In a recent letter to the British government, the American think tank Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) argues against the introduction of a generational sales ban for tobacco. However, the think tank appears to rely on experts who work for the tobacco industry.

By the web editors 

The American think tank Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), which ideologically supported the administrations of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair in the 1990s, argues in a recent letter to the British government against the introduction of a generational ban on the sale of tobacco. The sales ban to people born from 2009 onwards is part of the Tobacco & Vapes Bill, which is now being discussed in the House of Lords after approval by the British House of Commons. From the first proposal, the lobbying pressure against it has been enormous. The seemingly independent PPI, which has offices in Washington, the UK, the European Union and Ukraine, is yet another organization that joins the tobacco industry’s position on the sales ban, and that should not be surprising, because the think tank appears to be directly connected to that industry through some employees. Pritika Kumar, who is presented on the PPI website as an expert in tobacco harm reduction, appears to be employed by Philip Morris International (PMI) in Washington as a director, charged with maintaining contacts with the scientific community.

A letter without substantiation

PPI’s CEO, Lindsay Mark Lewis, who according to Tobacco Tactics in 2024 also spoke at the largest conference for tobacco lobbyists, the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum, opens his letter by looking back at PPI’s successes. According to Lewis, PPI has been able to make many ‘pragmatic policy proposals’ since 1989 for, among others, US President Clinton and British Prime Minister Blair.

One of the policy proposals that PPI is now putting forward is to end the use of traditional cigarettes in the next ten years. To achieve this, PPI believes that the demand for cigarettes must be reduced on the one hand through tobacco control policies, while the supply of ‘less harmful alternatives’, such as e-cigarettes, must also be increased to help people get rid of cigarettes. That is exactly the marketing story of Philip Morris International (PMI) and other tobacco companies.

In December, Lindsay Lewis wrote an article on the PPI website arguing that the World Health Organization is wrong to oppose alternative nicotine products as a less harmful alternative. That e-cigarettes would be an effective quit aid has recently been refuted by American research published in JAMA . Vaping appears from this research to lead to more smoking and vaping and thus to a prolongation of nicotine dependence.

Comparisons that don’t hold

Lewis also compares the proposed ban on sales to the American Prohibition of the 1920s and 1930s, in which the sale, possession and use of alcohol were unsuccessfully banned. However, the comparison does not hold water, because the generational sales ban does not impose a ban on the possession or use of tobacco. The goal, according to lawyer Steven Baylis in his report for the European Respiratory Society, is only to make the product more difficult to obtain for the younger generations, because almost all tobacco addictions start at a young age. After the age of 25, hardly anyone starts smoking anymore. In the event of a generational ban, tobacco products will remain available to the older generations.

Lewis is also concerned that the sales ban could have negative consequences for British trade by erecting unnecessary barriers. According to him, the sales ban falls into the category of unnecessary laws that negatively affect the ‘greater good’.

The day after PPI sent the letter, Lindsay Lewis met with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, according to a LinkedIn post. It is not mentioned what the two talked about.

PPI experts working for the industry

The extent to which PPI’s position in this case is dictated by the tobacco industry itself is evident from the role of Pritika Kumar, who on the PPI website is listed as an expert on ‘Integrated Harm Reduction Policy, Tobacco Harm Reduction’. Her position at PMI is not mentioned in that résumé, but is apparent from her LinkedIn profile. In July 2024, Kumar joined the company as a ‘scientific engagement officer U.S.’. She has been a director at PMI since February of this year. From 2020 to 2021, she also worked as a Senior Regulatory Scientist for Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris USA.

Kumar, who after studying at Delhi University continued her scholarly career at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, New York University, and Johns Hopkins University, next served as a Senior Fellow for Integrated Harm Reduction Policy at the R Street Institute in Washington from 2021 to 2023. That institute, which promotes the free market, was founded by former employees of the Heartland Institute, which led a campaign with Philip Morris in the 1990s  to downplay the health risks of smoking and second-hand smoke and to advocate against smoking bans.

Another tobacco harm reduction expert associated with PPI is Cheryl K. Olson, a public health research and communication professional. For Philip Morris USA, she led an expert advisory group in the field of smoking cessation in the pre-e-cigarette era. Later she conducted research for an e-cigarette intended for people in prisons. She wrote an opinion article for PPI, urging the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to accept e-cigarettes as a quitting aid.

Lewis’ letter to the British government thus reveals how PMI has once again managed to infiltrate a seemingly unsuspecting organization to expose its interests to policymakers. The tentacles of the industry reach far.