How the tobacco industry and its allies tried to undermine Britain's plan for a tobacco-free generation

A new study published in the journal Tobacco Control[1] provides a detailed analysis of how tobacco and nicotine industry stakeholders sought to influence the proposed generational tobacco ban in the UK. The study focuses on responses to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill (2023/4), which includes a landmark measure to ban the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after 2008, as well as tightened restrictions on nicotine products.

The study, conducted by researchers from the Tobacco Control Research Group at the University of Bath, aimed to examine the lobbying strategies used by tobacco and nicotine industry stakeholders in response to the UK bill. Using an established taxonomy of corporate political activity, the authors analyzed 43 written submissions to public consultations between 2023 and 2024.

These submissions were written by 33 stakeholders, including transnational tobacco companies, nicotine product manufacturers, professional organizations, think tanks, retailers and structures with direct or indirect links to the tobacco industry.

The generational tobacco ban, a revolutionary initiative

In 2023, the UK government introduced the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. This legislation included a generational ban on the sale of tobacco products. This unprecedented measure would prohibit the sale of tobacco to people born after 2008. The bill also proposed tighter regulations on nicotine products, including restrictions on flavors, packaging, and point-of-sale marketing, with the aim of curbing youth use.

A very small but growing number of city governments in the Philippines and the United States have adopted "endgame" policies, which include phasing out sales of tobacco and nicotine products.

But while only a few countries, such as New Zealand and Malaysia, had previously attempted to implement similar measures, the British initiative stood out for its scope and the application of the ban to all tobacco products, including cigars and heated tobacco products.

Building a responsible image

Tobacco Control's study shows that industry players consistently presented themselves as responsible and legitimate participants in public policy. Many described themselves as law-abiding, economically significant, and committed to public health goals such as harm reduction. Tobacco multinationals promoted their new product lines as lower-risk alternatives to cigarettes and claimed they were working to prevent underage access, reduce environmental impact, and promote consumer education.

Tobacco manufacturers also cited their contribution to the economy, including tax revenue and job creation. Some said they supported the government's long-term goal of reducing smoking, even if they opposed the specific measures proposed.

Strong opposition to generational ban

Analysis of the consultations also shows that all tobacco manufacturers and many of their supporters strongly opposed the plan to ban tobacco sales to future generations. They argued that the problem of youth smoking was not "serious enough to warrant such a severe measure" in the UK. Some argued that cigars or heated tobacco products were different from manufactured cigarettes and should not be included in the ban. Others suggested that young people who smoke are a minority with "personal problems," and that smoking is not a societal problem.

They also said the ban would be difficult to enforce, could encourage illegal sales, and could lead to violence against traders who refuse to sell tobacco. Several organizations also argued that the proposal was unfair, if not illegal. They said it discriminated against young adults, violated international trade rules, and could harm small businesses, particularly those selling specialty tobacco products.

Protect their business interests

Rather than banning tobacco sales entirely, the industry has proposed alternative solutions. These include raising the tobacco purchasing age to 21, better educating young people, increasing penalties for stores that sell tobacco to minors, and better enforcement of existing laws. It has also called for certain products, such as cigars and heated tobacco, to be excluded from the ban.

These suggestions were presented as more "reasonable" and less damaging to businesses. However, the study shows that they mainly served to protect the industry's commercial interests and delay the adoption of stronger tobacco control measures.

The study also examined reactions to proposed rules for vaping products, such as limits on flavors and how the products are presented or packaged. Tobacco companies and their allies also opposed the measures, arguing that vaping products are less harmful than cigarettes and help people quit smoking. They argued that the new rules would confuse consumers, increase smoking, harm small businesses, and encourage illegal sales.

Some groups also said the government had not properly consulted with the industry and that the rules could violate their rights to sell legal products.

Actions in opposition to their public discourse

The researchers found that the arguments and strategies used by the tobacco industry in this debate were very similar to those used in the past, for example, during debates on plain packaging or smoking bans. Even though companies now claim to support a "smoke-free" future, they continue to oppose any measures that might achieve this goal.

A key strategy was to use third-party organizations—such as trade or advocacy organizations—that appeared independent but were actually tied to the tobacco industry. These groups often more aggressively criticized the government and public health advocates, allowing tobacco companies to appear more neutral and cooperative.

According to the authors, this study highlights that, despite tobacco manufacturers' claims to support smoking reduction, they continue to intervene in public policymaking in a way that protects their economic interests. Their opposition to ambitious public health measures is often expressed through proposals described as "balanced solutions" or by highlighting economic issues. They emphasize that this rhetoric is ultimately consistent on the part of this industry.

As several countries consider implementing stronger tobacco control policies, such as generational sales bans, the UK's example offers valuable lessons. It highlights the importance for policymakers of identifying and addressing influence strategies to ensure that public health decisions remain based on the public interest.

©Generation Without Tobacco

AE

[1] Matthes BK, Legg T, Hiscock R, et al. The UK Tobacco and Vapes Bill (2023/4): framing strategies used by tobacco and nicotine industry actors faced with an endgame policy and nicotine product restrictions. Tob Control. Published online March 18, 2025. doi:10.1136/tc-2024-059207