Abstract
Background In 2023, the UK government proposed a Bill introducing a generational ban on the sale of tobacco products and measures targeting youth nicotine product (NP) use. Industries’ responses remain unexplored.
Methods We analysed 43 consultation and evidence submissions from tobacco and nicotine industry-linked actors, assessing their connections to transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) and using an evidence-based taxonomy to examine framing strategies.
Results TTCs and actors with known current TTC links accounted for 42% of submissions. Other actors—some with historic TTC ties—were other tobacco products (OTPs) specialists, NP specialists and retailers. Tobacco and nicotine industries were generally portrayed as ‘good’ with TTCs framing themselves as public health champions, while policymakers, the public health community and non-compliant sellers were depicted as ‘bad’ actors. TTCs, linked groups and additional OTP actors opposed the generational ban, arguing it lacked evidence and would harm the economy and increase violence against retailers. Proposed alternative approaches included exempting heated tobacco products (HTPs) and OTPs, and raising the age of sale to 21. TTCs, linked actors and NP actors opposed restrictions on NP flavours, packaging and display, arguing these would infringe on rights, harm retailers, stifle innovation, and increase smoking and illicit trade. They framed youth NP use as resulting from irresponsible individuals and advocated for education, stricter penalties and self-regulation.
Conclusion When faced with tobacco endgame and nicotine control policies in the UK, tobacco and nicotine industries pushed back using framing strategies common to health-harming industries. Despite contradicting their ‘transformation’ narratives, TTCs still sought to position themselves as public health actors deserving policy access. Advocates, researchers and policymakers can anticipate opposition to endgame policies—such as a generational sales ban—and NP restrictions, proactively preparing to counter this opposition in order to safeguard public health policy from vested interests.
Methods We analysed 43 consultation and evidence submissions from tobacco and nicotine industry-linked actors, assessing their connections to transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) and using an evidence-based taxonomy to examine framing strategies.
Results TTCs and actors with known current TTC links accounted for 42% of submissions. Other actors—some with historic TTC ties—were other tobacco products (OTPs) specialists, NP specialists and retailers. Tobacco and nicotine industries were generally portrayed as ‘good’ with TTCs framing themselves as public health champions, while policymakers, the public health community and non-compliant sellers were depicted as ‘bad’ actors. TTCs, linked groups and additional OTP actors opposed the generational ban, arguing it lacked evidence and would harm the economy and increase violence against retailers. Proposed alternative approaches included exempting heated tobacco products (HTPs) and OTPs, and raising the age of sale to 21. TTCs, linked actors and NP actors opposed restrictions on NP flavours, packaging and display, arguing these would infringe on rights, harm retailers, stifle innovation, and increase smoking and illicit trade. They framed youth NP use as resulting from irresponsible individuals and advocated for education, stricter penalties and self-regulation.
Conclusion When faced with tobacco endgame and nicotine control policies in the UK, tobacco and nicotine industries pushed back using framing strategies common to health-harming industries. Despite contradicting their ‘transformation’ narratives, TTCs still sought to position themselves as public health actors deserving policy access. Advocates, researchers and policymakers can anticipate opposition to endgame policies—such as a generational sales ban—and NP restrictions, proactively preparing to counter this opposition in order to safeguard public health policy from vested interests.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Tobacco Control |
| Early online date | 23 Mar 2025 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 23 Mar 2025 |
Data Availability Statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. The written evidence submissions are publicly available on the UK Parliament website; the consultation responses are not publicly available at the time of writing (February 2025), but the 13 that we used in this analysis are available from us upon reasonable request.Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Matthew Chapman for providing the consultation responses and the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.Funding
The authors’ time was funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies as part of the Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use ( www. bloomberg. org).
