Category: Sustainability

Reynolds Earns Water Stewardship Cert

Photo: digieye
Two Reynolds American Inc. manufacturing U.S. facilities have achieved Alliance for Water Stewardship (AWS) Certification. The American Snuff Co. facility in Clarksville, Tennessee, and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.’s Whitaker Park site in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, both recently earned the designation. Reynolds Operations Center (ROC) in Tobaccoville, North Carolina, received AWS certification in 2022.
The AWS Standard is a globally applicable framework for improving water sustainability performance. It enables factories, facilities, and other water-using sites to better understand their water use and impact and to work collaboratively and transparently for sustainable watershed management. Receiving this certification showcases that the Clarksville and Whitaker Park sites have implemented AWS’ best practices in five important areas: good water governance, sustainable water balance, good water quality status, protection of important water-related areas, and safe water, sanitation, and hygiene for all.
“Attaining AWS Certification at two more Reynolds sites underscores our commitment to protecting natural resources that we rely on to run our business,” said Bernd Meyer, executive vice president of operations at Reynolds, in a statement. “I’m proud of our teams’ commitment to running efficient operations and being good water stewards in the communities where we work and live.”
Reynolds’ efforts to use water efficiently across its facilities will progress even further with the addition of the recently announced WaterHub planned for the ROC in Tobaccoville, North Carolina. The advanced water reclamation plant, a product of a NextEra Energy Resource subsidiary, is projected to reclaim more than 60 million gallons of water annually.
August 3, 2023
The Breakdown

Photo: ANDS
The vaping industry is making progress in reducing the environmental impact of single-use e-cigarettes.
By George Gay
The U.K. vaping industry is under notice in respect of single-use vapes. It has, according to one politician with considerable knowledge of the industry, a “window of opportunity” to defend itself against those demanding a ban on these products—a window that could slam shut at any moment.
Pressure is building for a ban mainly on grounds of the negative environmental impact of single-use vapes, an issue that cannot be brushed aside. But, as always, those opposed to these products, and vapes in general, are muddying the waters with issues to do with illicit products, underage use and consumer safety: important issues but ones that should be dealt with separately.
But the good news is that disposing of used single-use vapes is possible in a reasonably environmentally friendly manner. On July 17, Waste Experts launched a report, The Challenges of Recycling Single-Use Vapes, in which it said, in part, that two products it tested, a widely available plastic and aluminium vape and a new cardboard-based entry, both demonstrated high levels of recyclability. The company, which has been operating in the environmental services sector for more than 22 years, also said that, when collected and sent to an Approved Authorized Treatment Facility, both products were able to meet the U.K. Recycling and Recovery Targets under Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) regulations.
The Waste Experts report was commissioned by ANDS, which is a leading brand owner and supplier of alternative nicotine-delivery products in the Middle East and which, as ANDS Globe U.K., is currently entering the U.K. market for single-use vapes with SLIX, a product whose outer casing of high-grade card screams recyclable.
Indeed, in a press note introducing SLIX, which was one of the brands tested by Waste Experts, ANDS said this product was 99 percent recyclable and recoverable and that the company was on course to increase this level of recyclability and recoverability by the end of this year. As I understand it, the technology underpinning such products is advancing at speed with the elimination of wires and, importantly, with battery design improvements.
Other brand owners also have been focusing on the environmental credentials of their products and even on the way in which used products are collected for recycling. At the same time, waste treatment companies are innovating the methods they employ in handling products, including single-use vapes, and are providing recyclability feedback loops to assist vape manufacturers and brand owners in the choice of materials and product designs that better meet their environmental aspirations.
A Ways to Go
Nevertheless, it would be wrong to give the impression that the vape industry has cracked the environment issue, especially in respect of single-use products. This is the final sentence of the Executive Summary of the Waste Experts report: “So whilst single-use vapes have a short lifespan and are not environmentally the best option, when collected and treated through authorized routes, the materials can be recycled and recovered correctly.”
With some justification, those calling for a ban on single-use vapes would no doubt see this sentence as admitting that the collection and processing of used products is simply a way of treating the symptoms of the problem. I assume they would also argue that the sentence suggests that only a ban could treat the cause of the problem.
Those promoting a ban might also look askance at the environmental claims in respect of processing used single-use vapes. The recycling and recovery categories talked about largely in respect of such products are only in third and fourth place on the five-place waste hierarchy described in the Waste Experts report: prevention (using less material and making the product last longer), reuse (reusing products with minor refurbishments or repairs), recycling (converting waste materials into new products), recovery (recovering energy through incineration, gasification or anaerobic digestion) and disposal (landfill and incineration without recovery).
The other point that those calling for a ban are bound to pick up on is the “when collected” qualification in the Waste Energy executive summary. As I understand it, only a tiny percentage of single-use vapes are disposed of properly, with most going to landfill. This should come as no surprise, however. Apparently, many distributors and retailers of small consumer electronics are still not aware of their obligations under WEEE even though it has been in force for more than 15 years.
Additionally, most vapers have been recruited from the ranks of smokers, and a significant number of smokers have over the years shown scant regard for the environment. Cigarette-butt litter has had a constant presence on our streets and in our waterways for decades, and no amount of appeals to consumers seem to have convinced them of the need to dispose of butts responsibly.
Multiuse Products
This might be overly pessimistic because there clearly are differences between cigarette butts and used single-use vapes and, in respect of the latter, it would presumably be much easier, for instance, to introduce deposit and return schemes. But I cannot help being concerned that there are few differences between cigarette and vape consumers, or between those consumers and most people, who seem to be unwilling to make modest changes to their habits even in the face of an existential climate crisis.
Even some leading lights in the vape industry are not necessarily opposed to a ban on single-use vapes. Interviewed on BBC radio news, Doug Mutter, the chief executive of VPZ, a leading vape retailer and manufacturer of vape liquids, expressed some interesting ideas about how to address the issues surrounding single-use vapes and, in particular, explained how his company was working successfully to transition consumers from single-use to multiuse products. But elsewhere, he has been quoted as saying that he would not oppose a ban provided it did not lead to a black market—or, presumably, did not stoke the black market already in operation.
Muddying the Debate
This was a canny remark that, to my way of thinking, pointed up more than one issue. The first is that government austerity measures over the past 13 years have reduced the U.K.’s ability to control the influx and sale of illicit products, something that has created an unlevel playing field on which some vape companies are paying to join the producer compliance schemes required under WEEE provisions while others are not.
But it also points up another issue: the fact that the debate about the impact of single-use vapes on the environment is constantly muddied with talk about illicit products and sales to young people, both of which are policing issues, not environment issues. Some of the stories currently doing the rounds in the media, even in those media outlets many would consider reliable, are awash with what seems to be deliberately misleading information about vaping among young people.
Partly as a result of such stories, I assume, pressure is building behind a ban on single-use vapes by the U.K. government, and that pressure could build quickly. These are dangerous times for the industry because the ruling Conservative Party in the U.K. is struggling with its popularity ratings ahead of a general election next year; so, with vaping a minority sport, the party and government might see some electoral benefit in acquiescing to such a ban, especially since the government’s overall environmental focus has been dimmed in recent times because it seems to take the climate crisis as a long-term problem that can be addressed down the road.
Single-use vapes are particularly vulnerable to a ban because, while they are largely the same as multiuse vapes in that they contain difficult-to-handle nicotine and batteries, their volumes, and potential volumes, make them an easy target. While those opposed to vaping in general find themselves on difficult ground when faced with the argument that vaping is providing for many people a route out of the highly risky smoking habit, they probably feel they are on firmer ground when it comes to single-use products. They might concede that vapes serve a useful purpose but question the need for single-use products, and they are unlikely to be persuaded by arguments about the latter providing a more cost-effective and convenient option for consumers than other products.
Nevertheless, ANDS deserves credit for commissioning the Waste Experts report, which was launched at an event held in the Terrace Pavilion of the U.K.’s Houses of Parliament and was hosted by the Conservative Member of Parliament Mark Pawsey, who, as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Vaping, has been active during many years in trying to encourage a measured debate around vaping and its benefits.
The trouble is that the vaping debate seems to have no ending. It keeps going round and round, like the London Eye ferris wheel that can be seen from the Terrace Pavilion. The Waste Experts report seems to bring closure to one part of the debate, but it is technical stuff and so not likely, in my view, to shift the needle of public opinion.
Only one thing will shift that needle, and that is ensuring the ground is not littered with carelessly discarded single-use vapes, whatever that takes. The public is generally steeped in superficiality; it values the look of the environment over its health. And, by the way, if the aim is to include consumers in this cleanup, it would be a good idea, I think, to warn of the actual dangers posed by batteries but not to over-egg the dangers. Consumers are not going to spend much time wandering around looking for official disposal points if they have been panicked into thinking that the product in their back pocket is liable to explode or catch fire.
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.

August 1, 2023
From Plantations to Nicotine ’Plants’

Photo: Taco Tuinstra
Synthetic nicotine could help promote global food security.
By Sudhanshu Patwardhan
The tobacco industry is undergoing rapid transformation. Companies are increasingly offering safer nicotine alternatives to current consumers of risky forms of tobacco. Is it time for them to reassess their supply chains to procure nicotine from nonagricultural sources and in the process free up land for growing crops that can feed the world’s 8 billion people? A study of the economics of tobacco cultivation and nicotine consumption may give us practical answers.
Millions of hectares of rich, fertile land are used for growing tobacco to meet the nicotine needs of over 1.1 billion tobacco users globally. Except for Swedish-style snus and tobacco used in novel heated-tobacco products, most of the tobacco grown eventually harms public health due to the toxicants arising out of its curing and manufacturing (e.g., tobacco-specific nitrosamines, added chemicals in smokeless tobacco products) and use (e.g., harmful smoke components). On May 31, the World Health Organization marks World No Tobacco Day (WNTD) with an interesting theme: “We need food, not tobacco.”
Last year, for the first time ever, two U.N. bodies—the WHO and the U.N. Environment Programme)—published a list of the environmental harms from tobacco-related farming, manufacturing, supply chain and consumption. Tobacco-related harms to the environment start from the seed and go well beyond the cigarette and bidi smoke. The WHO notes that globally, an additional 200,000 hectares of land is cleared annually for growing tobacco and curing tobacco leaves that are used in making smoked and smokeless tobacco products. Rich and diverse natural habitats, including pristine rainforests, are being lost to meet the global tobacco demand. It is estimated that 3.7 liters of water are used to make one cigarette. Worldwide, trillions of cigarettes are sold and burned annually. The environmental pollution is not limited to the emitted smoke and the ash but also the cigarette butt litter that refuses to decompose for years. In South Asian countries, spitting smokeless tobacco imposes an additional burden on health and leaves unsightly marks in buildings and roads. Even the pharmaceutical grade nicotine used in medically licensed nicotine-replacement products and e-liquids for vaping products is obtained predominantly from tobacco plants.
Any slogan that simply calls for more food instead of tobacco oversimplifies the economics of tobacco.
This year’s WNTD theme intends to put a spotlight on the arable land locked in tobacco plantations that could instead provide food security to the world’s 8 billion people. Indeed, hunger and lack of nutritious food kill millions of people worldwide every year. Feeding the ever-growing world population without denuding forest land remains a big challenge for reasons ranging from environment and climate change to biodiversity. Therefore, in a world with finite arable land, repurposing tobacco farms for growing food are an obvious target for policymakers, environmentalists and economists.
Sadly, the WNTD theme creates a false dichotomy, unnecessarily pitting tobacco farmers against a hungry world. Alas, one cannot simply switch tobacco farms and farmers to grow alternative food crops with a snap of a finger. Global demand for tobacco continues relatively unabated, thus keeping suppliers invested in a profitable crop. It is also important to remember that tobacco is an unusually hardy plant. Not all food crops can withstand conditions that the tobacco plant can endure. Unlike edible vegetables and fruits, the produce from tobacco plantations is a leaf that is included as a raw material for further processing into a product, thus not subjecting the farmers to the whims and shameful wastage due to strict size and shape requirements of western supermarket buyers. The tobacco leaf markets are utility focused and well supported through longstanding relationships among stakeholders across a sophisticated global supply chain and have lifted millions out of poverty. Any slogan that simply calls for more food instead of tobacco oversimplifies the economics of tobacco.
The health harms from risky forms of smoked and smokeless tobacco products such as cigarettes, cigars, bidis, hookah, gutkha, khaini, mishri, zarda, etc. are already well known. That knowledge has not made these products or their use obsolete—even today, over a billion people around the world consume these risky products, and more than half of them die prematurely as a result. Nicotine is addictive but is not the cause of tobacco-related cancers, cardiovascular disease and lung disease.
Many doctors harbor misperceptions about nicotine, wrongly believing that nicotine in the tobacco products causes cancer.
The invention of nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT) products over three decades ago, in the form of nicotine gums, skin patches, lozenges and mouth sprays, was crucial in realizing nicotine’s role as a medicine in helping quit tobacco and finding these products a place on the WHO’s model essential medicines list. NRT enables smokers and smokeless tobacco users to better manage their cravings and withdrawal symptoms. Still, quitting tobacco and preventing relapse remains a big challenge globally for a variety of interlinked reasons: (i) Pharmaceutical investment and innovation in improved tobacco cessation tools and products has been lacking in recent years, (ii) universal access to affordable and appealing nicotine-replacement products remains poor, and (iii) healthcare professionals around the world are not adequately trained on how to advise their patients to use nicotine-replacement products.
In fact, many of the doctors themselves harbor misperceptions about nicotine, wrongly believing that nicotine in the tobacco products causes cancer. This limits doctors’ ability to confidently support their patients’ tobacco de-addiction journey using nicotine-replacement principles. The obvious question then is: How do we ensure that current users of tobacco get all the help they can from their healthcare advisers and governments to make quitting tools accessible, affordable, appealing and available? If done at a global level, quitting success will further inspire confidence among consumers, healthcare practitioners and policymakers to accelerate the decline of the demand for tobacco.
The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) is often elegantly simplified as a treaty for demand reduction, supply reduction and harm reduction strategies. The largest demand arises from the billion-plus cohort of current users of risky tobacco products—and that’s where affordable cessation support and safer nicotine alternatives offer the highest likelihood of practical harm reduction. So, for the agricultural transformation much needed to free up arable land, a global reduction in demand for tobacco will be a key economic driver over time for farmers to actively seek other viable alternatives. It would then be crucial to provide government support and subsidy over a phased reduction in tobacco farming.
The FCTC dedicates two entire articles in the original treaty text to alternative livelihoods for those in the supply chain and addressing environmental impact—Articles 17 and 18. Particularly in implementing those two articles, little progress has been made in the past 20 years since the treaty came into force. That is because even lesser success has been achieved on a ground-level implementation of the FCTC’s Article 14 that calls for tobacco dependence treatment provision at a national level.
In recent years, many advances in chemistry and chemical engineering have resulted in new processes and patents issued for synthesizing nicotine from nontobacco raw materials. If the correct isomer of nicotine—the S-isomer—can be manufactured at scale using these processes, that can be revolutionary and indeed game changing. Using such synthetically manufactured nicotine, nicotine-replacement products that are innovative, suitably regulated and where necessary medically licensed can thus be introduced globally for tobacco cessation at low cost and in product formats appealing to current adult smokers and smokeless tobacco users. Agricultural transformation and enhanced food security will naturally follow this purely on economics principles.
Sudhanshu Patwardhan is a British-Indian, U.K.-licensed medical doctor who is passionate about helping people quit risky forms of tobacco. For the past two decades, he has lived and worked in three continents, doing senior roles in research, strategy and policy in the pharmaceutical and tobacco industries.

In his early years in tobacco harm reduction, his team of clinical researchers and lab scientists set the foundations for the assessment of reduced-risk products, now accepted by regulators and the industry as the definitive approach for duty of care and regulatory compliance. At Nicoventures, a wholly owned subsidiary of British American Tobacco, he was instrumental in enabling the first e-cigarette company acquisition by a global tobacco business. In his policy role there, Patwardhan shaped the creation of a global key opinion leader network in consumer advocacy and public health champions. .

With the British Standards Institution, Patwardhan led the creation of the world’s first vaping products’ standards for safety and quality in 2015 and the BSI Online Age Checking specifications in collaboration with the Westminster-based Digital Policy Alliance in 2018. .

In 2018, he co-founded the Centre for Health Research and Education that now has a team of over 40 medical and public health experts globally working in cancer prevention. Patwardhan splits time between the U.K. and South Asia on tobacco harm reduction projects that address the needs of the most disadvantaged tobacco users.

July 1, 2023
Best Practices
Photo: doidam10
How to approach environmental assessments for the best chance of success
By Adam Bonin and Antony Jones
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is an analysis prepared in accordance with the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to determine if a product’s approval would significantly affect the environment. It applies to all federal actions in the U.S., including regulations, policies, projects, licensing and permission granting. The assessments give insights into potential risks associated with a product’s manufacture, use and disposal and help manufacturers develop effective mitigation strategies to reduce or avoid possible environmental consequences.
EAs therefore help regulatory agencies identify potential adverse environmental impacts from the manufacture, use and disposal of electronic nicotine-delivery systems and oral nicotine products. They are a small yet important part of premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) and modified-risk tobacco product submissions. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires manufacturers to submit EAs for each individual tobacco product, or stock-keeping unit, within a PMTA.
An inadequate or absent EA will result in either a “refuse-to-accept” or a “refuse-to-file” order from the FDA. In 2021, the FDA rejected 4.5 million vaping applications on the grounds that they “lacked an adequate environmental assessment.” With companies spending millions on PMTA submissions, they cannot afford to miss out on approval due to such a small part of the process. So, what does a good EA look like?
What to Include in an Environmental Assessment
In general, an EA includes an executive summary, applicant details, description of the proposed action and purpose and need of the proposed action. Further EA sections include the identification of alternatives, including the proposed action and no action alternative, potential environmental impacts of the alternatives (affected environment [or existing conditions] and environmental impacts), cumulative impacts and mitigation measures. An EA is appropriate for submission if it is determined that the impacts of the proposal will not be significant or the FDA concludes a finding of no significant impact. Mitigation measures may be recommended if impacts are anticipated, to reduce them below the significance threshold.
The initial stage of the EA process is building a well-defined project description, covering the purpose and need for the regulatory decision (marketing granted order) that triggers the requirement for an EA under the NEPA. The applicant will also need to include details of product components, product formulation (where applicable) and predicted sales projections for the first and fifth years. It is particularly important to include the mass of individual metals in product hardware components (e.g., devices, pods) to assess potential impacts at the end of life.
A good EA includes a thorough screening and comprehensive modeling of product components (e.g., e-liquid ingredients), with all conclusions and results backed up with hard data. The evaluation of the potential release of materials to the environment should be quantitively assessed, with the resulting potential concentrations in the environment explicitly stated and compared with relevant ecotoxicity standards to determine the possible impact.
Throughout, it is important to appropriately manage confidential information. EAs include both confidential and nonconfidential appendices, and it is important that these are prepared correctly. For example, if there is proprietary information in the e-liquid formulation, this would be best listed in the confidential appendices, as would sales and marketing projections. It can be difficult to know which information is appropriate for inclusion in the confidential apprentices, and working with an experienced team offers the best chance of success.
Determining the Possible Impacts
E-liquids typically consist of a mixture of ingredients, including propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin and nicotine. The formulation can be screened using a predictive tool to determine which ingredients are of most ecotoxicological concern and should be carried forward into the analysis. The selected ingredients can be assessed for estimated acute and chronic aquatic toxicity for aquatic organisms, including plants, fish and invertebrates, and then be assessed in subsequent fate and transport modeling.
The EA should analyze the plausible scenarios for the impact of the identified substances being released into the environment, including quantitative release modeling. For example, this could include the possible impact of the material being released into surface water or soils at quantities considered reasonable based on predicted sales data.
The project supply chain should also be documented, including details of manufacturing and shipping to retail entities. The environmental and social resources around U.S. manufacturing facilities require characterization to provide an understanding of the affected environment (existing or baseline conditions). The potential impacts of projects can then be evaluated based on changes to the baseline conditions—for example, if chemical mixtures or raw ingredients are accidentally released into surface water or chemicals are released down the drain during manufacturing.
It is important that the EA is realistic. In our experience, the inclusion of conservative analyses appears to be the soundest approach. It may be tempting to conduct modeling for a wide variety of release scenarios, but if they are deemed unlikely by the FDA, you may receive a deficiency for evaluating unreasonable scenarios.
Tips and Tricks
Start early. Considering the EA process early in the application can improve efficiencies, particularly for characterizing natural resources around U.S.-based facilities and engaging with manufacturers and other vendors to understand product supply chains.
Use a robust standard operating procedure. In an EA, it is vital that every section includes explicit information that satisfactorily evaluates the product against FDA requirements.
Choose an experienced team. Many businesses do not have employees with sufficient NEPA experience; in this case, we recommend working with a consultancy. NEPA-specific jargon and other regulatory nuances can be challenging for new practitioners.
Stay up to date. Attending FDA and NEPA meetings can be a great way to stay up to date with any changes in the guidance. In addition, manufacturers can engage directly with an FDA project manager if they receive deficiency comments.
Adam Bonin is a senior consultant at Broughton with over 22 years of scientific consulting experience. He earned a Bachelor of Science degree in environmental management from the University of Rhode Island and a doctorate in environmental microbiology from Portland State University. Bonin also completed a postdoctoral appointment in microbial ecology at Oregon Health and Science University.

Antony Jones is a managing consultant at Broughton with more than 22 years of experience in risk assessment with a focus on characterizing and reducing risks across the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, food, nicotine and environmental industries. He earned a Bachelor of Science degree in biology from the University of York and a doctorate in molecular biology and microbiology from Newcastle University. Jones also completed a postdoctoral appointment at King’s College London.

Broughton is a global scientific consultancy-based Contract Research Organization serving industries in pharmaceuticals, next-generation nicotine-delivery products and cannabinoids. Its team has developed a robust and proven approach for preparing defensible NEPA-compliant EAs for the FDA PMTA. For more information, visit www.broughton-group.com/us-pmta-and-mrtp-nepa-environmental-assessments-ea.
July 1, 2023
Tobacco Outranks Electric Vehicles on ESG

Photo: uflypro
Tobacco companies perform better in environmental, social and governance (ESG) rankings than manufacturers of electric vehicles, reports The Washington Free Beacon.
Earlier this month, S&P Global raised eyebrows when it gave Tesla, the world’s largest manufacturer of electric cars, a lower ESG score than Philip Morris International.
Tesla earned just 37 points on the 100-point scale compared with PMI’s 84.
It’s not the first time that tobacco companies have outranked companies with greener reputations. Sustainalytics, a widely used ESG ratings tool, gives Tesla a worse score than Altria Group. And the London Stock Exchange gives BAT an ESG score of 94—the third highest of any company on the exchange’s top share index—while Tesla earns a middling 65.
The strong ESG performance of tobacco companies is due in part to their emphasis on inclusion and social justice. Altria, for example, has gone out of its way to emphasize the diversity of its corporate board and the breadth of its social justice initiatives. Tesla, by contrast, has resisted that bandwagon, going so far as to fire its top LGBT diversity officer last year.
Imperial Brands touts its trainings on “microaggressions” and a board that is 40 percent women. PMI and BAT promote their scores on Bloomberg’s Gender Equality Index.
Critics contend that tobacco companies’ ESG scores mask the negative impact of their activities, which they say include pollution from filters and nondegradable e-cigarettes along with the soil erosion and deforestation associated with tobacco growing.
June 15, 2023
ANDS Creates 99 Percent Recyclable Vape

Fadi Maayta | Image: Tobacco Reporter archive
ANDS has created a disposable vape that is 99.29 percent recyclable, according to Waste Experts, reports UKVIA.
Slix is constructed of an outer casing made of 100 percent recyclable high-grade cardboard with a biodegradable silicone mouthpiece and end piece.
“While the analysis carried out by Waste Experts suggests that our single-use vape is highly recyclable, we will continue to work toward zero waste,” said Marina Murphy, senior director of scientific and medical affairs at ANDS. “We aim to build a high rate of recyclability into all our products by using high-quality recyclable materials and simple construction that allows for highly efficient dismantling. This contributes to a fast, efficient overall recycling process, which reduces waste management costs. This in turn helps to keep product prices competitive, creating a win-win for the environment and adult consumers who value our products.”
“We’re very much on a journey, and by the end of this year, we hope to launch a 100 percent recyclable and recoverable version of Slix, which will reduce the tonnage of waste going to landfill even further,” said Fadi Maayta, president of ANDS. “If these single-use vapes are restricted or banned over environmental fears as is being talked about in some circles—smokers could lose what many believe to be a very convenient, accessible and compelling alternative to conventional cigarettes.”
ANDS is partnering with Waste Experts to create a recycling program.
June 13, 2023
ITC Scales Up Sustainable Packaging

Image: Tobacco Reporter archive
ITC reaffirmed that it is scaling up its investment in innovative and eco-friendly packaging solutions that can substitute single-use plastics. The company sustained its plastic neutrality status for the second consecutive year by sustainably managing 60,000 MT of plastic waste in fiscal year 2023, which is more than the amount of packaging utilized.
“At ITC, we have put in place comprehensive interventions for waste management with focus on plastics,” said B. Sumant, executive director of ITC. “Our paperboards, paper and packaging businesses continue to pioneer sustainable packaging solutions that can substitute single-use plastics. Many of our brands and businesses have also innovated to reduce the usage of plastics in line with our commitment to create a positive environmental footprint.”
ITC has pioneered sustainable packaging options through extensive research conducted at its Life Sciences and Technology Centre on laminated and molded fiber platforms, among others. It has developed a range of eco-friendly products, including recyclable paperboards named FiloPack and FiloServe as well as two biodegradable paperboards, OmegaBev and OmegaBarr.
June 6, 2023
Back to Normal

Photo: Taco Tuinstra
Following a record low harvest in 2022, Malawi has produced a more typical crop this season.
After last year’s short crop, the Malawi tobacco trade is looking forward to more normal volumes this season. Typically, Malawi’s rainy season starts in November/December, but in 2022, the rains came much later, delaying the growing season by two months to three months.
The drought coincided with transplanting in Malawi, causing a good percentage of the tobacco to dry out. Farmers contracted with one prominent leaf merchant alone suffered 35 percent plant mortality. As a result of the adverse weather conditions, Malawi produced 85 million kg of leaf last year—the lowest volume in a decade, according to the Tobacco Commission.
This season, by contrast, is looking more promising. The trade is anticipating some 128 million kg of leaf, closer to the normal figure of 130 million kg. Burley accounts for most of the volume (81 percent), followed by flue-cured Virginia (16 percent) and dark air-cured tobacco (3 percent). Initial surveys indicate a good quality leaf as well.
Nixon Lita
Industry representatives cite favorable weather during the growing season, with rain falling in the right places at the right times and in the right volumes—until Tropical Cyclone Freddy struck southern Africa. The system—the longest-lasting on record—pulled warm air from the Intertropical Convergence Zone and the Congo over the southern and central parts of Malawi for much of February and March, resulting in perpetual overcast and rainy conditions in those regions. When it hit Malawi on March 11, it brought torrential rains and gale force winds, dumping up to 300 mm of rain in a 24-hour period. Cyclone Freddy caused massive landslides and flooding, killing more than 1,000 Malawians. Tobacco companies have been contributing to relief efforts through the Tobacco Processors Association.
But while the storm devastated lives and infrastructure, it largely spared Malawi’s tobacco crop, and the market opened as scheduled on April 12. That is because most Malawi tobacco is grown in the country’s central and northern regions whereas the storm hit hardest in the south. According to Nixon Lita, chief executive of the TAMA Farmers Trust, the little tobacco that is grown in southern Malawi matures earlier than the leaf produced in the central and northern regions. “By the time the cyclone hit, many farmers had already reaped their tobacco,” he says.
Despite the increased volumes, Malawi will still fail to meet demand (see “Enduring Demand“), which is estimated at 150 million kg this year. According to Lita, it’s hard to double production in 12 months, especially with the significantly higher cost of production (see “Coping with the COP”) this year. If burley shortage results in good prices, as predicted, it should encourage more farmers to plant tobacco next year. –T.T.
June 1, 2023
Fungi Fever

Photo: Volodymyr Herasymov
Mushrooms sprout new opportunities for Malawi
As Malawi seeks to diversify its economy, button mushrooms are emerging as one of the promising alternatives. Not only are the fungi popular among Malawians, who like to eat them as pizza toppings and in other foods, the country’s climate and growing conditions are also conducive to its production. To date, domestic production has been minimal, however. In the 1980s, a government research station cultivated limited numbers, but the organization failed to invest in farmer training. Over time, domestic production fell by the wayside. Today, Malawi imports 92 percent of its button mushrooms from South Africa.
Lilongwe-based JAT Investments seeks to change that by promoting domestic cultivation. According to founder and Managing Director Temwani Gunda, mushrooms offer many advantages to the farmer. For starters, they require less land than other crops. “You can grow them in a small shed,” she says, adding that this also protects them to a degree from the impacts of climate change.
The labor, meanwhile, is easy compared with tobacco. “You don’t need to go into the fields and be exposed to the elements,” says Gunda. “This means it is an inclusive commodity; even old people manage them.” Selling for approximately MKW10,000 ($9.75) per kilogram, mushrooms also offer attractive yields. A shed of 3.5 meters by 5 meters can produce 250 kg of mushrooms. One growing cycle takes about two months, allowing farmers in Malawi to grow three times per year. “And that’s the production from just one shed,” says Gunda.

Farmers venturing into mushrooms should also have no trouble selling them. A consultant hired by JAT Investments estimated domestic demand at between 70 tons and 75 tons.
Temwani Gunda, founder and managing director, JAT Investments
Farmers venturing into mushrooms should also have no trouble selling them. A consultant hired by JAT Investments estimated domestic demand at between 70 tons and 75 tons.
The greatest challenge for Malawi mushroom producers is seed (spawn). Because there is no domestic production, it must be imported from South Africa or elsewhere. This adds not only cost and time but also risk—if the shipper does not properly control the temperature, the seed won’t germinate.
With the help of the Centre for Agricultural Transformation (CAT), JAT Investments expanded its farmer base from two to seven farmer “clubs,” each of which contains between 10 and 15 mushroom growers. The CAT also assisted with seed procurement, infrastructure and farmer training, allowing the number of farmers to grow at a much faster pace than it could have managed otherwise.
According to Gunda, growers, including many tobacco farmers, have been lining up to join the project—and they appear to have been pleased with the performance of the fungi. “Just one crop of mushroom allowed me to pay school fees and buy fertilizer for my maize,” says one JAT grower. A colleague lauds the fact that, unlike tobacco, mushrooms are good for health and don’t require him to chop down trees.—T.T.
June 1, 2023
From Imports to Orchards

Photos: Taco Tuinstra
Rebuilding the banana value chain
Until the late 1990s, bananas were big business in Malawi. The industry employed between 2 million and 3 million people and completely satisfied domestic demand. But then a nasty plant virus hit. Banana bunchy top virus (BBTV) wiped out production, forcing many former Malawi banana farmers to find alternative livelihoods. Today, the country relies almost entirely on imports. More than 90 percent of bananas consumed in Malawi are now purchased in Tanzania and Mozambique, which demand to be paid in precious foreign currency.
Supported by the Centre for Agricultural Transformation (CAT), Lilongwe-based Hortinet is working to reestablish banana production in Malawi. Through its efforts, it aims to create employment, reduce imports and offer Malawi an additional source of income while diversifying the country’s economy and reducing its heavy reliance on tobacco exports.
Bananas are a popular food in Malawi, so there is opportunity for import substitution, according to Frank Washoni, executive director of Hortinet. “Currently, we are exporting jobs,” he says. “This is something our smallholders could be doing if they get the appropriate support.”
The strategy to deal with BBTV requires banana growers to uproot and burn their infected bananas and replace them with disease-free imported planting materials. The biggest challenge has been accessing clean planting materials. Until recently, there were no proper banana seed systems in Malawi. Because the existing crop strand had outlived its economic lifespan, there were no proper systems to supply banana growers with clean planting materials to reestablish their orchards.
To address this problem, Hortinet in 2019 established Malawi’s first commercial banana tissue culture lab, allowing it to produce large quantities of planting materials in a short time. Hortinet gives plantlets to smallholder growers, negotiates production contracts and provides extension services. “At the end of the season, we buy the product—banana fruit—for either distribution or value addition,” says Washoni. Among other things, bananas can be used to make flour and chips.
However, while Hortinet has the experience and technology, it lacked the means to scale up its out-grower project and supply the desired 700 farmers. So the CAT, as part of a five-year project, helps Hortinet train potential banana growers at its smart farm. The idea is that, after five years, Hortinet will have sufficiently grown to self-finance its continued expansion to more smallholder farmers.
Washoni believes the potential domestic market is considerable. “According to the ministry of agriculture, we lost more than 25,000 hectares representing at least 10 metric tons of bananas each,” he says. “Today, we are importing 20,000 tons per year, supporting only the urban areas—so there is still a big deficit.”
Hortinet is determined to make a dent in that deficit. By the end of next year, it wants to distribute at least 1 million plantlets and establish a minimum of 500 ha of banana production with its contracted smallholders. With a plan to add 500 ha each year, Hortinet will have supported the establishment of 2,000 ha by the end of four years.
Washoni views bananas as a good opportunity for farmers looking to diversify. At the CAT smart farm, Hortinet demonstrates how profitable the fruit can be compared to other crops. While the initial payback period is longer than for tobacco, bananas offer multiple returns each season. “Once in the ground, you might harvest on a quarterly basis,” says Washoni. At 15 tons per acre, the potential yield per unit of area is also high. And other than water, bananas require few inputs. Farmers can get away with organic manure and limited amounts of inorganic fertilizer. What’s more, bananas require relatively little land. “Even on a plot of only 20 [meters] by 20 meters, it might make economic sense for the farmer to put in an orchard,” says Washoni.
The next step will be to establish a structured market. Unlike tobacco, which has multiple players, a dedicated regulator and a well-developed system for selling and buying, there is no comparable infrastructure for bananas in Malawi. According to Washoni, it’s a work in progress. “Once we hit a critical mass, we will need an organized market,” he says. Right now, our priority is to get production going.”—T.T.
June 1, 2023