Panellists used their expertise in the recent regulatory developments of some key markets to shed light on broader principles. How can regulation support innovation and offer consumers choice at the same time as safeguarding public health? Do producers and consumers want the same things? Panellists discussed the risks of over- or under-regulation and the growth of illicit markets, and the discussion examined how effective regulation can drive investment, support the shift away from combustible tobacco and encourage harm reduction, also drawing lessons from other industries.
Transcription:
00:11 - 02:44
[Jonathan Fell]
So good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to this afternoon's panel discussion on innovation and regulation, shaping the landscape for safer nicotine products. I'm Jonathan Fell, and my interest in this area comes from spending a lot of the last 30 years as an investment analyst and fund manager with responsibility for following what was going on in the tobacco and nicotine industries. When I started in the mid-90s, that nicotine part didn't really exist. Pretty much all the action was in combustible cigarettes. But then Swedish Match came along, accompanied by a wider understanding of the Swedish experience with snus. And then in the last 15 years or so, we've had this explosion of innovation and of new tobacco and nicotine products being marketed, which I think everyone in the room would agree have the potential to enormously reduce the public health burden of smoking-related diseases. And indeed, are doing exactly that in quite a few markets around the world now. But arguably the regulatory framework for tobacco and nicotine hasn't really caught up with these developments yet, or in some places it might have caught up, but in the wrong sort of way that is choking off innovation and actually denies consumers access to these potentially life-changing and life-saving products. So in this session I'd like to explore why that is, why it matters, what sensible or regulatory approaches look like and how we might get there. And I'm privileged to have a really excellent panel to help us explore these issues. So we have Sam Tam next to me, who's president of the Canadian Vaping Association and also, by the way, director of a Canadian vaping business himself. We have Assanda from South Africa, who's CEO of the Vapor Products Association there. We have Arkady Sharkov from Bulgaria, a macroeconomist and an assistant professor at Sofia University. And we have Deborah Brinks-Moore, who is chief corporate affairs officer at Imperial Brands. So in a moment, I'll hand over to each of our panelists who will give us some opening thoughts on these questions from their own perspective. And then we'll have a discussion, which I hope will be lively and interactive as well. Sam, would you like to go first?
02:44 - 06:23
[Sam Tam]
Sure. So I'll talk a bit about our organization. The Canadian Vaping Association is a national not-for-profit organization founded in 2014. We started to engage government in 2016 before the Tobacco Vaping Products Act was introduced in Canada, which happened in May of 2018. So we've, over time for the past nine years, we've been proactively engaging government, ensuring that they regulate the industry sensibly with equitable regulations. And it's been a interesting journey, I would have to say. I mean, today we are considered a key stakeholder. We meet with the government quite frankly on a regular basis. And we talk a lot about good policies. And I think we've been through a lot of that. And I think that there's definitely a lot to share. When we talk about good policies, it has a major impact on innovation. One of the great examples that we've seen globally, you know, when we look at Europe, there's a lot of restrictions, right? So we look at, I like to use this example a lot because today it sparks a discussion far deeper than we imagined. One is, you know, we look at Europe, there's a two milliliter cap on devices, which is quite irrelevant today. Canada took a very different approach. Canada was thinking about volume capacity limits but they took a different turn. We asked the government, what's the objective of capping 2-ML? And they told us, well, accidental poison ingestion for children. So why don't we make these product child resistant? So instead of capping volume, which we've seen a lot of countries do, Canada decided to mandatory make vaping products child resistant, which follows, you know, for instance, ISO standard, ISO 8317 or equivalent. And what that really did was if we look at today, when it comes to innovation, you don't see much innovation coming out of Europe. because they're stifled with 2ml volume. Not only that, by doing that you're creating single-use batteries that are extremely environmental, we can say unsustainable for the environment. A lot of times we see this on the news a lot, right? In the UK there's 8 million disposables being thrown out every single week. Well, if we just advocate for volume restrictions to be lifted, and mandate that the products to be child resistant, we wouldn't have this issue, right? In Canada, we don't have this issue. There's no cause for disposal ban because we have a recycling program. The vape industry has created a recycling program and we are creating less waste. So, you know, and that's part of the innovation. So we're able to create products and just want to show this is actually a Canadian innovation. We're able to create products that are actually rechargeable battery. It basically, you can replace the pods, but the battery's reusable. So you're no longer throwing away or concerns about throwing away batteries. And we do know one of the major struggles of recycling batteries, of course, it's a manual process. It cannot be done with disposables. It has to be done on a very manual process. So these are some of the things that good policies can play a big role in creating innovation. And I think we were able to do that in Canada.
06:28 - 09:57
[Asanda Gcoyi]
Good afternoon, everyone. The name is Asanda Gcoyi. I represent, as John said, the Vapor Products Association of South Africa. Similar to Sam's organization, we are an industry body that represents the interests of retailers, manufacturers, as well as distributors. But what's quite unique about South Africa is that we're currently in a legislative vacuum. So there's absolutely no law that is governing safer nicotine products. The current draft bill that is sitting with Parliament seeks to extend the regulations of tobacco into this industry. And quite interestingly, I mean, it's a bill that was first introduced in 2018. So we are in 2025 and we are still talking about the bill and what it should contain and what it should not contain. And I think part of the resistance from our organization specifically, because we are driving this narrative of you need to take into account the different risk profiles of these different products. You need to consider consumer needs. And most importantly, from a South African context, you need to consider that it is a very unique environment where we have amongst the highest numbers of illicit tobacco being sold in the country. So the environment is quite complex that any regulation that does end up being adopted needs to be fit for purpose. It needs to take into account all of these different things. And I think what's also quite key in the drive that we've been pushing is that for the longest time, South Africa used to lead when it came to tobacco control. I mean, the country was the first one on the continent as a signatory to the FCTC. So we've always taken pride in the fact that we are able to respond appropriately. But over the past 10 years, things have not worked out the way they were supposed to. A lot of lack of enforcement in tobacco control. We've got these high illicit figures. And the focus right now, even before we get to what does innovation mean and what kind of regulation is required, is that we have over 12.7 million tobacco users in the country. That should be the focus. So whatever it is that we do, we need to keep them in the center of the discussions. And our regulators, unfortunately, have taken an approach that says harm is harm, even when you advocate for these safe alternatives. For them, any kind of product, especially because it's a consumer good, is not meant to be a product that is promoted. So you're dealing with all of these different complexities, and the rest of the world is moving And for us, I guess the beauty in a way of the bill delaying is that we've got the added advantage of learning from what other countries have done. So we're able to sort of mitigate and preempt some of those unintended consequences when it comes to the proposals that we put to the fore. So yeah, that's broadly what is happening in the South African context.
10:02 - 14:02
[Arkadi Sharkov]
Good day to all. It's a pleasure. So let's speak about what we do in EKIP, which is the organization that I represent here. It's an expert club for economics and politics. We typically do, for the past couple of years, disability-adjusted life years models, combined with different taxation models, actually, with thanks also to the Kevin Law Fellowship that I won a couple of years ago. We are also doing a model for South and Eastern Europe and the effect of transitioning from conventional tobacco to heated tobacco products with differentiation in the taxation models. So, starting from there, coming to the point. Yesterday, in Bulgaria, they accepted an ordinance, a law, banning disposable vapes. This makes Bulgaria the second country in the EU to ban disposable vapes. And it all started from a different reason. The past couple of months, there were a couple of cases of young adults, young adults and, of course, people under 18 years of age, using vapes with illicit substances. So these artificial THC substances that are becoming very popular within the younglings. So it started from there. There were a couple of cases of death. Then the parliament, the politicians who act on emotion rather than rationality, acted upon that. They prepared the bill, which was very restrictive and of course very conservative, banning all types of vapes, not only disposable ones. And this was February, I think. It was first viewed in the Parliament in February. And after that it went silent. Why it went silent? Because in order we are to join the Eurozone from 1st of January 2026. So the government had to present an ordinance that shows that they care for the children. However, once you ban those products, there are no more excise taxes. which is bad for the deficit. And we have a relatively good deficit in terms of percentage, but it needed to be lower than 3%. So they froze the bill, and they unfroze it just a couple of days ago, and yesterday they voted on it. So now all disposable vapes are banned. But as I said, the reason was totally different. It was vapes with illicit substances. It has nothing to do with disposable vapes. And coming from the topics that we discussed beforehand, When we speak about vapes and we speak about batteries, especially now with their trade wars going all around and there is high tariffs on rare earth minerals, including cobalt, including lithium. I think the only known mines for lithium in the European area are in Serbia. So this is another topic when you speak about disposable vapes, how are we disposing of the batteries and how this innovation, which is rechargeable batteries, which is actually a good innovation in that sense, could help continue the THR effort. Closing my first comment with that, that innovation could happen through taxation, but also innovation, especially when you speak about the European Union, the European Union is in the corner due to the over-regulation for the past couple of years and red tapes that were put in front of the industry, and this industry is exiting the European Union. And we do a track back with this industry, especially when we speak about the tobacco industry, we speak about pharmaceutical industry and all the other industries that went out of the EU with different kind of policies, which I think we'll discuss later on in the panel. Thank you.
14:06 - 14:43
[Deborah Binks-Moore]
Good afternoon, everybody, and this is my first GFN conference, so I am both delighted and pleased and privileged to be here on behalf of Imperial Brands. I'm a relative newcomer to this industry. I joined Imperial Brands about a year ago. And what has struck me and is exciting are two things. The rapid pace of innovation leading to a hugely positive transformation within this industry and the opportunity to significantly scale up harm reduction over the next few years.
14:44 - 16:00
[Jonathan Fell]
Thank you very much, everyone. Right. So I'm going to open things up with a question about the real basics. Why do we regulate? So preparing for this panel, I came across a really interesting paper by Carl-Erik Lund and a colleague, which made this distinction between consonant users, so those are people who know about the risks of smoking and are happy to continue doing so, and then dissonant users who want to give up. And they found in Norway that maybe just a third of the people who smoked were in that dissonant category, whereas quite often that proportion is put much higher. People think it might be nearer 70. But a point I've heard Dr. Lund make is that if only around a third of people who smoke want to give up, surely when it comes to vapors or people who use pouches, the proportion of users who want to quit is very much smaller indeed. So do we actually need regulation for reduced harm tobacco products or Are regulators and governments better off just getting out of the way and letting consumers do what they want to do? Who wants to have a go at that? Arkadi?
16:05 - 16:07
[Arkadi Sharkov]
Shall I put some gasoline in the fire?
16:07 - 16:08
[Jonathan Fell]
Yes.
16:09 - 18:04
[Arkadi Sharkov]
So by heart, I'm a libertarian, a classical liberal. Of course, I believe that the person has the intelligence and, of course, the opportunity to choose for himself what to do. However, when you speak about especially products containing nicotine or products containing tobacco, governments, as I spoke in the previous slide, like revenue. So if they can tax you, they will. If you know how the excise tax actually was imposed in England to fund the wars with France. So everything has a different idea behind it, and at the end it becomes constant, especially when we speak about taxes. So regulation, more or less, it's seeing it from the perspective, nowadays perspective, 2019 I could have given another explanation, but seeing what happens in the world nowadays, the problem is that more and more the governments who are central in their views are becoming more Let's put it, I wouldn't say autocratic, but more centralized in the decision-making, especially when you speak about regulation. When you speak about tobacco products, now there is a strain on the healthcare budgets in Europe. I can speak about that because there is aging population and there is also a very slow growth rate or a negative growth rate in some senses as well. So they have to choose either to regulate, to decrease the use of such products that might lead to some negative health effects, especially for non-communicable diseases, or to, how should I say, or to increase the taxation for healthcare budgets, when I speak about healthcare insurance taxes, which is also a problem due to taxes in some countries in the European Union being above 50% in cumulative terms. So this is a problem and it continues to grow. So I believe in Europe they still rely on regulation more rather than on the freedom of the individual.
18:07 - 19:41
[Asanda Gcoyi]
I think when you consider the rationale behind why you need these kind of products in the first place, it's responding to a public health need, you know, where the public health system could be overburdened. I mean, speaking from a South African context. So the parameters that would define the industry are quite important when it comes to why we need to regulate. So you need to regulate to ensure that what is readily available and accessible to consumers in their free choice, when they exercise that free choice, is of a particular standard. I mean, you need to have parameters, safeguards, that confine consumers to a realm that says, yes, you do have choices, but it's choices within the space because the quality is good, it achieves the objective, and ultimately the objective is for public health purposes. So I do think regulation is important. And then you have the tax imperatives when you look at fiscal frameworks and what that does when you look at revenue generation for countries, et cetera. So overall, I think regulation is good, but the question is, what kind of regulation? And obviously, it should be a regulation that is conducive, that is not too prescriptive and not too restrictive, that still affords consumers that freedom and liberty to choose for themselves within what is available.
19:43 - 21:16
[Sam Tam]
So I'll talk more about a Canadian context because nicotine is a controlled substance in Canada. So therefore, it has to be regulated. But I think what's really important is our government has given us two pathways. One is vaping products can be regulated as a consumer product. or it can be regulated as a therapeutic product. Now, if you go down the therapeutic route, you will have the option to promote the product. You would be able to talk about its relative risk. You don't have those restrictions. But regulations are needed because there needs to be standards, whether when it comes to product compliance. One of the good things about Canada is that right at the beginning, they realized that one of the important aspect is we need to have packaging labeling regulations so that these products don't appeal to youth. The government's focused on reporting regulations. They need to know what products are being sold in the country so they can keep track of the products that are sold to consumers. And the government has an obligation to ensure that there's product safety when the product is sold in the country so they can monitor and track and if there's an issue, there's an ability for them to do product recall. I think the most important thing as mentioned is we have to have balance regulation, one that allows products to be accessible as a harm reduction tool for adults. And there also needs to be a need to protect youth from exposures and make product less appealing. Thanks.
21:17 - 25:39
[Deborah Binks-Moore]
So I think what's at the heart of this question is how do we shift the regulatory landscape to something that's more proportionate from a risk perspective? I think firstly I want to say that I recognise that the hardworking people who regulate our industry have a very challenging job. Regulating any industry going through rapid change is extremely difficult. And in my earlier roles at eBay and Alibaba, I saw how financial regulators really struggled to keep up with the emergence of new payment platforms and unregulated credit services operating completely outside the traditional banking system. And the same is almost true in another area I worked in, in energy transition in the energy sector. So it's really important, I think, to establish principles, a very, you know, the right set of broad principles, which can withstand the tests of time and that rapid pace of change. So in our sector, the big challenge faced by all of us, industry, regulators, policy makers is, How do you provide choices which encourage adults to transition away from smoking while banishing the rogue actors who undermine trust and encourage unintended or youth use. And in seeking those solutions, I believe there are three principles which could guide us. The first one being responsible choice. So we don't believe in unrestricted, irresponsible choice, but we do believe that adult consumers need to be offered a range of products that is sufficient to attract them from smoking and keep them away, and this means an availability of a range of flavours. We have unmistakable evidence that that is absolutely essential, and in our recent study where we exposed smokers to blue vapes, those who successfully quit cigarettes told us that a range of flavours, including mint and fruit, was crucial in preventing them from returning to smoking. And to give you an idea of some of the data in one of our studies, 29% of smokers who switch from tobacco exclusively used fruit flavours. And where we see restrictions on flavours, either through regulatory inertia, or legislative bans, we see a proliferation of the illegal, unregulated market. And once the market moves into the hands of criminals, there is a greater risk of unintended or youth use and availability and consumption of harmful products. So that leads me to the second principle, which is sustainable enforcement. So Tough decisions in the prioritisation of resources that governments have to make in every country often unfortunately means that law enforcement is sporadic and criminals are undeterred and illegal products become normalised in the minds of otherwise law-abiding criminals. Having just come back this week from a trip to Australia, I have seen those unintended consequences for myself. And long-term funding must be made available to the agencies responsible for enforcing, and this might mean licensing of retailers and proportionate taxation to fund it, which leads me to the next fundamental principle of of long-term collaboration. So tobacco harm reduction has the potential to prevent the premature deaths of many millions of lives over the long term. And this means we need a long-term approach to policymaking where people from different political traditions work together, ensure that the most relevant and recent research, i.e. the hard facts are top of mind and regulators collaborate with responsible industry players and central governments partner with local administrations.
25:41 - 25:42
[Jonathan Fell]
Arkady, do you want to add something to that?
25:42 - 26:58
[Arkadi Sharkov]
Can I just add something, especially when we speak about regulation? We speak about, how should I say, standardization of way that the government or the super government, we speak in European terms, Brussels, looks towards innovation in the field of nicotine and tobacco products. We speak of standardization, we speak of transparency, so equal views and equal rules for everyone in the market, especially when we're speaking to risk attributed taxation. This should be also, I think, added into the formula. So one last thing when we speak about regulation, we should always, of course, speak as I gave an example at the beginning with banning disposable vapes in Bulgaria. We should always think that for unintended or unforeseen consequences, which means contraband from countries which are around third countries which are outside the EU, and also parallel trade from countries which are within the EU where these products are not banned. So this is also something to be taken into account with regulation and differentiated regulation within countries, especially when we speak about common union.
27:01 - 27:55
[Jonathan Fell]
Thanks, folks. In the responses to that question, I think we're starting to pick on this idea that, yeah, we need regulation for reduced harm tobacco products and nicotine, but it needs to be risk proportionate. And I guess when it comes to cigarettes, the regulatory efforts of governments are usually directed to getting people to quit, to basically reduce and eventually get rid of cigarette use altogether. Do you think governments come at reduced harm tobacco and nicotine with that same mindset, that this is a kind of temporary thing that eventually we all are going to want to get rid of as well? And what are the other barriers out there to risk proportionate regulation actually happening? What are the factors that mean we get DARF rules around the world?
28:01 - 30:26
[Sam Tam]
Yeah, it's interesting. I think we always talk about there needs to be balance when it comes to regulations with reduced harm products. I think we experience this a lot in Canada. We are faced with a lot of oppositions. that want vaping regulations to be in line with tobacco regulations. Constant push, and I think this week we just saw this on the news again. We have nicotine control groups pushing for the government to ban flavors, which our federal government is hesitant to do. And one of the things that we've talked about is there are unintended consequences and the government is relatively, they are familiar with it. We've seen it happen when the government decided to cap nicotine in Canada from 66 milligrams to 20 milligrams. There was, we all know there is a demand for higher nicotine for those that of course smoke more or require a stronger throat hit. Our government did that immediately without hesitation. And the impact of that, of course, was a growing illicit market. And our organization was one of the very first ones to identify the illicit products in the marketplace because these products were packaged to look like they're compliant. Only through laboratory testing results you would find that these products were not 20 milligrams, but in fact, more than double the amount of nicotine. So when you over-regulate, you can expect there's going to be a growth in illicit trade. And we've seen that happen with nicotine. We're starting to see that happen in Canada with excessive taxation. Taxation right now in Canada, is quite punitive, quite actually. We're completing our federal tax report, which we'll present to the federal government soon, but vaping taxes have now recently doubled. For the provinces that have joined, taxes are as much as punitive as cigarettes, and it's a major problem. And I think we have to have that balance to ensure that there's fair regulations and that there's a pathway for reduced harm products to be affordable for consumers that need them.
30:28 - 32:56
[Asanda Gcoyi]
From a South African point of view, we're actually in the middle of public hearings in Parliament right now on the kind of bill that is going to govern these products. And when you speak about tobacco products and whether with these other products they should follow a similar pathway, the South African government is of the view that they should, simply because they have a common denominator, which is nicotine. and we get into the discussions of this demonizing of nicotine, but just yesterday, one of my colleagues was presenting to the portfolio committee on health, and the narrative is straightforward for them. These products contain nicotine, and on that very basis, one, they deserve to be in the same legislation as tobacco products, and two, the fact that they've got reduced harm does not mean they are not without harm. So that notion of harm is harm. And this gives legislators the opportunity to over-regulate simply because these products contain nicotine as well, you know, and I think when you are coming from South Africa, when you recognize that the science is saying something completely different and yet the regulators still want to stick to that same mantra. It's quite disheartening and an interesting thing that I hadn't mentioned earlier is that even though we don't have a regulatory framework, Interestingly enough, we've got a fiscal framework. So vaping products are... What's this? Taxed in South Africa. And again, it was a revenue decision. And the other caveat that was added was to protect young people from vaping. So the question is, how do you impose a tax on a category that you haven't even classified? You know, it's just... a bit absurd, but I think when you look at some of the things that are happening, especially in our kinds of countries, you recognize that it's not logic that often drives these regulatory decisions, but more feelings and ideology, et cetera.
33:01 - 34:26
[Deborah Binks-Moore]
I just want to add a couple of comments that I really agree with what Sam and Asanda were saying, because I talked already about these three critical principles, and I mentioned Australia. I mean, Australia is a lesson for other parts of the world on how not to regulate nicotine products. There are severe government restrictions on the choice and channels. Vapes are only available in a very narrow range of flavours through a small number of pharmacies. You have to go up and have a... Because I did this last week. You have to go up and have a consultation with a pharmacist and you're treated like a patient, have you... Have you tried gum? Have you tried patches? Have you tried stopping? Oh well okay then, I'll sign you a script and you can have a vape. And local law enforcement agencies lack the resources they need to control the illicit trade which has flourished and all of the partisan sort of divisions amongst the sort of political world mean that policy making is very short term. And the net effect is that there are around one million vapers in Australia, more than 90% of the vapes that those people consume are bought illegally. So a staggering number of law-abiding consumers who want to make a choice to improve their health have effectively become criminals through bad policy, and it's enriching criminal gangs. It just is nonsensical.
34:30 - 35:07
[Jonathan Fell]
So I wonder how much of the reason why we get nonsensical regulation in this sector is because of the sector's history and that association with the tobacco industry. How much of a problem do you think it is that the big tobacco companies are getting involved in this space? Do you think we'd have a better regulatory backdrop if it was the independent companies who started the vaping trend, still dominating the industry?
35:08 - 37:50
[Sam Tam]
Well, Canada's unique. I mean, Canada's vaping industry was started by independent small businesses. This goes all the way back in 2009, where the first vape shop opened in Wasaga Beach. And the tobacco companies didn't come until later in 2018 when we just had regulations. But even if we look at the Canadian market today, 75% of the excise tax paid to government is from independent small businesses. I do see a lot. What's happening really is I think tobacco companies should be at the table when it comes to innovation, creating reduced harm products, often being used by nicotine control groups as their ammo to say, you know, tobacco companies are taking a new generation of youth. We can't have them at the table. They shouldn't be listened to. We hear that a lot. But I think the Canadian government has a very different approach. And it's not talked a lot about. Canada has changed their approach. They have decided that harm reduction has its place to helping Canada reach a less than 5% by 2035, which is less than 5% smoking rate. And they see harm reduction as the most effective tool getting them there, besides smoking cessation products. So they've included harm reduction product as one of the important tool. And one of the important things that they've highlighted is the government of Canada wants to change our behavior to save lives, which includes supporting reduced harm products. They want to meet people where they are. And they want to ensure that no one is left behind where they have started to listen to consumers on their lived experience, how they've quit smoking using vaping products. So they've changed approach and, you know, we've seen Sweden as being, you know, very close to one of the first countries to be smoke-free. And we're starting to see New Zealand make progress to be potentially the second country to reach that as well. And Canada wants to be the third country in the world to reach that, and that's why they've changed our approach. So I feel that all stakeholders need to be at the table. We've always mentioned, and government understands this quite well now, is there needs to be a public-private partnership to tackle some of the challenges that we face with policy, and we are moving towards that direction. Thanks.
37:51 - 40:48
[Asanda Gcoyi]
From my own experience, a couple of things that I've picked up, I mean, not just in South Africa, but just also broad conversation. This concept of tobacco harm reduction. In South Africa, I mean, I've heard it from different peers from around the world, that regulators would often say it's a term from the tobacco industry. It's a gimmick by big tobacco to reduce get new customers into this new space. So that closes off a lot of conversations when you speak about tobacco harm reduction. And you point to science and they say, oh, science that is sponsored by the industry as well. So there is a lot of pushback in that sense that there is that misconception that, One, vaping came from the tobacco industry and therefore it should not be a credible alternative. But another interesting thing that I came across was the first time I ever met with the portfolio committee on health in our parliament. The first question I was asked was, I'm sure the tobacco industry hates you guys. So I didn't understand. What do you mean? And the lady said, because you are direct competition. I mean, you're going to put them out of business. And when I explained that they actually support this concept of harm reduction, I realized that in that moment, had I said, yes, big tobacco opposes the vaping industry, subsequent conversations could have gone a different way. Because I didn't say the tobacco industry opposes this industry, it almost felt as if it was they. We've said it, tobacco industry is behind the vaping industry. So there's always that attachment to the tobacco industry that really doesn't help in conversations because we are always seen as the cousins of big tobacco. And therefore, we must also be looked at with suspicious eyes. But again, I share same sentiment. For me, the solution lies in every stakeholder being a part of the conversation. Just recently, we had negotiations in South Africa, where the Department of Health was also involved, looking at this current bill. And big tobacco was at the table. Vaping industry was at the table. Civil society was at the table. We had labor. So, I think it's recognizing that everyone has a voice and everyone's opinion should matter on how these regulations ought to pan out.
40:48 - 43:15
[Arkadi Sharkov]
Just to give an example of what happens every year in Bulgaria when the budget is to be voted. So every year the Ministry of Finance wants to equalize the taxation for combustible cigarettes, for heat tobacco products, and for vapes. And every year there are big discussions. And why are those discussions? Part of the industry, which has a I should say, I wouldn't use names, but one of the biggest tobacco producers has the biggest share in hit tobacco products in Bulgaria. The other ones don't have it. They have a very small percentage or very small proportion. So in order for them to, let's put it in the distance, joke with the competition, they push for equalization of taxation for their combustible tobacco products to be sold as well, because after all, they are continuing to be sold. Bulgaria has the highest smoking prevalence compared to the other European countries, but Bulgaria also traditionally was a producer of tobacco. We had our own factory, we had our own brands. So in the mentality of the country, in the mentality of the politicians, tobacco is not a... bad thing. I would say it's not a slant. Of course, for the health authorities it's a bad thing, but traditionally the people do not see tobacco or tobacco companies as enemies. Only certain regulatory representatives see that. So it also comes to the traditional views and values, and of course combining it with the competition, which not always helps when you speak about a differentiation of taxation, when you speak about in market terms, it also could harm the long-term effects when you speak about less harm towards human health. So this is a small example, but it is an example. But we don't see this in the alcohol industry. The productions, because Bulgaria is a big producer of our own liquor, it's called rakija, it's like palinka or like schnapps or like brandy, we can put it in many names. But the people producing rakija don't slam people producing beer nor people producing wine. And there we differentiate the taxation, of course, less harmful wine and beer. So it's a matter, I believe, of traditional values and also a market share when you speak about competition within companies.
43:17 - 45:03
[Deborah Binks-Moore]
So let me try and offer a slightly different perspective, but it is an unavoidable fact that 90% of our revenue is still going to come from combustible products. in the short term. But we are proud of the way we are building a credible and responsible next generation products business. And under our new strategy, we want to scale that. But I think our tobacco heritage does give us a distinctive role to play in the transition towards harm reduction. First, we know people who smoke. We know our consumers. We speak to hundreds of thousands of them every year. And that gives us insights into how to develop new products in the NGP space, which will appeal to them that can offer a satisfying and potentially less harmful alternative to combustible products. Secondly, we have a relationship with the retail trade, which gives us the opportunity to turn millions of tobacconists and shop assistants into advocates for harm reduction. So here in Europe, for example, our products are sold in around 280,000 different retail outlets. Annually, we make around 2.5 million visits to stores. So our reps are increasingly spending time on those visits, educating retailers who may have traditionally focused on tobacco products, but they can educate them and inform them around next generation products so that they in turn can be engaged in those conversations with their customers, with their consumers, because they're educating them when they visit their stores.
45:07 - 45:57
[Jonathan Fell]
So that seat at the table issue is really important, I think, because a core principle of good regulatory practice in lots of countries and also promoted by organisations like the OECD is that stakeholders should be consulted. Industry, but also consumers, you know, nothing about us without us. The WHO and Article 5.3 of the Framework Conventional Tobacco Control is often used as an excuse by tobacco control groups not to let the industry have a seat at the table, or indeed consumers. I want to ask Assanda first, because I think you mentioned to me in South Africa you do see the WHO and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids having an impact on the way regulation is shaped.
45:59 - 50:05
[Asanda Gcoyi]
I think it's actually an area that is a real frustration for us right now. As I had mentioned, our bill was first put out for public consultation in 2018. And from that time to 2022, we had only met with the Department of Health once. And this is a department that's regulating an industry, a new industry in South Africa, and we'd only been afforded an hour. to present to them. And in that, during that time, it's simply, we call, different companies are called to present. You're given an hour slot. You tell them what you want to tell them. You cite scientific evidence you're relying on, et cetera. They say, thank you very much, and that's it. And when we were called back in 2022, we were told that we received all your inputs, so various stakeholders in the tobacco industry as well as the vaping industry, and we've decided not to include any of your inputs in the draft bill because we disagree with your standpoint. We disagree with the value of differentiation. We disagree with the notion of harm reduction. We disagree essentially with everything that you are saying. And the pushback that we inflicted on the department was so strong that we organized different consumer groups, et cetera, because our biggest issue was that you cannot regulate an industry that you know nothing about and only afford them an hour of consultations. So all of this pressure resulted then last year, November, in Parliament finally deciding that, you know what, we will take this bill to a, there's a statutory body in South Africa that evaluates policies that have a socioeconomic impact in the country. And there, for the first time in the five, six years of this bill, we had an opportunity to sit with the Department of Health, with a business, this is, we were representing business. We had labor and we had the civil society. So that was a good thing. But when we first got to that meeting, the South African Department of Health had individuals from Control for Tobacco-Free Kids as part of their delegation. They had individuals from other NGOs that we know of that are anti-vaping and anti-smoking. So this is a big problem because when you are talking about a policy that is going to affect South Africans and you are not taking South Africans' input into consideration but rather you're given scripts, it was actually quite sad to see where you have South African Department of Health officials getting direction from the likes of Control for Tobacco-Free Kids in an open forum where we would make proposals and they would say, no, those proposals cannot be taken into account. On this issue of the vested interest and commercial interests of business, one of the things that I had raised during that session was that if we are going to document the fact that business always has vested interest when it comes to tobacco control, then we should do the same for the government delegation because you've got a civil society within a government delegation that also has vested interest. Suffice to say, they decided not to do away with this issue of vested interest for those conversations. But it is a big concern for us because at the end of the day, we need assurance as South Africans that whatever policies are devised are for South Africans, by South Africans, and not something that is simply transplanted from the WHO.
50:08 - 50:14
[Jonathan Fell]
Thank you. Anyone else want to add to that? WHO not very active in Bulgaria, Arkady?
50:16 - 53:17
[Arkadi Sharkov]
They're very much active and according I again put an accent towards the alcohol industry according to the what they say about what is alcoholism around 70 or 80% of Bulgarians are alcoholics so it's very radical when they put what means what does it mean to smoke and what's the harm for society, what does it mean to drinking was the harmful society. But let's put it from the other perspective. US got out of WHO. Who is now the biggest supporter of WHO? China. China is the biggest supporter of WHO. China produces disposable vapes, it produces rechargeable vapes, it produces tobacco. So it will be probably for the next couple of years, depending what happens in the US electorally, the person to go to when you speak about policies, especially in the field of tobacco, especially in the field of alcohol use. So it's a new global perspective that we have to face when we speak about regulation of tobacco products and, of course, over-regulation of tobacco products and, of course, the use of substances that can harm people's health. But yes, as you spoke about, WHO is WHO. They have to be, how should I say, on the other side of the aisle always because they defend this kind of policies and ideas. However, as we spoke in the beginning, the government agrees in words with their ideas. However, in practice, they need the revenue from the excise taxation, especially in times of an upcoming crisis. And speaking about Bulgaria, that The revenue, what the government expected for May, is 300 million less from what they expected. So you can imagine what happens in other countries as well. So they will seek, in the next couple of years, new sources of revenue. And when you speak about revenue, of course, VAT is the biggest source of revenue. When you speak about Bulgaria, but around 3 point, let's put it in euro, 1.8 billion euro comes from tobacco. This is almost 50% to 55% from the revenue from excise taxation. The other big part is from gasoline, and the other part, of course, is a very small amount from alcohol. So speaking from this perspective, the ideas of... of international organizations which are very much radical towards harm reduction, I speak about increased taxation, are understood only on a conference level rather than on a political level and policy-driven level.
53:19 - 54:19
[Jonathan Fell]
Thank you. I'm going to go to a question that's come in on the internet. I'm going to put it to Sam because it's about Canada. And the question is, why is it in Canada that vapes especially for those who use open tanks or eco-friendly versions, are taxed at a rate that is higher than the tax percentages added to cigarettes. If Canada wants to help Canadians by offering them choices to quit smoking, why are vapes taxed so high? Shouldn't we tax them at a lower rate? And I'll just add on to that. In Canada, has putting tax on vapes, do you think it's helped establish vaping as a more credible business in the eyes of government and regulators because they somehow start to get something from it. And how, when that tax was introduced, did they listen to the industry in terms of the way it was put on products and actually how to go about taxing it?
54:21 - 57:37
[Sam Tam]
It was quite, you know, what really happened was the, And the nicotine control groups were the one that actually presented the tax to the finance committee and suggested the government to move forward with the excise tax on vaping products to reduce youth use. And the argument was if we made vaping products more expensive, then this would deter youth from experimenting with vaping products. What happened there was they also set the rate. They recommended the rate to be $1 per milliliter. It doesn't sound much, but when you do add it up, it is a lot. So, you know, it's quite interesting. I think when we talk about, you know, early before Article 5.3 and, you know, how much influence these organizations, you know, these NGOs have is is troubling. They were able to push this through. And we were only consulted afterwards, right? We didn't even get a chance to talk about the rate or whether the tax should be taxed based on relative risk. And if it did, it would be in the matter of cents, not in the matter of dollars. But that's exactly what happened. We didn't get a chance. And when the policy was written, we were only presented, this is going through in six months. So the entire industry would have to comply within six months. So it was disastrous in a way because the government didn't even have stamps available until the last minute. So it wasn't something that, you know, I would say the industry worked really hard, including tobacco companies, to make it happen. But we were never consulted. Now, I think taxation does help, and one of the major aspects is over the years we've seen extremely restrictive policies that have fueled a major illicit market. We all know governments have a difficult time in terms of enforcing regulations, and we see that happen all over the world. No different in Canada. When you have products that are high nicotine or products that may have volume issues in terms of under declaring volume, it's hard for the government to know, right? They need help. So the tax dollars can help them increase enforcement efforts. and that's needed. It can also help create guidelines in regards to who's a legitimate supplier and who isn't, because you would have to obtain your license, which goes through rigorous Canada Revenue Agency audits quite frequently, six times a year. So it also makes sure it keeps the bad players out. and those that want to legitimately be in the marketplace to be there. So I think it has its benefits, but we would like to see tax being taxed at relative risk on the product itself and not based on a made-up number in terms of what would be recommended by NGOs.
57:41 - 58:10
[Jonathan Fell]
Asanda, you've spoken a little bit about the the background in South Africa and how effectively these newer tobacco-harmed products, produced-harmed products, haven't been regulated. And so the industry, to some extent, has tried to create its own regulation. Can you talk a bit about why you think that has been necessary and also some of the challenges involved in actually putting that framework into place as a self-regulated thing?
58:11 - 63:10
[Asanda Gcoyi]
I think we recognized quite early on, I've got the chairman of my board here who was among the founding members of the association, that in order for the industry to grow or even be given a chance, you needed to have a body that would speak on behalf of the industry, which is why the Vapor Products Association was formed in the first place. And while we wait and waited for the regulations, the industry was very fragmented. I mean, you have players from springing up from every corner of the country. But the good thing is, inasmuch as there is no regulation, I often hear people saying then the quality of the products that come into the country must be so bad or you don't know what's in these products, that we have a national compulsory body that looks at electrotechnical stuff. So every product that does come into the country anyway, whether there's a legal framework or not, needs to comply to a particular standards. And before any vaping products come to the country, they would need to apply for what is known as a letter of authority. So that is linked up with your IECs, the ISOs, etc. So they're clear global standards that these products need to comply with anyways. But then when it comes to how businesses conduct themselves and what's required, we've created quite a robust code of conduct as part of the association, as part of governance and managing ourselves. And as you would expect, not everyone in the country is keen on this because it's quite strict. It gives guidelines on it gives guidelines on packaging, it gives guidelines on the kinds of labeling, et cetera. So we've taken the UK model and sort of tried to adapted for ourselves. So we've got this code of conduct that all our members need to abide by, and if you don't, obviously there are consequences. We've got a very robust youth access prevention initiative that we started as far back as 2021. And there we create guidelines on from the moment a person comes into the shop, the signage that's required, age gates, age verification, staff training, and all of that stuff. And we have also media campaigns around the importance of not selling to young people. But then we recognized quite early on as well that when a company is not part of the association, we have no jurisdiction over them, you know, so there's not much we can do. So, we then partnered with organizations that do have jurisdiction in the rest of the country. So, for example, when it comes to the issue of youth access prevention, South Africa has what you call the Advertising Regulatory Board, which is responsible for how advertising is done in all consumer products in the country. We worked together with them and we created what is called the South African Vaping Advertising Code. So that code, whether you're a member of the association or not, if you go against the prescripts of that code, then you can be fined. And that looks at protecting the kinds of advertising that you put out, making sure that your advertising does not appeal to young people and you don't make false health claims. So that has been successful in the sense that even though we don't have jurisdiction over you when you're doing something as a self-regulatory body, the ARB can do something about it. And we also have an interesting program when it comes to waste management. It's called the Extended Producer Responsibility Program. We've partnered with one of the leading waste management companies in the country as well. So we've sort of taken the initiative. It's not perfect. We could have just sat back and did nothing. But we figured if we are to give this industry an opportunity, we need to be proactive. And part of that was to ensure that We give consumers products that they can safely say of good quality. And another important one, as of last year, South Africa has vaping product standards by the South African Bureau of Standards. So we've done quite a lot in a self-regulatory framework. And the idea is that the regulators don't need to start from scratch. there's a lot of stuff that they can pick up from what we've done, and we can keep the bus moving.
63:11 - 64:46
[Jonathan Fell]
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to be coming to you for questions in a second, and something I'm going to put to all the panellists at the end is, what is your top one or two wishes for regulation in this sector? So if you could think about that, I'm going to bring some microphones to you in a moment. But before that, one more question. to the panel from me. So there was a spokesman from a big Canadian company, tobacco business, who went on the record the other week, Sam pointed this out to me, saying, we agree there are too many vaping flavours on the market and support the proposed federal vaping regulation to restrict flavours to tobacco, mint and menthol. We believe those flavours are sufficient for adults looking to quit smoking. Now I don't think that's the position of the company globally. I should point out, it's definitely not Imperial Tobacco's, Imperial Brands' position, and Deborah, you mentioned why flavours are so important to adult smokers wanting to quit. Why do you think that company made that statement? I'll put that to Sam first, but then more generally to the panel. Do you think the industry... in its widest sense, is sometimes guilty of inconsistency in what it says, and does it try and use regulation sometimes to gain competitive advantage to the detriment actually of the wider tobacco harm reduction story?
64:52 - 68:28
[Sam Tam]
I have to say I was quite disappointed when I saw that press conference. We know how effective flavors are. The Public Health Agency of Canada actually in January published that flavors are extremely important in terms of helping a smoker transition to a less harmful alternative. And I think the study was relevant. It was done by University of Waterloo. And it highlight that if the government did go through with the flavor ban, 68% of those users would be using flavors that would be banned. So it highlights the importance of flavors. And the studies there, the science is there, the evidence is there. Why they support the nicotine control groups call for a flavor ban, and I have to be honest, it's probably more motivated on on competitive advantage. The Canadian landscape is quite different. It is made up of thousands of small businesses and there are tens of thousands of communities that sell vaping products as well. There are restrictions in Canada where youth have access. Only tobacco, mint and menthol are available, depending on province. So I'll use Ontario as an example. If you're an age-restricted retailer, you can sell any flavors that you want. That means that if you're a minor, you can't walk into a vape shop The stores have to be frosted with windows. You can't see through inside. So there's a pathway for adults to access flavors without youth being exposed. But I think it's a bit going backwards. If the government doesn't impose a flavor ban, we know what will happen. The government will know what will happen. The entire market would go 100% illicit. which we have seen that happen in those provinces that have flavor bans. There are four provinces in Canada plus two territories that have a flavor ban. They were influenced by nicotine control groups to go down that pathway. They did not follow the federal government's position to not ban flavors. And we've seen those markets, in some cases, go 100% illicit And now the government is now stuck with enforcing those provinces that have flavor bans, which of course impacting government revenues, right? Illicit dealers don't pay taxes. We have in a number of cases seen these illicit dealers sell to kids at school. We have visual photos of that happening. We've sent that to the government. And I really believe that we need to have good regulations, and going back to what you've mentioned, you know, what are the top, you know, one or two wishes is no more prohibition because it doesn't work, not effective, and it creates a major problem for government, which is it fuels illicit trade, and it impacts harm reduction, right? And of course, for our government, if they have a goal to reach less than 5% smoking rate by 2035, they're not gonna be able to get there without vaping. They've highlighted that. Canada has 1.9 million adult vapers. And that's a sizable population that's vaping today. There will be a huge impact on those that have chosen vaping as a less harmful alternative.
68:32 - 70:02
[Asanda Gcoyi]
On the question of the vaping businesses, I think I've noticed something. I mean, when I look back, this is vaping specialist stores in particular. When I look back to when these started in South Africa a couple, say, eight, ten years ago, The individuals who started these businesses were a lot more driven by this concept of harm reduction. They were started by people who were themselves smokers. So they really did believe, they still do. But over the years, you've seen a different profile of business person coming into the space. that are not necessarily driven by the advocacy side of harm reduction, but more from a business point of view. And that changes the landscape completely because this is where conflicting interests start making their way into the fore, where even, I mean, for us in South Africa now, you have groups that are calling for the ban of disposables. You know, you have groups that are supporting limitation of flavors, you know, and those reasons are based purely from a business point of view for themselves. So we are seeing that change in the industry and sometimes industry does have different messages that they're putting out there and the onus is on us. That's why it's so important what our organization does that we then become this voice that speaks for broadly consumers as well as business.
70:03 - 70:03
[Jonathan Fell]
Thank you.
70:06 - 71:56
[Arkadi Sharkov]
On the question of the two innovations that you asked the audience, I would like to add that every year for the past six or seven years, we're making a report which is called Excise for Health. So if we, where we calculate, if we earmark the budget, the revenue which comes from different excise taxes, and we speak about tobacco. If we earmark only 10% of this budget, then we can fund policies for prevention or for treatment of non-communicable diseases which are attributed to using such products. So earmarking this excise taxation could, let's put it in this sense, could lower the resistance in terms of resistance from authorities like WHO and other authorities which are combating totally and want to exclude tobacco from the daily life, although they cannot. because you're showing them that there is reinvestment in healthcare and those people that are using can fund programs for other people that need to stop smoking or need to be treated from such diseases. This is one, and second is attributing risk When we speak about risk contribution, there is the so-called health technology assessment. When we speak about pharmaceuticals and we speak about medical devices in the healthcare field, this could be re-transferred as risk technology assessment when attributing risk from different types of tobacco and nicotine products towards the health of the people. And by standardizing this, this could be also helpful for people to use less harmful products.
71:58 - 73:00
[Deborah Binks-Moore]
So I think I'll try and make it short in the interest of time. I come back to where I started, which is the three principles. It's about responsible choice. So any harm reduction strategy needs to start with a really deep understanding of the very diverse behaviours and preferences of consumers. That is the place to start. And we know that if regulation is done to people who smoke rather than for people who smoke, it tends to fail and lead to unintended consequences. So then we come back to that responsible choice underpinned by enforcement and collaboration. And indeed, I think as an industry, my observation coming here from different experiences in energy and e-commerce, you see a lot more collaboration in that regulatory space. influencing space. And I think that would bring me to my wish, you know, to do that. But based in fact, data and science, it's related to what is going to shift the behaviour of consumers and give them responsible choice.
73:01 - 73:05
[Jonathan Fell]
Thank you. Do we have any questions from the floor? Derek, you've got your hand up.
73:10 - 75:52
[Derek Yach]
Thanks, and really fascinating panel. Brief comment and two brief questions to two different people. The comment is really a plea to Sam. I know everybody has become invoked to talk about Sweden being the first country to have a smoking rate under 5%. Let's stop using that, please. It's completely wrong. Nigeria has 230 million people and the smoking rate is 3%. Ethiopia has 130 million people and the smoking rate is 3%. They never rose to 5%, and that gives a very different perspective on how we approach these issues when we actually see the reality as opposed to the rhetoric. Asanda, fantastic to have you present such an outstanding sort of sense of what we could be doing. And I sat in the room with Kozuzana Zuma in 1994 when the initial act was revised. And it showed me how little things have changed. Because she was required, as you know, by Mandela to call in industry to have a chance before the Act was revised. And she called the meeting at 11.30 at night, and it went on through the night because it wasn't told when they had to have it. And there was, at that time, like you described, no real chance for an industry presentation to happen. But it just shows things change and things don't change. But my question to you is, Given the fact that South Africa is one of the few countries in the world with a very strong constitutional right to life, can that not be invoked in ensuring that tobacco harm reduction is incorporated into law, since the failure to do it violates the potential right to life, given there are 42,000 deaths from South Africa every year from tobacco, and the estimates show that you could cut those dramatically from harm reduction Has that been considered as a constitutional effort if the law goes in? And then very briefly to Akadi. I've always been interested in Bulgaria because I think most people don't realize it was the world's largest exporter of cigarettes for a decade or two. The question is, what has been the success of ICOS and heated tobacco products in Bulgaria? And I assume they are not up for a ban. If that's the case, why are they not up for a ban when e-cigarettes are?
75:56 - 76:53
[Asanda Gcoyi]
Thank you, thank you very much, Derek, for that. The good news is I think with political changes, a lot of things can change. So the last elections where the ruling party of the past did not have a majority have given us that opportunity right now where we speak about human rights as a possibility in the narratives that we have. Currently in the portfolio committee of health, you've got very diverse views. You've got individuals that are advocating for tobacco harm reduction. And I think that's good. It means that even the fact that we were able to go to NEDLEC, for example, tells you that the tide is shifting. We just need to keep pushing. But I do see a big difference. So no more dogma, no more ideology. It's still within the grouping, but there are other voices as well that are being listened to. So that's something to be hopeful about.
76:53 - 76:59
[Jonathan Fell]
Thanks. Heated tobacco in Bulgaria. Bulgaria.
77:00 - 78:49
[Arkadi Sharkov]
Well, I don't know about the exact market share. I can only say that they are everywhere. I speak about such products. And why are they not banned? As a given example, with the government standing behind their own industries, I can say that the government representing uh this industry has a very strong embassy uh and interest in bulgaria and that's why when you speak about uh industry representatives we do not present only the industry but also the country which is behind it that's why i gave uh example with china producing disposable waves etc etc etc but if it consolidates in a bigger uh how should i say bigger represented group as the big industry tobacco companies are. We speak about PMI, we speak about BAT, we speak about Japan tobacco, we speak about imperial tobacco, about Karelia, etc. They're well represented because they're a very big revenue source for the government. And the government doesn't like to lose this source. And in comparative terms, the disposable vapes weren't that big of a source, and also they were an easy target. As I started with this example that a couple of kids died from vapes with illicit substances. The politicians intentionally do not make a difference between the products. I'm pretty sure they know that there is a difference, but you put the vape and everything is vape, no matter if it's disposable, rechargeable, whatever. And at the end of the day, it comes to lobbying. So it is what it is.
78:50 - 78:55
[Jonathan Fell]
Thank you. Jeannie, I think you had a question. Could you make a quick one? Because we are out of time, I think.
78:57 - 80:00
[Jeannie Cameron]
Thank you. My question's about the UK, so it's to Deborah. I wanted to just say the UK has always been traditionally one of the leadership countries in terms of tobacco harm reduction, but as we know, there's a tobacco and vapes bill going through the parliament now, and it's just had the disposable ban. It's going to bring in a tax from October next year. And I guess my question to you is, how do you see the UK after these things have come into place? And do you think that there is possibility or room for the UK to continue its sort of leadership role by sort of more engagement with some of the leading scientific and the Royal College of Physicians, et cetera, who've always had very strong views advocating for the UK and the harm reduction route. And how do you see that changing in the future in terms of what's going on now, where it could get back to?
80:00 - 81:34
[Deborah Binks-Moore]
I think that a new approach to the regulation of vaping has long been overdue in the UK. And we've been saying that for a number of years. I think the government is committed to preventing youth access and building trust in the category. And it believes in the principle of THR, and that's what's underpinning that. We think it's right that there is extra rigour to the regulation of vaping products, but in a way that doesn't detract their appeal to adult smokers. So we would advocate for that to still be a responsible choice around flavours, etc., and we offer a range of reduced-risk products through our blue brand, and we've navigated the disposable ban quite well with our pod-based device. And we would advocate for a responsible, proportionate, excise on pods and so that is happening from october 2026 what we really want to happen is stronger enforcement against illicit players and a more predictable and proportionate response around excise and equalization of sct and fmc and so on and so forth but i remain optimistic that the NHS and Royal College of Physicians will remain strong proponents and supporters of tobacco harm reduction and it's certainly a key part of our advocacy and engagement plan in the UK.
81:37 - 81:49
[Jonathan Fell]
Thank you very much. I said I'd ask each panellist for their wish on regulation. What would you change, if you could, in the way that regulation is approached in this sector? Deborah, you said, I think,
81:50 - 82:03
[Deborah Binks-Moore]
I think I said I would want greater industry collaboration, first and foremost, so that we really can all align around that, the principles of responsible choice and the consumer being at the heart of the tobacco harm reduction journey.
82:04 - 82:17
[Arkadi Sharkov]
Arkady, do you have a wish? Transparency and evidence-based double-blind longitudinal studies, which will give a very big light on what is happening, what is harmful, less harmful, et cetera.
82:18 - 82:25
[Asanda Gcoyi]
Similar to Deborah, I think collaboration is key. You need to bring all the stakeholders around the table.
82:28 - 82:28
[Jonathan Fell]
Sam?
82:30 - 82:53
[Sam Tam]
Yeah, I think I agree with everyone. I think I talked about the private-public partnership between government and stakeholders. That's really important in order to create evidence-based policies. Those are key. And, of course, fair taxation, right? Tax based on relative risk is important as well.
82:53 - 83:02
[Jonathan Fell]
We will stop there. Thank you very much indeed. each of our panelists. I thought that was a really interesting discussion and thank you for all the time and effort you put into thinking about that.