Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-056358 on 9 December 2020. Downloaded from Editorial Framework Convention on Tobacco The tobacco industry, 2020: a snapshot Control includes Article 5.3, which urges governments to take measures to exclude Ruth E Malone the tobacco industry from such policy- making. It is needed now as much as ever. As Willemsen and Fooks show in a Tobacco Control as a journal has long been new products, which can serve as an early 3 study of tobacco control governance in focused not only on addressing the nega- warning of increased uptake. It may 13 the Netherlands, the tobacco industry tive disease-promoting impacts of tobacco also involve, as McKelvey and colleagues worked to try to shift governance of products but on the industry that produced illustrate in a study with youth,4 trying tobacco control in the Netherlands from them. From its inception, the journal has to navigate how the blunt instrument of the Ministry of Health to the Ministry had a normative aim. Tobacco Control is policy can address public perceptions of of Economics, regarded as more favour- focused primarily on research and analysis ‘reduced exposure’ and ‘reduced risk’ able to industry positions. The e-cigarette that advance understanding of how best to claims such as those now being made by industry seems determined to follow the develop, defend and extend public policy tobacco companies about a broad range same path. Ollila14 describes how govern- measures to protect the public from an of newer tobacco and nicotine products ment attempts in Finland to regulate e- cig- industry that promotes products that harm being marketed with minimal independent arettes have been thwarted by multiple and kill people. Tobacco Control’s very evidence to support such claims. legal challenges. first issue in 1992 featured an analysis by 5 Tsourounis et al examined all warning Deceptiveness has been a hallmark of now- Editor Emeritus Simon Chapman on letters sent by the US Food and Drug the tobacco industry since the days when the Australian tobacco industry’s massive Administration’s (FDA) Center for Tobacco it denied that cigarettes caused lung cancer media campaign to derail an advertising Products to online retailers of e- liquids and nicotine was addictive. Have they ban. Many of the arguments in use then regarding violations. The majority were changed? Maybe not so much. Risi and have a strangely familiar smell to them.1 violating provisions on sales to minors or Proctor used computational linguistics to This special e-issue features a wide range featured advertising appealing to children. examine language patterns used by tobacco of papers about the tobacco industry. While most corrected their websites after company lawyers in the courtroom to Taken together, they provide an updated, receiving warnings from FDA, almost 17% show how they try to put plaintiffs harmed partial snapshot of multiple aspects of of retailers did not fully do so. The FDA by tobacco products on trial, deceptively this industry and the ways in which it and other regulators are faced with playing diverting attention from industry practices continues to aggressively promote use a continuing game of hide and seek as by suggesting the plaintiffs simply made of both old and new harmful, addictive copyright. companies develop products intended to bad ‘decisions’ and ‘assumed risks’.15 The products, thwart and undermine public thwart public health policies, as Cwalina decisions made by tobacco companies are health policy measures, engage in neoco- and colleagues show in their discussion of thus effectively obscured. Deception can lonialist exploitation and disseminate PUFF Krush, a product created to circum- also mean obscuring the industry face deceptive messages about itself, its prod- 6 vent flavour bans, and Delnevo and by creating front groups. Lewis et al16 ucts and about policies it regards as threats colleagues report regarding other illegal conducted a content analysis of industry- to its profits. Unfortunately, some within 7 ‘pod mod’ products. In an accompanying sponsored political websites made to (or formerly within) the tobacco control 8 commentary, Hemmerich calls attention appear as though they were grassroots http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/ movement have convinced themselves that to the FDA’s failure to enforce its own groups fighting against policy measures; the tobacco industry is now creating the premarket review policies. Since these with names like Citizens for Tobacco solution to the tobacco disease pandemic. papers went to press, the agency has sent Rights and sponsorship from Philip Morris Yet the shiny veneer of faux sincerity additional warning letters, but other work International (PMI), they promoted pro- cannot effectively cover over the many 9 10 in this issue suggests new products are tobacco industry activism. industry activities that increase harm to so likely to continue to pop up in response to In recent years, the industry has gone many around the world. regulatory measures. to great lengths to try to scare govern- However, the tobacco industry has Despite assurances by several multi- ments out of instituting various policies, indeed changed since 1992. In addition nationals that they really, really want always claiming they will lead to massive to considerable consolidation among the everyone to quit smoking, they seem illicit trade, and to assure governments major multinational cigarette compa- intent on continuing the longstanding that anti-illicit trade measures the tobacco on September 27, 2021 by guest. Protected nies, the development of e-cigarettes practice of fighting against the most effec- companies had a hand in developing are and multiple other nicotine and tobacco tive tobacco control policies, including just fine, thank you, no need to worry products has created acquisition oppor- 11 taxes. Apollonio and Glantz describe about that any more. Evans- Reeves et tunities, as Levy and colleagues discuss in how the industry developed an extensive al17 draw on media accounts to demon- their analysis of why Altria bought JUUL.2 lobbying campaign to protect manufac- strate that tobacco companies used third Public health work at all levels increasingly turer discounts, keeping tobacco cheap parties to conduct tobacco purchases in involves surveilling for the plethora of even when states set minimum price poli- prespecified areas, aimed at promoting new, unregulated products which contin- cies. In Mauritius, as Berthet Valdois and to authorities the idea that standardised ually appear on the market, sometimes 12 colleagues show, they manipulated prices packaging of cigarettes would increase even in violation of existing policies, and to keep discount brands cheap, undercut- illicit trade. Gallagher and colleagues tracking the expenditures for promoting ting the potential public health benefit of demonstrate how the tobacco industry has tobacco taxes on encouraging more price worked to exert influence over the Euro- Correspondence to Professor Ruth E Malone, sensitive consumers to quit. pean Union’s track and trace system for Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA; Because of the industry’s interference illicit tobacco products. They first created ruth. malone@ ucsf. edu with public health policies, the WHO an entity called Codentify, which was then Malone RE. Tob Control December 2020 Vol 29 No e1 e1 Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-056358 on 9 December 2020. Downloaded from Editorial sold to a supposedly independent organi- flavoured tobacco products. Availability policies and deceptive promotion of prod- sation, INEXTO; leaked documents show of flavoured products in youth- accessible ucts that hurt people. INEXTO continued to have financial and venues decreased and few customer issues organisational relationships with tobacco were reported. In two papers by Watts Twitter Ruth E Malone @MaloneRuth 18 companies. and colleagues, Australian retailers’ views Contributors I am the sole author of this work. Tobacco companies pioneered many on selling tobacco and their relationships Funding The authors have not declared a specific innovations in product marketing, and the with tobacco companies were explored. grant for this research from any funding agency in the pieces in this issue illustrate both aspects of Retailers who had stopped selling tobacco public, commercial or not- for- profit sectors. that history as well as recent developments. indicated that reduced sales or profits were Competing interests See statement: https:// 19 30 Parascandola uses industry documents the primary reason. A telephone survey tobaccocontrol. bmj. com/ pages/ wp- content/ uploads/ to look back at the history of tobacco of retailers31 found one- third were offered sites/ 49/ 2019/ 10/ DOI- Statement- Ruth- Malone. pdf company involvement with the Olympics, some benefit by tobacco companies in the Patient consent for publication Not required. which shamefully still lacks a comprehen- form of price discounts, rebates and gifts Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; sive policy against tobacco advertising and in exchange for prominence on the stock not peer reviewed. sponsorship that applies across the many list or influence over product range and © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No levels of organisations affiliated with the stock levels. As New Zealand moves to commercial re- use. See rights and permissions. Games. The industry has