These actions restrict competition, depress tobacco prices for Malawi's farmers and contribute to poverty in Malawi, while keeping the country dependent on tobacco growing.

Background Tobacco companies have come under increased criticism because of environmental and labor practices related to growing tobacco in developing countries. Methods Analysis of tobacco industry documents, industry web sites and interviews with tobacco farmers in Tanzania and tobacco farm workers, farm authorities, trade unionists, government officials and corporate executives from global tobacco leaf companies in Malawi. Results British American Tobacco and Philip Morris created supply chains in the 1990s to improve production efficiency, control, access to markets, and profits. In the 2000s, the companies used their supply chains in an attempt to legitimize their portrayals of tobacco farming as socially and environmentally friendly, rather than take meaningful steps to eliminate child labor and reduce deforestation in developing countries. The tobacco companies used nominal self-evaluation (not truly independent evaluators) and public relations to create the impression of social responsibility. The companies benefit from $1.2 billion in unpaid labor costs due to child labor and more than $64 million annually in costs that would have been made to avoid tobacco related deforestation in the top twelve tobacco growing developing countries, far exceeding the money they spend nominally working to change these practices. Conclusions The tobacco industry uses green supply chains to make tobacco farming in developing countries appear sustainable while continuing to purchase leaf produced with child labor and high rates of deforestation. Strategies to counter green supply chain schemes include securing implementing protocols for the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control to regulate the companies’ practices at the farm level.

In 2020, medical cannabis is legal in thirty-six states and adult use (“recreational”) cannabis is legal in fifteen, despite cannabis remaining illegal at the federal level. Up to 250,000 individuals work as full-time employees in cannabis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, California, Colorado, and other states deemed medical cannabis business as essential, raising occupational challenges and safety issues for cannabis employees. In 2020, interviews were conducted with Ethan, an extraction lab assistant in Las Vegas; Haylee, a trainer with a cannabis company in Sacramento; and Belinda, a Wisconsin-based occupational health and safety trainer, to showcase concerns and experiences in cannabis workplaces and training programs. Findings from interviews reveal pro-worker activities to promote workplace safety and labor unionism while large multistate operators seek to optimize profits and obstruct workers' rights. Knowledge gained through the interviews contributes to discussions to lessen the potential exposure of the cannabis workforce to COVID 19.

Introduction The exploitation, poor conditions and precarity in the bidi (hand-rolled leaf cigarette) industry in India makes it ripe for the application of the FCTC’s Article 17, ‘Provision of support for economically viable alternative activities’. ‘Bottom up’, participatory approaches give scope to explore bidi rollers’ own circumstances, experiences and aspirations. Methods A team of six community health volunteers using a participatory research orientation developed a questionnaire-based semi-structured interview tool. Forty-six bidi rolling women were interviewed by pairs of volunteers in two northern Tamil Nadu cities. Two follow-up focus groups were also held. A panel of 11 bidi rollers attended a workshop at which the findings from the interviews and focus groups were presented, further significant points were made and possible alternatives to bidi rolling were discussed. Results Bidi workers are aware of the adverse impact of their occupation on them and their families, as well as the major risks posed by the product itself for the health of consumers. However, they need alternative livelihoods that offer equivalent remuneration, convenience and (in some cases) dignity. Alternative livelihoods, and campaigns for better rights for bidi workers while they remain in the industry, serve to undercut industry arguments against tobacco control. Responses need to be diverse and specific to local situations, i.e. ‘bottom up’ as much as ‘top down’, which can make the issue of scaling up problematic. Conclusion Participatory approaches involving bidi workers themselves in discussions about their circumstances and aspirations have opened up new possibilities for alternative livelihoods to tobacco. Implications Progress with the FCTC’s Article 17 has generally been slow and has focussed on tobacco cultivation rather than later stages in the production process. The bidi industry in India is ripe for the application of an alternative livelihoods approach. This study is one of the first to use participatory methods to investigate the circumstances, experiences and aspirations of bidi workers themselves.

No abstract