Category: Featured

KT&G Provides Earthquake Relief

Photo: Adin
KT&G has donated TRY4.5 million ($238,390) to support earthquake victims and post-earthquake relief efforts in Turkey.
KT&G delivered its donation through the Korean Red Cross on Feb. 10 to fund aid supplies and recovery activities in Turkey. The donation was collected in the form of a matching grant named KT&G Sangsang Fund, whereby the company matched the donations made by employees.
KT&G has been reaching out with relief whenever a crisis has occurred in the local community over the past years. During the coronavirus crisis, KT&G secured 4,800 Covid-19 diagnostic kits from South Korea and donated them to hospitals in Istanbul in 2020 when the medical equipment was short in supply due to the pandemic situation. KT&G also provided the relief fund worth TRY700,00 when an earthquake hit Izmir in the same year.
“We hope that this relief effort will be of some help to the people of Turkey, who have maintained a friendly relationship with Korea for a long time,” said Kim Kwan-joong, president of KT&G Turkey, in a statement. We will continue to carry out our activities of social contribution as a member of the Turkish community.”
In 2007, KT&G invested approximately TRY700 million building its first overseas manufacturing plant in Izmir. Built on 145,000 square meters of land in Tire District, the facility exports to Europe and the Middle East.
February 22, 2023
Researchers Condemn Medical Body’s Position on E-cigarettes

Colin Mendelsohn
Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council’s (NHMRC) statement on e-cigarettes fails to meet the scientific standard expected of a leading national scientific body, according to 11 addiction scientists, reports Medical Express.
Published in June 2022, the NHMRC statement aims to provide “public health advice on the safety and impacts of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) based on review of the current evidence.”
This critique of the NHMRC statement, published in Addiction, argues that the statement inaccurately summarizes the current evidence on e-cigarettes. The authors contend that the NHMRC exaggerates the risks of vaping and fails to compare them with smoking; incorrectly claims that adolescent vaping causes subsequent smoking; and ignores evidence of the benefits of vaping in helping smokers quit.
The NHMRC statement also ignores evidence that vaping is likely already having a positive effect on public health and misapplies the precautionary principle, which requires policymakers to compare the risks of introducing a product with the risks of delaying its introduction.
“Many leading international scientists in the field hold more supportive views than the NHMRC on the potential of e-cigarettes as a strategy to improve public health,” said Colin Mendelsohn, lead author of the Addiction article. “In particular, invoking the precautionary principle to prevent the use of much less harmful smoke-free products is unjustified in the face of the massive public health burden of smoking.”
February 22, 2023
U.K.: ‘Biggest Tobacco Tax Hike in History’

Photo: spectrumblue
U.K. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is planning the biggest tobacco tax hike in history, according to the Daily Mail.
A pack of 20 cigarettes will reportedly jump by £1.15 ($1.81), which is an increase of more than 15 percent.
Although cigarette duty usually rises with inflation, some smokers had hoped the Chancellor would put a hold on a jump because of such high levels of inflation.
Tobacco taxes raise almost £11 billion in taxes for the government, representing 1.2 percent of all tax revenue.
The U.K. hopes to reduce the share of smokers in its population to fewer than 5 percent by the end of the decade.
Earlier this year, a poll found a majority of Brits want an immediate ban on cigarette sales.
The findings could fuel the belief of some lawmakers and health experts that public opinion is approaching a “tipping point,” similar to when the U.K. ban on smoking in pubs, bars and restaurants was introduced in 2006 and 2007.
February 22, 2023
Cigarette Prices to Double in Pakistan

Photo: Taco Tuinstra
Tobacco companies in Pakistan announced an increase in cigarettes prices of 250 percent per pack following the implementation of the government’s PKR170 billion ($649.190 billion) minibudget this week, reports Propakistani.
The budget includes a sales tax increase from 16 percent to 17 percent and a 150 percent increase in the federal excise duty (FED) on cigarettes.
The retail prices of all popular cigarette brands including Marlboro, Gold Leaf, Capstan and Gold Flake, have gone up with the cheapest retailing at PKR211 to the most expensive now on sale for PKR522-525 per pack.
Public health advocates applauded the price hikes, saying that price measures are the most effective way of discouraging tobacco consumption.
Critics say the recent FED threaten legal tobacco companies’ survival because their sales are declining. Others note that the tobacco industry has raised prices above what was required by tax changes.
The industry, they say, has widened the per-packet price differentials by raising consumer rates significantly above the cost of the tax increase on more expensive products and absorbing the tax impact on cheaper products.
February 22, 2023
Inflation Leads Smokers to Cheaper Cigarettes

Photo: Nopphon
New inflation survey data examining the opinions of U.S. smokers found that, due to higher prices, smokers were more likely to switch to cheaper cigarettes rather than less expensive as well as less harmful alternative nicotine products. In examining smoker attitudes, this survey also found a lack of education regarding harm reduction products, with almost a third of smokers surveyed saying that nicotine pouches were more harmful than traditional cigarettes.
“In times of rising inflation, it is even more critical that smokers are well informed about the benefits of harm reduction products as it is an opportunity both for health and wallet,” said Markus Lindblad, head of external affairs at Nicokick, an e-commerce company in the smokeless industry, in a statement.
“Instead of switching to a lower-cost traditional cigarette due to rising prices, a better outcome would be switching to cheaper, harm-reduced alternative products like nicotine pouches, gum, or lozenges. Unfortunately, this survey found many smokers are not aware of the health benefits of switching to alternative products like nicotine pouches, and it is incumbent upon policymakers to address this misconception if they are serious about better public health outcomes.”
The survey also found that half of Americans say more education on the less harmful nature of alternative nicotine products would help them switch from cigarettes to products like vapes or nicotine pouches.
Only 21 percent of those surveyed view nicotine pouches as less harmful than cigarettes, with 30 percent incorrectly saying that nicotine pouches are more harmful than traditional cigarettes.
Thirty-six percent of respondents said vaping was more harmful than smoking traditional cigarettes.
February 22, 2023
India Allows Sale of Excess Tobacco

Photo: Tobacco Reporter archive
The Indian government has allowed the sale of excess tobacco produced by registered and unregistered growers without penalty on auction platforms in Karnataka, reports Mint.
“Union Minister of Commerce and Industry Shri Piyush Goyal has considered to allow the sale of the excess flue-cured Virginia (FCV) tobacco produced by registered growers and unauthorized flue-cured Virginia tobacco produced by unregistered growers without any penalty considering the low production during the 2022–2023 Karnataka crop season,” the commerce ministry said.
Due to continuous rains in June and July of last year, total production of FCV in Karnataka was 59.78 million kg against the crop size of 100 million kg authorized by the tobacco board.
The government’s decision not to impose penalties on the sale of excess FCV will help farmers recover monetary loss due to lower production during the season, helping growers to continue their livelihood, according to the ministry.
February 21, 2023
Zimbabwean Farmers Anticipate High Prices

Photo: Taco Tuinstra
Tobacco farmers in Zimbabwe are expecting high marketing prices this year following a good growing season and improved curing methods, reports The Herald
“Our assessment of the tobacco crop to date promises higher yields and improved quality. This view is shared by a number of contractors,” said Rodney Ambrose, CEO of the Zimbabwe Tobacco Association. “It is in this regard that we are anticipating average prices to be firmer this season.
“There is also a level of increased demand for the crop, so this will help lift the average prices.”
“Farmers are anticipating high prices as the quality of the crop in the field is very good,” said Shadreck Makombe, president of the Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers Union. “All that is left is for farmers to do proper curing. We encourage farmers not to be extravagant and [to] save their hard-earned money and be able to finance next season’s operations.”
“The 85 percent foreign currency retention increase is surely going to put more money in farmers’ pockets,” said Makombe.
According to Edward Dune, vice president of the Tobacco Farmers Union Trust, all farmers are looking forward to a rewarding season. “The playground has to be level in terms of pricing,” he said. “Let the price matrix reward on the basis of quality. No merchant should be a farmer’s favorite given that some are paying more for the same quality to avoid side marketing.”
The Tobacco Farmers Union Trust is lobbying for viable prices to enhance sustainability, according to the organization’s president, Victor Mariranyika.
February 21, 2023
EU Lawmaker Urges Snus Legalization

Photo: Tobacco Reporter archive
Johan Nissinen, a Swedish member of the European Parliament, has urged the EU to legalize snus, according to Snusforumet.
“Swedish snus and nicotine pouches are better options than cigarettes,” Nissinen said. “We can get rid of cigarettes once and for all thanks to snus and nicotine pouches. We need to highlight countries such as Sweden, but also Great Britain, where both Public Health England and the NHS [National Health Service] have encouraged citizens to use e-cigarettes instead of traditional combustible tobacco products to advance public health. It’s a further step in an already multi-year government health initiative aiming to make the U.K. completely smoke-free by 2030.”
“Sweden is proof of the public health advantages that come from embracing snus and nicotine pouches instead of cigarettes,” he said. “We need to do more to highlight the public health benefits. Sweden should also push to ensure the internal market is open for legal, equivalent products. If beer can be sold within the EU, wine should be too. If the sale of Coca-Cola is permitted, so must Pepsi, and so on. The same principle should apply to snus. If deadly cigarettes are permitted throughout the internal market, then a lower risk equivalent like snus should be as well.”
February 21, 2023
Time to Rethink the FCTC
When the World Health Organization drafted the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), global tobacco sales were dominated by combustible cigarettes. The emergence of new technologies, such as e-cigarettes and tobacco-heating products, along with a deterioration in attitudes toward global cooperation have rendered many of the assumptions on which the treaty is based obsolete. During Keller and Heckman’s recent E-Vapor and Tobacco Law Symposium in California, public health expert Derek Yach, who was instrumental in the creation of the FCTC, argued that it is time to update the treaty and bring its stipulations in line with the realities of a radically different context. Below is the text of his presentation, gently edited to fit Tobacco Reporter’s style format.

Derek Yach
Active work on the WHO FCTC began with Gro Harlem Brundtland’s appointment as WHO director general in 1998. I was tasked with creating the Tobacco Free Initiative that would develop a treaty to address tobacco control as its primary goal. Substantial work over decades and many resolutions of the World Health Assembly adopted by consensus provided the elements of the treaty. Each element was based on taxes or regulations that were in place in some countries that had contributed to measurable declines in cigarette consumption by 1998. It was the first time the WHO had used its treaty-making provisions provided by the Constitution.
I will briefly reflect on several geopolitical realities that allowed us to make rapid progress on the treaty. I will then highlight several assumptions that governments and academics made at the time about what was needed before considering what is needed now.
Brundtland had been prime minister of Norway and before that minister of health and the environment. She led development of the early round of environmental treaties through the 1980s and 1990s and strongly believed then that multilateralism through the United Nations’ system was the best means to tackle transnational threats to health, the environment and security. Our FCTC advisory team reflected those views and included experts from the worlds of disarmament, diplomacy and international law.
The content of the treaty was supposed to highlight issues of a transnational nature, leaving purely domestic policies for individual countries to decide. Some examples of transnational issues that appeared in the final text included illicit trade (now a protocol), cross-border marketing and scientific exchange. Pretty soon, the negotiations dropped that distinction and included national tobacco control policies that had weak or no transnational dimension. Some examples include tax policies, bans on smoking in public places, cessation programs and youth access initiatives.
The WHO inquiry into the tobacco industry’s decades of so-called “interference” in tobacco control policy and research settings was released early in the negotiating process and served as a constant reminder to governments about the need to address industry interference in policy and research processes.
At the start of the formal negotiations, but separate from the WHO process, several leading multinationals and attorneys general in the United States signed up to the Master Settlement Agreement that imposed penalties on U.S.-based companies and funded a massive nonprofit (the Orwellian sounding Truth Initiative) to tackle youth smoking.
The FCTC reflected these developments and the underlying negative sentiment toward multinationals. Paragraph 5.3 of the FCTC addressing industry interference and the article that addresses litigation against the industry are the best examples of this sentiment. They are unique features of this treaty compared to other UN treaties.
A whole cadre of tobacco control advocates and policymakers were groomed by the FCTC process to follow a set of actions that were felt to be most appropriate at the time. In fact, many called the several FCTC negotiating sessions carried out over a five-year period the “University of Tobacco Control.” Diplomats and health leaders from many countries took part. Few had prior knowledge of tobacco control. Many are still active today. Most have stuck with the “demonize don’t engage” industry mantra. As we will see later, this is because it is the easiest option but not the best option. It requires no intellectual effort.

The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control was developed at a time when combustible tobacco products ruled supreme. (Photo: Nopphon)
A Diversion into Adam Grant’s Book, Think Again
Adam Grant is a Wharton professor and noted author. His latest book describes how we are blinded by confirmation and desirability biases. We see what we expect to see, and we see what you want to see. Of course, most people will say, “I’m not biased!” Unfortunately, and to quote Charles Darwin, “ignorance more often begets confidence than does knowledge.” The greater the knowledge, the more likely we acknowledge humility, our doubt and demonstrate curiosity for new insights. Too few people believe what Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel Prize winner for behavioral economics, does. He enjoys discovering he was wrong because it means he is now less wrong than before.
What does this mean for the FCTC today?
I believe that the WHO and leadership of tobacco control are trapped in 1998 thinking and driven by 1970s solutions.
Let me explain the latter first.
Most tobacco control policies were developed in the 1970s and led by a small group of countries: Canada, Norway, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Singapore. They all had strong regulatory enforcement capacity, elevated levels of local science competence and high levels of education and income. The case studies from these countries formed the basis of global norms. In doing so, the weaknesses within many other countries, especially low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), in terms of regulatory competence, scientific and medical insights, became impediments to progress.
While physicians led tobacco control policy development and science in the core countries until 2000, this has not happened to a great extent in most LMICs and especially those in Asia, the Middle East and Africa.
Policies have rarely been adapted to the development reality of LMICs. Sitting in Geneva, few understand that “law on the books is not law on the streets.”
Just one example from the WHO’s own review: Cessation services and even nicotine-replacement therapies (NRTs) are not available to most smokers in LMICs. This is despite NRTs having been on the WHO Essential Medicine’s Formulary for years.
All these factors have meant that tobacco control has moved slowly globally—leading the WHO in its latest update (January 2023) to state that by 2025, there will be 1.27 billion tobacco users in the world—a quarter of a billion more than a few years ago. Not a sign of success. The WHO data also shows that smoking rates exceed 50 percent for men in many countries, including Indonesia, China and Jordan.

Geopolitics have become messy and unpredictable. (Image: the_lightwriter)
Two Aspects of 1998 Thinking that Persist Today Despite Profound Changes Underway
Geopolitics has become messy and unpredictable. Paul Tucker describes this in detail in his latest book, Global Discord. Multilateralism as we knew it even a decade ago has eroded fast. The major political and military powers are in a heightened state of tension. Geopolitical threats like pandemics and climate change are not being addressed in the spirit of a common future as was the norm in earlier periods. It is very unlikely that we could have had the degree of agreement negotiated for the FCTC today as was achieved 20 years ago. Brundtland confirmed this was the case in our discussions a few years ago. Going forward, this will have implications for future efforts to update the FCTC or to adjust in the light of new evidence.
The FCTC ignored innovation. The FCTC does not mention intellectual property nor does it tackle the complex issues of patents. Why? Recall that the late 1990s was a period of major activity at the World Trade Organization and the WHO in relation to HIV/AIDS treatments. The question was: How could LMICs access the best treatments at affordable prices? So why is there no focus on innovation, science and modern technologies within the FCTC?
Back then, there was a group sense among the leadership of tobacco control that the tobacco industry was a dirty old legacy industry. They would never innovate their way toward safer and less damaging products. Their last efforts to do this with “lights” were seen as a ruse.
I hosted a meeting of leading tobacco industry scientists and public health experts in the WHO headquarters in 1999 during the negotiations. The aim was to give industry a platform to show whether they had plans to develop truly reduced-risk products. Unfortunately, they did not. No follow-up meetings ever happened.
Article 5.3 in the FCTC got misinterpreted as a rationale to ban engagement with industry—especially their scientists. It was intended to be a warning to government to be vigilant in managing engagement with industry. It addressed common sense conflicts of interest concerns. Since adoption of the FCTC, Bloomberg Philanthropies has invested substantial funding to maintain the view that all industry science cannot be trusted and that so-called industry interference is the biggest threat to progress in ending smoking.
A schism grew and deepened between the companies that have invested billions of dollars in transformative research on the one hand and public health leaders advising the WHO and their governments on how best to end smoking on the other hand.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s $150 million invested recently through the Tobacco Product Scientific Advisory Committee expanded the schism in the U.S. Recall that the U.S. funds 90 percent of all so-called tobacco harm reduction research in the world. U.S. scientists dominate global policy settings and media with their content. Skewed U.S. content skews global debates. How skewed is it?
A content analysis of FDA research spending shows that academics in the U.S., including the American Heart Association, give priority to research that aims to show how dangerous vaping is to kids and, more recently, adults. It scantily addresses the best ways to accelerate an end to adult smoking. It is dismissive of technology innovation—and hence has avoided patent considerations. And it does not attempt to find solutions, for example, for people with schizophrenia or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
In sharp contrast, tobacco and vaping industry research addresses benefits and risks as they are required to by the FDA if they seek authorization of their products to be deemed “appropriate for the protection of public health.”
These two groups of researchers need to engage in scientific debate. Yet opportunities to do so have diminished as journals and conferences have banned scientists funded directly or indirectly by industry. This is leading to a serious bias with implications for public policy. How can we expect to make fundamental change without involving those who hold such a major stake in potential changes? In no other sector—energy, food, pharma—is this tolerated.
While the FCTC remains mute on patents, today, they are a source of intercompany friction and litigation. A recent review of patent filings in China, the U.S. and Europe showed that tobacco harm reduction is one of the most dynamic areas of activity being filed. The review showed that while a small percentage of submissions addressed combustibles, the vast majority were in areas of innovation that are driving safer reduced-risk nicotine products. And a growing number were in areas of pharmaceutical and medical applications.
This fundamental shift by leading tobacco companies to invest in solutions for health has been joined by newer and often smaller separate vape, synthetic nicotine, inhalant and related companies. Entrepreneurs backed by investors are now highly active in this space.
The industry is moving toward a world where nicotine, freed from its damaging links to tobacco, could end millions of tobacco deaths and, in time, prevent a range of neurological and brain disorders associated with aging.
Grant’s call for us to rethink in the light of new realities applies directly to our field.
Grant’s call for a rethink applies to our leading public health agencies. And some progress is underway. The Reagan-Udall Foundation review of the FDA is a good start. The recent Center for Strategic and International Studies’ review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Lancet Commission and other reviews of the WHO all represent a chance to take a fresh look at how agencies failed to yield the desired results during the pandemic. Sadly, many of these agencies and their leaders are characterized by the opposite of rethinking. This is well summarized in a wonderful-sounding word: mumpsimus, or “a person who obstinately adheres to old customs or ideas in spite of evidence that they are wrong or unreasonable.”
Last month, the WHO’s executive board reviewed progress in tackling global health. Its conclusion was that we are wildly off track in terms of reaching agreed goals for cancer, heart disease, lung disease and mental health. The worst pandemic in a century has played a key role in these trends. More of the same will not get us back on track. It’s time the WHO recognized that technology and innovation, led by private sector innovation, is the fastest way to make progress. They know that to be the case for most of biomedicine.
Embracing tobacco harm reduction represents such innovation in our sector. It is the only way to cut tobacco deaths within a decade or so. And it is consistent with the FCTC. Recall that the very definition of tobacco control includes “tobacco harm reduction.” Article 1(d) of the FCTC explicitly states that “tobacco control” means a range of supply, demand and harm reduction strategies that aim to improve the health of a population by eliminating or reducing their consumption of tobacco products and exposure to tobacco smoke.” Unfortunately, these “harm reduction strategies” have never been elaborated and defined. One could argue that this has led and will continue to lead to unnecessary tobacco-related disease and premature death.
Governments are being encouraged and supported to ban or restrict many products that could cut deaths and disease. This is not acceptable. The science has strengthened in favor of vapes, nicotine pouches, snus and heated-tobacco products. The FDA authorizations of these products start with them passing the FDA test as being “appropriate for the protection of public health.”

Tobacco and vaping industry research today addresses benefits and risks as they are required by regulators. (Photo: BAT)
What are the Components of a Rethink?
The WHO should acknowledge the imperative to tackle the health of adults who smoke as the main way it can get global health sustainable development goals on track. Most adults who have early COPD stage or cardiovascular disease or pre-cancerous signs of oral cancer or schizophrenia or tuberculosis are smokers. That is why people with schizophrenia die 10 years to 15 years younger than the general population—a fact ignored by most policymakers. Well over half of all patients with COPD smoke at diagnosis, and 90 percent smoke a year post diagnosis. A true failure of health systems.
The WHO should appoint an independent commission to have the same terms of reference the British government gave to Javed Kahn. Define better ways to end smoking by 2030. And this should be in part funded by Michael Bloomberg’s latest grant to strengthen tobacco control. There is no loss of face in doing this. Simply a recognition that the science has advanced and policy needs to catch up. Article 5.3 assumed that there is an “irreconcilable difference between the interests of public health and the tobacco industry.” That was true in 1998. Today, the reality is more complex. The FDA deeming of reduced-risk products as being “appropriate for the protection of public health” calls into question the continuation of the irreconcilable conflict principle and suggests more nuance is required about who, how and when to engage. A commission is required to explore this new reality.
The negotiations on a pandemic treaty have just started in Geneva. The central focus is on solidarity and equity. In the draft zero that was just released, 11 of the 49 paragraphs deal in some way with intellectual property and related issues like strengthening national research capacity. A few years ago, I asked a CEO of a leading tobacco company if he would consider licensing some of their most important innovations to companies in LMICs or state monopolies to help them accelerate their exit from combustibles. He gave an emphatic yes. It is time we pushed leading multinationals to do this.
Governments that include harm reduction in their tobacco control programs or have solid evidence of the contribution harm reduction plays to their decreased smoking rates should actively share their experiences with governments during the World Health Assembly and at the upcoming FCTC Conference of the Parties in Panama later this year. More specifically, the U.S. government’s FDA representative should outline the rationale and progress made in authorizing several snus, vape, nicotine pouch and heated-tobacco products. The world’s most sophisticated regulatory body has decided harm reduction products benefit smokers but has done nothing to share this knowledge globally. This is exactly the opposite of what it does in relation to new drugs, vaccines or health interventions unrelated to tobacco. There is a little-known amendment to an appropriation resolution going back decades, the Doggett Amendment, which compels U.S. embassies around the world to not provide support to U.S. tobacco companies in foreign countries. The FDA authorizations now demand that this be adjusted to permit and encourage embassies and companies with authorized products to explain their benefits to health and science leaders around the world. The Chinese government holds the key to full transformation of the global tobacco industry. Its state monopoly sells more than half of all cigarettes sold worldwide, and this percent is increasing. To date, it has been slow to adopt tobacco harm reduction despite being the home to the most innovative e-cigarette and related technology companies in the world. Two years ago, the government announced a goal of having all new car sales in 2035 be electric vehicles. Imagine the power of a similar commitment to end combustibles.
Over the last decade, leading tobacco multinationals have made progress in getting a range of reduced-risk products to market. In some cases, revenue from such products is approaching 50 percent of total revenue. The recent report from the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World shows, however, that little progress has been made in LMICs where reduced-risk products are legal. BAT has made the most progress with its reduced-risk products now available in Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, among others; PMI sells in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Philippines. Other multinationals are absent from most of these countries, and no multinational sells in Nigeria or Bangladesh. Note that 80 percent of all smokers reside in LMICs, and a similar proportion of deaths from tobacco occur there. Industry could do more, faster and through partnerships with state monopolies and smaller companies.
Tobacco and vape companies need to urgently prepare submissions for medical licensing of vapes and nicotine pouches. The FDA and the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency have called for this. It could reverse the increasing resistance of the health professionals to these products—opening the door to wider use with major population health gains.
It’s time we took on disinformation within tobacco harm reduction more seriously. In February, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf called for urgent action related to Covid-19 misinformation. It’s time the FDA tackled massive disinformation related to tobacco harm reduction. I am sure he knows—as you know; as FDA tobacco chief Brian King knows; as 15 past presidents of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco know—that nicotine is not the problem or the cause of cancer. But despite this, the CDC, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the WHO and, yes, the FDA fund campaigns that propagate false, misleading and deceptive messages about harm reduction and nicotine. The stream of retractions of fake science they cite grows. Vaping does not cause cancer or heart disease or e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI.) The original lies, though, live on in policy briefs worldwide and are seen by many as fact.
Kahneman inspired Grant to remind us that it is much easier to follow in the paths of the status quo. For the sake of global health, it is time we took the path least taken—to real progress.
A global health expert and anti-smoking advocate for more than 30 years, Derek Yach is the owner of Global Health Strategies. Previously, Yach was the director of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World and a World Health Organization cabinet director and executive director for noncommunicable diseases and mental health. He was deeply involved with the development of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
February 20, 2023
Cuba Gears Up for Habanos Festival

Photo: Habanos
Habanos is gearing up to celebrate the 23rd edition of its Habano Festival in Havana, Feb. 27 to March 3, the company announced in a press note.
The state-run tobacco firm has prepared a host of activities, workshops, lectures and presentations to share knowledge of its tradition and value chain. It expects guests from more than 110 countries.
The 23rd edition of the Habano Festival kicks off with the opening of the trade fair. This year’s edition brings together more than 270 exhibitors from 10 countries. That same night, Club Habana will host a Welcome Evening, which will revolve around Montecristo and its much-appreciated Línea Open.
The mid-week evening will take place at El Laguito Protocol Room and will feature Bolívar and La Casa del Habano. It will celebrate the brand’s 121 years and the worldwide importance of the international network of franchised specialized stores with the presentation of a new vitola.
The grand finale will be the March 3 gala dinner at Pabexpo. This evening will be dedicated to Partagás. One of the most important moments of the festival will be the Habanos Awards Ceremony and the traditional humidor auction, whose proceeds will go, as is customary, to the Cuban public health system.
In parallel with the festival, Fernando González García, president of the Cuban Association of Vitolfilia, and Zoe Nocedo, member of the association, will present a seminar at the Havana Convention Center, titled “The Partagás brand as seen through Vitolfilia.”
Throughout the week, the same venue will host masterclasses on the Habanos-making process, as well as tastings and pairings with different products.
Visitors will also experience a new edition of the Habanos World Challenge in which contestants demonstrate their knowledge and mastery of the different stages of Habano making and enjoyment.
The program of activities at the 23rd Habano Festival will be rounded out by visits to plantations, which this year will take place in in the Vuelta Abajo zone, in the Pinar del Río region, as well as visits to the Partagás and La Corona factories.
February 20, 2023