🔗 Share this article

British American Tobacco has been accused of “utter hypocrisy” for lobbying against tobacco control measures in Africa that are already in place in the UK.

Zambian lobbying efforts

Correspondence acquired by reporters dispatched by the corporation's branch in Zambia to the nation's political leaders demands plans to ban tobacco marketing and promotional activities to be scrapped or postponed.

The tobacco firm seeks modifications of a pending law that include decreasing the proposed size of visual health alerts on cigarette packaging, the elimination of limitations on flavored smoking items, and watered-down penalties for any companies violating the new laws.

Health advocate reaction

“Were I in government, I would say that they permit the protection of the British people and sustain the fatalities of the Zambian people,” stated Master Chimbala.

Over seven thousand citizens a year die from smoking-associated diseases, according to global health agency statistics.

Chimbala said the letter was known to have been circulated to various ministerial offices and was in distribution within community advocacy networks.

Global industry interference concerns

This occurs during wider concerns about business sector influence with medical guidelines. In recent weeks, international health experts raised concerns that the smoking product companies was increasing attempts to dilute worldwide restrictions.

“We see evidence of industry lobbying everywhere. Tobacco company fingerprints are on delayed tax increases in Indonesia, halted laws in Zambia and even a compromised resolution at the UN summit conference,” commented the tobacco industry watchdog.

Likely impacts

“Should anti-smoking legislation isn’t passed because of this letter, the consequences may be suffered in human lives who might possibly give up cigarettes.”

The public health measure progressing through Zambia’s parliament includes measures that exceed UK legislation by including provisions for e-cigarettes, and mandating that visual health alerts cover 75% of product packaging.

Corporate counter-proposals

In the letter, BAT suggests this be lowered to 30% or 50% “within the WHO-FCTC suggested parameters”, postponed for minimum twelve months after the bill passes.

The WHO in fact recommends a alert needs to encompass at least 50% of the product container front “and attempt to encompass as much of the main visible surfaces as possible”. Within Britain, warnings are required to occupy nearly two-thirds of a packet’s front and back.

Flavor restrictions debate

BAT asks for the elimination of comprehensive limitations on flavoured tobacco products, claiming that it would push consumers toward “illicitly sold” products. The company proposes banning a limited selection of “flavours based on desserts, candy, energy drinks, soft drinks and alcohol drinks”. Every scented tobacco product have been banned in the UK since 2020.

The pending regulation proposes sanctions for multiple violations “extending from a percentage of annual turnover to a decade in prison”.

Business explanation

Via documentation, the managing director of British American Tobacco Zambia states the firm is “committed to responsible corporate conduct” and “backs the goals of governments to lower tobacco use and the connected wellbeing effects” but claims that “certain measures can have undesirable and unforeseen outcomes.”

Campaigner rebuttal

The advocate stated BAT’s proposed changes would “dilute these regulations so much that the required influence for it to create lasting transformation in society will not be achieved”.

The circumstance that multiple comparable regulations were present in the UK, where the company maintains its main office, was “utter hypocrisy itself”, he said.

“We live in a international community. If I plant tobacco in my garden and gather the crop and distribute the goods – and my children do not consume tobacco, but my neighbour’s children do … to benefit personally and all the future family lines while my neighbour’s children are dying … is in itself total emotional failure.”

Anti-smoking regulations in the Britain or other nations had failed to shutter businesses, the campaigner stated. “Regulations don't close the industry. Measures simply defend the people.”

Formal company response

The corporate communicator commented: “The corporation runs its operations according with relevant national regulations. Further, the company participates in the country’s legislative process in line with the appropriate structures which provide for stakeholder participation in policymaking.”

The firm positioned itself as “not against rules”, they said, noting that young individuals should be protected from access to tobacco and nicotine.

“We champion developing rules to realize planned population health targets, while accepting the variety of privileges and responsibilities on businesses, users and involved parties,” the spokesperson stated, mentioning that the corporation's recommendations “mirror the circumstances of the African nation's economy and smoking product business, which includes rising levels of illegal commerce”.

The country's office of trade, commerce and industry was contacted for response.