From tobacco to climate, the reuse of a winning method

Looking back at the 20th century, we may pride ourselves of living in an enlightened period: after decades of struggle, science has finally managed to defeat the powerful tobacco lobby. The task has been far from easy. In fact, it almost seems like people in developed countries had to reach the murky bottoms of addiction and denial to start coming back to their sense again.

A widespread addiction...
During the first half of the 20th century, cigarette sales literally skyrocket, from 80 cigarettes per inhabitant per year in the US in 1910 to 10 cigarettes per day and per inhabitant in 1950 - which equals to more than 4,000 cigarettes per year for each smoker. In 1951, it is estimated that between 3% and 5% of the budget of an American consumer is spent on tobacco. No surprise then that at the time, each rise of tobacco price generates a strong opposition!

... that raises suspicion among scientists
Yet, even at this early stage, the spectacular infatuation with tobacco does not seem to please everybody. Some suspicious scientists and doctors think that the product might be addictive, while others blame tobacco for the rise in lung cancer rate. One must admit that this rise has been so sudden that it does indeed need to be explained. In 1919, the disease is an oddity with a prevalence of 0.6 cases for 100,000 deaths, the kind of thing the average doctor is likely to see only once in his career. In the 50s, it has become the most common type of cancer after stomach cancer, with a prevalence of 31 cases for 100,000 deaths. As the disease death rate grows, so does the number of scientific studies linking the phenomenon with tobacco use, to the point that in 1954, the American Health Minister declares that one should now consider that the link between tobacco and lung cancer is established.

The recipe of the tobacco lobby: how to gain time with advertisement campaigns...
For the tobacco industry, the only thing that is established at this stage is that without swift action, this kind of sentence is likely to degenerate into some restrictive legislation. This would no doubt be a disaster for the industry's profits, which now reach the huge level of 8 billions dollars for the USA only. To prevent this, several advertising campaigns are started in 1954, with the aim of denying the link between tobacco and lung cancer. Scientist are hired to write pamphlets that will be distributed to medical offices and published in the columns of the national press. The rise of lung cancer being difficult to deny, the industry tries to demonstrate that this might be due to other factors than tobacco, such as the rise in air pollution. The lobby also promotes the use of cigarettes with filter, declared to be less harmful... while increasing in parallel the nicotine doses in these.

All this smoke cloud gives good results: it is not before 1962 that the American government decides to create a group of scientific experts in charge of assessing the real impact of cigarette consumption on health. In 1964, the first assessment of this committee is made public and the link between tobacco and cancer is reasserted. Things then go all wrong for the tobacco industry: in spite of claims that tobacco is helping many American citizens to make a living, the Federal Cigarette and Advertising Act is finally voted. From 1966, it obliges the industry to write on cigarette package that the product might be harmful.

... big money and endless "scepticism"
This blow is followed in 1971 by the ban of cigarette advertising on TV and radio. But the tobacco lobby does not let this get it down. At first, it offers 10 million dollars to the American Medical Association (AMA), effectively silencing it for 10 years. It then gets involved in a large propaganda, mostly based on a scientist-written book with an evocative name: "Smoking is not dangerous". The lobby strategy, which is described thoroughly in internal notes, consists in casting doubt on the real danger of tobacco by claiming that there is not enough data to be sure of it and then endlessly moving the goalposts. Among numerous claims, the lobby will successively put forward that scientific studies are biased because smokers are more likely to be submitted to screening for cancer and thus diagnosed (1974) and that the anti-smoking movement is primarily a conspiracy against personal freedom (1978).

Passive smokers: the last blow
With what might retrospectively be seen as clearsightedness, the tobacco industry points out as early as the 70s that the passive smoker issue is now the biggest threat it has to deal with. If the link between passive smokers and cancer is established, a new set of restrictive laws is sure to be put into place. During several years, the industry will try to silence anti-smoking movements by ensuring that ads that are too clearly against tobacco are not published within national newspapers. This is not too difficult because tobacco advertisement is a major source of profit for newspapers at the time... Yet, in spite of all efforts, the passive smoker issue finally surfaces in the 1986 annual report of the group of experts that was put into place in 1962. This marks the beginning of decaying prospects in developed countries.

During the 90s, numerous newspapers start refusing tobacco ads. At the same time, trials and bans against smoking in public places flourish. After five decades of ruthless battle, cigarette sales in developed countries start to plummet: in 2006, only 24% of American men and 18% of women are alleged smokers, which should be compared to more than 50% of men and 35% of women in 1965.

The show must go on
Yet one should not deduce from this that prospects have become really bleak for tobacco lobbyists. First, the market of developing nations is still open and growing. Furthermore, even in developed countries, there is something to be done with the learning of 50 years of propaganda against a scientific consensus. We should maybe not wonder too much why the past tobacco strategy so strangely resembles current climate change denial. One should be silly not to reuse a winning method!

If we really want to pride ourselves of living in an enlightened time, we may be well advised to look thoroughly at the financing sources of self-declared "non-conformist" scientists and consider with scepticism any of the conspiracy theory flourishing on internet and newspapers. This is the price to pay to make sure that large industry profits are not taken more into account than citizens' own best interests.

Source: most of the information related here comes from the well-documented website Tobacco.org

Picture: More doctors smoke camels than any other cigarettes

Version française : Du tabac au climat, ou les dessous d'une histoire sale