Tobacco-funded think tank insists it is independent

Danish broadcaster DR reports that the think tank Røgfri, which campaigns for a ban on tobacco sales while seeking looser rules for other nicotine products, is funded by the country’s largest nicotine and tobacco producers.

Røgfri describes itself as an independent voice in Denmark’s health debate. Led by lung specialist Philip Tønnesen, it has appeared at the People’s Meeting and before the Danish Parliament’s Health Committee.

Its position is that adults among Denmark’s 700,000 smokers should replace cigarettes with less harmful alternatives such as nicotine pouches and e cigarettes. The approach is known as harm reduction.

But the Danish Cancer Society questions the think tank’s independence.

“It rings very, very hollow. Commercial actors are behind it. They have one interest, which is to gain more users and keep them dependent on their products so they can make money,” Mette Lolk Hanak, director of prevention at the Danish Cancer Society, told P1 Morgen.

Nikotinbranchen, the industry association funding Røgfri, consists of British American Tobacco Denmark, Philip Morris International Denmark and Japan Tobacco International Denmark.

Tønnesen acknowledges that the think tank is financially dependent on Nikotinbranchen, but says its professional work remains independent.

“We are independent of our sponsors. That is our professional integrity. As long as what we say is true and professionally correct, I cannot see that it matters that they support us,” he told P1 Morgen.

He said his views are the same as they were 20 years ago and are independent of what the tobacco industry might think.

Asked whether the tobacco industry is more concerned with making money or with doing good, Tønnesen replied that the question should be put to the industry.

“I am not responsible for what the tobacco industry does. I am responsible for what Røgfri does,” he said.

Christopher Arzrouni, head of external affairs at Philip Morris and a board member of Nikotinbranchen, said that information about snus and e cigarettes being less harmful than traditional cigarettes is being suppressed in Denmark.

“Ordinary credible knowledge does not get through. It is kept out of the public debate,” he told P1 Morgen.

Arzrouni rejected the Danish Cancer Society’s criticism of the links between the industry and the think tank, calling it hypocrisy. He said the relationship had always been transparent and accused the organisation of diverting the debate towards formalities instead of the substance.

Røgfri’s website states that the think tank is financed by Nikotinbranchen while also describing it as independent and saying there is an arm’s length relationship between the two.

Tønnesen said Røgfri was not his idea. In spring 2025, he received a call from Grace, a lobbying agency, which suggested that he establish the think tank.

Grace confirmed to DR that it had proposed the idea to Tønnesen and had received payment from Nikotinbranchen in connection with it.

Grace partner Sune Væsel said the agency also assists Nikotinbranchen in explaining the difference between nicotine and smoking and in providing information about the harm reduction that can result when people switch from smoking to smoke free nicotine products.