Blog

The Scientific Approach

The Tobacco Research Board in Harare | Photos: Taco Tuinstra

Boosting Production Through Innovation

By Taco Tuinstra

The tobacco transformation plan aims to boost production without expanding the farmer base or laying claim to significantly more farmland (see interview with Minister of Agriculture Anxious Masuka). To help the government achieve its objectives, the Tobacco Research Board (Kutsaga) (TRB) is developing improved seed varieties, innovating to reduce post-harvest losses and creating education programs for tobacco growers.
According to TRB CEO Frank Magama, the key to sustainable growth is improving yields. Just recently, the TRB released four new flue-cured tobacco varieties developed for marginal growing areas in the south of Zimbabwe, which is dryer than the rest of the country. With traditional tobacco varieties, farmers in that region have been getting yields of about 1,100 per hectare. Magama hopes the new varieties will boost that number to 2,500 kg per hectare.
The varieties have been issued on a so-called limited-release protocol. “We allow 20 farmers to grow one hectare each so we can get more data and learn whether the new varieties are suitable,” says Magama. If, in consultation with the growers, the breeders are satisfied with the results, they will move to the next stage of the trials. In the second season of evaluation, the TRB will distribute seed for these varieties among a larger number of farmers for further testing. In addition, tobacco merchants will test-smoke cigarettes manufactured with tobacco from the new varieties to make sure they deliver the desired flavor. Altogether it will take between three years and four years from the start of the trials until the new varieties will be available to all growers in the targeted areas.

Recently, the TRB released four new flue-cured tobacco varieties developed for marginal growing areas in the south of Zimbabwe, which is dryer than the rest of the country.

Reducing Losses

The TRB is also looking at reducing post-harvest losses. According to Magama, smallholder farmers may lose up to 50 percent of their crops due to inadequate handling. “If you look in the field, it may be a 3 ton crop,” he says. “But what goes to auction is perhaps 1.5 tons.”
The problem starts before the tobacco even leaves the farm. After curing, the leaf is very brittle, and to prevent breakage while moving the leaf from the curing barn to the shed, it must be conditioned. Ideally, this is done with a misting system, but this requires piping and electricity, which are often unavailable in the rural areas. So small-scale farmers may just use boiling water, which doesn’t generate the proper mist. As a result, a needlessly high share of good tobacco ends up as scrap that may sell for perhaps $0.10 per kg—or, more likely, end up as compost.
“It’s an issue of infrastructure,” says Magama. In partnership with a tobacco equipment manufacturing company, the TRB evaluated a portable firewood steam boiler for tobacco conditioning. This portable unit can be moved from barn to barn and also to grading facilities with ease and without a need for extension pipes. “If we solve that aspects of losses, we can significantly boost yields.”

We hope that eventually hemp can be grown on tobacco farms, either as a rotation crop with tobacco or eventually as an alternative to tobacco.

Frank Magama, CEO, Tobacco Research Board

At the same time, Kutsaga is working to reduce the amount of wood required for tobacco curing and other farm activities. The shift from commercial growing (which uses mostly coal as a curing fuel) to smallholder production has put considerable pressure on Zimbabwe’s forest cover. Innovations such as the rocket barn and Kutsaga’s counter-current barn use up to 50 percent less wood than conventional barns. And while the rocket barn is comparatively expensive, Magama believes farmers can significantly reduce its cost through materials substitution, by making their own bricks, for example.
The TRB has also been distributing eucalyptus tree seedlings to farmers but with mixed success. Tobacco growers are not always keen to plant trees on land that could be used for other crops. So the board is also working with schools in rural areas. “We donate seedlings and presented it as an educational and commercial opportunity,” says Magama. Tending to the trees is light work—you will need to protect them against termites, for example—and within three years to four years, the schools will have timber that they can sell to tobacco farmers and other users. “The initiative with the schools has gotten a lot more traction than working directly with tobacco growers,” says Magama.

The TRB is building a model farm at its Kutsaga Station to teach tobacco growers good agricultural practices

Model Farm

Another way to improve tobacco yields is through education and training. This is extensively done through what Kutsaga terms tobacco improved productivity sites (TIPS), where training is done on farms in selected tobacco-growing areas. Farmers from the area are provided with all the necessary inputs and then trained year-round on these sites. The TRB is currently also building a 6 ha model farm at its Kutsaga Station to teach tobacco growers good agricultural practices: How do you properly rotate tobacco and food crops, and what else can you cultivate on your farm? “We are also doing this to prepare growers for a future with less smoking,” says Magama. Upon completion of construction of the facility, the TRB will select a grower to live and work full time on the farm with his family. Supported by the best agronomic advice, this farmer will then become a visual model for other growers to emulate.
Meanwhile, the TRB itself is adjusting to a changing market with declining cigarette consumption. Following the legalization of industrial hemp and cannabis for medicinal use in Zimbabwe in 2019, the board has set up three stations for hemp research. According to Magama, it would be relatively easy for tobacco farmers to get into hemp. “We hope that eventually hemp can be grown on tobacco farms, either as a rotation crop with tobacco or eventually as an alternative to tobacco,” he says. Kutsaga is also investigating crops such as stevia and chia.
Looking further ahead, Magama would like the TRB to venture into biopharming, using tobacco to develop compounds of value, such as pharmaceuticals or vaccines. He hopes some of the board’s current innovations will help generate money to fund the modern labs required for such endeavors. For the time being, it remains a dream only. If it becomes reality, however, it will provide an unrivaled boost to Zimbabwe’s effort to extract more value from its tobacco business.

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

May 1, 2023
The Trade’s Perceptive

The Trade’s Perspective: Leaf Merchants Urge Sustainable Growth
By Taco Tuinstra
Stakeholders in Zimbabwe’s tobacco business have generally been receptive to the Tobacco Value Chain Transformation Plan (TVCTP), which among other things aims to boost leaf production and move up the value chain (see interview with Minister of Agriculture Anxious Masuka). “The plan has some sound fundamentals,” says Mark Mason, managing director of Zimbabwe Leaf Tobacco Co., a subsidiary of Universal. “It sensibly talks about vertical growth—boosting tobacco production by improving yields and cutting losses rather than expanding hectarage or increasing the number of farmers. Those are admirable objectives.”
At the same time, the industry is counseling caution and realistic expectations. In recent years, some entrepreneurs have moved beyond Zimbabwe’s mainstay of flue-cured Virginia (FCV) production. Several companies, including Mosi Oa Tunya Cigars (see “The Smoke that Thunders,” Tobacco Reporter, June 2021), are now manufacturing cigars with locally grown tobacco. Cavendish Lloyd is experimenting with low-nicotine FCV for shisha products (see “Great Expectations,” Tobacco Reporter, May 2022). There are also several companies producing cigarettes for the local market. In October 2022, Cut Rag Processors announced it would build an $80 million cigarette factory in Harare. Iranian Tobacco Co. has expressed interest as well, though the discussions are only at an exploratory stage.

The plan sensibly talks about vertical growth—boosting tobacco production by improving yields and cutting losses rather than expanding hectarage or increasing the number of farmers.

Mark Mason, magaging director, Zimbabwe Leaf Tobacco

But while BAT and some of its smaller competitors have been happy to manufacture limited amounts of cigarettes in Zimbabwe, it’s doubtful that big players such as Philip Morris International and Japan Tobacco International will build factories in Zimbabwe. Serving global markets and headquartered in Western capitals, the multinationals are guided by purely commercial considerations and generally seek to establish their manufacturing operations in countries with smooth roads, reliable power and business-friendly legislation—areas in which Zimbabwe faces strong competition. For these and other reasons, significant local cigarette production for exports by the majors may remain a bit “pie in the sky,” according to one tobacco veteran.
The merchants, in turn, are content with their current position in the value chain, which ends after the transformation of green leaf into unmanufactured tobacco. Currently, there are three tobacco processing factories in Harare—ZLT, Mashonaland Tobacco Co. (MTC) and Tobacco Processors Zimbabwe, which is managed by Northern Tobacco. “We have no investments beyond processing,” says Rob Holmes, executive officer of the Tobacco Leaf Exporters Association of Zimbabwe (TLEAZ), which represents nine leaf dealers with lamina exports of at least 1 million kg each and accounts for 85 percent of the contracted crop. According to Holmes, moving into cigarette manufacturing would put the merchants in direct competition with their customers—a situation they are obviously keen to avoid. “So, monetary-wise, the value addition described in the plan would take place very much after our stage of the chain,” he says.

Merchants warn that, in the current market, Zimbabwe may struggle to sell 300 miillion kg.
(Photos: Taco Tuinstra)

Contracting with tens of thousands of farmers, the merchants are better positioned to help grow the crop. But here, too, they are urging caution. “In the current world market, we would struggle to sell 300 million kg,” says Holmes. “There has been a bit of an increase in the demand for our leaf from China [which purchases 40 percent of Zimbabwean volumes] but not to the extent that you can soak that up.” According to Holmes, the styles that normally go into China are unique to that market and relatively expensive. “Where do you find customers for the excess volumes of those styles?” he asks.
The demand for Zimbabwe’s prized flavor grade tobacco, too, is limited. “International customers require only so much of that style,” says Holmes. “Otherwise, you’d be getting into more filler grade tobaccos, and then you are competing purely on price whilst you’ve got cost-of-production issues.” Supply chain disruptions in the wake of Covid and the war in Ukraine have driven up the cost of inputs such as fertilizer and fuel considerably during the most recent growing season. In addition to such global factors, the Zimbabwean industry has had to cope with local cost pressures this season, such as erratic supplies of electricity and exchange rate rules that force businesses to buy Zimbabwean dollars at official rates while paying significantly higher parallel-market rates for their supplies.

Leaf merchants also want to make sure the targeted volume increases are achieved sustainably.

Leaf merchants also want to make sure the tobacco transformation targeted volume increases are achieved sustainably. “We support the government’s goals, but we need to make sure that they are aligned with customer expectations,” says Alex Tait, managing director of MTC, a subsidiary of Alliance One International. Leading cigarette manufacturers these days expect their tobacco to be produced in line with strict environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria, which means keeping close track of agricultural practices, labor conditions and environmental impacts, among other issues.
The shift from commercial tobacco production to smallholder cultivation has put tremendous pressure on Zimbabwe’s forests. Before the land reforms at the start of the century, the bulk of Zimbabwe’s crop was produced by about 1,500 commercial farmers, who at their peak in the late 1990s brought some 239 million kg to market. Today, similar volumes are cultivated by nearly 160,000 growers, the vast majority (85 percent) of them smallholder farmers. But whereas the commercial farmers use primarily coal to cure their tobacco, the smallholders rely mostly on wood, creating a voracious demand for timber.
In a presentation to industry stakeholders, including the ministry of agriculture, which drew up the TVCTP, the tobacco industry stressed the importance of meeting ESG objectives, noting that there is no point in growing additional volumes if you cannot sell them. Failing to fulfill ESG requirements, the industry cautioned, will prompt customers to source their leaf elsewhere, leaving the Zimbabwean tobacco grower impoverished.

The trade insists the tobacco value chain transformation plan’s objectives must be consistent with customers’ ESG expectations.

To ensure sustainable growth, tobacco merchants have been developing renewable sources of curing fuel by establishing woodlots and providing farmers with seedlings. Financed by a voluntary leaf dealer contribution, the industry’s Sustainable Afforestation Association has been planting trees since 2013 and is preparing for its first harvest next season. Despite its considerable efforts, the organization still does not have enough renewable wood to cure the current crop, let alone the additional volumes described in the transformation plan.
One of the constraints, according to industry representatives, is access to land close to the tobacco growing areas, which has been mostly in state hands since the land reform program. The prime lands for timber production are in the east of the country, which means added cost for transportation. The government meanwhile collects levies from growers to invest in reforestation, although critics say it is unclear how the money is being invested.
In addition to increasing its supply of sustainable wood, the industry is working to reduce its consumption by helping farmers adopt more efficient curing systems. Innovative designs, such as the rocket barn, allow growers to reduce their wood consumption by up to 50 percent, although costs are a hurdle. At $2,000 per unit, the rocket barn is out of reach for the typical smallholder tobacco grower. The industry is also researching alternative energy sources, such as gas, biomass and briquettes, to curtail deforestation.

The opportunity for Zimbabwe to extract more value from its tobacco industry begins and ends with the ability of the farmer to make a living income.

Meanwhile, the trade is contributing to vertical growth by helping small-scale growers increase their yields. Benefiting from tailored inputs and agronomic extension services, contracted growers have in recent years increased their productivity to an average of 1,700 kg per hectare, a figure the industry hopes to drive up to 2,200 kg per hectare in the future. The national average, which includes independent growers selling at auction, is estimated at only 800 kg per hectare, however, suggesting considerable opportunity for growth.
“In well-managed contract schemes, with the right service levels, the right inputs and the right advice, you can get very good yields,” says Mason. “That needs to roll out throughout the industry. There is definitely opportunity for the newer contractors or the smaller contractors to push through better programs.”
Zimbabwe’s regulator, the Tobacco Industry and Marketing Board, is in the process of implementing a minimum input standards package recommended by the TLEAZ—not only to increase the crop size and benefit the national economy but also to improve the profitability and livelihoods of individual growers. As all stakeholders interviewed for this article acknowledged, the latter will be crucial for the success of the tobacco transformation plan. After all, the opportunity for Zimbabwe to extract more value from its tobacco industry begins and ends with the ability of the farmer to make a living income.

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

May 1, 2023
‘Not Really a Gamble’

Leaf Dealers Look Forward to Receiving a Good Quality Crop
By Taco Tuinstra
While the Tobacco Industry and Marketing Board had yet to release official figures at the time of Tobacco Reporter’s visit to Zimbabwe in early April, traders were expecting farmers to bring 230 million kg to market in the 2023 selling season. That compares with 212 million kg in 2022, which in turn was up from the two years prior.
The increase was due in part to good climate conditions despite the influence of an El Nino. The periodically recurring atmospheric phenomenon typically results in wetter than normal conditions in southern Africa from December to February. But in the event, it wasn’t all that wet.
“The crop was planted on time, and weather patterns were generally favorable,” says Alex Tait, managing director of Mashonaland Tobacco Co., a subsidiary of Alliance One International. As is the case throughout Africa, curing space proved a constraint in Zimbabwe this year. Fast ripening in some areas created some quality challenges toward the tail-end of the season, but nothing pointing to disaster. “It was a normal season,” says Tait.

Traders at the Tobacco Sales Floors in Harare
(Photos and video: Taco Tuinstra)

Zimbabwean volumes have largely recovered from the disruption that followed the government’s land reform program, which shifted the emphasis from commercial growing to small-scale farming during the 2000s and at one point saw the crop plummet to 50 million kg.
The quality produced by smallholders has also been steadily improving, thanks in part to contractors’ extensive support of their growers. This season, overall quality is fair to good, according to Mark Mason, managing director of Zimbabwe Leaf Tobacco Co. (ZLT), which is associated with Universal. “Despite the majority being smallholder, the Zimbabwean tobacco grower is a good farmer,” he says. “If they are serviced well, they produce a very acceptable crop.” In fact, Zimbabwe’s combination of climate, soils and skills means tobacco merchants have come to expect a decent crop, observes Mason. “It’s not really a gamble for us—unless the weather gets very poor,” he says.
Volumes this year were further boosted by good pricing in the 2022 marketing season, which spurred growers’ interest. What’s more, the payment modalities have recently improved, with growers receiving a higher share of their earnings in U.S. dollars as opposed to the less valuable local currency.

Meanwhile, pricing has become quite competitive in the contracting arena. “We have a situation in which more contractors are chasing fewer growers,” says Mason. “If you want to expand in this market, you have to coax a grower to come and join you. You have to argue your case, explain why he should leave X and join Y. The pricing this year will take into account some of those costs.”
Mason expects an increase of about 9 percent in the average per-kilo tobacco price this year, also as a result of the rising cost of production. The price of fertilizer, in particular, spiked in the run-up to this growing season, mostly due to the war in Ukraine, which traditionally supplied many of the raw materials needed for fertilizer production.
At the same time, erratic power supply in Zimbabwe forced commercial growers, who need electricity to operate their curing barns, to use diesel generators, which is more expensive than pulling power from the grid. The shortages were driven by low water levels in Lake Kariba, which houses a major hydroelectric power dam and is crucial to regional energy security, and maintenance at the Hwange power station. Power supply will likely remain a concern going forward, but Tait is cautiously optimistic that recent rains in the catchment areas along with progress at Hwange will help ease the shortages next season.

Despite the anticipated price hikes, exporters expect demand for Zimbabwean leaf to be firm again this season. Tait believes part of that is due to the lingering impact of Covid. “People thought that smoking would go down during the pandemic, but it actually went up,” he says. So the global crop size dipped over the past two years even as cigarette consumption increased. “Of course, there is a question about how long that situation will last,” says Tait. “Zimbabwe’s crop has gone up, as has Brazil’s, so we may see demand level out next year.”
The switch to smallholder growing has radically changed the leaf merchants’ business models. “In the past you used to go and buy what you liked and sell it; now you get a crop throw and you have to figure out how to market that effectively,” says Mason. With contracting accounting for 90 percent of Zimbabwean volumes, dealers these days operate extensive agronomic departments. ZLT alone has well over 100 on-the-ground field staff along with countless cars and motorbikes to service its growers in the countryside. The merchants have also (reluctantly) assumed the role of financiers because the new growers have no collateral with which to secure bank loans. Post land reform, all agricultural land belongs to the state in Zimbabwe.
While dealing directly with thousands of smallholders is a herculean logistical exercise with a huge impact on cost, the shift has also had an unexpected advantage for the tobacco merchants. “In a way, it’s what has allowed us to tick the right boxes because now everything is traceable,” says Tait. “The manner in which ESG [environmental, social and governance] requirements have evolved in recent years is working out for us because we are right down to the farm level to make sure that what the grower is doing is compliant.”

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

May 1, 2023
Betting on Weed

Photo: contentdealer

BAT has further increased its investments in the cannabis industry.

By Stefanie Rossel

In its endeavor to transform its business, initiated in 2020 under the slogan “A better tomorrow,” BAT is increasingly focusing on the cannabis sector to diversify beyond tobacco and nicotine. Two years after its first venture into the hemp market, the group currently has partial stakes in 13 cannabis startups, more than any other tobacco company, according to Seeking Alpha, a financial services provider.
BAT’s most recent move in this direction is a joint venture with Denver, Colorado-based cannabidiol (CBD) producer Charlotte’s Web Holdings in early April. BAT’s subsidiary AJNA Bio Sciences, a botanical drug development company focused on mental health and neurological disorders, has teamed up with Charlotte’s Web and is contributing $10 million as the joint venture’s initial investor. AJNA was co-founded and is partially owned by its president, Joel Stanley, the former CEO and chairman of Charlotte’s Web, together with other founding members of Charlotte’s Web.
The aim of the cooperation is to develop from propriety Charlotte’s Web hemp genetics a botanical drug targeting a neurological condition and pursue approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. While the joint venture did not disclose the neurological condition, observers suspect that the drug is aimed at the treatment of seizure disorders. Charlotte’s Web is also the name of a hemp strain from which an oil can be made that can be used to treat Dravet syndrome and other epilepsy diseases.
The strain, which contains 17 percent CBD and 0.5 percent of the psychoactive ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol, was bred in 2011 by the Stanley brothers to treat a young girl suffering from a severe form of pediatric epilepsy that did not respond to commonly used anti-epileptic drugs. Encouraged by the patient’s positive response to their CBD oil, the brothers established a nonprofit organization to give seizure patients access to high-quality cannabis with a high CBD content. With their advocacy, they helped change laws and public perceptions relating to plant-based solutions. Nevertheless, their product did not become the first treatment derived from cannabis plants to receive FDA authorization. That honor fell to Epidiolex, which contains only CBD and was approved by the agency in 2018.
The joint venture, in which BAT holds a 20 percent stake and Charlotte’s Web and AJNA have a 40 percent stake each, will be led by representatives of all three companies. Its clinical and regulatory strategy will be led by Orrin Devinsky, who was a principal investor in the FDA approval of Epidiolex. Apart from being AJNA’s chief medical advisor, he is also the director of New York City University Langone’s Comprehensive Epilepsy Center. The joint venture wants to file an investigational new drug application and commence phase I clinical development in 2023.
In November 2022, BAT paid £48.2 million ($60.36 million) for a 19.9 percent stake in Charlotte’s Web, a leading company in hemp extract products and the only publicly traded CBD B Corp-certified company. According to its latest financial reports, Charlotte’s Web generated revenues of $74.13 million in 2022.
In mid-March, a major shareholder urged BAT to move its primary stock market listing from London to New York. About 60 percent of BAT’s profits come from the U.S. while only 1 percent is generated in the U.K. With a move to the U.S., analysts argued, the FTSE 100-listed company would not only gain an investor base with greater appreciation of reduced-risk products but also be better equipped if it wanted to venture into the cannabis markets. U.K. law prohibits a company from listing if its profits are sourced from recreational cannabis, even if they are earned in a jurisdiction where marijuana is legal. Although similar restrictions currently exist in the U.S., analysts expect these issues to be addressed in the near future.
With its recent investments, BAT continues its exploration of the cannabis business, which started in March 2021, when it acquired a minority stake in Organigram Holdings of Canada for CAD221 million ($175 million at the time). Canada legalized cannabis in October 2018. Through a number of acquisitions and organic growth, Organigram has since become the second-largest licensed cannabis producer in Canada.

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.

May 1, 2023
Incentivizing Innovation

How the EU’s ambition to overhaul its packaging legislation might impact the tobacco industry.

By George Gay

As I understand things, a human body can be composted, in those places where this practice is legal, within about 30 days. On the other hand, my experience is that some starched-based “fully compostable” packaging can take more than 600 days to break down completely. Such a difference in composting times gives pause, I think, and I have long felt that the messaging around compostable packaging could do with some fine-tuning.

So I was encouraged, at least on behalf of those living in the EU and countries that follow EU packaging rules, to see that the EU Commission, as part of its proposed overhaul of its packaging legislation, is seeking to clear up the confusion around bio-based, biodegradable and compostable plastics.

In an end-of-November press note titled “European Green Deal: Putting an end to wasteful packaging, boosting reuse and recycling,” the commission announced its proposed revision (see https://bit.ly/3F6PRfp) of the EU’s legislation on packaging and packaging waste, saying that while the production and use of bio-based, biodegradable and compostable plastics had been increasing, a number of conditions had to be met for these plastics to have positive environmental impacts rather than exacerbating plastic pollution, climate change and biodiversity loss. “The commission’s new framework clarifies in what way these plastics can be part of a sustainable future,” it added.

In my view, it is important that the proposals, which must now be considered by the European Parliament and Council, are successful in their aims. The commission says a circular economy of packaging will help decouple economic development from the use of natural resources, contribute to achieving climate neutrality by 2050 and halting biodiversity loss, and reduce the EU economy’s dependency on many materials. Specifically, it estimates that by 2030 its proposed measures would bring greenhouse gas emissions from packaging down to 43 million tons compared to 66 million tons if the legislation is not changed. (Detailed impact assessment documents can be accessed at https://bit.ly/42cYEXd.)

Impacting Industry

These proposals, which are said to be aimed at creating a level playing field of packaging that is not more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfill the environmental objectives, will impact all companies working within the EU and those selling into the region, including those working within the tobacco and nicotine industries, though some exemptions apply to small companies. The use of packaging is universal, and the materials covered by the proposals include aluminium, cardboard, ceramics, glass, metal, paper, plastic, porcelain, stoneware, textiles and wood.
But, just to be certain where the tobacco industry would stand, I wrote to the commission asking if I would be correct in assuming that all the proposals finally accepted by the parliament and council would apply to the tobacco industry, in respect of both its leaf tobacco and its product (including new-generation products) packaging.
Interestingly, the commission chose to answer a different but related question by saying, “The tobacco industry would certainly [my emphasis] not be exempt from these rules according to our proposals.” I thought this answer, apart from being a little sniffy, was interesting because it seemed to assume that, despite a history of disadvantages being heaped on tobacco industry packaging, I had been wondering whether the industry could, suddenly and miraculously, expect to be advantaged by being exempted from some of the proposed rules.
In fact, my thoughts had been going in another direction. I had been wondering whether the tobacco industry and its much put-upon consumers might be well served by being treated equally with other industries for once. As I understand it, the commission proposals, in part, are about incentivizing innovation, something the industry might want to examine.

Buying in Bulk

If the proposals applied across the board, the tobacco products industry might, for instance, be encouraged to participate in refillable initiatives, which are mentioned in the proposals as a way of reducing the use of packaging materials. It could be imagined that, under such a scheme, cigarette consumers might buy from their local store cigarettes obtained from bulk packs and taken away in reusable containers. Clearly, with the exception of the bulk packs, which would be seen only by a limited number of people, possibly mainly nonsmokers, this would put paid to the grotesque health warnings that smokers, unlike alcohol drinkers, have to endure.
I cannot imagine the tobacco industry being allowed to apply such a system given that it has in the past been dissuaded, both by external or, rather more shockingly, internal forces, from introducing environmental incentives into its packaging because of the idea that, in the mind of consumers, environmental claims equal health claims. This idea, I suspect, would be impossible to defend, but it persists.
But why should the industry not be allowed to apply such a system? Where is the moral line to be drawn here? Is it right for the commission, despite what it says, to apply exemptions to the tobacco industry? Is it defensible for the commission to hang onto these health warnings, which have dubious moral or practical underpinnings, in an attempt to dissuade smokers from continuing with their habit? Remember, to disallow such a tobacco industry initiative would, in the commission’s view, discourage the use of more environmentally friendly packaging and thereby make the world a riskier place for everybody.
Certainly, if it does decide to disadvantage the tobacco industry, it should do the same with any number of other industries, such as the automotive industry, which destroys lives in much the same way (and other ways) as the tobacco industry is said to destroy lives. Sections of the automotive industry, too, have been deceptive about the risks caused by the use of their products and, in their case, about the extent to which such use endangers the public at large rather than just the users of their products.

Action Needed

Having said that, while I do not work in packaging and cannot speak for the practicality or efficaciousness of individual proposals, it is clear to me that action needs to be taken in respect of the three stated objectives of the proposed revisions. Firstly, to prevent the generation of packaging waste by reducing it in quantity, restricting unnecessary packaging and promoting reusable and refillable packaging.
Secondly, to boost high-quality (“closed loop”) recycling by making all packaging on the EU market recyclable in an economically viable way by 2030. And thirdly, to reduce the need for primary natural resources by creating a well-functioning market for secondary raw materials and increasing the use of recycled plastics in packaging through mandatory targets.
I like the emphasis on preventing wherever possible the generation of packaging, though it is important to note the commission makes clear that packaging plays a vital role in protecting and preserving products.
I also like the commission’s emphasis on having clear and consistent labeling on every piece of packaging to indicate what it is made of and to what waste stream it should go. This is not the case currently. The commission, in its proposals, makes the point that regulatory approaches differ from one member state to another, which means that, for instance, labeling requirements differ.
One concern has to be whether the new rules can be made to work, because previous rules haven’t, at least not satisfactorily. The commission says that its directive on packaging and packaging waste (94/62/EC – PPWD), which, under the latest proposals, is due to be repealed, was a regulatory failure that cannot be remedied simply by better enforcement of the current rules. Moreover, the commission added, the available data hinted that neither measures undertaken by the member states based on the current PPWD nor those based on the ORD [2020 Own Resource Decision] or SUPD [2019 Single-Use Plastic Directive], both of which would be amended under the proposals, were sufficient to ensure that they met all the specific targets for the recycling rates set out in the PPWD.
In trying to make the proposed rules more effective, the commission is aiming for them to be bound up in a regulation rather than in a directive, which seems to be a step in the right direction. Regulations are binding legal acts that must be applied in their entirety throughout every member state whereas directives are legislative acts that set goals that all states must achieve but that allow room for individual states to devise their own laws for achieving those goals.
Finally, the press note included a couple of comments, and in part, Virginijus Sinkevicius, the EU commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries, made the point that we had all at one time or another received products that, ordered online, had arrived in excessively large boxes. I’m sure there is a lesson to be learned from this claim, but I hope that such knowledge does not lead only to the examination of packaging, which is merely a symptom of a social problem. Tracking back to the cause will show, I think, that we need to examine, too, our buying habits. For those of us lucky enough to be able to do so, we should surely try to buy less stuff and only from shops to which we can walk or cycle carrying reusable containers—including elegant cigarette cases.

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.

May 1, 2023
To Boldly Go

Photo: sharafmaksumov

Tobacco veteran Murray Prince is setting up tobacco operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

By George Gay

Shortly after I had been asked to write a piece about leaf tobacco operations in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), my daily newspaper carried, on the same page, a story on each of these countries. The stories focused on conflicts of various kinds and therefore appeared generally negative, which is not unusual for the coverage many British people would see of these two countries and, in fact, of many other African nations. There is no doubt that, seen from the outside by the person in the street, and, for some marginalized citizens, seen from the inside, the DRC and Uganda have their problems—some of them grievous and seemingly self-imposed.
But, with a few obvious exceptions, businesspeople tend to see things differently. Countries, wherever they are in the world, are seen basically as producers or markets that are more or less attractive than other countries. Conflicts comprise a negative factor when appraising a country, but they are not seen as barriers, providing those conflicts do not impinge directly and oppressively on business interests.
Such an approach can seem to be unethical, but, in one way at least, it can be seen to be the exact opposite. Shifting the focus back to Africa, businesses working within the leaf tobacco industry have been generally good at taking a practical approach and building operations, including, importantly, livelihoods, in places where others might fear to tread.
And so it is that Murray Prince, an experienced Africa-tobacco hand, is in the process of setting up and registering Market Link Services, through which he aims to coordinate various leaf operations in East Africa and the DRC, where he is working with Idi Taban, a businessman based in Kampala, Uganda, whose interests include a tobacco procurement and trading operation in the DRC: GGLC. Taban’s Uganda-based company, KKT, has interests, too, in transport, property and regional trading, and the plan, still being finalized, would see Taban retain overall control of his tobacco business in the DRC while handing over operational control and the day-to-day running of it to Prince.
In this role, Prince would manage all stages of GGLC’s DRC tobacco operations, including leaf production and procurement; he would oversee operations in Uganda, where the DRC tobacco would be processed and packed before being exported; and he would be responsible for marketing, sales and communications.

The Formula

Businesses in the leaf tobacco industry have been generally good at building operations and livelihoods in places where others might fear to tread. | Photo: Francesca Volpi

The systems necessary to make all this transparent and workable have been put in place during the past 12 months, but, even still, Prince has no illusions about the challenges involved in operating in the DRC and, indeed, readily admits that his previous time there as a trader involved in production and procurement, from 2009 to 2012, was not easy and ultimately ended in failure. Nevertheless, failure is a form of experience that can be turned around, and he is up for the challenge, telling me that part of his role would require him to anticipate the risks and disruptions that, without early interventions, could cause operational challenges.
On the positive side, he has long experience in various African countries, which means, he says, that he is familiar with the strengths, weaknesses and sensitivities of these markets and that he has a “formula” for what needs to be done—by all participating parties—to make a success of the entire operation. His expertise, however, is in two broad areas, one of which encompasses sales, marketing and exports while the other comprises the skills, including those in specialized project development, management and supporting roles, required to set up new projects.
Originally from Zimbabwe, Prince started in the leaf trade in Malawi with Limbe Leaf, which later became part of Universal, before returning to Zimbabwe to work with Standard Commercial and, later, Zimbabwe Tobacco Brokers. He was then involved in or instrumental in three startups: Tobacco Handlers Zimbabwe, which also operated in Malawi, Leaf Buyers Zimbabwe and Southern Leaf Brokers. Since 2013, he has lived in the U.K. from where he has operated a tobacco consultancy and become involved in other trade-related interests.

Building Relationships

So, what are GGLC’s aims? Well, Prince says the first aim is to maintain the stable and sustainable production and procurement system and infrastructure that, for the past 15 years, have operated to the advantage of the company, its employees and the regional community, including tobacco farmers, their employees and families, who have also benefited from additional support services. And using that production and procurement system as a base, the next aim is to establish GGLC as the reliable leaf exporting company operating in the DRC, building long-term, trusted and mutually beneficial relations with international players that recognize the potential of the country’s niche market.
That’s it in a nutshell, but the devil will be in the details. Maintaining the production and procurement system will require ensuring the smooth operation of farmer registrations, agronomy support, input availability, storage and dispersal; and leaf buying, grading and baling. Then, Prince says, to avoid disruption as the tobacco is moved to Uganda for processing, close attention will be paid to logistics, compliance and documentation appropriate for meeting obligations for both the DRC and Uganda as well as internationally.
The plan, he says, is to have, as now, the DRC tobacco processed ahead of export at a facility in Jinja, Uganda, which is run by the Nilus Group, a partnership between Premium Tobacco and Uganda Tobacco Services that between them promote Ugandan Burley and dark-fired tobacco. Once processed, the tobacco will be moved for shipping from Jinja to Mombasa, Kenya, by an independent logistics group, Agrivest Shipping.

Straightening the Hassles

To the layman, this can start to look like a lot of effort for possibly not enough reward. So why do it? After all, even the GGLC DRC target of 10 million kg green weight is a drop in the ocean set against what can be grown in Zimbabwe, where, because of the importance of the tobacco crop, the infrastructure and systems, albeit probably not perfect, have been in place and functioning for years.
So let me see if I can get this right. It is worth the effort if the tobacco fits well into a final buyer’s cigarette blend in respect of both sensory factors and cost. Therefore, once a tobacco has been found to be a right fit, and the generally flavorful tobaccos produced in Africa have been highly prized by manufacturers for decades, it all comes down to price. But there are two prices in play here: the dollar price and the hassle price. Some big players have tried their hands in the DRC and Uganda and left, some having found that the hassle price was too high. The idea is that a smaller, more flexible player with experience in negotiating the inevitable business, industry and political chicanes can straighten out those hassles, which, as mentioned above, is why Prince is getting on board.
Much of what can be said about the DRC also applies to Uganda, where tobacco has been grown since at least the 1920s when BAT was active there but where, since the departure of that company’s stabilizing influence, flue-cured operations are currently said to lack a stable and balanced market. But therein lies an opportunity. Although BAT is no longer directly involved in the Ugandan leaf tobacco market, vestiges of the production expertise it left behind are still present, and so Taban and Prince believe the time is right to grasp the opportunity of entering the market for flue-cured tobacco. Prince told me there was a circularity, almost a natural rhythm to the way that smaller producers came into and went out of operation and that he believed the time was right in the region to take advantage of the moment and engage with grower communities and government departments that were now well disposed to such an initiative.
This seems as though it could be a good assessment of the situation. According to an October 2021 story by Gilbert Mwijuke that was published in the East African newspaper, leaf tobacco production in Uganda peaked at 18 million kg in 2013, when more than 75,000 farmers were said to be engaged in the industry. Since then, however, things have fallen apart somewhat, and by 2020, less than 10 million kg was produced, apparently at least partly because of grower prices. Geoffrey Ozuma, a crop scientist at the National Agricultural Research Organization in Hoima and a former tobacco farmer, was quoted in the story as saying that many farmers had been discouraged by declining prices. When certain companies came into the market, he said, prices dropped because those companies started providing farmers with inputs but then set low prices for leaf tobacco produced with it. “That uncertainty, coupled with rising costs of production due to increasing scarcity of essential inputs such as firewood, forced many farmers to give up,” he said.
How accurate these figures are is not known, and Prince treats most of the figures available with some skepticism. FAO figures tend to suggest that—presumably total—tobacco production in Uganda has been remarkably constant in recent years: 31.688 million kg in 2017, 32.762 million kg in 2018, 31.992 million kg in 2019, 32.277 million kg in 2020 and 32.563 million kg in 2021. Meanwhile, FAO figures for the DRC have been similarly constant: 3.774 million kg in 2017, 3.655 million kg in 2018, 3.562 million kg in 2019, 3.694 million kg in 2020 and 3.667 million kg in 2021.
But I guess that historical data is perhaps not important, providing as it is only a guide to what was possible in the past under the conditions and in the environment that then pertained. What is possible in the future will depend on any number of factors that are not necessarily easy to identify at present. That’s probably why it’s necessary to have people such as Prince and Taban in place. They’ve been there before and seen the changes wrought by business, industry and political upheavals.

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.

May 1, 2023
Seeking Substitutes

Dholakia Tobacco is offering Indian smokeless tobacco products that are less hazardous than the country’s most commonly used varieties. Photos: Dholakia Tobacco

Modern oral nicotine products could help Indian consumers abandon deadly local smokeless tobacco products.

By Stefanie Rossel

When it comes to tobacco, India holds several records: It is the world’s second-largest consumer, third-largest producer and fifth-largest exporter. Its consumption pattern is also remarkable. According to the 2016–2017 Global Adult Tobacco Survey, 266.8 million adult Indians—28.6 percent of the country’s population—use tobacco in some form.
However, with 199.4 million consumers, the most used tobacco product is smokeless (SLT). Only 99.5 million Indians consume tobacco by smoking it. Of these, only 37.5 million smoke cigarettes. Most smokers prefer bidis—cheap, unfiltered cigarettes made of tobacco flakes wrapped in a tendu or temburni leaf that are even more hazardous to health than factory-made cigarettes.
India has the world’s largest number of SLT users. Unfortunately, the type of SLT that prevails here does not reside on the low end of the risk continuum like other smokeless products such as Swedish snus do. A pasteurized oral tobacco with limited negative health effects, snus has helped Sweden achieve the world’s lowest smoking prevalence. Indian SLTs, by contrasts, are considered “uniquely deadly” by experts.
Indian SLTs come in a large variety. The most commonly used variants are khaini, a mixture of tobacco and lime, and gutkha, which comprises tobacco, slaked lime, paraffin wax as well as catechu, an extract of acacia trees and crushed areca (betel) nut. Other local forms of SLTs contain mixtures of betel quid or paan masala. All are highly addictive and full of carcinogens. In addition to the typical ingredients, they can be laced with thousands of chemicals. Available for a few rupees, these SLTs are affordable for low-income groups. Like bidis, they are predominantly consumed in rural areas, where almost 70 percent of the country’s population lives. SLTs are responsible for an estimated 350,000 premature deaths annually in India.
In line with its national health policy, India aims to reduce the number of tobacco users by 30 percent by 2025. The country closely adheres to the World Health Organization’s abolitionist guidelines, but its tobacco control measures are often contradictory. Attempts to curb tobacco use have remained limited to tax hikes on cigarettes rather than bidis and a ban on e-cigarettes and heated-tobacco products. In 2012, all states banned the manufacture, sale and distribution—but not the public use—of pre-packaged gutkha under laws that defined the product as a food. Some states extended this ban to other oral tobacco products, such as paan masala. Enforcement of these bans has been weak, however.
In an interview with The Free Press Journal, Kiran Melkote of AHER, a harm reduction group, outlined the reasons for India’s ineffective tobacco control policy. “Many arms of the government work at cross purposes and implement policies that even on paper are in direct conflict with the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The health ministry tries to implement awareness campaigns and maintain zero industry contact norms for its employees while the commerce ministry provides loans and support for tobacco cultivation and the finance ministry bans e-cigarettes and incentivizes bidi manufacturers. All of them generally ignore oral tobacco. The answer therefore lies in understanding that the strategies used in the developed world where the predominant form of tobacco is the cigarette may not really impact tobacco use in India. Here we have a larger population with different problems and an admitted inability to implement existing laws.”

The success of modern oral products in Pakistan is welcome proof that they can replace the deadlier local oral tobacco.

Samrat Chowdhery, director of the Council for Harm Reduced Alternatives

Potential Solution

Perhaps a look across the border might be useful. India’s neighbor Pakistan has a tobacco consumption profile similar to that of India. An estimated 10 million people use SLT, which represents more than 40 percent of the country’s total tobacco market. Recently, Pakistan has seen a remarkable development: In December, BAT announced that its modern oral nicotine brand Velo had achieved a monthly volume of more than 40 million pouches in the country, making it BAT’s third-largest market for nicotine pouches. Modern oral nicotine products consist of pre-portioned bags comprising nicotine applied to a carrier material. They are considered to be a more advanced, cleaner version of Swedish snus.
Could Pakistan’s experience in substituting hazardous SLT products with less harmful varieties serve as a blueprint for India? “The tobacco use patterns in both nations are similar,” says Samrat Chowdhery, director of the Council for Harm Reduced Alternatives, referring to the high share of oral tobacco use. “Nicotine pouches have not been sold on scale before in the South Asian region, hence their substitution potential for the region’s tobacco users, especially the SLT users, was not known. Their success in Pakistan is welcome proof that they can replace the deadlier local oral tobacco—though whether that is indeed happening needs to be better understood.”
Nihar Dholakia, director of next-generation products at Dholakia Tobacco, an SLT company based in Gujarat, India, has been closely monitoring the rise of the modern oral category in Pakistan. “Given that both Pakistan and India have a similar culture of using SLT products, we believe that the success of nicotine pouches in Pakistan could be replicated in India but on a much larger scale.”
In light of the Indian government’s abolitionist strategy and the competitive structure of the local SLT segment, in which two leading companies jointly hold around 40 percent of the market, less hazardous oral products in India could encounter major hurdles, according to Chowdhery. “Nicotine pouches and snus could face opposition from the SLT lobby unless they can be made to see the business potential,” he says. “It would be a major setback if the government banned safer oral nicotine products too.”
Issues are also likely to come up in terms of cultural heritage and consumer education. “Tobacco use, especially oral, has long been part of India’s cultural milieu, just like alcohol is in western nations,” says Chowdhery. “SLT is also available for cheap, and varieties vary across regions. While the social stigma around smoking is beginning to develop, none exists for oral products as there is no secondary harm. Educating users can be challenging given the number of users, with different cultural norms and languages such that it is difficult to design communications.”
“In India, the avenues available for broadly educating consumers about THR and more specifically finessing that message to SLT users may be very limited,” says Dholakia. “The process seems to be largely organic, with consumers themselves becoming aware of the harmful effects and seeking alternatives. This often involved researching THR and exploring a range of reduced-risk products available. Online resources and word of mouth play a significant role in the education process. However, to make a more substantial impact, we require greater consumer advocacy as well as government initiatives to generally raise awareness.”

We believe that the success of nicotine pouches in Pakistan could be replicated in India—but on a much larger scale.

Nihar Dholakia, director of next-generation products at Dholakia Tobacco

Treading New Paths

Despite the government’s reluctance to admit safer substitutes, not all is lost for THR in India. Dholakia and other manufacturers are beginning to look at snus and nicotine pouches. With the Paz brand, his business recently launched the first Swedish-style tobacco snus brands in India. “In fact, we operate India’s first online platform for snus,” says Dholakia. “However, we face regulatory challenges, such as the requirements of an 85 percent pictorial warning of product packaging, high taxes and restrictions on advertisement and promotion. Nevertheless, despite these obstacles, we have observed a growing trend among consumers who are actively seeking reduced-risk products as a better alternative.”
Dholakia Tobacco caters primarily to the premium SLT category. “However, considering the fact that India has over 220 million smokeless tobacco users who lack access to harm-reduced alternatives, we aspire to make our products more accessible and available to any SLT user. Therefore, we are determined to expand our reach to a broader audience in the domestic market as well through the right forms of direct-to-consumer education and word-of-mouth product awareness.”
Indian consumers have responded positively to Dholakia’s snus products, particularly after switching from traditional chewing tobacco, cigarettes or khaini. “Many customers have reported experiencing a positive change firsthand, indicating their acceptance and awareness of the harm-reduced properties of snus products,” says Dholakia. “These are some of our future ambassadors for risk-reduced products, who will quite naturally be out there to talk with other consumers about their experiences with these new products.”
The company also manufactures a filtered khaini brand, which has become popular in many Indian states recently. Filtered khaini is a modern version of khaini chewing tobacco that resembles western-style, portion pouch-packed snus but has a significantly different toxicological profile. “Traditional filter khaini available on the market is not less harmful than regular khaini,” clarifies Dholakia. “In fact, it can be thought of as a pulverized moist version of khaini packed in an oral pouch.”
Dholakia’s filtered khaini brand is not the same, he insists. “The filter tobacco products we offer are different in composition when compared to traditional filter khaini and commercially available products in India currently. It can be said it is less harmful than other filter products due to the use of low-impact base ingredients, the type of quality tobacco and the novel processes as well as our advanced approach to product integrity and testing infrastructure. As far as affordability and availability is concerned, these filter products are comparable to regular chewing tobacco and khaini products. They are available in a few states and are perceived by khaini consumers as a more sophisticated version of a mainstay khaini product.”
Dholakia Tobacco has also ventured into modern oral nicotine pouches. It was the first company in India to venture into this category. “As pioneers of modern oral nicotine pouches from India, our products are currently available only in the global markets we cater to and have not yet been launched domestically,” Dholakia says.
“However, we are considering and working toward introducing them in India as we firmly believe that they can have a positive impact on public health in the country. We are confident that Indian consumers are ready for such a product. Accessibility, awareness, the right information, a fair regulatory framework and quality control are key factors that need to be addressed for the category. Given that India is in dire need of multiple harm-reduced products, we are committed to making them available in India.”

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.

May 1, 2023
Broadening the Scope
Image: alexlmx
Tobacco harm reduction initiatives should also cover e-waste management, say experts.
Contributed
E-waste is an emerging unintended environmental consequence of the revolution in electronic nicotine-delivery systems, threatening to undermine a technological innovation in public health. This conversation examines the intersection of regulatory policy, consumer behavior and the vaping products’ industry and hopes to map a sustainable path for the future.
In the discussion below, John Dunne from the U.K. Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) brings in the vaping industry perspective, Pieter Vorster brings expert views on global tobacco and nicotine industry transformation, and Sudhanshu Patwardhan (Sud), a nicotine expert and health-tech entrepreneur, proposes a broader definition and scope of tobacco harm reduction (THR).
Sudhanshu Patwardhan
Patwardhan: We know that in the U.K. and the European Union, where they are regulated, vapes, or e-cigarettes, are classed as waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Ideally, consumers in these countries should dispose of vapes at a household recycling center or at the shop where they bought the device. Manufacturers are also required to make recycling options available. Many consumers, however, are unaware that single-use vapes can or should be recycled. Incorrect disposal of these items can potentially release plastic, electronic and hazardous chemical waste into the environment and represent a fire hazard. How big is this issue currently? Does the industry have numbers contrasting sales to recycling?
Dunne: In the U.K., around 459 million e-cigarettes of all kinds are purchased each year, of which 168 million, or 37 percent, are single-use vapes. Approximately 43 percent of all vapes purchased are recycled, although this number is likely much lower for single-use (“disposable”) products:
Twenty-three percent of e-cigarettes are recycled in-store when consumers buy a new one.
Twenty percent are recycled at a local authority recycling center.
On the face of it, the 43 percent recycled figure for e-cigarettes compares favorably with the 31.2 percent of waste electrical and electronic equipment in the U.K. that was recycled or reused in the U.K. in 2021. However, vaping products’ relatively short lifespan means more waste is generated.
Patwardhan: Good to get that broader electronic products-based perspective and the product use life cycle nuance with regards to e-cigarettes. Obviously, there is a still a gap between current practices by consumers versus what would make e-cigarettes environmentally sustainable in the long run. Pieter, do you think there are any good examples of industry players showing some leadership in this?
Vorster: All three tobacco companies that sell single-use vaping products in the U.K.—BAT (Vuse Bar), Imperial (Blu bar) and PMI (VEEBA), for example—advise consumers not to put them in household waste and offer free returns services on their websites. This information is displayed on the webpages where these items are sold. Consumers who don’t buy these products online need to read the package insert. They are advised that the product should not be placed in household waste but collected separately for recovery and recycling. The package insert also directs users to the manufacturer’s website for details of its recycling program. Whether consumers ever read these inserts is open to debate!
Independent U.K. brands are not far behind either; Riot Bar and Blo Bar have also introduced comprehensive recycling schemes. Blo also offers consumers one free Blo Bar for every 10 disposable vapes of any brand sent to them for recycling. Most online retailers in the U.K. offer disposal and recycling advice, and VPZ, the U.K.’s largest vaping retailer, has announced that it is introducing a comprehensive return and recycling program in its stores before the end of March.
Patwardhan: It sounds like manufacturers are, in theory, offering the recycling option to consumers. Do we know if consumers know that these options exist? Perhaps there is an education piece that needs to be carried out by key actors in the supply chain, including manufacturers, as well as by the broader regulatory agencies? Do the regulators need to intervene, or does the industry need to act? Or both, and others?
John Dunne
Dunne: Recycling vapes is not straightforward and needs collaboration between adult vapers, retailers, manufacturers, regulators and companies in the waste management sector, which are involved in the current Producer Compliance Schemes under the WEEE regulations. We are liaising with DEFRA [U.K. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs] and the Office for Product Safety and Standards and calling upon our members and the wider industry to innovate products that are easier to recycle.
Patwardhan: Talking about multi-stakeholder initiatives, we are on the cusp of another VApril, an annual British feature in April to showcase vaping as a means to stop smoking. As we have seen with a series of successive publications from U.K. health and related authorities and charities—e.g., the 2016 Royal College of Physicians’ Nicotine Without Smoke report—e-cigarettes/vapes are a potential force for good by helping smokers quit smoking. The THR creds of e-cigarettes in the context of current adult smokers are not in doubt. However, this emerging narrative on environmental harms from disposable vapes presents a unique challenge to those in public health and policy, does it not, Pieter?
Pieter Vorster
Vorster: Indeed, Sud. To date, opponents of tobacco harm reduction have often relied on questionable science that is unlikely to withstand rigorous evaluation, as evidenced by numerous retractions in recent years. On the other hand, the science underlying the potential environmental and health risks posed by the inappropriate disposal of reduced-risk products isn’t subject to the same constraints. Furthermore, the emotional appeal for the “environmental harms” narrative from these products has a much broader and vocal activist constituency—thus threatening to undermine the public health arguments of THR. In short, it represents a potentially potent weaponizable tool for those opposed to THR.
Patwardhan: I can see that the recent developments in Scotland, where an environmental activist highlighted the problem of vape littering, and separately, the decision of a large British supermarket chain to stop selling disposable vapes, signal a change in public perception and attitudes toward the product. It is as if an argument is being built in this narrative about disposables being harmful to the environment and are a lost cause as such, as well as the anecdotal observation that disposables are used by a much younger cohort, possibly those underage as well as those who have never smoked cigarettes before. If true, surely that is one issue to address through stronger regulations, especially with regards to preventing youth access and mandatory recycling requirements and refund schemes, right?
Dunne: Preventing the sale of vaping products to minors is one of the industry’s most fundamental challenges, and our members are united behind this goal. We have recently updated our “Preventing Underage Sales Guide” to give retailers all the information they need so they don’t inadvertently sell to someone under 18. However, we need the support of the government, regulators and enforcement authorities to ensure that unscrupulous retailers who knowingly sell to young people face the full force of the law. We believe that there is a need for increased fines for rogue traders, licensing of vape retailers and a national test purchase scheme. In fact, the UKVIA’s Youth Access Prevention Task Force will propose so to regulators this month. Regarding e-waste, the industry also recognizes its environmental responsibilities, and we are working with regulators, waste management experts, product manufacturers and retailers to find a workable solution.
Patwardhan: This is a most fascinating discussion where we find innovative 21st century nicotine products that have huge positive public health potential getting caught into an orthogonal field of great import in global public policy: sustainability and environment. In concert, responsible behavior by industry and retailers, better regulation and enforcement—and not prohibition—and consumer adoption of e-waste management solutions may well be the answer. In fact, we can go one step further and challenge all stakeholders—industry, regulators, public health and consumers—to embrace proactive e-waste management as another opportunity to reduce harms from a transforming tobacco and nicotine products’ landscape whilst maximizing the societal benefits from this shift in consumer behaviors.
May 1, 2023
Veolia Launches Vape Collection Service

Photo: alexlmx

Resource management company Veolia has launched a national vape collection service to help provide safe disposal and recycling routes for the 3 million vapes currently thrown away in the U.K. each week.
Veolia states that it can now facilitate the collection and transport of vaping products from retailers to a recycling facility to extract the valuable materials, including lithium, cobalt, nickel and manganese, inside.
The recycling of these items could save more than 10 tons of lithium that could be recycled into new products from the batteries, which would save up to 72 tons of carbon emissions compared to using raw materials as producing 1 ton of lithium from ore produces around 9 tons of carbon dioxide emissions, according to Scottish Local Retailer.
Collections will be scheduled according to demand, and in order to store and transport these materials safely, Veolia will provide retailers with individual containers of vermiculite, a mineral that will minimize fire risks from the lithium-ion batteries contained within the vapes.
“Two vapes are thrown away every second. They might be called disposable, but they can and should be recycled,” said Donald Macphail, chief operating officer of treatment at Veolia U.K. “Our new nationwide vape collection service will provide a safe recycling avenue to retailers who provide the mandatory takeback schemes for vapes and ensure that we can extract the valuable materials contained within and mitigate any fire and environmental risks.”

April 28, 2023
‘FDA Ignoring Science on Vapor’

Image: Tobacco Reporter archive

The government watchdog group Protect the Public’s Trust filed a complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services over what it says are scientific integrity violations involving the impact of vaping.
The complaint states that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is promoting public health messages on vaping that appear to be unsupported by its own research and scientific findings, according to Center Square.
Protect the Public’s Trust stated that the FDA was making “scientifically unfounded statements about the vaping industry” contrary to its own research, adding that the agency’s own data appeared to contradict the FDA’s public stance on vaping products.
Protect the Public’s Trust said an FDA report found that “only a subset” of the many harmful compounds found in cigarettes are found in vapes and “at much lower levels” than those in cigarette smoke. That FDA report found that menthol vapes were helping adult smokers quit cigarettes better than fruit flavors, candy flavors or traditional tobacco flavors.
In the complaint, Protect the Public’s Trust stated that former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb presented vaping as comparable to smoking traditional cigarettes because “several of the dangerous chemicals in tobacco smoke are also present in the aerosol of some [vaping] products.”
But the FDA declared that “Vaping is not harmless. It carries real health and safety risks, including addiction and other negative health effects.”
“Many studies suggest e-cigarettes and noncombustible tobacco products may be less harmful than combustible cigarettes. However, there is not yet enough evidence to support claims that e-cigarettes and other ENDS [electronic nicotine-delivery systems] are effective tools for quitting smoking,” the FDA stated on its website.
Protect the Public’s Trust stated that there has been a pattern of the government not following “the science.” Protect the Public’s Trust also claimed in December 2022 that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention failed to track side effects of taking the Covid-19 vaccine.
“Once again, it appears that federal public health leadership has chosen to sacrifice scientific integrity and the public’s rapidly disappearing trust on the altar of political and special interest agendas,” said Michael Chamberlain, director of Protect the Public’s Trust, in an email to The Center Square. “While we were promised that health officials would follow the science, what we have observed instead is a disturbing trend of ignoring or disregarding scientific research and data that don’t fit their particular biases.”

April 28, 2023