clearly, from an ESG standpoint, the big issue has to be that cigarettes are killing 8 million people a year. Not the carbon costs.
David Sweanor, chair, advisory board of the Centre for Health Law, Policy and Ethics at the University of Ottawa
What We Can’t Say
As someone who makes his living as an investor, Sweanor views all of the above as relative trivialities. “Clearly, from an ESG standpoint, the big issue has to be that cigarettes are killing 8 million people a year,” he says. “Not the carbon costs.”
A “good ESG” cigarette company would move aggressively into reduced-risk nicotine products. But that’s just the first step, says Sweanor. Such companies also have an ethical and legal responsibility to warn their customers.
“If you’re selling products that are two or three orders of magnitude more hazardous than viable alternatives, you need to tell them. That’s basic ESG standards,” he says. “However, the laws in many countries, including the U.S. and Canada, make it illegal to do that.”
Educating about and promoting reduced-risk products could create shareholder value and make it easier to hire good employees. “You’d also want to differentially price and have other incentives to nudge consumers toward the less hazardous nicotine products,” he adds. “But companies are precluded from doing all that.” Sweanor calls this “insane.”
Recent surveys show that ever-fewer people, including those who smoke, think that noncombustible nicotine products are less hazardous than cigarettes. Sweanor imagined what health authorities would do if similar proportions of adults disbelieved that driving drunk increased car crashes. “They’d be totally freaking out and running a major campaign,” he says. “And probably force any companies involved to be part of that effort.”
He stresses that this is out of industry’s hands. “The responsibility I would lay on the companies,” he concludes, “is that they are not making a big deal out of this.”
ESG From the Inside
I asked an industry insider, who’s had senior roles at several major companies, for their unvarnished anonymous view. “There is a lot of snark around the value of things like ESG,” they admitted. “I’ve heard it called ‘window dressing.’”
They personally disagree with that view, noting that “unsexy” things like constant efforts to reduce manufacturing waste and water use get little publicity.
“I’ve even heard THR (tobacco harm reduction) called window dressing. But I don’t think that’s true where I work,” they said. “We’d like to stay around for a long time, and we’ve got to do something very different to make that happen. And there is a real sense of pride about this transformation.”
Cheryl K. Olson is a California-based public health researcher who specializes in behavioral health issues and consults on tobacco product behaviors via McKinney Regulatory Science Advisors. She spent 15 years on the faculty of Harvard Medical School.

Citations
Zafeiridou M et al. (2018). Cigarette smoking: An assessment of tobacco’s global environmental footprint across its entire supply chain. Environmental Science & Technology. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.8b01533
Zanoprima Lifesciences Ltd. (2024). Carbon and water footprints of tobacco-based vs. synthetic nicotine. https://www.zanoprima.com/updates
Truth Initiative (2024). Tobacco and the environment. https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/harmful-effects-tobacco/tobacco-and-environment
Morphett K et al. (2022). The environmental impact of tobacco products: Time to increase awareness and action. Addiction. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.16046
April 1, 2024
Mediocre Meeting

Image: Aleksandr Baiduk
COP10 is unlikely to significantly accelerate progress toward the FCTC objectives.
By Stefanie Rossel
The scene could have been from a Monty Python movie. During the 10th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), authorities raided four hotels hosting tobacco harm reduction (THR) advocates, investigating reports of “T-shirts and pamphlets advertising harmful products,” according to Martin Cullip, International Fellow at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance’s (TPA) Consumer Center.
“These turned out to be clothes worn by consumer advocates bearing their organization’s name and flyers politely addressing COP10 delegates and asking them to consider harm reduction,” he says. “It is shameful that Panama considers materials expressing the right to free speech and democratic engagement to be a criminal matter.”
Concurrent with COP10, Cullip co-organized the TPA’s “Good COP” (“Conference of the People”) counter-conference at the Central Hotel Panama. The event was livestreamed and featured almost two dozen tobacco harm reduction experts representing 14 different countries. With their presentations, they said that they were holding the WHO accountable for denying “lifesaving access to tobacco harm reduction products” and denying the public and media access to the COP meetings.
“We know that the WHO were aware of our event as it was mentioned in webinars by Corporate Accountability, the University of Bath and the Network for Accountability of Tobacco Transnationals,” says Cullip. “It is also included in a page on COP10 interference at Tobacco Tactics [a knowledge exchange platform monitoring the tobacco industry’s activities]. One purpose of the event was to get the WHO’s attention, so we are thrilled to have achieved that. There were no attempts to stop our event, but we were visited by an inquisitive group from Vital Strategies, and a couple of delegates ventured away from the conference to have a snoop around our hotel.”
While the “Good COP” organizers did not interact with any COP10 delegates, consumer representatives who attempted to go to the Convention Center in the hope of having a discussion were stopped. “Journalists approached WHO front groups ‘protesting’ outside the building but were told that only FCTC-accredited media would be spoken to,” says Cullip.
Another Private Function
Stakeholders such as consumers and tobacco growers struggled to be heard in Panama. (Pamphlet courtesy of Martin Cullip)
COP10 was business as usual in many ways. As in past events, the conference managed to maintain its secrecy. Media representatives were cherry-picked in an accreditation process that denied access to anyone who doesn’t share the WHO’s idea of tobacco control. But even the Chosen Ones were thrown out after the delegates voted on Day 1 to exclude the press. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) wishing to take part had to pass a similar test of faith while consumers who have successfully quit smoking with the help of reduced-risk products were banned from sharing their experiences.
The absence of dissenting voices allowed delegates to spread misinformation uncontested, as in the estimate of the area of land cleared for tobacco cultivation every year. It also allowed them to shame states for THR-friendly policies. The Philippines, for example, received an “Ashtray Award” for its “brazen use of tobacco industry tactics of obstinate dispute and delay throughout the COP.” Without outside scrutiny, the delegates could also conveniently ignore scientific evidence from studies not commissioned by the WHO or its financial supporters led by Bloomberg Philanthropies.
In such a climate, only a few delegations had the courage to use the short progress statements during the opening plenary to discuss their countries’ positive experience with novel nicotine products. New Zealand was the only party to point out how the implementation of a differentiated, evidence-based regulatory framework that includes reduced-risk products (RRPs) had contributed to significantly reduced daily smoking rates.
Most other country statements were disappointing, according to Cullip. “Canada made no mention whatsoever of harm reduction, and the U.K. were too timid to even mention the ‘Swap to Stop’ campaign, which is a central plank of the U.K.’s efforts toward the country’s Smoke-Free 2030 goal and is always mentioned in parliamentary question answers on the subject,” he says. “One can only assume they were scared of upsetting the FCTC Secretariat, so they chose not to rock the boat. There is also a suspicion that the U.K. announced its ban on disposable vapes, plain packaging and restrictions on flavors just a week before deliberately so they would be looked on favorably by the WHO.”
Armenia, El Salvador, Guatemala and the Philippines were among the few parties to mention THR at the conference. They called for a serious and evidence-based discourse on novel tobacco products, stressing the need to consider alternative methods of reducing the health impacts of smoking. The Philippines, whose regulatory framework has recognized the role of RRPs since 2022, cited FCTC Article 1(d), which stipulates that harm reduction is one of the pillars of tobacco control.
“There were signs at COP10 that some countries are softening on harm reduction, and quite a few made country statements referring to THR or voicing the opinion that the WHO should recognize the potential,” says Cullip. “During the proceedings, some parties also questioned the quality of reports presented by the FCTC for COP10. I had the impression that some delegations realize that the genie is out of the bottle on reduced-risk nicotine products and [that] it’s best to recognize that and accommodate them in tobacco control policies instead of banning them, which is unrealistic and futile.”

There were signs at COP10 that some countries are softening on harm reduction, and quite a few made country statements referring to THR or voicing the opinion that the WHO should recognize the potential.
Martin Cullip, International Fellow at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance’s Consumer Center
Debate Postponed
In line with the agenda, COP10 delegates debated novel nicotine products but without making decisions. Discussion on FCTC Articles 9 and 10, which deal with the testing and measuring of tobacco products’ contents and emissions, and the disclosure of such information, went on for the full length of the conference without achieving consensus. Cullip views this as a positive development. “It is good for consumers and public health that the wild proposals contained in COP10 reports on Article 9 and [Article] 10 did not gain any traction at COP10,” he says.
St. Kitts and Nevis urged the FCTC Secretariat to form a working group to discuss harm reduction and to define it under the terms of Article 1(d). “This is the first time that any meaningful discussion has taken place on that part of the treaty, so it is quite significant,” says Cullip. “A working group is open to all parties to the treaty to take part in whereas an expert group is populated by cherry-picked NGOs and ‘experts’ appointed by the FCTC Secretariat and Bureau.
“The WHO wanted an expert group set up to discuss Articles 9 and 10 to replace the previous working group, which was suspended in 2018 at COP8. Parties had been surveyed in 2020 and 2021 about the fate of the working group, and a majority, both times, were in favor of reactivating it. However, their wish was ignored, and the WHO proposed setting up an expert group regardless. It tends to explain why parties could not come to a consensus, and the St. Kitts proposal just added to the disagreement.”
THR proponents had asked for a working group in the run-up to COP10, but so far to no avail. “There is still no formal confirmation of the decision, let alone its scope of work, objectives, criteria or membership,” says Delon Human, president and CEO of Health Diplomats and co-author of a COP10 scorecard report that measures the progress in achieving the FCTC objectives. “However, WHO’s silence on this issue should not overshadow the importance of member states finally beginning to ask the right questions,” Human notes.
Derek Yach, who as a WHO cabinet director and executive director was heavily involved in the creation of the FCTC two decades ago, hopes that the FCTC Secretariat will look back at the way it held broad consultations with industry scientists in the years leading to the adoption of the treaty. While a draft decision requires parties to review and update the evidence and science related to tobacco harm reduction by COP11, the text, according to Yach, suggests that the proposer has prejudged the outcome.
“It highlights ‘the need to be informed about activities of the tobacco industry that have a negative impact on tobacco control,’” says Yach, who is also the lead author of the COP10 scorecard. “Never once does the decision hint at possible positive effects of THR on tobacco use and its ultimate effect on health. Further, the decision reverts to outdated science when discussing tobacco cessation. Use of the terms ‘concern,’ ‘caution’ and ‘challenges’ all portray THR in a negative light. If this decision is adopted, it may hamper a needed open scientific debate about benefits at a time when these become clearer and stronger with new major publications.”

The world of tobacco control and THR has changed dramatically since [2003], which is unfortunately not reflected in the interpretation, development and implementation of FCTC guidelines.
Delon Human, president and CEO, Health Diplomats
No Significant Effect Anticipated
The COP10 scorecard was shared with all COP10 delegates and a host of non-state THR stakeholders, according to Human. The responses received by non-state actors such as NGOs or public health advocates were mainly positive, he notes, while state actors only acknowledged receipt. The report assessed progress made by the parties to the FCTC in six sections. Trends in tobacco use and impact was rated an E-, commitments, resolutions and pledges received a B+ and implementation of resolutions a D-. In the three other sections, the FCTC got poor marks too.
Measured against the findings of the scorecard, COP10 didn’t fare well, according to Human. “The most disappointing aspect of COP10 was the ongoing nonrecognition of THR as an integral part of tobacco control as stated in Article 1(d) of the FCTC,” he says. “Therefore, the ‘fail’ grade for not embracing THR was perpetuated. This is […] a failure to prevent unnecessary tobacco-related disease, disability and premature deaths.”
Furthermore, the “fail” marks for neglecting THR research priorities and capacity-building in low-income and middle-income countries were validated not only by nonaction but accentuated by the ongoing exclusion of key stakeholders, Human points out. “We scored the lack of stakeholder engagement as a ‘fail’ beforehand, and unfortunately, the COP10 exclusionary behavior confirmed the ‘fail,’” he says. “FCTC’s Article 5.3 requires parties to protect the implementation of their public health policies against the commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry. Yet this is impossible when many of the same countries are also striving to generate revenue from state-owned tobacco entities.”
Globally, 18 governments own 10 percent or more of at least one tobacco company. This is likely to interfere with at least one of the decisions referenced in COP10’s Panama Declaration: the creation of a working group to deal with Article 19, which nations can use to hold the tobacco industry liable for people’s health and the environment. The article was repeatedly discussed in previous COP meetings, says Human.
“The expert group which has been established will be made up of lawyers from various countries, with experience of holding tobacco companies accountable. At COP6, the expert group on Article 19 presented a comprehensive report on civil liability for the tobacco industry, and at COP7, it presented an online Civil Liability Toolkit. Whether this leads to a flurry of lawsuits after COP10 remains to be seen. The technical guidance needs to be backed up by political will in countries. Tobacco companies remain one of the most effective tax collectors for countries, so the most likely outcome will be prolonged discussions followed by minimal action,” says Human.
Human feels encouraged by the COP10’s decision to set up another expert group to work on “forward-looking control measures” under Article 2.1, which encourages governments to implement measures beyond those required by the FCTC. “The world of tobacco control and THR has changed dramatically since [2003], which is unfortunately not reflected in the interpretation, development and implementation of FCTC guidelines,” he says.
“Article 2.1 might offer hope in that it could guide the COP to better translate new information, science, products and consumer experience into actions. As a starting point, our hope is that the workgroup would review current peer-reviewed literature on the effectiveness of noncombustible nicotine alternatives such as ENDS [electronic nicotine-delivery systems] to facilitate and accelerate cessation. Then it could play a role in balancing the COP focus to consider supply side measures in equal weight to the current focus on reducing demand for tobacco products.”
For Human, the recent COP’s decision to strengthen language around Article 18, which urges parties to take account of the environmental impacts arising from the cultivation, manufacture and consumption of tobacco products as well as the waste they create, is positive, as it will help integrate tobacco control policy with those protecting the environment. “For example, it will improve policy coherence between the FCTC and national and international treaties, like the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution, aimed at addressing hazard waste from tobacco products, including cigarette butts,” he says.
“Another positive outcome could be an acceleration of identifying and promoting economically viable and sustainable agricultural alternatives to tobacco growing. All in all, it should strengthen implementation of the FCTC.”
Human is less optimistic that the decisions taken at the event will contribute to accelerating the decline of global tobacco consumption. “Based on the mediocre decline in tobacco consumption facilitated by COP1 to COP10 and the inability of parties to fully embrace harm reduction strategies, science, products and methods, no significant declines are expected.”
Stefanie Rossel is Tobacco Reporter’s editorial contributor. An experienced trade journalist, she combines sharp reporting skills with in-depth knowledge of the tobacco and vapor industries. Prior to joining Tobacco Reporter, Stefanie was editor-in-chief at Tobacco Journal International, where she worked for a decade. Fluent in English, German and French, Stefanie covers tobacco news around the world. She is based in Germany.

April 1, 2024