🔗 Share this article

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

Campaign in Zambia

A letter obtained by media sent from the company’s subsidiary in Zambia to the African officials demands measures restricting tobacco advertising and sponsorship to be abandoned or delayed.

The tobacco firm seeks amendments to a draft bill that include reductions in the proposed size of pictorial cautions on cigarette packaging, the removal of restrictions on flavoured tobacco products, and watered-down penalties for any companies violating the new laws.

Activist commentary

“As an elected official, I would say that they allow the safeguarding of the British people and continue the mortality of the Zambian people,” stated the anti-tobacco campaigner.

Over seven thousand citizens a year die from tobacco-related illnesses, according to global health agency statistics.

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

International corporate influence worries

It comes amid expanded apprehension about corporate intervention with health policies. Recently, international health experts raised concerns that the cigarette manufacturers was escalating campaigns to dilute worldwide restrictions.

“Evidence exists of business advocacy everywhere. Tobacco company fingerprints are on postponed duty hikes in Indonesia, delayed regulations in Zambia and even a diluted statement at the UN international gathering,” stated the corporate monitoring director.

Possible outcomes

“When public health regulation isn’t passed because of this letter, the consequences may be suffered in lives of people who might possibly give up cigarettes.”

The tobacco control bill going through Zambia’s parliament includes regulations surpassing UK legislation by also applying to e-cigarettes, and stipulating that visual health alerts cover seventy-five percent of product packaging.

Company alternative suggestions

In the letter, BAT suggests this be lowered to thirty to fifty percent “according to global suggested parameters”, deferred for no less than 12 months after the law is enacted.

International experts specifically advises a caution must occupy at least 50% of the product container front “and aim to cover as much of the primary showing sections as possible”. In the UK, warnings need to encompass sixty-five percent of a packet’s front and back.

Flavored tobacco discussion

The company seeks the withdrawal of extensive controls on scented smoking items, claiming that it would push consumers toward “black market” products. The company proposes restricting fewer varieties of “scents derived from desserts, candy, energy drinks, soft drinks and alcohol drinks”. Each flavored smoking item have been prohibited in Britain since 2020.

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

Corporate defense

Through correspondence, the managing director of the African subsidiary claims the corporation is focused on good corporate behaviour” and “backs the goals of governments to decrease cigarette consumption and the connected wellbeing effects” but maintains that “certain measures can have negative and unanticipated results.”

Activist reaction

Chimbala said the corporation's recommended amendments would “weaken this legislation 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 BAT is headquartered, was “total double standard”, he stated.

“We exist in a international community. Should I grow cigarettes in my garden and gather the crop and distribute the goods – and my offspring don't use tobacco, but my neighbour’s children do … to profit individually and all the future family lines while my community's youth are perishing … is in itself total emotional collapse.”

Public health laws in the Britain or other nations had not resulted in corporate closures, Chimbala said. “Regulations don't close the industry. They merely safeguard the people.”

Formal company response

The corporate communicator said: “The company operates its business in compliance with applicable local laws. Additionally, the company participates in the nation's lawmaking procedures in line with the appropriate structures which allow for stakeholder participation in regulation development.”

The company was “not against rules”, they said, noting that minors should be safeguarded against access to tobacco and nicotine.

“We support progressive regulation to realize planned public health goals, while acknowledging the spectrum of rights and obligations on industry, consumers and related stakeholders,” the representative explained, mentioning that the company's suggestions “reflect the realities of the local commercial environment and cigarette sector, which encompasses increasing amounts of illicit trade”.

Zambia’s department of trade, commerce and industry was solicited for statement.