Almost a year has passed since Andrés Martín assumed his position at the British American Tobacco company. Since then, the manager has strived to show society that the responsible transition of combustion products towards lower risk alternatives is possible in favor of health, advancing BAT’s strategy of A Better Tomorrow towards A Smoke-Free World.
BAT is committed to non-combustion products as an alternative.
What role do they play in reducing smoking?
Our company is immersed in a total transformation towards non-combustion products, those that are less harmful than conventional cigarettes (based on the weight of evidence and assuming a complete change from smoking). We are at a stage in which we are betting on these alternatives with the clear objective of reaching 50 million consumers of non-combustion products in 2030 (from the more than 30 million that we already have) and that 50% of our income comes from non-combustible products in 2035.
To achieve this, we are betting on non-combustion products, such as electronic cigarettes, nicotine pouches and heated tobacco, which are a reality. They are sold in more than 80 countries, and are a lower-toxicity alternative for adult smokers who cannot or do not want to quit smoking. They are very different products from conventional cigarettes and, therefore, must have differentiated regulation, adjusted to risk, evaluated from a scientific perspective.
BAT offers less harmful alternatives with innovative products
Which countries are pioneers?
The example of New Zealand is clear. With the implementation of measures that focus on non-combustion products and their alternatives, they have reduced the smoking rate from 17% to the current 6.8% according to New Zealand’s Smoking Cessation Success Story. Sweden is another example, reducing it to 5% according to Quit Like Sweden and being the first country to reach the threshold of what the WHO considers a smoke-free country.
Alternatives to tobacco, among others, such as nicotine pouches, have made Sweden today have a 41% lower incidence of lung cancer than the European average, applying consensual and reasoned policies. On the opposite side is Australia, which, by banning the electronic cigarette, has caused illicit trade to skyrocket and has failed to deter consumption, according to the Roy Morgan Report.
Regarding the Government’s approach, is it excessively restrictive?
It has been proven that nicotine pouches are 99% less harmful than a conventional cigarette, according to Omni (https://asmokelessworld.com/gb/es). The government wants to ban nicotine limits on pouches, bringing them to 0.99 mg per pouch. The regulator relies on nicotine replacement therapies such as nicotine gum, which represents a “de facto” ban, because the consumer demands nicotine and, without acceptable nicotine content, the consumer will not change their smoking habit to new, less harmful alternatives. The nicotine concentrations accepted by the scientific community as reasonable and implemented in the EU are between 16 and 20 mg. Anything less than that does not encourage the nicotine user to switch to this product.
Nicotine pouches are not a replacement therapy, but rather a much less harmful consumption alternative than conventional cigarettes. Health wants to apply this measure because it has not listened to doctors, independent scientists, consumers of new products, or the empirical reality of other countries. The restrictive measure will only increase the illicit consumption of these products, the illegal market and perpetuate the consumption of traditional cigarettes. If Spanish regulation establishes, together with the industry, consumers, and distributors, a regulation based on efficient and logical distribution, we will be favoring a society with fewer smoking problems.
In regulation, the entire value chain must be the backbone and participate in an open dialogue
In order for smokers to switch to lower risk products, they insist on the need for a balanced regulatory framework. How should it be?
All regulations must be based on an open dialogue with the actors involved in said industry: consumers, producers and the entire value chain. In addition, you must have a great ally, science. At BAT we are clear about this and that is why we have been investing more than 400 million annually in R&D for some time and we recently decided to make the Omni project available to everyone, an open platform that aims to encourage collaboration and dialogue and that brings together hundreds of studies, both internal and from third parties, to offer clear and objective information about the science and evidence that exists behind these products.
Any regulation must have a solid scientific basis to establish what is best for the adult smoker who does not want or cannot quit smoking. According to this, regulation must be balanced and balanced, so that prohibitions and coercive measures must be the last to be adopted. We must opt for effective regulation that respects the principle of legal reserve, proportional, that protects minors, and that seeks a balance in favor of improving the health of smokers. We know from other industries that prohibitionist measures are ineffective. When you regulate and impose restrictive measures, prohibiting and equating combustion products with non-combustion products, you cause the smoker to continue smoking, and you condemn innovation, since you do not encourage research. We want an open dialogue with the Ministry of Health.
The Government intends to use the draft law to give legal coverage to the royal decree. What risks does it pose?
It introduces great legal uncertainty. The Government intends to use the draft law being processed in order to create the necessary legal coverage for the royal decree, following the CNMC’s warning that a rule with the rank of law was needed to regulate non-tobacco products. The royal decree can generate a huge diplomatic conflict with the European TRIS procedure. If you set a limit of 0.99 mg/bag, you are enforcing a de facto ban.
The CNMC points out that in the royal decree there is no proportionality or need to introduce such a restrictive measure. With the royal decree, on the one hand, the least harmful categories are prohibited by eliminating the flavors of electronic cigarettes and restricting milligrams in nicotine bags. On the other hand, you have a draft tobacco law that equates them. There is total legal uncertainty.
According to the government, there is an exponential consumption in the use of electronic cigarettes by minors. What do you think?
The fact that 54.6% of young people today use electronic cigarettes is not true, referring to the Estudes survey. Our average consumer is in their 30s and 98% are former smokers. Analyzing the microdata from the Ages survey, you realize that only 0.1% of the young population that did not smoke has taken up the habit of nicotine consumption, the rest were already smokers. Scientific and technical rigor must be the main axis and the great ally of our regulation. We cannot regulate against data and science.
By 2035, BAT has targeted 50% of its revenue to come from smokeless tobacco. What does this imply?
Our objectives are clear. Today, more than 18% of our total turnover comes from alternative products and we have the firm goal of reaching 50% by 2035. The entire tobacco industry is immersed in a transformation process. We can’t guess where we will be in 20 years, but we have started with products that are 95-99% less harmful (based on BAT science and evidence). The idea is that we go towards an absolutely harmless product that causes zero damage to health. Along these lines we continue investigating.
What is BAT doing to encourage adult smokers to switch to new alternatives?
As a first measure, we recommend completely quitting the smoking habit and, if you cannot or do not want to, consume products that are less harmful than conventional cigarettes. You can accompany it with replacement therapies, which, according to the Global Index of effective anti-smoking policies of ThinkTank Somos Innovación, have an effectiveness of between 15 and 25%, a very small effectiveness, with possible adverse and collateral effects, and a high cost.
We ask that the measures be proportional, effective, efficient and adjusted to the country
Again proportionality and necessity. When you have a population like Spain, with seven million smokers, around 30% of the population (according to the Ages 2024 survey), and you want them to stop smoking, the first step should be to use something less harmful. From there, replacement alternatives, cessation therapies, accompanied by psychological therapies, must be considered. The Health debate and the true pillar and fundamental axis of the conversation should be nicotine. It has been proven that it is not a carcinogenic product, although it alters health. As a tobacco company, we want to come out of the closet, stop hiding and show the adult smoking population that there are alternatives to the consumption of combustion cigarettes that are better for their health.
Why isn’t BAT considering stopping selling tobacco?
We don’t stop selling tobacco because if we did, another company would take our place. The fact that BAT stops selling tobacco is not going to stop it from being sold, a mistake that anti-smoking institutions make. Illegal and illicit products would also enter our space. What BAT is trying to do is direct the consumer to other less harmful alternatives, promoting smokeless and less harmful alternatives.