← home page • Buzz@Bruss! Edition #4 • Gateways to Tobacco Harm Reduction
Buzz@Bruss! spoke to JTI’s RRP External Affairs Director, Adriana Valle, about the key regulatory issues facing the category today. She shares examples of countries that are successfully regulating RRP with a proportionate approach and explains how the Company believes that informed consumers should be able to choose their own paths to Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR).
How does JTI approach general discussions around RRP?
Adriana Valle: First and foremost, we acknowledge that any tobacco or nicotine product are not risk-free. Rather we say that RRPs have the potential to reduce risks associated with smoking – we are absolutely open about this.
What then becomes important is the information that we provide to consumers, and to be able to do so in a transparent way. Statements need to be evidence-based, grounded in science. They must be perceived as trustful and truthful by consumers so that they can ultimately come to their own conclusions and make their own decisions about RRPs.
What are some of the key areas of the RRP debate that policy makers focus on these days, and how does JTI view them?
A.V: There are really three key aspects.
The first relates to underage access and use… and this is very much a common concern. At JTI, we have strict global marketing principles, internal policies and guidelines that seek to prevent minors from coming into contact with these products.
What is important to understand is actually why minors approach RRPs. Then the question becomes ‘is current regulation sufficient, appropriate or properly enforced?’ While experimentation with these products such as e-cigarettes and disposables may affect minors there is a distinct lack of hard data to accurately track real trends, particularly for Heated Tobacco Products (HTP) and nicotine pouches.
The second area relates to ‘multi-use’, that is adult smokers who use both combustible and reduced-risk products. We believe that in those markets where both are available, multi-use gives consumers the opportunity to choose and thus provides a pathway towards RRPs and the potential benefits they provide. And, as long as they have access to information, they can then make their own informed choice about a journey that will ultimately contribute to THR. It’s a journey that depends on access to innovative, high-quality products that comply with stringent safety standards.
The third aspect is based on the hypothesis that RRPs can be a gateway to smoking, which has been a driver of regulation since the publication of TPD2. Here, a lot of literature and data exists…and most of it shows that it’s actually quite the reverse, there is no gateway. In many countries where RRPs are available, we actually see a decrease in smoking prevalence and a slight increase in the use of RRPs. In fact, the path of decrease is faster than the corresponding increase. In Japan, for example, we have seen a significant decline in smoking prevalence as a result of the introduction of HTP. The same trend has been noticeable over many years in Sweden where availability of snus and other RRPs has led to smoking prevalence below 5%, the only country in the world with such a low figure.
This data should be taken-into-account when developing a good regulatory framework that allows consumers to choose high-quality products rather than driving them towards illegal alternatives, with questionable safety standards. This trend is clear in certain markets where RRPs are either over-regulated or even banned.
It’s of particular importance to us as JTI that RRPs are only marketed to existing adult consumers of tobacco or nicotine products, not to the so-called never users.
Are there other examples of markets where RRPs are having a positive effect on THR?
A.V: The 10-year history in Italy has shown an important decline in smoking after Heated Tobacco Products were first introduced back in 2014. And this is similar in the UK, noticeably after the launch of e-cigarettes and a subsequent government-supported campaign to promote RRPs as a route to THR. Even the New Zealand government, who was initially very skeptical about RRPs, is now changing its approach and understand that their use can have a significant effect on persuading consumers to seek less risky alternatives.
Outright bans and excessive regulation are examples of measures that are clearly not working – they only lead to the growth of illegal alternatives.
How does JTI view government regulations when it comes to RRPs, particularly in relation to youth access?
A.V: Whilst we understand and share their concerns, we believe that the way they are trying to reach their objective is flawed. Regulations should focus on preventing access to minors and on education rather than on the product as such. They should also be proportionate to the objective they are trying to achieve and be rooted in science and solid evidence. Finally, regulations need to be effectively enforced in order to achieve any public health targets.
How do you think industry can best contribute to drive THR through RRP?
A.V: We have to start by being able to provide grounded information to consumers – that is key to informed choice. Then we must always supply products that follow very high-quality standards so that we don’t put the whole category in doubt. There has to be a distinction between responsible manufacturers of quality products, and others. And finally, we should continue to invest in product innovation for the benefit of consumers. Regulation needs to encourage innovation rather than stifle it.
And, of course, we are able and willing to share our data and our experience in countries where RRPs are regulated reasonably and show how this is positively impacting those societies compared to examples of excessive regulation.
I believe that this dialogue and sharing of experience in RRPs should be the basis of long-term and effective policy making. But this obviously needs time to both gather meaningful data… and then change entrenched opinions.
Buzz@Bruss! #4 • more articles
