It’s Time for a New Conversation

An editorial published recently in the Lancet makes false accusations about PMI’s actions and motivations with respect to the #UnsmokeYourWorld campaign. The editorial describes the campaign as duplicitous or nonsensical, in light of the fact that PMI encourages people to stop smoking, while at the same time collecting much of its revenue from cigarette sales. These and other arguments made in the editorial completely miss the point. 

As a response to this arguments, Marian Salzman, Senior Vice President Global Communications speaks for PMI by providing the facts on the matter. 

Marian’s response argues that many of the Lancet’s criticisms are disingenuous, or even in direct opposition to the interests of the 1 billion men and women who smoke around the world. In possession of an opportunity to work towards a smoke-free future, PMI could have chosen to keep quiet. But PMI didn’t.

There are some strong statements which I find totally reasonable. Here are the points that I highlight while I read the response:

UnsmokeYourWorld is an inclusive campaign, with a message that reflects some of our key corporate positions. People who do not smoke should not start. The best choice any smoker can make is to quit cigarettes and nicotine altogether, but those who do not quit deserve the opportunity to choose better alternatives. They deserve access to accurate and non-misleading information about these alternatives.

The UnsmokeYourWorld campaign is designed to empathetically challenge smokers who would otherwise continue smoking to seek information and to make better choices. Criticising it, when its mission is so clearly aligned with a global call to action to reduce cigarette smoking, is at best disingenuous, and at worst, in direct opposition to the interests of many millions of people around the world who smoke.

It is perplexing that some leaders of the tobacco control community seem to be fundamentally opposed to our transformation and progressive move away from cigarettes.

Instead of working to objectively scrutinise our products, science, and progress, they are focused on maligning our company. For example, the Editors criticise us for not having “the courage to cease all cigarette production instantly”. This is easy but empty rhetoric that fundamentally misses the point. If we stopped selling cigarettes tomorrow, nothing would change. Smokers would continue buying cigarettes from other manufacturers or the illicit market, and it would result in no meaningful change—neither for men and women who smoke nor for public health overall.

Today, adult smokers are confused about the relative risks of tobacco products. Journals like The Lancet can play an important role in helping to correct this confusion. Instead of criticising us, we invite you to scrutinise our research findings —as the US Food and Drug Administration and many other government and independent research groups are— and to focus on bringing truthful information to adult smokers to help guide their choices and improve public health. We agree that more science and rigorous safety monitoring are required. We are doing both.