The Tobacco Lobby
Fake Science, Legal Aggression, Lies and Misinformation
https://www.humantruth.info/tobacco_lobby.html
By Vexen Crabtree 2025
Tobacco companies are fundamentally opposed to public health, and rely on generating addicted customers1. They have resisted, undermined and campaigned against all programmes that aim to educate the public on the harms of smoking or that try to reduce smoking rates. When child labour was made illegal throughout much of Europe and health and safety laws prohibited the direct handling of toxins by factory workers, tobacco firms like British American Tobacco simply moved production abroad and continued those horrendous practices elsewhere2. They have opposed limits on advertising cigarettes to children and continue to do so in countries where it is still legal. They've refused to put health warning on products and ran legal battles against attempts to make them do so under grounds of intellectual property rights. They've campaigned against legislation against smoking in public places in order to protect non-smokers and children from the effects of passive smoke and created fake organisations that pretend to be 'citizen's groups' who oppose such bans. Tobacco firms have created fake science reports, funded many reports and then only published ones that cast doubt on established health science. They put more money (billions upon billions) in PR campaigns against public health messages than government and health bodies are able to match, permanently and successfully causing the public in most countries to severely underestimate the risks and harms of smoking.1,3,4,5,6,7
“The tobacco industry produces and promotes a product that has been proven scientifically to be addictive, to cause disease and death and to give rise to a variety of social ills, including increased poverty [and] the tobacco industry is fighting to ensure the dangers of their products are concealed.”
The World Health Organisation1
“The tobacco industry cannot be trusted.”
Professor Linda Bauld (2014)8
Health Policy, University of Stirling
1. Fake Science and Pretend Citizen Lobby Groups
#alcohol #democracy #democracy_challenges #environmentalism #fake_lobbies #health #mass_media #obesity #politics #smoking #USA
Several industries have been caught out producing fake and heavily biased science reports, orchestrating so-called "grass-roots" movements that cast doubt on science, producing endless reams of misleading public-relations material and manipulating news outlets with fake think-tanks. They have well-practised and efficient methods for influencing the news and swaying public opinion, and the money and effort that goes into these channels of deception are great. They produce "manufactured doubt" using scientific-sounding organisations as fronts, to try and discredit the mountains of evidence that stand against them. They are expert at getting their content on to broadcast media. In every success they maintain their own profits, but cause long-term harm.
The worst culprits in spreading mass-lies in this way are: (1) the tobacco and smoke industry5,9,6, (2) the fast-food and junk food industries10, (3) those who sell most nutritional supplements11 and (4) the petrol and oil industries5,12,13,14.The worst outlets for promulgating rubbish without checking sources are the sensationalist, downmarket and popularist news bodies.
For more, see:
In the 1950s the smoking lobby created a range of innocent-sounding and scientific-sounding groups in order to discredit government information about the dangers of smoking5,7. They produced scientific reports engineered by their own scientists, which serve to boost their own industries by deceiving the public15. The disinformation campaign spanned many decades. The vested commercial interests of the smoking industry provide an incentive to manipulate the public's understanding of the risks in order to keep people smoking. They concocted invented studies, fabricated doubts on health science, creating fake consumer-concern groups and poured great quantities of cash into misleading marketing. A few senior executes eventually found themselves stood before USA's congress. Clive Bates, Public Health Consultant, states very bluntly:
“The chief executives of the world's major tobacco companies stood up in front of congress and [...] lied, knowing that they were lying [and] deliberate[ly] misled people.”
Clive Bates
In "Burning Desire: The Seduction of Smoking" by the BBC (2014)16
“... the tobacco industry previously poured huge sums into 'independent' research showing that the effects of smoking on health had been greatly exaggerated.”
"Democracy: A Beginner's Guide" by Beetham, David (2005)5
“As a result of paperwork disclosed in US court cases, we now know that when the tobacco companies in the 1950s found themselves under pressure from the discovery of the link between smoking and cancer, they hired PR companies to create a network of pseudo-groups to massage public thinking on their behalf. Hill & Knowlton, who were then the biggest PR agency in America, duly created the Council for Tobacco Research and the Tobacco Institute as apparently independent organisations to produce research to defend their sales. [...]
A second PR agency, Burson-Marsteller, created the National Smokers Alliance as an AstroTurf group, to hold public meetings and hassle politicians, changing the tobacco story from a threat to health to a threat to freedom.”
"Flat Earth News" by Nick Davies (2008)6
The Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC) was one of the fake-science-lobbies created by the tobacco industry to spread misinformation and confuse the public:
“Since documents used during tobacco trials in the 1990s were made public, we have huge amounts of proof of the ways in which the industry distorted evidence, misled customers, and lied publicly about the dangers of their product. [...]
Tobacco companies [...] advertised directly to doctors with claims that their cigarettes were less harmful than other brands, and to the public with slogans like "More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette", to associate smoking and good health.
[An advertisement in national newspapers on 1954 Jan 04 was full of lies and distortions, ] reaching an estimated 43 million Americans. Its essential claims were that: Medical research of recent years indicates many possible causes of lung cancer. There is no agreement among the authorities regarding what the cause is. There is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes. [The] validity of the statistics themselves is questioned by numerous scientists. The advertisement continued saying that they were taking the issue seriously, and were setting up a Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC), to be headed by a scientist of "unimpeachable integrity and national repute" to examine the health effects of their product. In April of that year, the TIRC produced an 18-page booklet called A Scientific Perspective on the Cigarette Controversy, which compiled all the inconclusive or contrary results they could find about the relationship between tobacco and harms to human health. This booklet was mailed to over 200,000 doctors, politicians and journalists.”
2. Money
In the year 2000, around 6 trillion (6 000 000 000 000) cigarettes were sold3. Berenberg Bank calculated that in 2012, manufacturer profit was more than 50 billion dollars globally, and, with subsequent sales to consumers, the overall industry made almost three quarters of a trillion dollars17. That could fund health programmes to absolutely transform health in Africa, fund research to eliminate multiple diseases, and fund cancer treatments for all of the industry's victims.
Instead, a good portion of that goes as bonuses to executives and shareholders, and, to fund programmes that oppose governmental health advice and health education programmes, undermining the health industry with greater funding than governments can ever afford.
3. Evading the Law
Tobacco firms have effectively resisted attempts to regulate advertising aimed at children, and have continued to use bad practices abroad even when they are outlawed or regulated at home4. In other words, they have been evading the law, intentionally leading people into the habit, and failing to inform users of the risks of their product. The tobacco industry is largely successful - the World Health Organisation says that most users do not understand the risks.
In many Western countries, cigarette production has been controlled by laws that protect workers' rights and health & safety conditions. The response of the tobacco industry is similar to other large organisations who want to avoid legal restrictions: they move production to less well-protected regions of the world. The growing strength of political unions such as the EU help curb their behaviour through international co-ordination and harmonisation of employment law18, but the ultimate motivation for them to cease evasion of the law is if consumers select products from ethical companies. Unfortunately, there are no ethical tobacco companies.
Professor David Sweanor of Ottawa University's Faculty of Law, says that the tobacco industry sees itself in a form of trench warfare, where every battle is fought for as long as possible before retreating as little as possible19.
Despite talk of developing purported safer products such as e-cigarettes, BAT (British American Tobacco), wherever they can get away with it, continue to advertise and sell standard tobacco-based cigarettes. And wherever they can, they do not voluntarily put health warnings on their products. This is because BAT specifically wants to continue to hide this information from users. BAT does this especially in poverty-striken and under-developed countries, where their advertising is also aimed squarely at children. In other words, they only sell in responsible ways, and they only push safer alternatives, when they are aggressively pursued by Governments and public-health bodies.4
As their activities are made subject to public health concerns, tobacco firms do eventually give up and move on, seeking profits countries where governments are weaker or not inclined to be involved in public health.
“Like the alcohol industry, for a long time tobacco companies argued that they didn´t need statutory regulation and that voluntary codes were enough to improve their behaviour and reduce harm. [...] At every step of the way, the tobacco industry has resisted these measures [...] arguing that [they] are ineffective or punitive. They've suggested alternative measures, such as ventilation in place of smoking bans, claiming that they´re just as effective, although independent research has shown otherwise. [...]
As it has become clear that industrialised countries are going to continue to restrict the sale and use of tobacco, the industry has aggressively targeted developing nations. Within a few decades, 80% of tobacco related deaths will occur in the developing world.”
4. National Battles
#democracy_challenges #indonesia #ireland #multinationals #public_health #slavery #uruguay
Argentina is the 2nd largest tobacco grower in South America. The government has been poor at ratifying international accords designed to reduce the damage done by smoking, and its national anti-smoking laws are simply not enforced. Tobacco companies have no inclination to voluntarily comply - they advertise where it is illegal to do so and smokers puff away in front of no-smoking signs with impunity. The industry employs millions of people, and is simply too strong for the government to take on.21
Australia and Cigarette Plain Packaging: When this measure was being planned, the tobacco industry panicked, and instigated aggressive campaigns against it throughout 2007 to 2011. They argued that it would create a black market for packaged produce, yet also argued that plain packaging doesn't work (i.e., sales will continue). The "Alliance of Australian Retailers" (AAR) appeared, with shop owners repeating all the industry's arguments against plain packaging and saying things like "it will make it harder to run my business". Struggling retailers of course weren't really behind the slick and rather well-funded AAR: it was the product of the three biggest tobacco firms, BAT, Phillip Morris and Imperial: the interviews were setup, and the shop-owners were pretend.22
Indonesia: Despite criticism from the United Nations, thousands of children continue to perform hazardous work on tobacco farms in Indonesia. They are exposed to nicotine, toxic pesticides, and other dangers, which can have lasting impacts on health and development; the government is content to commit to 'raising awareness' of the risk to children's health, rather than take any action23. According to Human Rights Watch, the companies involved are PT Djarum, PT Gudang Garam Tbk, PT Nojorono Tobacco International, PT Bentoel Internasional Investama (owned by British American Tobacco) and PT Hanjaya Mandala Sampoerna Tbk (owned by Philip Morris International).
Ireland's battle against 'Big Tobacco' is told by James Reilly, Ireland's Minister for Health. The government made proposals for laws to curb smoking. Such proposals are designed to be democratically debated; but he received such a large 'mountain' of responses that it would have been impossible to process if they were not prepared. Only a maximum of 3% of the responses came from concerned individuals; 97% were the result of a deceitful campaign by a consortium of tobacco companies who attempted to derail regulation by jamming the system with negative responses. But this kind of organized campaign has been seen many times before, and so they were "wise to their ways" and found a way to deal with the subversion.4
Tobacco companies in Ireland prepared for legal battles against plain packaging by 'retaining' as many of the best legal Barristers as possible. Because Barristers cannot represent both sides in a legal dispute, the rich tobacco industry purchased the services of as many Barristers as possible, to deny the government representation. But thankfully, many Western governments have learned from past battles, and in this case, the Irish government managed to act earlier than Big Tobacco, preventing them from using this technique.4
In Uruguay in 2014, tobacco producer Phillip Morris was suing the government for having to display massive health warnings on packets, 'claiming the warnings infringed its intellectual property rights and commercial freedom'. Their legal battles amounted to an 'onslaught' against Uruguay, taking the small country to international courts, to try to warn other countries not to follow suit with anti-tobacco laws.24