🔗 Share this article

Critics have charged British American Tobacco with “complete double standards” for opposing anti-smoking regulations in Africa that are already in place in the UK.

Campaign in Zambia

Documents seen by journalists sent from the corporation's branch in Zambia to the African officials asks for measures restricting tobacco advertising and sponsorship to be abandoned or delayed.

The company is attempting modifications of a pending law that include lowering the proposed size of pictorial cautions on cigarette packaging, the elimination of limitations on scented cigarette varieties, and reduced sanctions for any companies violating the new laws.

Health advocate reaction

“As an elected official, I would say that they enable the defense of the British people and perpetuate the death of the Zambian people,” commented Master Chimbala.

More than 7,000 Zambians a year die from cigarette-linked health conditions, according to WHO calculations.

The advocate mentioned the letter was understood to have been copied to various ministerial offices and was in circulating through community advocacy networks.

Global industry interference concerns

The situation emerges alongside broader worries about business sector influence with health policies. In recent weeks, WHO officials sounded an alarm that the smoking product companies was increasing attempts to weaken global control measures.

“We see evidence of business advocacy everywhere. Manufacturer hallmarks are on postponed duty hikes in Indonesia, delayed regulations in Zambia and even a diluted statement at the UN summit conference,” commented the corporate monitoring director.

Potential consequences

“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 progressing through Zambia’s parliament includes proposals to go further UK legislation by including provisions for e-cigarettes, and mandating that graphic health warnings cover seventy-five percent of product packaging.

Corporate counter-proposals

Through correspondence, the corporation proposes this be lowered to thirty to fifty percent “according to global guideline limits”, deferred for no less than twelve months after the bill passes.

International experts specifically advises a alert needs to encompass at least half of the cigarette package face “and aim to cover as much of the primary showing sections as possible”. Within Britain, warnings must cover nearly two-thirds of a cigarette pack surfaces.

Flavor restrictions debate

The corporation requests the elimination of comprehensive limitations on flavored cigarette varieties, claiming that it would push consumers toward “illegally traded” products. It suggests restricting fewer varieties of “tastes inspired by desserts, candy, energy drinks, soft drinks and alcohol drinks”. Each flavored smoking item have been outlawed across the UK since 2020.

The draft bill recommends punishments for various offences “extending from a fraction of annual sales to 10 years’ imprisonment”.

Corporate defense

Via documentation, the managing director of the African subsidiary claims the corporation is focused on responsible corporate conduct” and “backs the goals of governments to decrease cigarette consumption and the related medical consequences” but claims that “specific rules 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 create lasting transformation in society will not be achieved”.

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

“We live in a international community. If I plant tobacco in my back yard and collect the yield and sell it out – and my offspring don't use tobacco, but my neighbour’s children do … to profit individually and all the generations of my children while my neighbour’s children are succumbing … is in itself complete moral collapse.”

Anti-smoking regulations in the United Kingdom or other countries had not caused companies to close, the advocate mentioned. “Legislation never shuts down the industry. They merely safeguard the people.”

Formal company response

The corporate communicator said: “The corporation runs its operations according with applicable local laws. Moreover, the company participates in the nation's lawmaking procedures in line with the appropriate structures which enable stakeholder participation in policymaking.”

The corporation remained “not against rules”, they said, noting that underage people should be safeguarded against obtaining cigarettes and nicotine.

“We support developing rules to realize planned public health goals, while recognizing the range of rights and obligations on businesses, users and involved parties,” the spokesperson stated, mentioning that the corporation's recommendations “mirror the circumstances of the local commercial environment and smoking product business, which involves increasing amounts of illicit trade”.

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