African nations, whose attempts to regulate cigarettes are increasingly bogged down in the courts by wealthy tobacco companies, should impose high taxes to deter people from developing a smoking habit, the WHO said.
Many African governments are at a disadvantage in the fight against the industry over regulatory controls that are the norm in the West, like graphic health warnings on packs, WHO Tobacco Free Initiative Programme Manager Vinayak Prasad said.
They have neither the funds nor enough expertise to deal with the big tobacco companies’ threats, intimidatory letters and law suits, he said.
Illustration: Yusha
His comments follow the exposure by the Guardian of the attempts by multinational tobacco companies to delay and dilute regulatory controls in Africa through litigation and threats. At least eight African governments have been pressured by the industry.
“Just focus on getting the tax raised,” Prasad said.
The WHO, the World Bank and others are encouraging and assisting countries in changing their tobacco taxation, which nations from the Philippines to India have demonstrated could raise millions of US dollars for healthcare or other essential government spending, he said.
Developing nations do not have enough money or staff devoted to public health and often those in government who lead on tobacco control are also the key players for other areas, such as mental health, Prasad said.
“The tobacco epidemic has already reached the African continent. Nations have started to prioritize it, but inherently the systems are weak. They need to build human resource capacity and technical capacity to respond to industry threats,” he told reporters. “We are working extremely hard [to help them], but we need to do more.”
Reacting to the Guardian’s reports, former British minister for public health Caroline Flint said: “It is sad to see firms like BAT [British American Tobacco] fighting African governments for years over health warnings on cigarette packages and modest taxes. In any western nation, they would have conceded these issues years ago. It speaks volumes about their approach to Africa that the tobacco giants appear willing to fight on all fronts to protect their sales.”
A tax on the profits of firms “could provide funds for legal support to governments in poorer countries seeking to resist tobacco damaging the health of their local populations,” British All-Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health Vice Chair Lord Rennard said.
The tobacco industry also vigorously opposes hikes in cigarette taxation, which is proven to reduce the numbers who smoke. The companies and tax advisers who intervene on their behalf with governments claim that tax hikes lead to smuggling from nations where the prices are lower.
That is not so if taxation is simplified so that the same sum is levied on every carton regardless of brand, Prasad said.
Deborah Arnott, chief executive of campaigning group Ash, said the revelations showed that the industry had not turned over a new leaf, focusing on e-cigarettes and aiming for a smoke-free future, as it claims.
“The Guardian has thrown a spotlight on the dirty truth, the leopard hasn’t changed its spots, it’s still promoting the same old lethal products the same way it always did, in countries where it can get away with it,” she said.
“Last century, 100 million people died from smoking; if Big Tobacco isn’t stopped, then this century a billion will be killed by their lethal products and most of them will be from low and middle-income countries,” Arnott said.
“The tactics being used in Africa of denial, deception and delay were used very successfully in the UK in the last century, but they’re no longer being allowed to get away with it here and smoking rates have plummeted as a result,” she said. “Africa needs to learn from our experience, if you regulate the industry strictly the smoking epidemic can be halted and reversed.”
The revelations showed the “outrageous and shameful activities of the tobacco industry in Africa,” former US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Tom Frieden said on Twitter.
US Senator Richard Blumenthal, who spent his career promoting anti-smoking legislation, and was one of 46 state attorneys general to secure hundreds of billions of US dollars in damages from tobacco companies in a 1990s settlement, said that in developing markets, “tobacco companies have actively resisted” health regulation.
“They have actively intervened with governments and particularly so in Africa,” said Jose Luis Castro, president and chief executive officer of Vital Strategies, an organization that promotes public health in developing countries. “The danger of tobacco is not an old story — it is the present. The industry is using every tool at its disposal to hook new smokers, especially kids, in Africa and other parts of the world.”
There is a huge gap between what the industry says and what it does,” he said.
“It’s time this sham was called out in every country and in every public forum. When the tobacco industry gets near government, it poisons efforts to protect health,” he said.
The multinational companies say they do not oppose tobacco regulation that is sound and evidence-based.
“However, where there are different interpretations of whether regulations comply with the law, we think it is entirely reasonable to ask the courts to assist in resolving it,” British American Tobacco told reporters.
Imperial Tobacco also said it supported regulation, but would “continue to make our views known on excessive, unnecessary and often counterproductive regulatory proposals.”
Philip Morris International said it has contact with public authorities on a range of issues “such as taxation, international trade and tobacco control policies. Participating in discussions and sharing points of view is a basic principle of public policymaking and does not stop governments from taking decisions and enacting the laws they deem best.”
This content is funded, in part, by Vital Strategies.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing