CONFERENCE PROCEEDING
Tobacco industry interference in the office of the President of Sri Lanka
More details
Hide details
1
Centre for Combating Tobacco, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka
2
Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya, Ragama, Sri Lanka
Publication date: 2025-06-23
Tob. Induc. Dis. 2025;23(Suppl 1):A220
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Sri Lanka is a democratic, socialist, republic in South Asia governed by an Executive President elected by people. Since the year 2000, six Executive Presidents from three major political camps led the country. Sri Lanka managed to halve its tobacco smoking prevalence (>35% to <15%) and reduce daily smoking prevalence to less than 10%. What were the major tobacco control policy changes during the era and how did the tobacco industry attempt to influence the heads of states in those processes?
METHODS: This is a cross analysis of investigative research conducted by the Centre for Combating Tobacco from 2019 to 2024. The primary data collection methods used were key informant interviews and content analysis of legal, policy, media, industry and other documents. Thematic analysis was used in a mixed inductive-deductive approach.
RESULTS: During the era Sri Lanka enacted a comprehensive tobacco control framework (2006), implemented 80% pictorial health warnings (2015), banned smokeless tobacco, flavoured cigarettes, and e-cigarettes (2016) and imposed the highest excise tax percentage in the region (2016). However, since 2016, the state’s attempts to ban tobacco cultivation, ban single stick sales and implement standardized packaging, and ban tobacco sales within 100m of educational institutes have failed. The scientific tobacco taxation formula based on the inflation rate and other variables is yet to be implemented. Tobacco industry interference was evident in all the policy initiatives, the commonest strategy being direct influence on the head of state via allies, front groups, and diplomats. Interference via litigation was observed in two processes. Indirect interference via the Cabinet of Ministers and other government entities were also noted.
CONCLUSIONS: Every occasion a policy change is initiated, the tobacco industry attempted to influence the head of the state thus interfering in the process. The outcomes seem to favour the industry from 2017 onwards.