The history of smoking dates back to ancient times. This habit was formed thousands of years ago and has evolved over time into its modern form. The harm that smoking causes to human health, society, and the environment is immense. A cigarette contains more than 6,000 chemical substances, about a hundred of which are toxic and hazardous. Cigarette smoke damages the lungs, cardiovascular system, and immune system. Long-term smoking leads to lung cancer, heart attacks, bronchitis, and other life-threatening diseases.

So, what can be done to avoid these illnesses and completely get rid of this harmful habit? The answer to this question is explained in detail in the interview we present below.

FED.AZ Business News Portal presents an interview with Tomoko Iida, Director of Scientific Engagement for South & Southeast Asia, CIS, the Middle East, and Africa at Philip Morris International.

It is known that PMI explores various ways to reduce harm to the human body. To what extent have smoke-free tobacco products contributed to harm reduction?

Yes, PMI has made a significant contribution to harm reduction through smoke-free products. The experiences of countries like Sweden and Japan show that when adults smokers switch from traditional cigarettes to less harmful, non-combustible alternatives, public health indicators improve significantly over time.

For example, in Sweden, widespread use of smoke-free products like snus has led to a noticeable decline in smoking-related diseases, including lung cancer. Similarly, the introduction of heated tobacco products in Japan has resulted in a sharp drop in cigarette sales and the number of smokers.

Of course, the best choice for smokers is to quit entirely. However, it is understood that many people will continue to smoke. In such cases, providing access to less harmful alternatives can play a crucial role in reducing risks. When smokers who do not wish to quit switch to these alternatives, real health benefits like less cough and breathing better can be observed in the short term (3-6 months), and at the population level we will see the reduction in smoking-related diseases over the next 30–40 years.

We hope similar results can be achieved in Azerbaijan, and for that, adult smokers need access to smoke-free alternatives.

Why are these products considered less harmful than traditional cigarettes?

That’s a very good question. For example, when you light and smoke a cigarette, more than 6,000 chemicals are produced, and around a hundred of them are particularly dangerous and harmful. While not all are equally harmful, those hundred or so pose the greatest risk to human health. That’s why we develop and offer less harmful alternative products — so that people who continue to smoke can at least choose one of these alternatives to reduce the harm to their health.

Moreover, we no longer need to conduct many clinical studies, as our products are available in many markets, including your country. Today, we collect real-world data: we monitor people who switch to our products over the long term and study what changes occur in their health at the population level.

This is how we know that smoking-related disease rates are declining in countries like Sweden, and soon Japan to follow. Our products are now available in 97 countries, and by tracking the health indicators of people who switch to them at the population level, we can observe their real impact on public health.

What kind of research does your company conduct to minimize the harm caused by tobacco consumption? Can we expect new solutions in the near future?

In general, harm reduction has two key elements. Decades of research have taught us that reducing exposure to harmful chemicals is essential. But we’ve also learned that the second critical element is consumer acceptance — it’s just as important as reducing chemical harm.

For example, even if we develop completely risk-free products, if smokers don’t want to switch due to taste differences, usage habits, or other reasons, there will be no positive impact on public health.

Our research shows that we must reduce as many harmful chemicals as possible while also offering products that consumers are willing to accept and switch to. These are the two main areas we focus on.

Our primary goal is, of course, to reduce harm to health. But the second key goal is to ensure that consumers don’t reject the product due to taste, usage, or other features — instead, they should accept it and be ready to switch.

Some people say these new products taste different from traditional cigarettes — “not as flavorful as before,” “heating doesn’t give the same effect.” They ask: what do you do to preserve the previous smoking experience in terms of taste and usage? How do you ensure the taste isn’t different, and what measures are taken?

That’s a very open question. First, it’s important to note that cigarettes are consumed through combustion, while heated products work through heating. So it’s impossible for the taste to be exactly the same. It’s like frying a cutlet in a pan versus boiling it — both are meat, but the taste is different.

We understand that there’s an inevitable taste difference between heated tobacco products and cigarettes. But we also work to minimize this difference for consumers. We design our products to be more convenient and acceptable to use.

Experience shows that once users adapt to the product over a week or two, the difference becomes less noticeable. That’s why, based on our statistics, about 75% of people who quit smoking and switch to heated tobacco products (like IQOS) continue using them and don’t return to cigarettes. In other words, 75% of users quit smoking entirely and use only alternative products: This is a very significant result in terms of public health.

What important findings have been obtained in Philip Morris’s Research and Development centers regarding the health effects of smoke-free products?

In fact, the answer to this question touches on the importance of science, transparency, and acceptance. This is exactly what our team focuses on.

First, we publish all our data and assessments in public domains and share our research results in a fully transparent manner so that everyone can access them.

Second, we engage with the medical and scientific communities and ask them to review and discuss our findings. We want them to examine our scientific work, conduct their own analyses, and validate the accuracy of our results so that a shared understanding and consensus can emerge.

Third - and most importantly - as interest grows, governments themselves begin conducting independent analyses. This is the best approach, because a country’s Ministry of Health can objectively review the available data and provide an impartial opinion.

But there’s another crucial aspect: will these products be accepted by consumers? If people don’t accept them, their health benefits will be zero. So the issue isn’t just about developing the technology or making the product chemically less harmful. The key is also whether smokers will accept the alternative.

We strive to ensure our products are both less harmful and suitable for consumer use. Only then can smoke-free products replace cigarettes and provide real health benefits.

Is it possible to develop a completely harmless tobacco product using the latest scientific advancements, and what is the current status of work in this direction?

One of the products we are currently working on is nicotine pouches. These are considered among the least harmful of all existing smoke-free alternatives.

When we look at the chemical composition of nicotine pouches, we see that they are quite similar to nicotine replacement therapies used to quit smoking - such as nicotine gum, patches, etc. That is, there is no tobacco involved; nicotine is simply delivered in a special form that is absorbed in the oral cavity.

Therefore, we hope that for people who do not quit smoking but continue using nicotine, nicotine pouches can serve as a less harmful alternative, encouraging them to switch from cigarettes to these products.

Elnur Huseynguluyev
Director and Editor-in-Chief
Kazakhstan, Astana