🔗 Share this article

The tobacco company stands accused of “utter hypocrisy” for opposing anti-smoking regulations in Africa that are already in place in the UK.

Zambian lobbying efforts

Documents seen by journalists sent from the company’s subsidiary in Zambia to the African officials demands measures restricting tobacco marketing and promotional activities to be scrapped or postponed.

The corporation is pursuing amendments to a draft bill that include lowering the suggested dimensions of graphic health warnings on cigarette packaging, the withdrawal of controls 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 allow the safeguarding of the British people and continue the mortality of the Zambian people,” said the health advocate.

More than 7,000 Zambians a year succumb to tobacco-related illnesses, according to World Health Organization estimates.

The campaigner stated the letter was believed to have been distributed to multiple official agencies and was in circulation among civil society groups.

International corporate influence worries

It comes amid expanded apprehension about business sector influence with health policies. Recently, global health authorities sounded an alarm that the cigarette manufacturers was increasing attempts to undermine international regulations.

“We see evidence of corporate influence worldwide. Corporate signatures are on deferred levy rises in Indonesia, halted laws in Zambia and even a compromised resolution at the UN high-level meeting,” said the corporate monitoring director.

Likely impacts

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

The anti-smoking legislation going through Zambia’s parliament includes regulations surpassing UK legislation by also applying to e-cigarettes, and stipulating that pictorial cautions cover three-quarters of product packaging.

Corporate counter-proposals

In the letter, the company recommends this be lowered to 30% or 50% “following international recommended threshold”, deferred for no less than 12 months after the legislation is approved.

Global health authorities specifically advises a caution must occupy at least 50% of the front of a pack “and attempt to encompass as much of the principal display areas as possible”. In the UK, warnings are required to occupy 65% of a cigarette pack surfaces.

Scented product controversy

The company seeks the removal of broad restrictions on flavoured tobacco products, arguing that it would lead smokers to “illegally traded” products. It suggests restricting fewer varieties of “flavours based on desserts, candy, energy drinks, soft drinks and alcohol drinks”. Every scented tobacco product have been outlawed across the UK since 2020.

The draft bill proposes sanctions for multiple violations “extending from a fraction of annual sales to 10 years’ imprisonment”.

Business explanation

Through correspondence, the company executive of the African subsidiary claims the firm is “committed to ethical business practices” and “endorses the aims of governments to decrease cigarette consumption and the associated health impact” but maintains that “some regulations can have undesirable and unforeseen outcomes.”

Campaigner rebuttal

The advocate stated BAT’s proposed changes would “undermine this law so much that the impact needed for it to produce permanent improvement in society will not be achieved”.

The circumstance that numerous similar measures operated within the UK, where the company maintains its main office, was “complete contradiction”, he stated.

“We live in a global village. Should I grow cigarettes in my garden and harvest that and sell it out – and my family members avoid tobacco, but my community's youth consumes … to profit individually and all the subsequent offspring while my community's youth are succumbing … is in itself total emotional failure.”

Anti-smoking regulations in the United Kingdom or other countries 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 company operates its activities following with current country statutes. Further, the corporation engages in the state's regulatory development in line with the appropriate structures which provide for interested party involvement in legislation creation.”

The firm positioned itself as “not resisting legislation”, they said, adding that young individuals should be safeguarded against acquiring smoking products and nicotine.

“We advocate for evolving legislation to realize planned public health goals, while acknowledging the spectrum of entitlements and duties on industry, consumers and related stakeholders,” they said, adding that the company's suggestions “mirror the circumstances of the Zambian market and tobacco industry, which involves growing volumes of illicit trade”.

The nation's ministry of trade, commerce and industry was contacted for response.