United Kingdom: Tobacco industry-linked think tank opposes generational ban

As the United Kingdom considers the adoption of the "Tobacco and Vapes Bill," an American think tank—the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI)—has publicly expressed its opposition to the proposed generational tobacco ban. Presented as independent, the PPI, however, maintains close ties to the tobacco industry, particularly Philip Morris International.[1]This position illustrates a recurring strategy of interference aimed at influencing public health policies through the use of third parties presented as independent, who develop economic or commercial arguments with threats of retaliation.

An influence campaign against an ambitious public health measure

The Tobacco and Vapes Bill, currently before the British Parliament, provides for the introduction of a measure unprecedented in the United Kingdom, and perhaps even worldwide: a ban on the sale of tobacco to anyone born on or after January 1, 2009. This so-called "generational ban" provision aims to create, in the long term, a completely smoke-free generation. It is part of the public health strategy announced by the government to achieve the objective of a "smoke-free" country by 2030, by continuing and accelerating the trend of declining smoking, which has already begun.

This ambitious measure has been welcomed by numerous national and international tobacco control organizations, as well as public health institutions. It is based on solid scientific evidence demonstrating that gradually reducing access to tobacco is one of the most effective ways to prevent the onset of smoking, particularly among young people. This measure also helps consolidate efforts to denormalize tobacco, which have been underway for several decades in the United Kingdom.

While the measure is overwhelmingly supported by the British public and Parliament is debating the bill, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) has taken a public stand against the ban in a letter to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Jonathan Reynolds.[2]The document criticizes the measure, arguing that it would be ineffective, difficult to implement, and would risk stimulating parallel markets. The PPI also believes that the provision could constitute an obstacle to international trade and weaken the United Kingdom's relations with its economic partners.

An opposition built on controversial precedents

In its letter, the PPI cites the example of Prohibition in the United States and Bhutan to criticize ban policies. Such parallels are regularly used by industry groups to weaken ambitious public health measures, by fostering confusion between health policies and liberticidal restrictions.

However, available scientific assessments – particularly those from New Zealand – show that generational bans can, if well designed and accompanied by solid prevention policies, contribute to a lasting decline in smoking. By invoking historical references out of context and which have nothing to do with the intended legal framework, the PPI is attempting to discredit a measure supported by many public health professionals, precisely because of its effectiveness. The measure is part of the tobacco control system with not a ban on consumption but a ban on sales, already in place for minors, which will be maintained beyond the age of majority.

A speech aligned with the interests of Philip Morris International

Behind a purportedly independent stance, the PPI's discourse on British anti-smoking policy appears strongly aligned with the commercial interests of Philip Morris International (PMI). In opposing the generational tobacco ban in the United Kingdom, the PPI mobilizes arguments traditionally put forward by the tobacco industry, whether regarding the alleged ineffectiveness of bans, the risks of developing illicit markets, or the economic consequences and risks of supposed commercial retaliation of such a measure.

These arguments are well known to tobacco control stakeholders and are regularly used by the tobacco industry and its allies. This was notably the case when Australia adopted plain packaging, and France, which was threatened with having to pay billions in compensation for alleged "brand expropriation." Threats of trade retaliation against France were also specifically highlighted to parliamentarians ahead of the vote on the measure. This approach is part of a classic strategy aimed at delaying or weakening the most ambitious public health policies.

Similarly, the think tank, like the manufacturers, is developing an alternative policy and defending the so-called "harm reduction" approach, which constitutes the essential narrative of this industry's marketing strategy. In doing so, the PPI reinforces the legitimacy of the products promoted by PMI as alternatives to cigarettes, without calling into question the nicotine addiction they foster. This strategy aims to counter public policies that directly threaten the interests of manufacturers while appearing as responsible actors concerned with providing solutions to the problems they create.

The PPI's stated independence in this debate is all the more questionable given that it is among the beneficiaries of direct funding from PMI, as shown by the available transparency records. This financial link poses a major problem of credibility and transparency, particularly when it comes to publicly intervening on bills directly affecting the funder's core business. By presenting itself as an actor outside the sector, the PPI allows PMI to defend its positions under the guise of third-party expertise, sowing confusion and doubt among decision-makers.

This type of indirect interference, through intermediary structures, is widely documented by international bodies, notably the World Health Organization, which has been warning for several years about the proliferation of these circumvention strategies. Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) specifically calls on States to guard against this type of influence, whether direct or covert, like these think tanks.

The PPI's stance in the British debate illustrates, once again, the tobacco industry's ability to mobilize opinion leaders to curb even the boldest public health policies. It serves as a reminder of the importance of ensuring transparency in legislative interventions and of discerning the systemic conflicts of interest that underlie some opposition to measures based on sound scientific data.

©Generation Without Tobacco

AE

[1] Think tank fighting UK generational tobacco ban linked to PMI, Tabaknee, published July 21, 2025, accessed the same day

[2] Lindsay Mark Lewis, PPI Letter urges United Kingdom not to enact “Generation Ban” proposal in Tobacco and Vapes Bill, published July 14, 2025, accessed July 21, 2025