0:01

The New Statesman Before

0:05

we begin, we wanted to be as transparent

0:07

as possible about how we have produced this

0:09

episode which has been paid for by Philip

0:11

Morris International. The New Statesman retained

0:14

full editorial control of the episode. As

0:16

is normal with many podcast interviews, our guest,

0:19

Dr Moira Gilchrist, an employee of PMI, took

0:21

part in a briefing call prior to recording

0:23

where we shared the broad topics we wanted

0:25

to cover so she could prepare for the

0:28

interview. However, we did not share questions in

0:30

advance. It was also agreed

0:32

in advance that although PMI are paying for

0:34

the episode, no question is off limits. PMI

0:37

have been allowed to hear a preview of

0:39

the episode for fact-checking, but they have not

0:41

changed any of the editorial content. Most importantly,

0:44

we want to hear from you about our

0:46

partnered podcast in general and this discussion in

0:48

particular. Please do get in

0:50

touch with us to share your

0:52

views. You can email podcasts at

0:54

newstatesman.co.uk. And now to the episode.

1:02

Can Rishi Sunak succeed in

1:05

creating a smoke-free generation? I'm

1:07

Becky Slack, and this is a special episode

1:09

of the New Statesman podcast. In

1:17

March this year, the government introduced the Tobacco

1:19

and Vapes Bill, which aims to create the

1:21

first smoke-free generation by banning the sale of

1:23

tobacco products to anyone born after the 1st

1:25

of January 2009. It's

1:28

a flagship policy for Rishi Sunak, who

1:30

first announced it with much fanfare in

1:32

his speech at the Conservative Party Conference

1:34

in October. Smoking causes

1:36

one in four cancer deaths. It

1:38

kills 64,000 people a year and

1:40

leads to almost

1:43

one hospital admission every minute.

1:46

I propose that in future we

1:48

raise the smoking age by one

1:50

year every year. That means a

1:53

14-year-old... The

2:00

Neural today will never legally be

2:02

sold a cigarette and that they

2:04

and their generation can grow up

2:06

smoke free. And piece has a

2:08

city that the government's plans and abetted nancy

2:10

to committee stage with support from labour him

2:12

he should be said proposed to progressive smoking

2:14

ban more than again it it can it

2:17

that is it possible for the you case

2:19

against. Note Three. And has proposed

2:21

legislation on fates and to better alternatives

2:23

As though enough. That to

2:25

believe it. Gilchrist is a pharmaceutical

2:27

scientists and the chief communications officer

2:30

The Philip Morris International. The. Stand

2:32

Behind Marlboro Cigarettes. His slogan is

2:34

now Delivering A Smoke Free feature.

2:37

She. Joins me via video Call my that

2:39

welcome Thank you very much Becky of places

2:41

to be here My that let's address the

2:43

elephant in the we insist. Some.

2:45

Listeners will find it difficult to listen

2:47

to the representative of a tobacco company

2:49

like P. Emily. Which. Helped create the

2:51

problem we'll discuss and. Talking. About

2:53

how to say that Smoking Especially in a

2:56

discussion sponsored by that company. What do you

2:58

say to those listeners do they have a

3:00

point to? First of all, I'm very respectful.

3:02

Of the Molson that comes with

3:04

this debates about smoking on how

3:06

to end it. Very respectful. I

3:08

started my career and the health

3:10

care eerie on fully aware of

3:12

the dangers of smoking but i

3:15

to the past the perhaps is

3:17

unknown obvious. One to try and solve

3:19

the problem with smoking And that was to

3:21

join a company that I could see more

3:23

than eighteen years ago. Was. Interested

3:25

in creating viable solutions

3:27

that could contribute to

3:29

reducing the health impacts

3:32

of of cigarettes. So.

3:34

That's a path I tools and all

3:36

I ask listeners to do know is

3:38

listen to the evidence and listen to

3:40

the progress that we've made and make

3:42

their minds up based on that and

3:45

not necessarily the perception. Of the history

3:47

of an industry that frankly my company,

3:49

I can only talk for my company

3:51

his teens. Incredibly. Since

3:53

they may have lost thought about it said

3:55

we might come on to the history as

3:57

pm I am a little later but for

3:59

now. The represents a companies which makes

4:01

huge profits from the sale of tobacco.

4:03

Why now do you claim to be

4:05

in favor of a smoke free Feature

4:08

Is not just now. In fact, this

4:10

is a business Saturday. That we have

4:12

been following for more than a decade.

4:14

Nine. So. I joined the

4:16

company teen years ago to start

4:18

what we know cole or am

4:20

smoke free transformation. We didn't know

4:22

quite the magnitudes a it would

4:24

take the time. That. I

4:27

came from the farm and to see. To set up

4:29

a D R and. D facility to

4:31

be ready for and the

4:33

development and scientific. Assessment of what

4:35

we now call smoke free Alternatives. To.

4:38

This has been long in the meeting. It.

4:40

Took us a while to to get

4:42

em everything in place to get the

4:44

the design of the products in place

4:46

to get the scientific assessment am process

4:48

on going. But we really

4:50

started on that journey And earnest I

4:52

would say in rent A Boat Two

4:54

thousand and Fourteen fifteen timeframe. When. We

4:57

put the first products on the

4:59

market in Japan. And in Italy on

5:01

a small scale at first, but then very

5:03

quickly. Realize that not only

5:05

was the science. Extremely

5:07

promising. But also that

5:09

adult smokers were very interested in

5:11

the products, so that really unlocked a

5:14

different type of thinking for our

5:16

company. Which. Was okay. Cigarettes.

5:19

Were our past? But could the

5:21

smoke free alternatives be our future?

5:23

And. We did a lot of thinking, a

5:26

lot of analysis. And decided. In

5:28

two thousand and sixteen to announce that

5:30

we were going smoke free. So that

5:32

would be the business sense to see

5:34

for the future. So. It's

5:36

not something you know so twenty twenty four

5:38

thing but I think perhaps people haven't noticed

5:40

the transformation that we have gone on certainly

5:42

in the last ten years he talk about

5:45

that of having done this fit more than

5:47

a decade and yet it was in twenty

5:49

fifteen that pm I am try to see

5:51

the Uk government over the last big change

5:53

to tobacco regulations that doesn't seem like the

5:55

option of the company that wants to go

5:57

smoke free. So as as I mentioned that.

6:00

Frame that was around by the time where we

6:02

were not am yet certain what the future business

6:04

just as you would be would. We do that

6:06

again. I'm not sure. We. Would. Were.

6:08

Focus fully on ensuring that

6:10

we are bringing these new

6:13

products because they don't deliver.

6:15

The. Toxic mix of chemicals,

6:17

That cigarette smoke does. So.

6:20

We made a decision as I said in

6:22

in Two Thousand and Sixteen to make that

6:24

the future of our business. We. Welcome

6:26

strict regulation. On combustible cigarettes

6:28

is the right thing to do

6:30

to discourage people from smoking. But.

6:33

What We would also like to see

6:35

his government's encouraging those adults who continue

6:37

to smoke. To. Learn about

6:39

these new alternatives. I'm to

6:41

try them and to switch

6:43

Cinnamon Switch completely rather than

6:45

continuing to smoke. Okay,

6:48

except for the benefit of listeners.

6:50

Can you explain what is the difference

6:52

between dates He to tobacco a

6:54

cigarettes Sure so technologically. Either I'm

6:56

quite difference, but in terms of

6:58

the scientific out pretty he like

7:00

they're they're quite similar Suffer take

7:03

the it's or he cigarettes first.

7:05

These. Are a liquid, make sure

7:08

that contains things like glycerin, some

7:10

water and some flavors and nicotine.

7:13

And. That mixture is heated to

7:15

produce a vapor which then the

7:17

user will and he'll as you

7:20

would do a cigarette and the

7:22

available data including government data. Shows.

7:25

That am the level of harmful

7:27

and potentially harmful chemicals in the

7:30

air. Solar. Vapor from one

7:32

of these products is significantly

7:34

reduce compared to combustible cigarettes.

7:37

Now. And the advantage of

7:39

that is that you're likely

7:41

to see reduced. Risk in terms

7:43

of diseases at a later stage. But.

7:46

One of the disadvantages. Of this

7:48

type of product categories, it's quite

7:50

a different experience for a smoker

7:53

compared to cigarettes. And that's

7:55

where because to be For example, like cheated

7:57

tobacco products come in. so this

7:59

cat takes regular tobacco which is

8:01

processed in a different way to cigarettes

8:03

but then instead of burning the tobacco

8:06

which is the cause of the production

8:08

of the vast majority of the harmful

8:10

chemicals that end up in smoke, these

8:13

products heat it at a temperature below

8:15

the level where it will combust. And

8:18

the result is again a very

8:20

significant reduction in the production of

8:22

the harmful chemicals that are associated

8:24

with smoking related diseases. Now the

8:26

advice... Can I just pick up

8:28

on that slightly? So I've seen

8:30

a study published in the ERJ

8:32

Open Research Journal in 2019 that

8:35

suggests that heated tobacco devices are and

8:37

I quote, no less toxic

8:39

to human lung cells than ordinary cigarette

8:42

smoke. How would you respond to that? So

8:44

I don't know the details of that particular study but

8:46

I can tell you what for example the

8:49

US FDA looked at and the decision

8:51

they made. So we

8:53

submitted a dossier of evidence to

8:55

the FDA in 2016 that contained

8:58

a million pages of evidence

9:00

going from smoke chemistry, aerosol

9:03

chemistry, through to toxicological

9:05

studies, looking at the impact

9:07

on cells, through to

9:09

clinical studies in adults who

9:11

smoke and also behavioural studies.

9:14

The US FDA took about three years

9:16

to look at the evidence, they combed

9:18

through it in great detail and also

9:21

independent evidence as well and came

9:23

to the conclusion that

9:25

switching completely to our

9:27

lead heated tobacco product

9:29

significantly reduces exposure to

9:32

harmful and potentially harmful chemicals. In

9:34

terms of public health, I think

9:36

that's a real advantage and an

9:38

additional benefit along with vaping. Now

9:41

none of these product, Becky, are risk-free.

9:43

I have to be super clear about

9:46

that. These are not for people who

9:48

don't smoke, they're addictive, they contain nicotine

9:50

and they're an adult choice and designed

9:52

to be for adults who currently smoke.

9:54

Haven't we been here before? I mean

9:56

light cigarettes were once marketed as being

9:58

a healthier... less harmful alternative to

10:01

regular cigarettes and then they were found to

10:03

be just as harmful. Indeed, as

10:05

far as I understand it, it was this marketing around

10:07

light cigarettes that formed part of the case by the

10:09

US government when they successfully sued Philip

10:12

Morris for having deceived the public about the

10:14

health effects of cigarettes. So first of all,

10:16

Philip Morris International was not a party to

10:18

the case that you mentioned there. That was the

10:20

US company. It was a completely separate company from

10:22

us. But nevertheless, let's

10:24

talk about what you described, the

10:26

light cigarettes. So if when light

10:28

cigarettes had been introduced, we'd had

10:31

the scientific tools that we have

10:33

today. It would have been crystal

10:35

clear that these products, those

10:38

cigarettes were no better than any other cigarette.

10:40

It would have been crystal clear, but the

10:42

science was not available. If

10:44

you fast forward a few decades,

10:46

we have scientific tools and techniques

10:48

that can clearly show whether

10:50

a product is better than

10:53

cigarette smoke or not. And

10:55

that's the approach we took was to produce high

10:58

quality evidence that regulators, the

11:01

public health community and ultimately

11:03

adult smokers could trust

11:05

in order to inform their decision

11:07

making about what they want to

11:10

do next. So this

11:12

is a completely different scientific construct

11:14

that we're in today because of

11:16

advances in science and technology. We're

11:19

able to say much more about the

11:21

potential impact of these products than ever

11:24

before. Yeah, I mean, you talk

11:26

about trust, but the tobacco industry doesn't exactly

11:28

have a particularly good record when it comes

11:30

to telling the truth about tobacco. For

11:33

years, your sector has refuted scientific evidence

11:35

proving the links between smoking and cancer,

11:37

even funding your own bad science. Why

11:40

should new statesmen listeners take what you're telling them

11:42

on face value? I'm not asking anybody

11:44

to take anything on face value. And I think

11:46

we've done, I personally think a

11:49

very good job of making the

11:51

evidence publicly available. So we're subjecting

11:53

ourselves deliberately to scrutiny. We understand

11:56

that we're entering this debate with

11:58

a deficit of trust. trust and

12:00

you can't ask people to trust you. You

12:03

just have to give them evidence to make

12:05

up their own minds. So

12:07

it's been described by some people as

12:10

a strategy of aggressive transparency. So

12:12

we have a website that's got all

12:14

of our scientific publications on it for

12:16

example. The FDA application,

12:19

all million pages are

12:21

publicly available for people to

12:23

scrutinize. We've made the source

12:25

data for many of our studies publicly

12:27

available so people can analyze it for

12:30

themselves and come to their own conclusion. And

12:33

we did this very deliberately because we

12:35

want people to make up their minds

12:38

based on the evidence and not their

12:40

opinion of us as a company. Okay, let's

12:42

bring the conversation back to the tobacco and

12:44

vapes bill. Do you support the

12:47

government bill? So I think the way

12:49

I would describe it is there's certainly no way Philip

12:51

Morris International is trying to get in the way of

12:53

the bill. But I think if I

12:55

look at the data again, once it's meant

12:57

to be evidence led, the bill doesn't solve

12:59

the problem that exists today. The younger

13:02

generations that this bill is

13:04

aimed to address are

13:07

pretty much already almost smoke free.

13:09

And I think some analysis that

13:11

we did showed that in these

13:14

younger cohorts, they're likely to be smoke

13:16

free anyway about a year after the

13:18

bill comes into effect. But nevertheless,

13:20

if that's something that the government chooses

13:23

to do, it's entirely of course in

13:25

their purview. But what

13:27

about all the adults today that

13:29

already smoke? There's nothing in the

13:31

bill for them. And that I think is

13:33

a wasted opportunity. If

13:36

some political capital and emotion and

13:39

thinking had gone into

13:41

the bill to provide something that

13:43

helps solve the problem for those

13:46

people, then I think we've been

13:48

in a position to get to a smoke free

13:50

society in the United Kingdom at a much greater

13:52

speed and potentially within the next 10 to 15

13:54

years for all

13:56

age cohorts, not just younger

13:58

generations. You said that you

14:00

weren't getting in the way of the bill,

14:02

so does this mean that PMI wasn't one

14:04

of the tobacco companies that were lobbying MPs

14:07

to vote against it? So look, we make

14:09

our opinions known to policymakers, regulators

14:11

all around the world, and there's

14:13

nothing to be ashamed of about

14:15

that. It's important. We have important

14:18

evidence, science, etc. that policymakers need

14:20

to know about. And

14:23

I think we have views about the bill,

14:25

particularly because it conflates cigarettes

14:27

with heated tobacco products, which

14:30

goes against the evidence that's available

14:32

and has the potential to cause

14:34

confusion among adult smokers about what

14:36

could be a better choice. So

14:39

I think that's something that we felt quite strongly

14:41

about. And I think, again, diverting

14:43

a bit of energy and thought

14:45

into what's the impact on current

14:47

adult smokers is definitely

14:49

something that politicians should be doing today.

14:53

Health campaigners have proposed that the tobacco

14:55

industry should have a levy placed on

14:57

their combustible business, which would cap profits

14:59

and provide revenue to initiatives that aim

15:02

to reduce smoking. Would PMI support a

15:04

measure like that? So we're

15:06

open to discussions with all sorts of

15:08

stakeholders about measures that can accelerate the

15:10

end of smoking. Completely

15:12

happy to engage with anybody who wants to

15:14

have that type of serious discussion.

15:17

But I think these discussions need to cover

15:20

the full gamut of potential options that

15:22

could be put on the table. So

15:25

things like informing adult smokers about

15:27

these alternatives that exist, that can

15:29

we have education campaigns for the

15:32

most hard to reach smokers to

15:34

help them understand that quitting is the best

15:36

option, but if they don't quit, they

15:38

should consider alternatives rather than continuing to

15:40

smoke. You can look at all sorts

15:43

of supply and demand measures that

15:45

can accelerate the end of smoking. So

15:47

I would welcome a debate with each

15:49

and every stakeholder who wants to

15:52

discuss the ideas that we have. There's

15:54

been a lot of focus on the role

15:56

of vapes and heated tobacco products in helping

15:58

people to solve the problem. Okay,

16:01

I'd like to talk a minute or two

16:03

about those put up. Seen A gateway to

16:05

smoking. I've seen data from the

16:07

European Commission published and Twenty Twenty One that

16:09

says as moderate evidence that young people who

16:11

use a cigarette some fates of greater risk

16:13

of starting. To his cigarettes than

16:16

those who don't. Similar. Data

16:18

from Us and other campaigners

16:20

say. Taught. Me about that.

16:22

I mean that ie. talk about lunch and

16:24

Chris makes the world. But isn't the reality

16:26

that these products are actually don't result in

16:28

even more people smoking? I'm aware

16:30

of some of the day turn on

16:32

some of the opinions of some public

16:34

health groups on this. But. I think

16:37

we have to look at what does the real world data

16:39

so. If it were true

16:41

that these products were acting as a

16:43

gateway to smoking, You. Would expect

16:45

to see increases and smoking rates

16:47

among Am populations who are using

16:50

these new products like these and

16:52

he to tobacco products. And

16:54

thought the real world data shows that the opposite.

16:57

Is true if we take Japan

16:59

as an example where he to

17:01

tobacco products are are pretty prevalent

17:03

among adult smokers. Cigarette. Sales have

17:05

plummeted In Japan. the plummeted. So

17:08

that's one example if you take the

17:10

example of data from. The. Uk.

17:13

Where V thing is particularly

17:15

prevalent cigarette. Smoking rates have gone

17:17

down and plateaued a little bit know

17:20

which indicates. That perhaps more can

17:22

be done to encourage smokers to

17:24

switch to better alternatives. But.

17:26

I'm not aware of countries where you see.

17:29

Prevalence. Of smoke free alternatives

17:31

has cause an increase in smoking

17:33

is the opposite. Sweden is another

17:35

fantastic example. Where. The prevalence of.

17:38

Alternatives is very high. A product

17:40

called snooze is very prevalent and

17:42

smoking. Rates are among some of the lowest

17:44

in the world. So. Again, I would

17:46

encourage people. To little what's actually happening in

17:48

the real world. There's a

17:51

phenomenon called com and liability. so

17:53

people who are more likely to smoke

17:55

are also more likely to use these

17:57

alternatives because of all sorts of other

18:00

factors rather than just the products. So

18:02

that may play a role. So that's

18:04

why looking at this real world evidence

18:06

to see what's happening in the world

18:08

in places where these products are prevalent

18:10

and it does not indicate that there's

18:12

a gateway effect. In fact, it indicates

18:15

that these products may be a gateway out

18:17

of smoking rather than into smoking. And

18:20

yeah, I saw a study yesterday about smoking among

18:22

middle class women in England up by 25%.

18:25

Is that linked to vapes and heated

18:27

tobacco in any way? I would

18:29

not imagine so. What it could be

18:31

linked to is confusion. So we

18:33

see in the last few years that

18:36

smokers have become increasingly and

18:38

worryingly confused as to whether

18:40

vaping is a better alternative

18:42

to continuing to smoke. We

18:44

see that medical profession is confused.

18:47

And I think this is something where

18:49

the media, where we as tobacco companies,

18:52

where public health people can play a

18:54

much greater role in ensuring that people

18:56

like this class of women that

18:58

these reports have been published

19:01

in the last few days are very

19:04

aware about the ongoing dangers of smoking

19:06

and very aware about the alternatives that

19:08

exist to them if they're not going

19:11

to quit. So it's a responsibility

19:13

of us all to make sure that we're

19:15

not missing farming people and that they have

19:17

the right information to guide their choices. So

19:20

the ongoing dangers, if we're going to

19:22

talk about those, but we need to

19:24

talk about that more broadly including heated

19:27

tobacco products, e-cigarettes, vapes as well because

19:29

they do come with risks. That's correct.

19:31

I think I mentioned before, none of these

19:33

products are risk-free and I think we are

19:35

very clear with our consumers and

19:37

very clear with the regulators and

19:39

policymakers as well that they're not

19:42

risk-free. The best option for anybody

19:44

is never to start smoking and if they

19:46

have started smoking then they should quit.

19:49

But for those who don't, the evidence

19:51

shows that these products are a much,

19:53

much better choice than continuing to smoke and

19:56

that's the message that needs to be got

19:58

across to adults in the United. Kingdom.

20:00

And one of the risks of these products is

20:02

that it causes asthma I believe. PMI

20:05

as well as selling products that

20:07

cause asthma you also own the

20:09

pharmaceutical company Vectura which makes

20:11

asthma inhalers I believe. So not only do

20:13

you make millions of the products which cause

20:15

asthma but you also profit off the products

20:18

which treat it. How would you

20:20

answer those critics that say this is a massive

20:22

conflict of interest? So first of all I think

20:24

these critics have not really thought about

20:26

the long-term strategy of this

20:28

company. We did not purchase

20:30

Vectura to access revenues from

20:33

asthma inhalers. What we

20:35

purchased Vectura for was to unlock

20:37

a future revenue stream which is

20:39

about products that are nothing to

20:41

do with smoking, nothing to do

20:43

with smoking related diseases. That's not

20:45

quite true is it? It's not that it's not nothing to do

20:48

with it when the product is solving

20:50

a condition that is caused by smoking. So

20:54

what I'm saying is the strategic

20:56

interest for us in Vectura

20:58

was not their current product

21:01

portfolio. It's what we

21:03

can do and develop that goes

21:05

completely away from what the company

21:07

is currently working on into

21:10

new avenues. And one avenue we've been

21:12

looking at for example is

21:14

a product that can help to treat

21:17

migraines as an example. So

21:19

this is about unlocking a future

21:21

strategy for the company so that

21:23

ultimately in the long term we

21:26

can abandon cigarettes more quickly.

21:28

So if we have other revenue

21:30

streams it helps us then in

21:33

the transformation. So I think critics

21:35

have been a little bit short-sighted when

21:37

they've looked at that acquisition and thought

21:39

about things in the near term rather

21:41

than in the long term. I

21:43

think there's nothing wrong with

21:45

a tobacco company trying to

21:47

change their portfolio and mix

21:49

of revenue streams in

21:51

order to be able to transition away

21:53

from cigarettes more quickly. Why

22:00

don't you just stop selling them now? So that's a

22:02

question I get often. If

22:04

you think about it logically, if Philip Morris

22:06

International stopped selling cigarettes in the United Kingdom,

22:08

first of all, we have a very small

22:11

market share in the United Kingdom. But if

22:13

we did, smokers wouldn't

22:15

just stop smoking because our brands

22:17

weren't available. What they would do

22:19

is go and seek out a

22:21

brand from a competitor and our

22:23

competitors would gladly fulfill that demand.

22:26

So us unilaterally stopping selling cigarettes

22:28

does nothing to solve the problem

22:31

with smoking. What we

22:33

decided to do was to do

22:35

a managed transition whereby we could

22:38

vary the amount of investment we

22:40

had in smoke pre-products compared

22:42

to combustible cigarettes

22:44

over time to

22:47

increase the share of smoke

22:49

pre-alternatives and reduce the share

22:51

of combustible cigarettes.

22:53

I think we've actually done a

22:55

really impressive job of this because

22:57

the first product, as I mentioned, came on the

22:59

market only in a couple of countries in 2014-2015

23:01

timeframe. And

23:05

now they make up 36% of our net revenues last

23:07

year. And

23:09

I think that's incredible progress and we've been

23:11

able to do that by diverting

23:13

resources away from

23:15

combustible cigarettes into

23:17

smoke pre-alternatives. So 99%

23:20

of our R&D spend is now going

23:22

on smoke pre-alternatives. If

23:24

we just decided to stop selling cigarettes

23:26

in a country somewhere, first

23:29

of all our shareholders would sack

23:31

our CEO, number one, because that's

23:33

a destruction of shareholder value. And

23:35

number two, our competitors would simply

23:37

just take up the slack. Compustible

23:39

tobacco, it's still big business for you though, isn't

23:41

it? I'm looking at your latest company report that

23:43

says in 2023, PMI shipped 613 billion cigarettes

23:49

versus 125 billion heated tobacco units. So

23:54

It's true that that's a year-on-year

23:56

increase of nearly 15% for your

23:58

heated tobacco products. The Damn?

24:00

Just one point Four percent. Aren't

24:02

you just adding new tobacco products to the

24:04

market rather than reducing cigarette use. Not.

24:07

A home because you have to look back

24:09

in history. That says one One Years reports.

24:11

In. Countries where smoke free products

24:14

are available. The. Reduction in

24:16

cigarette sales is increase. Compared

24:18

with countries where they are not available.

24:21

To some countries we simply unable to preach

24:23

are heated tobacco products on the market if

24:25

you take Turkey if you take India. If

24:27

you take a street Leah. It's simply

24:29

legally not possible to put the products

24:31

on the market, so there we have

24:33

no alternative than to sell cigarettes and

24:36

consumers. Unfortunately, Have no

24:38

alternative other than to continue

24:40

smoking cigarettes as well. So.

24:42

This is where we're urging governments to look at

24:45

their policies and see actually are we doing the

24:47

right. Thing to drive down cigarette

24:49

sales and drive down smoking. For.

24:52

Our citizens that P M I

24:54

it retains a total international market

24:56

shares Twenty three Point Seven Sensible

24:58

Cigarettes sold globally excluding the Us

25:00

and and China. If I'm

25:02

not mistaken, which is actually a small

25:04

increase on twenty twenty to. Answer

25:07

he to tobacco products that are could share

25:09

his four point seven percent and that's not

25:11

smoke free is it. That

25:13

market share that's not talking

25:15

about increasing increasing a market

25:18

overall. Again, For. A corporation.

25:20

We have responsibilities. Shareholders to

25:22

be competitive and we will

25:24

remain competitive in combustible cigarettes.

25:26

As we manage to transformation to

25:29

to smoke free alternatives. But.

25:31

I think Becky, you have to put

25:33

this in context: we are the market

25:35

leader and smoke free alternatives and we

25:38

are driving the transformation of the entire

25:40

industry away from combustible cigarettes. Our competitors

25:42

are no all following our lead. They

25:44

have heated tobacco products as well as

25:47

beeping products as well as patches on

25:49

the market. And. This is a positive

25:51

thing for adults who smoke around the

25:53

world. The more choice. That they have.

25:56

The. More likely they are to move

25:58

away from cigarettes and. that's what

26:00

we need to focus on now. What

26:03

is the policy that governments can put

26:05

in place that can encourage a rapid

26:07

transition away from cigarettes? You

26:09

mentioned the word choice but some people would

26:11

say that it's not particularly a choice when

26:13

these products are highly addictive. They

26:15

have a choice between cigarettes which

26:17

are addictive and these other

26:19

products which are also addictive but come

26:22

with a fraction of the harmful chemicals

26:24

along with nicotine. And that's

26:27

something that I believe very strongly,

26:29

adult smokers deserve to learn about

26:31

because they're making choices every single

26:33

day to buy packets of cigarettes.

26:35

Why shouldn't they learn about these

26:37

other products that are available

26:39

and we need to help them

26:41

basically to make an informed choice?

26:44

That's all we have time for. Moira Gilchrist,

26:46

thank you very much for joining me. Thank

26:48

you. If you enjoyed this podcast,

26:50

you can find more of Spetlet's policy reporting

26:53

and our Spetlet's podcast

26:55

feed or the New Statesman website.

26:57

The links are in the show notes. Thank

26:59

you.