European Smoking Tobacco Association
This page was last edited on at
The European Smoking Tobacco Association (ESTA) represents the interests of European manufacturers, distributors and importers of rolling tobacco, pipe tobacco, chewing tobacco and nasal snuff tobacco.1 – described as “part of an enduring European cultural heritage” 2
Members
As of 2026, ESTA lists 27 companies as members, including Imperial Brands PLC. In 2018, members included British American Tobacco (BAT), and Imperial Brands (previously Imperial Tobacco), and Japan Tobacco International (JTI).3
Associate members include ITPAC (see Trade Associations).4
ESTA is listed on the EU Transparency register.5
Board Members
ESTA’s Board includes representatives from various tobacco companies, including transnational companies. As of 2026, the board members listed are:2
- Anne-Marie Bracq – S.A.S. Traditab
- Marc von Eicken – Joh. Wilh. Von Eicken / VdR
- Marco Fabbrini – ITAGENCY s.r.l
- Niccolo Balzini – Imperial Brands PLC
- Patrick Engels – Pöschl Tabak GmbH & Co. KG/VdR (Chair)
- Robert Guden – Landewyck Tobacco S.A (Vice-chair)
- Thomas Lindegaard – Scandinavian Tobacco Group
An up-to-date list can be found on the ESTA website.
Former board members have included:
- Michiel Reerink, Japan Tobacco International / Imperial Tobacco Belgium
- Dr Istvan Komoroczki, Imperial Tobacco Belgium
Activities
In the past, it has argued against tighter rules to protect people against passive smoking,6 lower taxes for rolling and pipe tobacco 7 and the Europe-wide use of the industry’s own labelling system for tar yields from tobacco. 8
Lobbying on UK Tobacco Vapes Bill
In 2023, the UK Prime Minister Sunak announced plans to introduce a generational endgame policy. The UK Tobacco and Vapes Bill would prohibit the sale of tobacco products to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009. The announcement led to extensive lobbying and interference by the tobacco industry, including the use of third parties. ESTA was one of many organisations that lobbied against the Bill. In its written evidence submitted in relation to the 2023-24 bill, ESTA opposed the generational sales ban, describing it as a “measure that in principle criminalises retailers to absolve the State of its obligations towards consumers”, stating that it is “set to fail” in achieving its objective, and that it would increase illicit trade. It also opposed applying the legislation to what it describes as “niche” tobacco products such as “pipe tobacco, chewing tobacco or nasal snuff” which are “enjoyed occasionally by responsible and well-informed adults”.9
Against the Revised Tobacco Products Directive
In April 2011, ESTA wrote to the European Commission requesting “a meeting with you to discuss the currently ongoing discussions within the Commission assessing the impacts of a possible new Tobacco Products Directive … It seems to be disregarding that other tobacco products exist, as well as that a substantial number of small medium sized smoking tobacco companies in Europe will experience a significantly higher impact resulting from some of the regulation that is considered.” 10One of the outcomes ESTA was lobbying for in the new Directive was a lifting of the European ban on Snus. 1112
Criticising the RAND Impact Assessment Report
Like many of the tobacco trade organisations, ESTA was highly critical of Impact Assessment into the Revised Tobacco Products Directive carried out by RAND. ESTA argued that the draft report’s “structure and methodology needs substantive improvement,” including its lack of differentiation of tobacco products. The trade group objected to words such as “tobacco epidemic”, arguing this was an “overtly negative and emotional reference” that gave “little confidence in the ‘objective analysis’ that RAND Europe strives to”. 13
Against Plain Packaging
In May 2011 Peter van der Mark, the Secretary General of ESTA, wrote to the European Commission concerning the Australian government’s plans for plain packaging. “ESTA”, he wrote, “is concerned about the apparent absence of a firm scientific justification for the measure for cigarettes, its doubtful effectiveness and the absence of any consideration to alternative measures which would be more proportionate.”
The letter continued: “The implications for international trade are immense if parties to the Convention would be allowed to represent the function of trademarks mainly in terms of advertising and on such grounds would be allowed to severely restrict the use and expression of trademarks.”14