Author and Page information This page: https://www.globalissues.org/article/533/tobacco.

To print all information (e.g. expanded side notes, shows alternative links), use the print version: https://www.globalissues.org/print/article/533



Tobacco and smoking have a number of negative effects:

Tobacco smoking kills

Tobacco exacerbates poverty

Tobacco contributes to world hunger by diverting prime land away from food production

by diverting prime land away from food production Tobacco production damages the environment

Tobacco reduces economic productivity

While the Tobacco industry may employ people, this can be considered an example of wasted labor , capital and resources.

The World Health Organization has noted that policy measures such as complete bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and its sponsorship do decrease tobacco use. However, the tobacco industry uses its enormous resources to derail or weaken laws and agreements in various countries and regions.

These issues are introduced below.

Tobacco Exacerbates Poverty It is worth citing the WHO again for a summary of how tobacco exacerbates poverty: Tobacco and poverty are inextricably linked. Many studies have shown that in the poorest households in some low-income countries as much as 10% of total household expenditure is on tobacco [and therefore] less money to spend on basic items such as food, education and health care. In addition to its direct health effects, tobacco leads to malnutrition, increased health care costs and premature death. It also contributes to a higher illiteracy rate, since money that could have been used for education is spent on tobacco instead. Tobacco’s role in exacerbating poverty has been largely ignored by researchers in both fields. Why is tobacco a public health priority?, World Health Organization, December 1, 2004 John Madeley also notes in his book, Big Business Poor People (Zed Books, 1999), that heavy advertising of tobacco by Transnational Corporations (TNCs) can convince the poor to smoke more, and to use money they might have spent on food or health care, to buy cigarettes instead. Back to top

Tobacco contributes to world hunger, diverting prime land from food production Smoking also contributes to world hunger as the tobacco industry diverts huge amounts of land from producing food to producing tobacco as John Madely also notes: Dr Judith MacKay, Director of the Asian Consultancy on Tobacco Control in Hong Kong, claims that tobacco’s minor use of land denies 10 to 20 million people of food. Where food has to be imported because rich farmland is being diverted to tobacco production, the government will have to bear the cost of food imports, she points out. … The bottom line for governments of developing countries is that the net economic costs of tobacco are profoundly negative—the cost of treatment, disability and death exceeds the economic benefits to producers by at least US$200 billion annually with one third of this loss being incurred by developing countries . John Madeley, Big Business Poor Peoples; The Impact of Transnational Corporations on the World’s Poor, (Zed Books, 1999) pp. 53, 57 Back to top

Tobacco production damages the environment Madeley also describes in detail other impacts on land from tobacco use: The land that has been destroyed or degraded to grow tobacco has affects on nearby farms. As forests, for example, are cleared to make way for tobacco plantations, then the soil protection it provides is lost and is more likely to be washed away in heavy rains. This can lead to soil degradation and failing yields.

A lot of wood is also needed to cure tobacco leaves.

Tobacco uses up more water, and has more pesticides applied to it, further affecting water supplies. These water supplies are further depleted by the tobacco industry recommending the planting of quick growing, but water-thirsty eucalyptus trees.

Child labor is often needed in tobacco farms. For more detail, refer to Big Business Poor Peoples; The Impact of Transnational Corporations on the World’s Poor , by John Madeley, (Zed Books, 1999) ch. 4. Back to top

Tobacco smoking damages the environment In The Tobacco Atlas; Costs to the Economy (last accessed July 2, 2008), the WHO noted the impact of fires caused by smoking (10% of all fire deaths, killing 300,000 people, costing $27 billion). It also noted that 1987 saw the world’s worst forest fire caused by cigarettes happened in China in 1987, killing 300 people, making 5,000 homeless, and destroying 1.3 million hectares of land. This hints at the side-effects of tobacco use; costly forest fires which often make for sensational headlines, especially in dry, hot conditions. With increasing concern about climate change, the extra carbon dioxide released by such forest fires does not help. There are also other less direct impacts to the environment. For example, The resources required to make cigarette lighters and related products, to package and sell them

The resources required to box and package tobacco products

The resources required to employ people working in the industry, to advertise and market the products

etc. (Many lighters are made from plastics and require a small amount of fuel. In the vast quanitities they are produced these small amounts of oil and related products that go into these can add up. As people are getting jittery about high oil prices, clean energy and so on, these kind of things add to those concerns, even if this is not seen as a priority concern.) Given that tobacco use has no benefit for society, these costs further highlight wasted resources. While tobacco companies are somewhat held to account for the additional costs to people’s health, they are rarely held accountable for promoting products which have these additional consequences.

Tobacco Reduces Economic Productivity Summarizing from the WHO again: The economic costs of tobacco use are equally devastating. In addition to the high public health costs of treating tobacco-caused diseases, tobacco kills people at the height of their productivity, depriving families of breadwinners and nations of a healthy workforce. Tobacco users are also less productive while they are alive due to increased sickness. A 1994 report estimated that the use of tobacco resulted in an annual global net loss of US$ 200 thousand million, a third of this loss being in developing countries. Why is tobacco a public health priority?, World Health Organization, December 1, 2004 A report by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids says that from a socioeconomic and environmental perspective, there is little benefit in tobacco growing , and that While a few large-scale tobacco growers have prospered, the vast majority of tobacco growers in the Global South barely eke out a living toiling for the companies. Furthermore, the cigarette companies continue to downplay or ignore the many serious economic and environmental costs associated with tobacco cultivation, such as chronic indebtedness among tobacco farmers (usually to the companies themselves), serious environmental destruction caused by tobacco farming, and pesticide-related health problems for farmers and their families. Back to top

Tobacco Industry Hitting Back To sell a product that kills up to half of its users requires extraordinary marketing savvy, and tobacco companies are some of the most manipulative product sellers and promoters in the world. WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2013 , p. 23 The tobacco companies have tried various ways to minimize damage impact to their sales and reputation. They have sought to expand markets in other areas, especially the developing world as they find the industrialized nations are increasingly hostile to their industry. Attempts at regulation are fought with various public relations attempts, and corruption. Four companies now control 75 percent of global cigarette sales, as sophisticated strategies for supply, production and sales have produced increasingly popular global brands. The onward march of Marlboro man epitomises this globalisation, exploiting the opportunities presented by trade liberalisation, regional organisations and the communications revolution. Control efforts are undermined by the industry’s success in developing favourable relationships with many governments, the magnitude of their foreign direct investments and the scale of advertising, marketing and sponsorship campaigns. In addition, large-scale cigarette smuggling, which comprises one-third of total exports, depletes tax revenues and further jeopardises public health. Controlling the global tobacco epidemic. Towards a transnational response, ID21 Insights, March 2001 Expanding into Developing Nations Markets In recent years, the damage caused to a person’s health by tobacco consumption has been confirmed, attracted particular scrutiny at tobacco firms because they knew this for years, but attempted to hide their research. Some countries, such as the US have had the resources and political will to tackle the large tobacco corporations. However, combined with the resulting smaller and tougher markets in the rich countries, multinational tobacco firms have intensified their efforts in other regions of world such as Asia, to continue growing and selling cigarettes, as well as expanding advertising (to create demand, not meet). And they have been successful, too. 84% of the estimated 1.3 billion smokers live in developing and transitional economy countries as the WHO has noted. Targeting Children, Teenagers and Women Image: boy smoking. © WHO For their 2008 World No Tobacco Day event, the WHO noted that Most people start smoking before the age of 18, and almost a quarter of these individuals begin using tobacco before the age of 10. Almost understandably, tobacco companies are compelled to target the young and women. Teenagers are future consumers often highly impressionable and in some societies with significant disposable income; for any company where brand and consumption of their products are important, attracting younger members of society increases the chances of longer term lock-in. Image: young girl smoking. © WHO With the tobacco industry, ironically perhaps, as their products kill their customers (or as customers try to quit), they need to find newer consumers. Younger people will take a longer time to die or quit, thus increasingly the likelihood of continued sales. Women generally smoke a lot less than men, everywhere. It can be deadly to unborn children, too. However, tobacco companies see women as an untapped market where there is more potential to increase consumption than with men. So, unchecked and with profit being the natural motive for the tobacco companies, children and women are understandable target consumers. Public Relations and WHO-Discrediting Campaigns The tobacco industry has gone to extraordinary levels to discredit the World Health Organisation and others that are fighting tobacco issues, a WHO report charges. A Committee of Experts had been set up in October 1999 to inquire into the nature and extent of undue influence which the tobacco industry had exercised over UN organisations. This Committee produced the report that found that the tobacco industry regarded the World Health Organization as one of their leading enemies, and that the industry had a planned strategy to contain, neutralise, reorient WHO’s tobacco control initiatives. They added that the tobacco industry documents show that they carried out their plan by: Staging events to divert attention from the public health issues raised by tobacco use;

Attempting to reduce budgets for the scientific and policy activities carried out by WHO;

Pitting other UN agencies against WHO;

Seeking to convince developing countries that WHO’s tobacco control program was a First World agenda carried out at the expense of the developing world;

agenda carried out at the expense of the developing world; Distorting the results of important scientific studies on tobacco;

Discrediting the WHO as an institution. More than a decade after the above concerns are raised, the WHO finds similar strategies are still being used by the tobacco industry. Examples of tobacco control interference tactics the industry employs include: Influencing the political and legislative process;

Exaggerating the economic importance of the industry;

Manipulating public opinion to improve the industry’s image;

Fabricating support through front groups;

Discrediting proven science;

Intimidating governments with litigation Corruption PAHO, the Pan American Health Organization (a regional office for the Americas for the WHO) issued a report titled Profits over People (17 December 2002). Looking at the Latin American and Caribbean countries and information from Philip Morris and British American Tobacco, the report details how the tobacco companies: Were intensely competitive but collaborated in campaigns against common threats to the industry

Hired scientists throughout the region to misrepresent the science linking secondhand smoke to serious diseases, while cloaking in secrecy any connection of these scientists with the tobacco industry;

Designed youth smoking prevention campaigns and programs primarily as public relations exercises aimed at deterring meaningful regulation of tobacco marketing;

campaigns and programs primarily as public relations exercises aimed at deterring meaningful regulation of tobacco marketing; Had detailed knowledge of smuggling networks and markets and actively sought to increase their share of the illegal market by structuring marketing campaigns and distribution routes around it; and

Enjoyed access to key government officials and succeeded in weakening or killing tobacco control legislation in a number of countries. They also added that these tactics and strategies are not unique to the Americas region. Tobacco Companies Accused of Attempting to Undermine Tobacco Treaty The non-governmental organization, Corporate Accountability International, reports that the tobacco industry is interfering with health policy around the world . The report summarized as follows: Thailand’s case stands out as an impressive example of a developing country successfully overcoming years of powerful tobacco industry interference in health policy [by putting in place effective tobacco advertising bans]. In Nigeria, Big Tobacco is using its economic muscle to try to keep treaty ratification off the table for discussion by manipulating media coverage and influencing government agencies. Guatemala’s current situation exemplifies the need for Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC—requiring parties to the treaty to protect public health policy from industry interference—and the importance of being vigilant to interference throughout the implementation process. The case of Guatemala also illustrates a new variation of old tobacco industry tricks, where Big Tobacco tries to pull the wool over policymakers’ eyes by advocating “regulation” while drafting legislation that actually weakens or conflicts with the tobacco treaty. Big Tobacco’s Attempts to Derail the Global Tobacco Treaty , Corporate Accountability International, October 6, 2005 In Africa’s most populous nation (thus an attractive potential market for tobacco firms), Nigeria, the report was very critical of British American Tobacco (BAT): In Nigeria BAT’s tactics to undermine health policies include attempting to bribe journalists with cash prizes for favorable media coverage and giving expensive gifts to regulatory agencies and government officials. The combination of a misinformed public and easily influenced government is a proven recipe for weak, corporate-friendly regulations. Media is a top target in BAT’s efforts to misinform Nigerians. The corporation hosts expensive meals for media owners and editors, sponsors journalist association meetings, syndicates articles favoring corporate interests and tobacco products, and leverages its advertising power to stop the publication of critical articles. Big Tobacco’s Attempts to Derail the Global Tobacco Treaty , Corporate Accountability International, October 6, 2005 But there is corruption at government levels, for they target government officials too, the report added. Common BAT tactics to influence government officials include intense lobbying and expensive gifts. In Guatemala, the report accuses Philip Morris/Altria and BAT of trying to stall or derail Guatemala’s treaty process which goes against the tobacco Framework treaty which requires that the tobacco industry does not interfere with government policies. For further information in this area, see also the following: Corporate Accountability International’s Tobacco Campaign

Tobacco: A Political Struggle to the Death by Gustavo Capdevila, Inter Press Service (IPS) , May 31, 2006

, May 31, 2006 Tobacco Treaty Gains Hard-Fought Ground by Isaac Baker, IPS , October 25, 2005 Reports such as those mentioned above show that there is a lot of political maneuvering by large tobacco companies to lower prices, to increase sales, etc. In addition, the poor and small farmers are the ones most affected by the impacts of tobacco companies. The hard cash earned from this foreign investment is offset by the costs in social and public health and the environment. In effect, profits are privatized; costs are socialized. Back to top

Wasted wealth, resources and labor While the tobacco industry no doubt provides jobs for many people around the world, the total negative effects of the industry and of smoking tobacco suggests that this is wasted wealth and wasted labor. Talented scientists and business people currently employed by this industry could potentially be working in other areas contributing to society in a more positive way, while agricultural workers could potentially be producing less damaging products, for example. As noted earlier, wastage also occurs in the form of deaths from fires, the environmental damage caused by forest fires started by cigarettes, the resources needed to package, distribute, and employ people in the tobacco industry, the resources needed to create additional products such as cigarette lighters, promotional materials, etc. In a way, there is also the extra cost of anti-tobacco campaigns! Arguably, without the excessive promotion by the tobacco industry, much time and resources would not have to be devoted by the World Health Organization and other campaigners on raising these issues; other concerns could then be given more attention. While people have attempted to hold tobacco companies to account for the health burden they introduce, they are rarely held to account for these other forms of waste. (Wasted wealth and wasted labor and wasted resources are discussed in more depth later in this site’s section on consumption and consumerism.) Note that this does not have to be an authoritarian ban, as free choice is still a treasured value. Instead: True costing of tobacco (factoring in health, environment and social costs, as well as additional economic costs that might be externalized) would increase the cost of tobacco products to a higher and more realistic value.

That could help pay for dealing with the various damages. It may potentially deter those whose free choice has been influenced by the numerous public relations, advertising and propaganda of the tobacco industry. (Some countries such as the UK do add taxes onto cigarettes, but largely to only cover health costs.)

choice has been influenced by the numerous public relations, advertising and propaganda of the tobacco industry. (Some countries such as the UK do add taxes onto cigarettes, but largely to only cover health costs.) Enormous PR related resources would be freed up for other needs, such as helping the tobacco industry clean up, diversifying into other areas, etc.

Heavily-burdened health services would additionally free up, thus leading to a potentially snow-balling series of positive effects. A lot of this is perhaps wishful thinking, as the tobacco industry would lose out a lot, and no industry would like that. Their size, power and thus influence, means that they will (and have) hit back in many ways to dilute effective action. Back to top

Electronic cigarettes Electronic or e-cigarettes appear to be an answer to quitting smoking; at least to the industry. However, health officials worry that their advertising (which has all the hallmarks of tobacco advertising in the past to glamorize smoking) will appeal to young people and undermine tobacco control policy. That is the concern raised in the British Medical Journal . It notes that not only are marketing efforts being directed at consumers, but also to policy makers, even though the potential benefits (being safer, a healthier alternative, harmless, a pathway to quitting, etc.) may be unsubstantiated or overstated. Back to top

Free choice? It is often argued by those who prefer to smoke and not see more and more restrictions put in place that it is their free choice to smoke. Some will add that they do not smoke in front of children, etc and thus sound responsible. Yet, on the one hand how free a choice is it to decide to smoke? Advertising, peer pressure, modern culture, stress all combine to give reasons for people to smoke. A documentary about British American Tobacco pushing tobacco to children in Africa, produced by the BBC , tried to ask shareholders at an annual meeting what they thought: one smugly responded that he was for free choice and happy that the questioner lived in a society where he was free to ask such questions. In other words, the free choice to smoke was equated with the notion of freedom. This was just a regurgitation of marketing from tobacco companies that promoted similar messages decades earlier. The irony that this person freely commented this and had not possibly been influenced by such marketing, perhaps subconsciously, was not noted! Furthermore, it may seem like a free choice to only harm oneself when deciding to smoke, but second hand smoking also kills. And perhaps more remote than that is people half way around the world may be going hungry because land that could have been growing and sustaining local people is now diverted into environmentally damaging and wasteful tobacco production. If one does not wish to give up smoking because it is considered free choice, how about quitting smoking so others may have a choice? Back to top