Unpacking complexities surrounding tobacco control policy formulation and tobacco industry interference in South Africa: A qualitative study

Mateusz Zatonski, Adam Bertscher, Allen Gallagher, Britta Matthes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

South Africa (SA) used to be recognized as a committed leader in tobacco control (TC) having passed effective TC policies in the 1990s, but in recent years, it has been overtaken by other countries. While research suggests that the tobacco industry (TI) predominantly uses economic arguments to shape TC policy discussions in SA, TI tactics to influence policy formulation have not been examined in the peer-reviewed literature. In this study, we draw on three frameworks (health policy triangle, ‘bit in the middle’, and Policy Dystopia Model) and 20 interviews, supplemented with academic and ‘grey’ literature, to explore TC policy formulation in SA. We focus on SA’s 2018 draft TC Bill, which as of January 2025 has not been adopted. We found that despite SA’s commitment to protect TC policies from the TI’s vested interests, as set out in Article 5.3 of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, TI actors interfered throughout the policy formulation process. Participants reported efforts to shape policy alternatives by influencing the impact assessment and generating favourable evidence. To influence deliberation, they lobbied policymakers. To advocate for their preferred outcome, they sought to shape public opinion through campaigns and built alliances, for example, with the non-tobacco business community. The identified strategies were consistent with those observed elsewhere. Some were tailored to the SA context characterised by political corruption, and sensitivity around race and the legacy of Apartheid, as well as rivalry between transnational corporations and local producers. Industry actors also sought to redirect attention to TC areas (illicit trade and taxation) not led by the health sector, likely more susceptible to TI influence. The study demonstrates to policymakers, advocates, and researchers, the importance of not looking at a TC policy in isolation and of being mindful of industry efforts to exploit inherent policy-making complexities.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)531–547
Number of pages17
JournalHealth Policy and Planning
Volume40
Issue number5
Early online date4 Mar 2025
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 30 Jun 2025

Data Availability Statement

No data are available.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all participants for contributing to the project. We would also like to thank Prof. Anna Gilmore for her input in the early stages of the project and Karin Silver for her editorial help. This project was initially led by Dr Mateusz Zatoński (1987–2022) who was a very passionate and talented researcher, and we (A.B., A.W.A.G., and B.K.M.) finalized it in his memory.

Funding

During policy formulation, the TI also attempted to fund research and scientific events to create an industry-favourable environment. The Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW) (rebranded to Global Action to End Smoking in May 2024) (Tobaccotactics ), which was solely funded by PMI (), was set to donate over R1 million to the UCT\u2019s Department of Psychiatry and Mental Health to establish the African Centre of Excellence for Smoking and Mental Health in 2018 (J, R1/3/6, ). This attempt was thwarted by academics at the institution who objected, although some of the money was spent (R3). Since then, in 2019, the UCT has implemented a policy prohibiting university staff and affiliates from accepting any research funding from the TI (). Also, in 2018, the FSFW awarded a R1.2 million grant to the University of Stellenbosch\u2019s Business School focused on \u2018research and projects regarding quitting or switching\u2019 (). In 2021, the FSFW awarded funding to The Foundation for Professional Development, which in turn sponsored SA\u2019s 7th Tuberculosis Conference (). After this became public, the organization stated they would pay back unspent funding and withdraw its research from journals (). A.B. received a PhD studentship from the University of Bath. A.W.A.G. and B.K.M. are, and M.Z. was, funded through Bloomberg Philanthropies\u2019 Stopping Tobacco Organizations and Products funding (http://www.bloomberg.org/). None of the funders had any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

FundersFunder number
President's Malaria Initiative
University of Bath
Smoke-Free World
Foundation for a Smoke-Free World
African Centre of Excellence for Smoking and Mental HealthR1/3/6

    Keywords

    • South Africa
    • policy formulation
    • tobacco control
    • tobacco industry interference

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • General Medicine

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Unpacking complexities surrounding tobacco control policy formulation and tobacco industry interference in South Africa: A qualitative study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this