🔗 Share this article

The tobacco company stands accused of “utter hypocrisy” for opposing tobacco control measures in Africa that are already in place in the UK.

African regulatory opposition

Correspondence acquired by reporters dispatched by the firm's affiliate in Zambia to the country’s government ministers demands measures restricting tobacco marketing and promotional activities to be scrapped or postponed.

The corporation is pursuing modifications of a pending law that include reductions in the recommended coverage of pictorial cautions on cigarette packaging, the elimination of limitations on flavoured tobacco products, and diminished punishments for any businesses disregarding the new laws.

Anti-tobacco campaigner response

“As an elected official, I would say that they enable the defense of the British people and continue the mortality of the Zambian people,” said the health advocate.

Thousands of residents a year die from smoking-associated diseases, according to WHO calculations.

The campaigner stated the letter was known to have been circulated to multiple official agencies and was in distribution within community advocacy networks.

Global industry interference concerns

This occurs during wider concerns about industry interference with health policies. Last month, international health experts raised concerns that the cigarette manufacturers was intensifying efforts to undermine international regulations.

“We see evidence of industry lobbying worldwide. Manufacturer hallmarks are on delayed tax increases in Indonesia, delayed regulations in Zambia and even a compromised resolution at the UN summit conference,” commented the corporate monitoring director.

Potential consequences

“If a tobacco control measure doesn't get enacted because of this letter, the price could be paid in individuals' health who might possibly give up cigarettes.”

The tobacco control bill going through Zambia’s parliament includes proposals to go further UK legislation by extending coverage to e-cigarettes, and stipulating that visual health alerts cover three-quarters of product packaging.

Corporate counter-proposals

Through correspondence, the corporation proposes this be reduced to less than half “within the WHO-FCTC guideline limits”, deferred for no less than 12 months after the legislation is approved.

Global health authorities specifically advises a warning should cover at least 50% of the front of a pack “and seek to occupy as much of the principal display areas as possible”. Across the United Kingdom, warnings need to encompass 65% of a cigarette pack surfaces.

Flavor restrictions debate

The corporation requests the removal of broad restrictions on flavored cigarette varieties, claiming that it would drive users to “illegally traded” products. The company proposes restricting fewer varieties of “tastes inspired by desserts, candy, energy drinks, soft drinks and alcohol drinks”. All flavoured cigarettes have been banned in the UK since 2020.

The draft bill suggests penalties for multiple violations “extending from a percentage of annual turnover to ten-year jail sentences”.

Corporate defense

In the letter, the corporate leader of British American Tobacco Zambia claims the firm is “committed to good corporate behaviour” and “endorses the aims of governments to reduce smoking incidence and the connected wellbeing effects” but asserts that “specific rules can have negative and unanticipated results.”

Campaigner rebuttal

Chimbala said the corporation's recommended amendments would “weaken this legislation so much that the impact needed for it to produce permanent improvement in society will not be achieved”.

The circumstance that many such provisions existed in the UK, where BAT is headquartered, was “total double standard”, he commented.

“We exist in a connected world. When I cultivate smoking products in my back yard and collect the yield and market the products – and my family members avoid tobacco, but my neighbour’s children do … to profit individually and all the future family lines while my community's youth are dying … is in itself complete moral failure.”

Public health laws in the Britain or other nations had not caused companies to close, the campaigner stated. “Laws don't eliminate the industry. They merely safeguard the people.”

Standard business position

The corporate communicator said: “The corporation runs its business in compliance with relevant national regulations. Additionally, the company participates in the nation's lawmaking procedures in line with the relevant frameworks which provide for relevant group engagement in policymaking.”

The firm positioned itself as “not against rules”, the representative commented, adding that minors should be protected from obtaining cigarettes and nicotine.

“We champion developing rules to realize planned community wellbeing objectives, while acknowledging the spectrum of rights and obligations on industry, consumers and related stakeholders,” the spokesperson stated, mentioning that the company's suggestions “reflect the realities of the Zambian market and tobacco industry, which involves increasing amounts of illegal commerce”.

Zambia’s department of business, commercial affairs and industrial development was solicited for statement.