Illicit trade: awareness campaigns under the influence of the tobacco industry

A study published in August 2026[1] A study published in the journal Tobacco Control identified 28 information campaigns aimed at discouraging the purchase or sale of illicit tobacco and vaping products in English-speaking countries. Nine of these campaigns are directly funded by tobacco manufacturers or entities they control. The study's authors, affiliated with the Centre of Research Excellence on Achieving the Tobacco Endgame at the University of Queensland, highlight the near absence of evaluation of these initiatives and warn of the risk that they could be used as a tool for industry influence. This type of campaign directly contravenes Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which protects public policies from interference by the tobacco industry.

The illicit trade in tobacco products refers to any practice or conduct prohibited by law relating to the production, shipment, receipt, possession, distribution, sale, or purchase of tobacco products, including any practice or conduct intended to facilitate such activity. It essentially involves smuggling, meaning products manufactured using the machines of tobacco companies but which, at some point, leave the legal distribution chain. The illicit trade constitutes a public health issue in itself, in addition to its tax revenue loss and security implications. The products in question, on which taxes have not been paid, are sold at lower prices, thus weakening the price lever, the most effective measure for reducing consumption, particularly among low-income populations. Furthermore, they do not comply with standards designed to reduce the attractiveness of the products: bans on flavorings, warnings on cigarettes, graphic health warnings, and smoking cessation aid leaflets. Finally, when tobacconists or local shops participate in this trade, as has been documented in Australia and the United Kingdom, the availability of these products increases and their social acceptability is strengthened.

A corpus of 28 campaigns, only one published evaluation

To carry out this study, the researchers relied on the methodology of the Joanna Briggs Institute[2] and on the PRISMA-ScR framework. This is a scope review: unlike a systematic review, which measures the effectiveness of an intervention by aggregating results, this format aims to map a still poorly documented field, to identify what exists, in what form, and to pinpoint knowledge gaps. The team coordinated by Cheneal Puljević searched six bibliographic databases and, in parallel, explored the grey literature available online in all English-speaking countries: institutional websites, social media pages, videos, and press releases, using separate queries for each country.

The contrast between the two parts is one of the main findings. Out of more than 7,000 references from scientific databases, only two publications were retained after a full review, and they both concern the same campaign: Keep It Out (formerly Get Some Answers), deployed in the north of England. However, grey literature research identified 27 additional campaigns, bringing the total to 28. In other words, these schemes exist in large numbers, but leave almost no trace in peer-reviewed literature.

Fifteen campaigns are led by public agencies or non-governmental health organizations, eleven of which are in the United Kingdom. Nine originate from the tobacco industry: either directly from JTI, JTI-Macdonald, British American Tobacco, or Imperial Brands, or from organizations it funds, such as Retailers Against Smuggling in Ireland, the South Africa Tobacco Transformation Alliance, or the Tobacco Institute of Southern Africa. Three campaigns are run by national chapters of Crime Stoppers, in Trinidad and Tobago and Canada. This international network, structured into local branches organized as associations, manages anonymous crime reporting systems: its campaigns encourage the public to report illegal sales via a dedicated phone line or online form. This network is also partly linked to the tobacco industry.

Industry messages focused on taxation and retailers

Comparative analysis of the messages reveals apparent convergences, but also clear dividing lines. Public and non-profit campaigns primarily emphasize the link between illicit trade and organized crime, as well as the risks to minors, particularly the initiation of smoking. Industry campaigns also use the argument of organized crime (six out of nine) but add two distinctly more specific themes: the loss of tax revenue and the damage caused to legal traders, producers, and manufacturers, each present in five out of nine campaigns.

This shift in focus is not neutral. It positions the tobacco manufacturer as both a victim and a partner of the government. It places the emphasis exclusively on economic, fiscal, and security issues. Two industry campaigns go even further by explicitly linking the fight against illicit trade to opposition to public health policies. In South Africa, for example, internet users were invited to sign a petition against the increase in tobacco taxes. Similarly, in New Zealand, the campaign was designed to directly challenge the legislation. Smokefree 2025. The Australian campaign Bust the Black Market Meanwhile, she called for parliamentarians to be contacted to obtain a relaxation of the regulations on vaping products, presenting the current restrictions as the cause of the parallel market.

Crime Stoppers' role also extends beyond the three campaigns that the network itself carries out: three of the nine industry campaigns also invite the public to report illicit sales to its alert lines.

Several of its branches, as well as its international coordinating structure, count tobacco manufacturers among their partners. Crime Stoppers Toronto, for example, lists the National Coalition Against Contraband Tobacco as a sponsor, a significant portion of whose funding, according to its own website, comes from the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council. The latter includes Rothmans, Benson & Hedges, Imperial Tobacco Canada, and JTI-Macdonald. These links, mentioned by researchers but not disclosed to the campaign's target audience, are problematic in themselves. They raise questions about transparency and perceived independence for campaigns whose effectiveness relies precisely on public trust.

Its effectiveness is poorly established, and there is a challenge of non-interference.

The only campaign evaluated offers a nuanced assessment. McNeill and colleagues report an increase in awareness of illicit tobacco use from 54% to 69% among non-smokers and a slight decrease in purchases of illicit products from 20% to 18% among smokers, as well as an increase in calls to the dedicated helpline, from around one hundred to over three hundred in one year. However, in the ethnographic component of the same evaluation, Carro-Ripalda and colleagues raise a significant concern: the campaign may have increased the stigmatization of certain disadvantaged groups and exacerbated socioeconomic inequalities due to its targeting and the accompanying intensification of repressive activities.

Beyond this specific case, researchers have highlighted other harmful effects: the normalization of product use in general, including illicit products, by creating the impression that it is more widespread than it actually is. This is compounded by the admittedly unintentional but nonetheless practical methods for obtaining illicit products. It also legitimizes the industry and its distribution networks. Finally, the researchers mention the belief that taxed products are safer for health. This last risk is all the more serious given that previous studies have documented consumers' erroneous perceptions regarding the relative safety of legal versus illicit products.

The tobacco industry, the authors point out, has long exploited the issue of illicit trade to portray itself as a victim and a legitimate partner of public authorities, thereby opposing regulatory measures. This approach is systematically adopted for issues such as tax increases. A cited systematic review shows that estimates of the illicit market produced or funded by the industry are regularly far higher than those of public agencies and independent researchers, tending to reinforce the idea that manufacturers are being harmed and that public health measures are contributing to this harm.[3]. However, past and current investigations have established the involvement of major manufacturers in smuggling operations.

This observation resonates directly with the French debate. Illicit trade is a recurring argument used by both tobacco manufacturers and tobacconists to oppose any tax increase. Taxation is systematically linked to the growth of parallel markets and is never presented as a public health measure.

The discussion places central emphasis on recalling the legal framework of the WHO treaty, the FCTC. In accordance with Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention, which requires Parties to protect their health policies from the commercial interests of the tobacco industry, the authors recommend that governments and public health organizations remain vigilant regarding any industry involvement in the design, funding, or dissemination of awareness campaigns, regardless of the subject, including the fight against the illicit trade in tobacco products.

The study also points out its own limitations: the restriction to English-language campaigns, which excludes the majority of European Union member states, the exclusively online nature of the searches, and the fact that the results constitute a snapshot, with grey literature having been explored in September 2024.

©Generation Without Tobacco

AE

[1] Puljević C, Meciar I, Lai G, et al Scoping review of international public education and media campaigns aimed at reducing demand for, raising awareness of and discouraging the purchase or sale of illicit tobacco and/or vaping products Tobacco Control Published Online First: 10 August 2026. doi: 10.1136/tc-2025-059734

[2] The Joanna Briggs Institute (University of Adelaide, Australia) publishes a methodological reference manual for syntheses of evidence in health. The PRISMA-ScR grid (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) is an international checklist specifying the elements that a scoping review must report to ensure transparency and reproducibility of the process.

[3] Gallagher AWA, Evans-Reeves KA, Hatchard JL, Gilmore AB. Tobacco industry data on illicit tobacco trade: a systematic review of existing assessments. Tobacco Control, 2019;28(3):334-345. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054295