🔗 Share this article

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

Zambian lobbying efforts

Correspondence acquired by reporters sent from the corporation's branch in Zambia to the nation's political leaders demands proposals to prohibit tobacco marketing and promotional activities to be canceled or deferred.

The corporation is pursuing amendments to a pending law that include lowering the proposed size of graphic health warnings on cigarette packaging, the removal of restrictions on flavoured tobacco products, and diminished punishments for any firms breaking the new laws.

Health advocate reaction

“As an elected official, I would say that they allow the safeguarding of the British people and continue the mortality of the Zambian people,” commented Master Chimbala.

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

Chimbala said the letter was known to have been circulated to multiple official agencies and was in distribution within civil society groups.

Worldwide lobbying patterns

The situation emerges alongside wider concerns about corporate intervention with medical guidelines. Recently, global health authorities sounded an alarm that the cigarette manufacturers was intensifying efforts to weaken global control measures.

“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 summit conference,” stated Jorge Alday.

Potential consequences

“If a tobacco control measure fails to be approved because of this letter, the consequences may be suffered in individuals' health who might otherwise quit smoking.”

The tobacco control bill going through Zambia’s parliament includes regulations surpassing UK legislation by including provisions for e-cigarettes, and stipulating that graphic health warnings cover seventy-five percent of product packaging.

Company alternative suggestions

Via documentation, BAT suggests this be reduced to less than half “following international recommended threshold”, deferred for no less than twelve months after the bill passes.

Global health authorities actually suggests a caution must occupy at least 50% of the product container front “and attempt to encompass as much of the principal display areas as possible”. Within Britain, warnings are required to occupy 65% of a product container sides.

Flavor restrictions debate

BAT asks for the withdrawal of extensive controls on flavoured tobacco products, arguing that it would lead smokers to “illicitly sold” products. The corporation recommends prohibiting a smaller list of “scents derived from desserts, candy, energy drinks, soft drinks and alcohol drinks”. Each flavored smoking item have been banned in the UK since 2020.

The proposed legislation proposes sanctions for different infractions “extending from a percentage of annual turnover to 10 years’ imprisonment”.

Business explanation

Through correspondence, the corporate leader of the African subsidiary claims the firm is “committed to ethical business practices” and “supports the objectives of governments to reduce smoking incidence and the related medical consequences” but maintains that “some regulations can have unwelcome and unexpected consequences.”

Critic response

Chimbala said the company's suggested modifications would “dilute these regulations so much that the required influence for it to create lasting transformation in society will not be achieved”.

The fact that many such provisions existed in the UK, where the company maintains its main office, was “total double standard”, he said.

“We exist in a international community. When I cultivate smoking products in my garden and harvest that and market the products – and my offspring don't use tobacco, but my community's youth consumes … to enrich myself and all the subsequent offspring while my neighbor's family are dying … is in itself absolute spiritual bankruptcy.”

Public health laws in the UK or elsewhere had not caused companies to close, Chimbala said. “Regulations don't close the industry. Measures simply defend the people.”

Formal company response

The corporate communicator stated: “The company operates its business in compliance with relevant national regulations. Moreover, the firm contributes in the nation's lawmaking procedures in line with the relevant frameworks which provide for interested party involvement in regulation development.”

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

“We advocate for developing rules to realize planned public health goals, while recognizing the range of privileges and responsibilities on businesses, users and involved parties,” the representative explained, mentioning that the company's suggestions “reflect the realities of the local commercial environment and tobacco industry, which encompasses increasing amounts of illicit trade”.

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