tobacco industry playbook
{{short description|Propaganda techniques used by the tobacco industry}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=July 2024}}
File:Tabakslobby.jpg to Dutch politician Kartika Liotard in September 2013]]
The tobacco industry playbook, tobacco strategy or simply disinformation playbook{{cite journal |last1=Reed |first1=Genna |last2=Hendlin |first2=Yogi |last3=Desikan |first3=Anita |last4=MacKinney |first4=Taryn |last5=Berman |first5=Emily |last6=Goldman |first6=Gretchen T. |title=The disinformation playbook: how industry manipulates the science-policy process—and how to restore scientific integrity |journal=Journal of Public Health Policy |date=December 2021 |volume=42 |issue=4 |pages=622–634 |doi=10.1057/s41271-021-00318-6 |url=https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8651604/ |access-date=30 January 2025}}{{Cite web |url=https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/disinformation-playbook |title=The Disinformation Playbook |website=Union of Concerned Scientists |language=en |access-date=2020-04-09 |archive-date=2020-04-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200421130918/https://ucsusa.org/resources/disinformation-playbook |url-status=live }} describes a strategy used by the tobacco industry in the 1950s to protect revenues in the face of mounting evidence of links between tobacco smoke and serious illnesses, primarily cancer.{{Cite news|url=http://theconversation.com/it-was-big-tobacco-not-trump-that-wrote-the-post-truth-rule-book-75782 |title=It was Big Tobacco, not Trump, that wrote the post-truth rule book |last1=Rowell |first1=Andrew |last2=Evans-Reeves |first2=Karen |website=The Conversation |language=en |access-date=2020-04-09}}
Such tactics were used even earlier, beginning in the 1920s, by the oil industry to support the use of tetraethyllead in gasoline.{{cite news |last1=Kitman |first1=Jamie Lincoln |title=The Secret History of Lead |url=https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/secret-history-lead/ |access-date=30 January 2025 |work=The Nation |date=2 March 2000}} They continue to be used by other industries, notably the fossil fuel industry, even using the same PR firms and researchers.
Much of the playbook is known from industry documents made public by whistleblowers or as a result of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. These documents are now curated by the UCSF Truth Tobacco Industry Documents project and are a primary source for much commentary on both the tobacco playbook and its similarities to the tactics used by other industries such as the fossil fuel industry.{{Cite web |last=Hulac|first=Benjamin |title=Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public|date=July 20, 2016|url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/|publisher=ClimateWire|via=Scientific American|language=en}}{{Cite press release|url=https://www.ciel.org/news/oil-tobacco-denial-playbook/|date=June 20, 2016|title=New Documents Reveal Denial Playbook Originated with Big Oil, Not Big Tobacco|publisher=Center for International Environmental Law|access-date=April 9, 2020|archive-date=June 25, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200625024444/https://www.ciel.org/news/oil-tobacco-denial-playbook/|url-status=live}}
A 1969 R. J. Reynolds internal memorandum noted, "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public."{{Cite book |title=The Cigarette Papers |page=171 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=B6UwDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA171 |last=Glantz |first=Stanton A |author-link=Stanton Glantz |date=1996 |publisher=University of California Press |isbn=978-0-520-92099-6 |location=Berkeley |oclc=42855812}} [https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft8489p25j&chunk.id=d0e6807&toc.depth=1&toc.id=d0e6708&brand=ucpress alt link]{{Cite web |title=Smoking and Health Proposal |pages=4–5 |year=1969 |url=https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=psdw0147 |website=University of California San Francisco}}
In Merchants of Doubt, Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway documented the way that tobacco companies had campaigned over several decades to cast doubt on the scientific evidence of harm caused by their products, and noted the same techniques being used by other industries whose harmful products were targets of regulatory and environmental efforts.{{Cite book |last=Oreskes, Naomi. |title=Merchants of Doubt |title-link=Merchants of Doubt |date=2010 |publisher=Bloomsbury Press |isbn=978-1-59691-610-4 |edition=1st U.S. |location=New York |oclc=461631066 |author-link=Naomi Oreskes}} This is often linked to climate change denialism promoted by the fossil fuel industry:{{Cite journal |last1=Supran |first1=Geoffrey |last2=Oreskes |first2=Naomi |date=2017-08-01 |title=Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977–2014) |journal=Environmental Research Letters |language=en |volume=12 |issue=8 |pages=084019 |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f |bibcode=2017ERL....12h4019S |issn=1748-9326|doi-access=free }}{{Cite news |last=Nuccitelli |first=Dana |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/23/harvard-scientists-took-exxons-challenge-found-it-using-the-tobacco-playbook |title=Harvard scientists took Exxon's challenge; found it using the tobacco playbook |date=2017-08-23 |work=The Guardian |access-date=2020-04-09 |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077 |archive-date=2020-09-25 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200925113135/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/23/harvard-scientists-took-exxons-challenge-found-it-using-the-tobacco-playbook |url-status=live }} the same tactics were employed by fossil fuel groups such as the American Petroleum Institute to cast doubt on climate science from the 1990s{{Cite news |last=Pooley |first=Eric |date=14 February 2017 |title=Climate Change Denial Is the Original Fake News |language=en |work=Time Magazine |url=https://time.com/4664173/climate-change-denial-fake-news/ |access-date=2020-04-09}} and some of the same PR firms and individuals engaged to claim that tobacco smoking was safe, were later recruited to attack climate science.
History
In 1953, Reader's Digest's published a précis of an article from the Christian Herald titled "Cancer by the Carton", highlighting the emergent findings of epidemiologists including Richard Doll and Austin Bradford Hill. In response, US tobacco executives and John Hill, of public relations company Hill & Knowlton, held a crisis meeting at the New York Plaza Hotel.{{Cite news |last=Stobbe |first=Mike |date=5 January 2014 |title=Historic smoking report marks 50th anniversary |language=en-US |work=USA Today |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/05/historic-smoking-report-marks-50th-anniversary/4318233/ |url-status=live |access-date=2020-04-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170902094036/https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/05/historic-smoking-report-marks-50th-anniversary/4318233/ |archive-date=2017-09-02}} It led to the 1954 publication of A Frank Statement, an advertisement designed to cast doubt on the science showing serious health effects from smoking.
- Fabricating or falsifying scientific research and presenting it as legitimate research, e.g. using flawed methodologies that bias results, selectively publishing only favorable results{{cite web |title=The Disinformation Playbook {{!}} Union of Concerned Scientists |url=https://www.ucs.org/resources/disinformation-playbook |website=Union of Concerned Scientists |access-date=8 March 2025 |language=en}} (a type of research misconduct){{cite book |last1=National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy |title=On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research: Third Edition |date=2009 |publisher=National Academies Press (US) |location=Washington (DC) |edition=Third |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK214564/ |access-date=8 March 2025 |language=en |chapter=RESEARCH MISCONDUCT}}
- Attacking and intimidating scientists who publish "inconvenient science" through threats to funding, promotion, tenure, and reputation.{{cite journal |last1=Rohr |first1=Jason R. |title=The Atrazine Saga and its Importance to the Future of Toxicology, Science, and Environmental and Human Health |journal=Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry |date=2021 |volume=40 |issue=6 |pages=1544–1558 |doi=10.1002/etc.5037 |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.5037?af=R |access-date=8 March 2025 |language=en |issn=1552-8618}}
- Manufacture "fear, uncertainty and doubt" by claiming that there is uncertainty about accepted scientific consensus, through actions like funding "junk science" studies designed to undermine scientific consensus, and repeating debunked claims
- Using affiliations with prestigious academic or professional organizations to influence research and advance economic, political, or ideological ends
- Political lobbying to manipulate government, influence policy, or control key decision-making positions, in defiance of scientific consensus, potentially posing a risk to public health and safety{{cite journal |last1=Smith |first1=Philip |last2=Bansal-Travers |first2=Maansi |last3=O'Connor |first3=Richard |last4=Brown |first4=Anthony |last5=Banthin |first5=Chris |last6=Guardino-Colket |first6=Sara |last7=Cummings |first7=K. Michael |title=Correcting Over 50 Years of Tobacco Industry Misinformation |journal=American Journal of Preventive Medicine |date=1 June 2011 |volume=40 |issue=6 |pages=690–698 |doi=10.1016/j.amepre.2011.01.020 |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749379711001632 |issn=0749-3797}}
- Resisting public regulation and emphasizing industry self-regulation and personal responsibility.{{cite journal |last1=Watts |first1=Christina |last2=Rose |first2=Shiho |last3=McGill |first3=Bronwyn |last4=Yazidjoglou |first4=Amelia |title=New image, same tactics: global tobacco and vaping industry strategies to promote youth vaping |journal=Health Promotion International |date=1 October 2024 |volume=39 |issue=5 |pages=daae126 |doi=10.1093/heapro/daae126 |url=https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daae126 |access-date=8 March 2025 |issn=0957-4824|pmc=11533144 }}{{cite journal |last1=Wolfs |first1=Wouter |last2=Veldhuis |first2=Jan Jaap |title=Regulating social media through self-regulation: a process-tracing case study of the European Commission and Facebook |journal=Political Research Exchange |date=31 December 2023 |volume=5 |issue=1 |pages=2182696 |doi=10.1080/2474736X.2023.2182696 |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2474736X.2023.2182696#d1e140|doi-access=free }}
- Astroturfing: fabricating, or directly or indirectly funding, "front groups" to act on behalf of industrial interests. Entities are often often deceptively named, and may falsely claim to represent grassroots opinion.{{cite journal |last1=Cho |first1=Charles H. |last2=Martens |first2=Martin L. |last3=Kim |first3=Hakkyun |last4=Rodrigue |first4=Michelle |title=Astroturfing Global Warming: It Isn’t Always Greener on the Other Side of the Fence |journal=Journal of Business Ethics |date=1 December 2011 |volume=104 |issue=4 |pages=571–587 |doi=10.1007/s10551-011-0950-6 |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0950-6 |access-date=8 March 2025 |language=en |issn=1573-0697}}{{cite web |title=How Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Used “Astroturf” Front Groups to Confuse the Public {{!}} Union of Concerned Scientists |url=https://www.ucs.org/resources/how-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-used-astroturf-front-groups-confuse-public |website=Union of Concerned Scientists |access-date=8 March 2025 |language=en}}
Documents such as Bad Science: A Resource Book were used to promulgate talking points intended to cast doubt on scientific independence and political interference.{{Cite web |url=https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/#id=qmcj0065 |title=Bad Science: a Resource Book |website=Tobacco Industry Documents Library |access-date=2020-04-09 |archive-date=2020-03-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200326193724/https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/#id=qmcj0065 |url-status=live }}
Influence
{{Further|Climate change denial}}
The playbook has been adopted by the fossil fuel industry, in its efforts to stave off global action on climate change,{{Cite news |last=Readfearn |first=Graham |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/mar/05/doubt-over-climate-science-is-a-product-with-an-industry-behind-it |title=Doubt over climate science is a product with an industry behind it |date=2015-03-05 |work=The Guardian |access-date=2020-04-09 |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077 |archive-date=2019-05-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190529163355/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/mar/05/doubt-over-climate-science-is-a-product-with-an-industry-behind-it |url-status=live }} and by those seeking to undermine the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) more generally.{{Cite news |last1=Johns |first1=David Merritt |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/12/13/how-trumps-war-science-is-borrowing-tobacco-industry-playbook/ |title=How Trump's war on science is borrowing from the tobacco industry playbook |access-date=2020-04-09 |newspaper=Washington Post |last2=Levy |first2=Karen |language=en |archive-date=2020-03-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200312233102/https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/12/13/how-trumps-war-science-is-borrowing-tobacco-industry-playbook/ |url-status=live }} The manufacture and promotion of uncertainty, especially, has been identified as inspired directly by the tobacco industry.{{Cite news |last=Corner |first=Adam |url=https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/climate-change-communication-uncertainty |title=The communication of uncertainty is hindering climate change action |date=2014-01-31 |work=The Guardian |access-date=2020-04-09 |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077 |archive-date=2020-05-24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200524041644/https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/climate-change-communication-uncertainty |url-status=live }}
Recognising that it had little or no credibility with the public, and concerned about mounting pressure to act on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), the tobacco industry actively recruited fellow enemies of the EPA, setting up the "Advancement of Sound Science Coalition" (TASSC), a fake grassroots group. Its first director was Steve Milloy, previously of APCO, the consultancy firm employed by Philip Morris to set up TASSC. Milloy subsequently set up junkscience.com, a website which equates environmentalists with Nazis and now promotes climate change denial.{{Cite news |last=Monbiot |first=George |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2 |title=Climate change and Big Tobacco |date=2006-09-19 |work=The Guardian |access-date=2020-04-23 |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077 |author-link=George Monbiot |archive-date=2007-03-24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070324072335/http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1 |url-status=live }} Many of the consultants who worked for the tobacco industry, have also worked for fossil fuel companies against action on climate change. TASSC hired Frederick Seitz and Fred Singer, both now prominent in climate change denial. Greg Zimmerman found a 2015 presentation titled "Survival Is Victory: Lessons From the Tobacco Wars" by Richard Reavey of Cloud Peak Energy (and formerly of Philip Morris) in which Reavey explicitly acknowledged the parallels and urged fellow coal executives to accept the facts of climate change and work with regulators on solutions that would preserve the industry.{{Cite news |last=Schwartz |first=John |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/science/coal-industry-feeling-cornered-peeks-at-big-tobacco-playbook.html |title=Feeling Cornered, Coal Industry Borrows From Tobacco Playbook, Activists Say |date=2016-08-16 |work=The New York Times |access-date=2020-04-09 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}{{Cite web |last=Hulac|first=Benjamin|title=Coal Executive Says His Industry Must Confront Climate Change|url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-executive-says-his-industry-must-confront-climate-change/|publisher=ClimateWire|date=August 25, 2016|language=en|journal=|access-date=April 9, 2020|archive-date=October 7, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191007082517/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-executive-says-his-industry-must-confront-climate-change/|url-status=live}} Both Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz are prominent figures in climate change denial who previously worked for the tobacco industry.{{Cite web |url=https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/climate-denier-fred-singer-complains-about-merchants-doubt |title=Climate denier Fred Singer complains about Merchants of Doubt |website=Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education |language=en |access-date=2020-04-09 |archive-date=2019-10-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191029200819/https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/climate-denier-fred-singer-complains-about-merchants-doubt |url-status=live }}
Environmentalist George Monbiot identifies many groups that were funded by tobacco firms and subsequently by Exxon and other fossil fuel companies, and now actively take part in climate change denial, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, The Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the Reason Foundation, the Independent Institute, and George Mason University's Law and Economics Centre.
Opponents of vaping also identify elements of the tobacco playbook in the e-cigarette industry's response to health concerns.{{Cite news |url=https://time.com/5688256/big-tobacco-vaping-preemption-laws/ |title=How the Vaping Industry Is Using a Defensive Tactic Pioneered Decades Ago by Big Tobacco |access-date=2020-04-09 |language=en}}{{Cite news |last1=Bloomberg |first1=Michael R. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/opinion/vape-deaths-children-bloomberg.html |title=Ban Flavored E-Cigarettes to Protect Our Children |date=2019-09-10 |work=The New York Times |access-date=2020-04-09 |last2=Myers |first2=Matt |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}} Tobacco companies took stakes in soft drinks companies and used the same tactics around colours and flavours that they had used to target young potential smokers.{{Cite news |url=https://medibulletin.com/big-tobacco-bringing-same-market-strategy-into-sugary-drinks/ |title=Big tobacco bringing same market strategy into sugary drinks |date=2019-03-15 |access-date=2020-04-23 |language=en-GB |archive-date=2021-10-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211027181029/https://medibulletin.com/big-tobacco-bringing-same-market-strategy-into-sugary-drinks/ |url-status=live }}{{Cite web |title=Soft Drink Companies Copy Tobacco Playbook to Lure Young Users |first=Suzanne |last=Leigh |url=https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2019/03/413581/soft-drink-companies-copy-tobacco-playbook-lure-young-users |language=en |date=14 March 2019 |access-date=2020-04-23 |archive-date=2020-03-25 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200325040221/https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2019/03/413581/soft-drink-companies-copy-tobacco-playbook-lure-young-users |url-status=live }} The soft drinks industry's attempts to avoid sugary beverage taxes and other government action to reduce obesity draws upon elements of the tobacco playbook,{{Cite news |last=Nestle |first=Marion |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/11/coca-cola-obesity-health-studies |title=Coca-Cola says its drinks don't cause obesity. Science says otherwise |date=2015-08-11 |work=The Guardian |access-date=2020-04-09 |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077 |archive-date=2020-02-22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200222012700/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/11/coca-cola-obesity-health-studies |url-status=live }} including use of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs as a PR strategy.{{Cite journal |last1=Dorfman |first1=Lori |last2=Cheyne |first2=Andrew |last3=Friedman |first3=Lissy C. |last4=Wadud |first4=Asiya |last5=Gottlieb |first5=Mark |date=2012-06-19 |title=Soda and Tobacco Industry Corporate Social Responsibility Campaigns: How Do They Compare? |journal=PLOS Medicine |language=en |volume=9 |issue=6 |pages=e1001241 |doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001241 |issn=1549-1676 |pmc=3378589 |pmid=22723745 |doi-access=free }} Research contracts issued as part of CSR programmes allow soft drinks manufacturers to bury inconvenient results.{{Cite web |date=2019-05-08 |title=Contracts give Coca-Cola power to 'quash' health research, study suggests |url=https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/contracts-give-coca-cola-power-to-quash-health-research-study-suggests |language=en |website=University of Cambridge |access-date=2020-04-23 |archive-date=2020-08-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200805080950/https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/contracts-give-coca-cola-power-to-quash-health-research-study-suggests |url-status=live }}
A 2019 article in the Emory Law Journal made parallels to attempts by the National Football League to downplay the issue of chronic traumatic encephalopathy in American football,{{Cite journal |last=Paolini |first=Mikayla |title=NFL Takes a Page from the Big Tobacco Playbook: Assumption of Risk in the CTE Crisis |url=https://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-68/issue-3/comments/NFL-big-tobacco-playbook-risk-CTE-crisis.html |journal=Emory Law Journal|volume=68 |issue=3 |pages=607–642|date=2019}} with the New York Times noting a number of tobacco figures involved in the NFL's defence.{{Cite news |last1=Schwarz |first1=Alan |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/sports/football/nfl-concussion-research-tobacco.html |title=N.F.L.'s Flawed Concussion Research and Ties to Tobacco Industry |date=2016-03-24 |work=The New York Times |access-date=2020-04-09 |last2=Bogdanich |first2=Walt |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |last3=Williams |first3=Jacqueline}}
The World Health Organization has subsequently published a tobacco control playbook.{{Cite web |url=http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/tobacco/policy/tobacco-control-playbook |title=Tobacco Control Playbook |date=2020-04-09 |website=World Health Organization |language=en |access-date=2020-04-09 |archive-date=2020-02-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200205101100/http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/tobacco/policy/tobacco-control-playbook |url-status=live }}
The public relations strategies of Big Tech companies have often been compared with the tobacco industry playbook.{{cite web|url=https://publicknowledge.org/is-this-really-big-techs-big-tobacco-moment-only-congress-can-make-it-so/|last=Macpherson|first=Lisa|title=Is This Really Big Tech's 'Big Tobacco' Moment? Only Congress Can Make It So.|date=2021-10-29|access-date=2022-01-12}}{{cite book|arxiv=2009.13676|title=Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society|last1=Abdalla|first1=Mohamed|last2=Abdalla|first2=Moustafa|chapter=The Grey Hoodie Project: Big Tobacco, Big Tech, and the Threat on Academic Integrity|year=2021|pages=287–297|doi=10.1145/3461702.3462563|isbn=9781450384735|s2cid=221995749}}{{explain|date=January 2022}}
See also
References
{{reflist}}
Further reading
- [https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/disinformation-playbook The Disinformation Playbook – How Business Interests Deceive, Misinform, and Buy Influence at the Expense of Public Health and Safety] (www.ucsusa.org)
- [https://csts.ua.edu/files/2019/01/1952-12-Readers-Digest-Cancer-by-the-Carton.pdf Cancer by the carton] (1952)
{{Cigarettes}}{{Climate change}}
{{Disinformation}}
Category:Disinformation operations
Category:Scientific controversies
Category:Climate change controversies
Category:Medical controversies