🔗 Share this article

Critics have charged British American Tobacco with “total contradiction” for lobbying against tobacco control measures in Africa that currently exist in the UK.

Campaign in Zambia

Documents seen by journalists sent from the corporation's branch in Zambia to the nation's political leaders asks for measures restricting tobacco marketing and promotional activities to be abandoned or delayed.

The tobacco firm seeks modifications of a pending law that include decreasing the suggested dimensions of visual health alerts on cigarette packaging, the withdrawal of controls on flavored smoking items, and reduced sanctions for any companies violating the new laws.

Health advocate reaction

“If I was a politician, I would say that they enable the defense of the British people and continue the mortality of the Zambian people,” commented the health advocate.

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

The campaigner stated the letter was understood to have been copied to multiple official agencies and was in circulating through public interest organizations.

Worldwide lobbying patterns

The situation emerges alongside wider concerns about corporate intervention with public health regulations. Recently, international health experts issued a warning that the smoking product companies was intensifying efforts to undermine international regulations.

“There is proof of industry lobbying globally. Manufacturer hallmarks are on postponed duty hikes in Indonesia, halted laws in Zambia and even a weakened declaration at the UN high-level meeting,” commented the tobacco industry watchdog.

Likely impacts

“Should anti-smoking legislation fails to be approved because of this letter, the consequences may be suffered in lives of people who might possibly give up cigarettes.”

The public health measure going through Zambia’s parliament includes regulations surpassing UK legislation by extending coverage to e-cigarettes, and stipulating that pictorial cautions cover three-quarters of product packaging.

Company alternative suggestions

Via documentation, the corporation proposes this be decreased to 30% or 50% “within the WHO-FCTC guideline limits”, delayed for at least twelve months after the bill passes.

International experts in fact recommends a alert needs to encompass at least fifty percent of the front of a pack “and aim to cover as much of the principal display areas as possible”. In the UK, warnings are required to occupy 65% of a product container sides.

Flavor restrictions debate

The corporation requests the elimination of comprehensive limitations on flavoured tobacco products, arguing that it would drive users to “illegally traded” products. The company proposes banning a limited selection of “flavours based on desserts, candy, energy drinks, soft drinks and alcohol drinks”. Each flavored smoking item have been banned in the UK since 2020.

The draft bill recommends punishments for various offences “ranging from a portion of yearly revenue to a decade in prison”.

Company justification

Via documentation, the corporate leader of the African subsidiary claims the firm is “committed to ethical business practices” and “backs the goals of governments to decrease cigarette consumption and the associated health impact” but asserts that “certain measures can have undesirable and unforeseen outcomes.”

Activist reaction

The advocate stated the corporation's recommended amendments would “undermine this law so much that the impact needed for it to produce permanent improvement in society will not be achieved”.

The fact that numerous similar measures operated within the UK, where the corporation is based, was “total double standard”, he stated.

“We reside in a global village. When I cultivate smoking products in my garden and gather the crop and distribute the goods – and my family members avoid tobacco, but my neighbour’s children do … to benefit personally and all the future family lines while my neighbour’s children are succumbing … is in itself absolute spiritual bankruptcy.”

Tobacco control legislation in the UK or elsewhere had not caused companies to close, Chimbala said. “Regulations don't close the industry. It only protects the people.”

Formal company response

The corporate communicator commented: “The corporation runs its business in compliance with current country statutes. Further, the corporation engages in the nation's lawmaking procedures in line with the relevant frameworks which enable interested party involvement in policymaking.”

The company was “not opposed to regulation”, the representative commented, noting that underage people should be shielded from access to tobacco and nicotine.

“We champion progressive regulation to accomplish desired public health goals, while recognizing the range of rights and obligations on industry, consumers and related stakeholders,” they said, adding that the company's suggestions “represent the situation of the African nation's economy and tobacco industry, which encompasses rising levels of illegal commerce”.

The country's office of business, commercial affairs and industrial development was approached for comment.