Tobacco industry sociological programs to influence public beliefs about smoking

Abstract

The multinational tobacco companies responded to arguments about the social costs of smoking and hazards of secondhand smoke by quietly implementing the Social Costs/Social Values project (1979)(1980)(1981)(1982)(1983)(1984)(1985)(1986)(1987)(1988)(1989), which relied upon the knowledge and authoritative power of social scientists to construct an alternate cultural repertoire of smoking. Social scientists created and disseminated non-health based, pro-tobacco arguments without fully acknowledging their relationship with the industry. After the U.S. Surgeon General concluded that nicotine was addictive in 1988, the industry responded by forming "Associates for Research in the Science of Enjoyment" (c.1988-1999), whose members toured the world promoting the health benefits of the use of legal substances, including tobacco, for stress relief and relaxation, without acknowledging the industry's role. In this paper we draw on previously secret tobacco industry documents, now available on the internet to show how both of these programs utilized academic sociologists, political scientists, anthropologists, psychologists, philosophers and economists, and allowed the industry to develop and widely disseminate friendly research through credible channels. Strategies included creating favorable surveys and opinions, infusing them into the lay press and media through press releases, articles and conferences, publishing, promoting and disseminating books, commissioning and placing favorable book reviews, providing media training for book authors and organizing media tours. These programs allowed the tobacco industry to affect public and academic discourse on the social acceptability of smoking.

“Nicotine Nazis strike again”: a brief analysis of the use of Nazi rhetoric in attacking tobacco control advocacy

“…At the urging of US tobacco company RJ Reynolds, in 1978 the multinational tobacco companies came together under their International Committee on Smoking Issues to commission “third party” social science academics to develop arguments to maintain the social acceptability of smoking and undermine the credibility of public health arguments, initially through its Social Costs/Social Values project and later, in the 1990s, through Associates for Research in the Science of Enjoyment (ARISE) 38 – 40. These third parties rarely disclosed the nature of their relationships to the industry.…”

“…As early as the 1970s, the transnational tobacco companies already worked on a set of programmes using third party social science academics to construct an alternative cultural repertoire to halt the decline in social acceptability of smoking on global level 40. Besides the political advocacy by the tobacco industry through advertisements, (secretly) commissioned reports and op-eds in the media, industry-supported front groups directly attacked tobacco control initiatives with Nazi rhetoric, either to fight the introduction of new legislation or to discredit and ridicule tobacco control advocates.…”

The potential impact of cannabis legalization on the development of cannabis use disorders

“…This dynamic incentivizes companies to maximize profits by creating and sustaining heavy users of their products. This begins with marketing strategies that encourage initiation and continuation of use through shaping of product-related attitudes, beliefs, and expectations, and the normalizing of use (DiFranza et al, 2006; Landman et al, 2008; Pechmann and Knight, 2002). Adolescents are particularly susceptible and appealing targets for such strategies because earlier age of onset of use is associated with increased risk for later heavy tobacco, alcohol and cannabis use, and for alcohol and cannabis use use disorders (Agrawal et al, 2006; Biener and Siegel, 2000; Chen et al, 2005; David J. DeWit et al, 2000; Evans et al, 1995; Perkonigg et al, 2008; Swift et al, 2008).…”

The Tobacco Industry, Researchers, and Ethical Access to UK Biobank: Using the Public Interest and Public Good

“…10 Payments were routed indirectly to the beneficiaries so that they could avoid disclosing direct involvement with the tobacco industry, and links were rarely disclosed or downplayed. 11 After the Masters Settlement Agreement, the Council for Tobacco Research and the Center for Indoor Air Research were disbanded, which forced the tobacco industry to fund research through independent organizations such as the nonprofit Life Sciences Research Office and the Institute for Science and Health. Both institutions, while declaring independence from industry bias, downplayed or concealed their level of involvement with the tobacco industry.…”