Search

BackgroundThe global market for flavour capsule variants (FCVs), cigarettes with a crushable flavour capsule, has grown exponentially. To inform further regulatory efforts, it is important to understand tobacco industry strategies for FCVs.MethodsAnalysis of data from 65 patents and 179 internal tobacco industry documents, retrieved via snowball searches in Patsnap and the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents Library, describing tobacco industry developments related to FCVs. We used an inductive coding method to identify themes relating to FCV features or developments.ResultsTobacco companies were developing FCVs since the 1960s, with little market success until the 2000s following the launch of Camel Crush, a brand which targeted millennials (in their teens or early 20s at the time). Tobacco companies have patented, but not yet marketed, FCVs with microcapsule surface coatings, adjustable or heat-triggered flavour release systems, airflow manipulation features, transparent filters to visualise flavour release, and various flavours and additives for capsules including nicotine/tobacco extracts for an on-demand nicotine hit. Tobacco companies developed FCVs purported to be reduced harm, although their own tests showed that FCVs have higher toxicant concentrations. They have also developed loose flavour capsule units designed to fit into cigarettes, packs, or recessed filters to enable users to customise cigarettes and circumvent tobacco flavour bans.ConclusionsTo prevent tobacco companies from targeting young people and exploiting regulatory loopholes, regulations on tobacco products should ban flavours and consider the broad variety of FCV designs, additives and loose products designed to impart flavour into tobacco products.

BackgroundTobacco companies have maintained a profitable business in Singapore, despite its strong anti-tobacco climate and commitment to protect public health policymaking from tobacco industry interference in line with Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Article 5.3. This study describes how tobacco companies influence policymaking in a highly regulated environment such as Singapore’s, where there is a strong government commitment to Article 5.3.MethodsAnalysis of internal tobacco industry documents detailing the industry’s lobbying activities in Singapore, retrieved via snowball searches in the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents Library. Subsequently, we conducted one-on-one interviews with key informants from sectors mentioned in the documents (academia, arts, government, public health, media, trade, education) to fill gaps in information and provide context to events described in the documents.ResultsIn the 1980s and 1990s, tobacco companies observed that, to influence policy within Singapore’s ‘hostile’ environment, they needed to use ‘behind the scenes’ tactics, targeting influential individuals at social functions or industry-sponsored events. Tobacco companies used arts and education sponsorships primarily for political purposes, to gain visibility with policymakers. Tobacco companies cultivated relationships with academic researchers and the media to avoid smoke-free legislation in the 1990s and, in the 2010s, appear to have used similar tactics to challenge Singapore’s e-cigarette ban.ConclusionsCountries with a strong commitment to Article 5.3 should consider the tobacco industry’s potential interference in policymaking beyond relationships in the government sector, particularly in academia, arts, education and the media, and the more subtle or indirect manners in which these relationships are built.

BackgroundDespite Singapore’s strict tobacco control policies, smoking rates have not decreased since 2004. We examined the primary targets, motivations and strategies behind targeted marketing activities in Singapore from the tobacco industry’s perspective to understand how tobacco companies continue to target people in their marketing.MethodsSnowball search in the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents Library for documents covering the industry’s targeted marketing activities in Singapore. Information from the documents was subsequently triangulated with market data obtained from the Euromonitor Passport database, analysed for trends by tar segment and data from cigarette packs purchased from Singapore retailers, analysed in terms of product positioning.ResultsIn the 1970s and 1980s, as young people in Singapore became more health-conscious, tobacco companies positioned ‘light’ cigarettes for growth in the 1990s. Many of these ‘lights’ contained similar tar and nicotine levels as regular brands; they were only light in their branding. In the 1990’s, ‘lights’ became more popular in Singapore and this demand was largely youth driven. Into the 2010s, while the low tar (ConclusionsThe differentiation of ‘lighter’ cigarettes remains an important marketing tool for tobacco companies amidst Singapore’s strict regulations. Legislation to remove all remaining avenues for tobacco companies to make harm reduction claims on their products, explicit or implicit, coupled with improving health literacy and exposing industry deception, could help to further bring down smoking prevalence in Singapore.

BackgroundMultiunit housing residents are often exposed to neighbours’ secondhand smoke (SHS). Little is known on the current systems available to protect residents in places not covered by a residential smoking ban, or what constitutes an appropriate policy approach. This study explores relevant systems and policies in Singapore, a densely populated city-state where the vast majority live in multiunit housing and discussions on regulating smoking in homes are ongoing.MethodsIn-depth interviews with 18 key informants involved in thought leadership, advocacy, policy or handling SHS complaints, and 14 smokers and 16 non-smokers exposed to SHS at home.ResultsThe current system to address neighbours’ SHS comprises three steps: moral suasion, mediation and legal dispute. Moral suasion and mediation are often ineffective as they depend on smokers to willingly restrict their smoking habits. Legal dispute can yield a court order to stop smoking inside the home, but the process places a high evidence burden on complainants. While setting up designated smoking points or running social responsibility campaigns may help to create no-smoking norms, more intractable cases will likely require regulation, a polarising approach which raises concerns about privacy.ConclusionsWithout regulations to limit SHS in multiunit housing, current systems are limited in their enforceability as they treat SHS as a neighbourly nuisance rather than a public health threat.

Background: Transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) have a well-established presence in Southeast Asia and are now targeting other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), especially Africa. While the tobacco industry’s tactics in Southeast Asia are well documented, no study has systematically reviewed these tactics to inform tobacco control policies and movements in Africa, where the tobacco epidemic is spreading. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review of articles that describe tobacco industry tactics in Southeast Asia, which includes Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Myanmar, East Timor, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, and Brunei. After screening 512 articles, we gathered and analysed data from 134 articles which met our final inclusion criteria. Results: Tobacco transnationals gained dominance in Southeast Asian markets by positioning themselves as good corporate citizens with corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, promoting the industry as a pillar of, and partner for, economic growth. Tobacco transnationals also formed strategic sectoral alliances and reinforced their political ties to delay the implementation of regulations and lobby for weaker tobacco control. Where governments resisted the transnationals’ attempts to enter a market, they used litigation and deceptive tactics including smuggling to pressure governments to open markets, and tarnished the reputation of public health organizations. The tobacco industry undermined tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship (TAPS) regulations through a broad range of direct and indirect marketing tactics. Conclusion: The experience of Southeast Asia with tobacco transnationals show that, beyond highlighting the public health benefits, underscoring the economic benefits of tobacco control might be a more compelling argument for governments in LMICs to prioritise tobacco control. Given the tobacco industry’s widespread use of litigation, LMICs need more legal support and resources to counter industry litigations. LMICs should also prioritize measures to protect health policy from the vested interests of the tobacco industry, and to close regulatory loopholes in tobacco marketing restrictions.