On 29 May 2026, the Africa Consumer Advocacy Foundation (ACAF) published a full-page advertisement in the Daily Nation opposing key provisions of the Tobacco Control (Amendment) Bill 2024. The advertisement framed its arguments around concepts such as “consumer choice,” “adult freedom,” and “harm reduction,” while advocating for continued access to flavoured nicotine products, including e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches.

As tobacco control advocates and defenders of public health, we are not surprised by such interventions. Around the world, tobacco and nicotine interests have increasingly relied on third-party organizations, consumer groups, business associations, and seemingly independent voices to advance narratives that would otherwise face greater scrutiny if they came directly from the tobacco industry itself.

While we cannot independently verify whether ACAF is acting on behalf of the tobacco or nicotine industry, we can authoritatively conclude that the positions advanced in the advertisement align closely with the commercial interests of the tobacco and nicotine industry. The arguments presented mirror narratives that have been repeatedly deployed globally to resist stronger regulation of emerging nicotine products and to oppose public health measures designed to protect children and young people.

In this second edition of the Tobacco Industry Interference Digital Watch Initiative (TIIDWI), we examine these claims and assess them against public health evidence and Kenya’s tobacco control priorities.

Claim 1: “Smokers Die from Smoke, Not Nicotine”

The advertisement argues that nicotine itself is not the problem and that smokers die from smoke rather than nicotine.

While combustion is indeed responsible for many smoking-related diseases, this statement oversimplifies the issue and omits a critical public health reality: nicotine is a highly addictive substance.

Although nicotine may not be the primary cause of cancer, addiction is precisely what keeps users dependent on tobacco and nicotine products. Public health policy must address both disease and addiction. Framing nicotine as largely harmless risks minimizing its impact on adolescent brain development, dependence, and long-term nicotine use.

The question before policymakers is not simply whether nicotine is less harmful than combustible tobacco. The question is whether Kenya should permit the widespread promotion of addictive nicotine products that risk creating a new generation of dependent users.

Claim 2: “Flavours Help Smokers Quit”

ACAF argues that flavours are essential for smoking cessation and that restricting them will undermine efforts by smokers to quit.

However, this argument ignores a major concern recognized by public health authorities worldwide: According to the World Health Organization, flavours are among the most powerful tools used to attract young people to nicotine products.  

In Kenya, available evidence shows that:  

• 49% of nicotine pouch users report using the products because of flavours.
• 68% of e-cigarette users report using the products because they come in flavours they like.

These figures raise legitimate public health concerns about whether flavours are functioning primarily as cessation tools or as recruitment tools for new users.

The Tobacco Control (Amendment) Bill 2024 seeks to address this concern by reducing the attractiveness of nicotine products to children and adolescents. Any discussion about flavours must therefore balance the interests of adult users against the need to protect young people from nicotine addiction.

Claim 3: “The Bill Will Push Users Back to Cigarettes”

The advertisement suggests that restricting flavoured nicotine products will force users back to smoking or push them toward unregulated black markets.

This argument assumes that flavoured nicotine products are the only pathway away from smoking.

The global tobacco control experience demonstrates otherwise.

Successful reductions in smoking prevalence have been achieved through comprehensive tobacco control measures, including:

• Higher tobacco taxes  
• Smoke-free environments  
• Graphic health warnings  
• Advertising and promotion bans
• Public education campaigns
• Access to cessation support services

No single product should be portrayed as the sole solution to smoking cessation.

Furthermore, evidence from several jurisdictions shows that many users become “dual users,” continuing to use both cigarettes and alternative nicotine products rather than quitting tobacco entirely. Policymakers must therefore assess real-world population outcomes rather than theoretical benefits alone.

Claim 4: “Protect Adult Choice”

The advertisement repeatedly invokes concepts of adult freedom and consumer choice.

Public health policy, however, has never been based solely on unrestricted consumer choice.

Governments routinely regulate products and services where public health risks exist. Seatbelt laws, pharmaceutical regulations, alcohol controls, food safety standards, and road safety measures all place reasonable limits on individual and commercial freedoms in order to protect the public.

The central question is not whether adults should have choices.

The central question is whether commercial interests should be allowed to market addictive products in ways that increase uptake among children and young people.

Children do not choose the environments in which they are exposed to marketing. They do not choose the algorithms that promote nicotine content online. They do not choose the product designs, flavours, and branding strategies specifically developed to attract their attention.

Public policy has a responsibility to protect them.

Industry Interference Hidden Behind Third Parties

One of the most concerning aspects of the current debate surrounding the Tobacco Control (Amendment) Bill 2024 is the increasing use of third-party organizations and seemingly independent voices to advance positions that align with tobacco and nicotine industry interests.

Kenya’s experience with tobacco control has repeatedly demonstrated that industry interference remains one of the greatest obstacles to effective public health policy.

Although Kenya’s Tobacco Industry Interference Index score improved slightly from 48 out of 100 in 2023 to 46 in 2025 (the lower the score, the lower the interference and vise versa), this modest improvement should not be mistaken for the absence of interference.

On the contrary, recent developments suggest that tobacco and nicotine interests continue to exert significant influence over public narratives and policy debates. Opposition to the Tobacco Control (Amendment) Bill 2024 from sections of traders, business associations, media commentators, and self-described experts demonstrates how industry-aligned narratives continue to surface whenever stronger public health protections are proposed.

The tactics may evolve, but the objective remains the same: delay, weaken, or prevent effective regulation.

The Bigger Question

If nicotine products are genuinely intended primarily for adult smokers trying to quit, policymakers should ask several important questions.

Why are these products marketed with youth-friendly flavours, sleek designs, colourful packaging, and lifestyle branding?

Why are we seeing influencer-driven campaigns and social media promotion rather than major investments in proven cessation services?

Why do campaigns focus so heavily on “choice,” “freedom,” and “modern lifestyles” while paying comparatively little attention to youth addiction and public health consequences?

And why are there coordinated efforts to oppose measures specifically designed to reduce the appeal of nicotine products among young people?

These questions deserve answers.

Conclusion

Kenya’s tobacco control journey is one of Africa’s leading public health success stories. The Tobacco Control (Amendment) Bill represents an effort to ensure that regulation keeps pace with evolving industry tactics and emerging nicotine products.

This debate should not be framed as a contest between freedom and regulation.

It should be understood for what it truly is: a choice between protecting public health and protecting commercial interests.

As World No Tobacco Day 2026 reminds us, the responsibility before us is clear. We must continue to unmask the appeal, expose industry tactics, and protect future generations from nicotine addiction.

#TIIDWI2026 #UnmaskTheAppealKe #WNTD2026Ke #TobaccoControl #PublicHealth