The Tobacco Control Research Group highlights the tobacco industry's disinformation

A new report from the Tobacco Control Research Group at the University of Bath, England, has gathered evidence to counter the arguments frequently put forward by the tobacco industry to improve its image and portray itself as a legitimate stakeholder.[1]. Falsehoods such as the claim that the tobacco industry has shifted from a profit-driven to a public health-focused approach, that it should participate in health policy development, or that it is fighting the illicit trade in tobacco products, are examined. This resource aims to inform public decision-makers and help public health professionals combat the tobacco industry's ongoing disinformation efforts.

The tobacco industry claims to be transitioning to "smoke-free" products.«

Some transnational tobacco companies, such as Philip Morris International (PMI) and British American Tobacco (BAT), claim they are transforming into "smoke-free" businesses, promoting campaigns like "Unsmoke Your World" or "A Better Tomorrow." They present this evolution as a sustainable shift in their business model.

The facts show that, despite these pronouncements, the majority of revenue still comes from combustible products, particularly cigarettes, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Manufacturers continue to promote, and even launch, new cigarette brands, while systematically opposing measures to reduce tobacco consumption: product taxation, anti-smoking laws, advertising and promotion bans, product restrictions, plain packaging, and age-based sales bans. Their own solutions, such as smoking rooms and ventilation systems, actually aim to encourage and normalize smoking.

These companies therefore continue to primarily sell cigarettes, allowing them to maintain their profitability. For example, Philip Morris International is not meeting its own targets for reducing cigarette shipments by 2025, being on track to exceed this target by more than 10%. In 2024, combustible tobacco products still accounted for 61% to 96% of the net revenue of PMI, BAT, or Imperial Brands (IB), while Japan Tobacco's (JT) production consisted of 98% cigarettes. The industry targets non-smokers, and especially young people, for example in Egypt with tobacco retailers near schools, and in India, Bangladesh, and the Philippines, with single-cigarette sales.

The industry perpetuates the confusion between marketing and public health objectives

The tobacco and nicotine industry sometimes claims that heated tobacco products have similar characteristics and risks to e-cigarettes. Manufacturers capitalize on the fact that these products have an electronic system and present them as "harm reduction" tools. The industry perpetuates this confusion by associating the two products in smoking cessation campaigns, such as the one in the UK in 2021. However, the two products are quite distinct: heated tobacco is a tobacco product, and its tobacco leaf is linked to at least 16 different types of cancer. Therefore, when published studies specifically highlight the harmful effects of heated tobacco, manufacturers separate these products from vaping products.

The industry tends to cite countries as examples of "harm reduction," such as Japan for heated tobacco or Sweden for snus, attributing the decline in smoking prevalence to these products while omitting years of public health policies and ignoring the fact that heated tobacco remains, precisely, a tobacco product. By exploiting the marketing authorization granted by the FDA for its IQOS product in the United States, PMI did not hesitate to request regulatory relaxations in other countries, emphasizing a "harm reduction" not mentioned by the US agency, but rather a "harm modification.".

The tobacco industry wants to improve its image and present its new products as smoking cessation tools, taking credit for the decline in smoking prevalence observed in various countries and accusing current public health policies of preventing smokers from accessing alternatives. However, researchers in Bath point out that in Japan and South Korea, the introduction of heated tobacco and the decline in traditional smoking occurred simultaneously but were not linked. Conversely, in the United Kingdom, vaping fueled the nicotine epidemic by leading young people to turn to other forms of tobacco consumption, and in Sweden, the use of nicotine pouches, snus, and e-cigarettes led to a return to traditional smoking.

The industry wants to position itself as a credible, legitimate and transparent partner

The industry's objective is to appear as a credible partner, a source of proposals, and even a public health actor that should be brought back to the decision-making table. To achieve this, it does not hesitate to manipulate science by funding researchers who do not disclose their funding sources or conflicts of interest. It has thus been demonstrated that the industry has sought and continues to seek to conceal or distort evidence of the dangers of its products by conducting research on its own products, by establishing supposedly independent scientific institutions such as Global Action to End Smoking, or by infiltrating scientific, medical, and public health organizations.

The industry maintains that it is fighting illicit trade

The industry frequently argues that combating the illicit tobacco trade harms the economy and cites lost tax revenue as a reason to propose agreements with government officials, ostensibly to help them fight the parallel market. In reality, however, the facts demonstrate that manufacturers are directly and indirectly linked to the parallel market, and that the effectiveness of all voluntary agreements aimed at reducing illicit trade has never been proven. This industry involvement allows it to normalize its presence and hinder any effective policy to combat the parallel market.

Furthermore, manufacturers systematically use the objection of the growth of parallel markets to oppose any policy aimed at reducing tobacco consumption, particularly tax increases. Yet, here again, researchers at the University of Bath point out that in the United Kingdom, the increase in cigarette prices between 2000 and 2024 is, conversely, associated with an almost halving of tax revenue losses caused by illicit trade. This trend results both from improved controls by public authorities and from the actual decline in smoking prevalence. The industry nevertheless continues to promote the idea of a direct link between increases in illicit trade and higher taxes in order to oppose ambitious laws like the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.

Faced with this intense lobbying, only the measures of the CFC are viable.

The Tobacco Control Research Group concluded that far from having begun a transformation toward a "smoke-free" market, the tobacco and nicotine industry has adapted with the sole aim of continuing to maximize its profits. According to the researchers, the industry's misinformation should not obscure the proven public health solutions for effectively reducing tobacco consumption. These solutions are enshrined in the WHO treaty, the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), particularly significant and regular increases in product taxes, the prohibition of all advertising and promotion of these products, and any partnership with the industry. Furthermore, this treaty makes new measures possible, such as a generational ban on the sale of tobacco products.

©Generation Without Tobacco

AD

[1]University of Bath, Smoke and Mirrors - Unmasking disinformation from the tobacco industry, Published on November 18, 2025, accessed on November 19, 2025

National Committee Against Smoking |