Interviewer asks:

Why wouldn't you just stop making cigarettes?

Nevena Crljenko, Vice President, Public Affairs, Philip Morris International replies:

The bigger problems are the people out there

who are not trying the alternatives to smoking.

Interviewer says:

The majority of these products contain nicotine.

Nevena says:

Nicotine is, I believe,

one of the most misunderstood molecules in the world.

It's part of the problem,

so it needs to be part of the solution too.

Gentle percussion music starts.

Words appear on screen reading:

Let's talk with Nevana.

Interviewer says:

There's a lot of confusion around smoke-free products.

What are they?

Are they really less harmful than cigarettes?

And why are governments banning them completely?

There's a lot to unpack,

but let's begin with what a smoke-free product is.

Nevena says:

Smoke-free products are very different products than cigarettes are,

the most known tobacco product in the world.

Cigarettes are lit and burned,

and the smoker inhales the smoke.

Smoke contains thousands of chemicals,

many of which are harmful.

Your body is exposed to them,

and over time it develops into the disease.

So the first principle we developed was,

let's eliminate the burning process.

We can eliminate the burning process by a couple of things.

We can control the temperature in terms

of how we heat tobacco but not burn it.

That's heated tobacco products.

We can heat the liquid which contains nicotine.

This is e-vapor product.

Or we can create oral products,

such as nicotine pouches,

which basically are not warmed at all.

But the key component,

irrespective how different these products are,

is that they do not contain the burning,

which is the main source of smoking.

smoking-related disease.

Interviewer says:

Why, though, do we need so many different variants?

Nevena says:

Because there's generally no one-size-fits-all approach for anybody.

So different people enjoy different things.

So as long as the smoke-free product is the one that the

smoker is willing to leave the cigarettes behind for,

that's the one that will work for her or for him.

Interviewer says:

Ultimately, if your aim is to stop every smoker out there from smoking,

why wouldn't you just stop making cigarettes?

Nevena says:

If Apple stopped producing iPhones today,

would people stop using phones?

The answer is no.

The equivalent of that is if we stopped making cigarettes,

a smoker goes tomorrow to the shop, they'll buy another brand.

And we don't have to imagine scenarios.

We can look at the countries that actually banned tobacco.

Bhutan did it several years ago, banned the use of cigarettes.

South Africa, in COVID times, 

banned temporarily the sale of tobacco products and alcohol.

What happened?

The market was flooded with illicit products.

So if there is demand, there will be a supply.

And we believe it's better to phase out cigarettes, obviously.

And if more people are switching to smoke-free products,

there'll be less demand for cigarettes.

So us stopping selling cigarettes would not stop people from smoking.

Interviewer says:

But the thing is,

the majority of these products contain nicotine.

And if they contain nicotine,

are they really less harmful than a cigarette?

Nevena says:

Nicotine is, I believe,

one of the most misunderstood molecules in the world.

It's not a primary cause of smoking-related diseases.

It's not carcinogenic.

It is conflated in people's minds with cigarettes, with smoking,

with smoking-related diseases.

What it is, is addictive.

So it's part of the problem because it's contained in a cigarette.

So it needs to be part of the solution too.

Because one of the reasons why people smoke is the nicotine.

So obviously the alternatives to smoking

have to contain nicotine as well.

But if we significantly reduce other compounds that

people are consuming while they consume nicotine,

we've created something which is better

alternative to smoking.

Interviewer says:

So we know nicotine is not the primary

cause of smoking-related diseases.

But how do we really know what the

long-term impact of these products is?

Nevena says:

Long-term impact, obviously,

it takes time to assess long-term impact.

However, we can look at the case of Swedish snus.

Nicotine pouches are, let's say,

a newer version of Swedish snus.

It's been in the market in Sweden and

Scandinavian countries for hundreds of years.

And Swedish male population,

which were primarily users of snus versus smoking,

are the population that has by far the least incidence

of smoking-related diseases in the whole Europe.

All the scientific data shows very promising

health outcomes compared to continued smoking.

Interviewer says:

So real-world evidence is showing us that these products

can help lower the number of smoking-related diseases.

But they're still not risk-free.

And as a huge multinational company,

these products are in markets across the world.

What are you doing to stop underage use?

Nevena says:

These products, we produce, are for adults only.

We have very strict controls in terms of

limiting the access of youth to these products.

We develop our communication,

which is clearly geared just to the adults.

In all of our own retail channels,

we have age verification to make sure that it's just

the adult person who has access to these products.

And we work with all our partners,

such as distributors and the others,

to follow the same principles.

Interviewer says:

But ultimately, there's a reason.

There must be a reason why so many

governments are banning these products.

Nevena says:

Well, I think it's a common place that innovation

moves faster than regulation does.

A number of governments are moving the direction of proper regulation.

Proper regulation means give a very strong message that the

strictest regulation applies to the most harmful product,

which everyone can agree is a cigarette,

and regulating differently on products which are smoke-free.

A number of governments, however,

are taking a more conservative approach and banning them.

What's the net effect of that decision?

A person can buy a cigarette anywhere,

but they cannot have access to something

which is a better choice for them.

So either they don't access it,

or they have to turn to illicit markets,

where obviously there is no guarantee what is

the quality of the safety of these products.

That's why we believe a proper regulation,

after careful consideration of available scientific data,

is the right way to proceed,

not only for us as a company, but for smokers,

for the governments and for society as a whole.

Interviewer says:

But everyone needs to have access to the facts.

And even adults who are using these products can be unsure.

So what should people be looking for?

What should people believe when it comes to these products?

Nevena replies:

I think the bigger problems are the people out there who

are confused and not trying the alternatives to smoking.

Because whoever uses these products,

I think, by default, becomes aware of their benefits.

There is a lot of confusion because there

is a lot of misunderstandings about it,

so I encourage people to read available data.

For example, we publish our science transparently on our website.

There have also been a number of regulatory bodies

and agencies that have either reviewed the

science and basically issued their opinion about it.

For example, US Food and Drug Administration,

one of the most reputable health agencies in the world,

has reviewed the science of two of our products and deemed them

to be appropriate for protection and promotion of public health.

So clearly given a signal, the best thing is to quit. If you're a smoker and you will not quit,

it's better for you to switch to these products.

So look at the reputable resources.

I know that as a tobacco executive,

I might not be the most believable person in that respect,

but I think people should look at the

evidence and make sure to keep your eyes open.

Words appear on screen reading: Let's talk with Nevena.