From Complicity to Protection of Children? Contradictions in India’s Tobacco Control are a Global Issue
Year: 2026
Type: article
Abstract: Dear Sir, Walia and colleagues rightly underscore our responsibility to protect children from tobacco exposure.[1] Indeed, smoking is a pediatric epidemic: the earlier it begins, the deeper the addiction. And since tobacco kills half its users, the industry’s strategy has long hinged on the early replacement of the dead with the young. Commendable as this call to action is, several critical points require deeper examination. First, can we reasonably expect minors to be superheroes, when adult smoking remains legal? The core issue is not just tobacco—it is nicotine. Without reducing nicotine to non-addictive levels, any talk of a protecting the youngest from being hooked is wishful thinking. History is instructive: in the 1960s, Sano marketed the lowest-nicotine cigarettes on the market—and recorded the worst sales among 40 brands, marking one of the only commercial failures in the industry. Meanwhile, Philip Morris boosted Marlboro sales by adding ammonia to freebase nicotine—so-called “crack nicotine”—that propelled it past Winston to become the top-selling brand.[2] Curiously (or not), the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) continues to ignore nicotine reduction as a foundational measure.[3] Second, the proposal to “integrate tobacco and nicotine education into school curricula to empower students to resist influence”[1] is well-intentioned but problematic. Framing addiction as a matter of informed personal resistance risks blaming the victim. Should we teach karate in schools to prepare girls to fend off rapists? Addiction, like sexual violence, involves predation. Empowerment without protection is not a solution—especially when predators only face poorly effective barriers without accountability for harms. Third, “addressing tobacco industry interference”[1,4,5] is indeed the key challenge[6]—but invoking Article 5.3 of the FCTC as a shield is misleading. India ratified the FCTC in 2004, but Article 5.3, which calls for insulating public health policy from industry influence, is little more than a smokescreen. On one hand, the Convention is toothless due to the WHO’s soft diplomatic approach, a euphemism for “laisser faire.” The evidence is overwhelming: a) The European Union, despite being wealthy and a Convention signatory, still has the world’s highest smoking prevalence. France even designated tobacco products as “essential goods” during the COVID-19 lockdown[7] and consistently avoids raising cigarette prices above the 10% threshold required to relevantly reduce sales.[8] In 2023 and 2024, the French government raised cigarette prices by just €0.20 and €0.50 respectively, allowing Philip Morris to also increase the price of Marlboro Reds from €11.50 to €12.50—a win-win for both budget department and industry.[9] b) Since 2005, smoking prevalence has increased in 111 countries—almost all FCTC signatories.[10] Has the WHO even sent one warning letter? Its strategy appears to be “laissez faire” despite previous calls for action.[11] c) The WHO stood idle when tiny Uruguay (GDP $31 billion) was sued in 2009 by Philip Morris (market cap $95 billion) for requiring 80% graphic warnings on cigarette packs. It was Michael Bloomberg—not the WHO—who funded Uruguay’s legal defense.[12] On the other hand, the Indian government has long supported the growth of its tobacco industry. In 1947, it created the Tobacco Board under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry to boost exports. In 1965, it established the Central Tobacco Research Institute under the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare. Meanwhile, the Health Ministry must contend with two powerful ministries—and a national focus on rural development and economic growth. India is now the world’s second-largest tobacco producer. In 2022–23, tobacco products generated Rs. 72,788 crores in tax revenue, and exports rose to Rs. 12,005 crores in 2023–24 from Rs. 6,408 crores in 2019–20.[13] In my view, it takes two to tango—and the industry is not the leader. We live in a global capitalist system where we prioritize economic wealth over human health. Tobacco is not an outlier; it is just one of many predatory industries—alcohol, ultra-processed food, gambling—that thrive under this model. For example: The Australian government opposed the UK’s alcohol pricing reform[14,15] and a decade ago, France fought the Scottish Parliament’s minimum alcohol pricing law, claiming it would “disrupt the balance of European trade.”[16] Author contributions Alain Braillon: Conceptualization; writing; validation. Data availability statement Not applicable. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.
Author: Alain Braillon
Language: English
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: gold
Estimated APC paid: $80
OpenAlex ID: W7124134307