Tobacco industry playbook

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  The tobacco industry playbook has a mission statement, written by an insider. A 1969 R. J. Reynolds internal memorandum declared: "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." That sentence, buried in corporate files for years, names the goal of a strategy the tobacco industry began assembling in the 1950s. It was not designed to prove cigarettes were safe. It was designed to keep people uncertain. How exactly was such a machine built? And how did the same techniques migrate into industries with no connection to cigarettes? Some of the same firms and some of the same individuals made that transfer possible.

• 2. Cancer by the Carton

  ›

  In 1953, Reader's Digest published a précis of an article from the Christian Herald titled "Cancer by the Carton." It highlighted the emerging findings of epidemiologists including Richard Doll and Austin Bradford Hill. For the tobacco industry, the publication landed as a crisis.

  US tobacco executives and John Hill, of public relations company Hill & Knowlton, held an emergency meeting at the New York Plaza Hotel. Their answer was not a safer product but a communications strategy. That meeting led to the 1954 publication of A Frank Statement. The advertisement was built to cast doubt on the science linking smoking to serious illness.

  The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement and subsequent whistleblowers brought much of the internal documentation into public view. The UCSF Truth Tobacco Industry Documents project now curates this archive. Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway drew on such material for their book Merchants of Doubt. They traced how tobacco companies campaigned across several decades to sow uncertainty about the evidence for harm caused by their products.

  The oil industry had deployed similar tactics beginning in the 1920s, specifically to support the use of tetraethyllead in gasoline. What the tobacco industry contributed was a codified, exportable version of the approach. It was detailed enough for other industries to adopt nearly verbatim, decades later.

• 3. Seven Repeatable Moves

  ›

  Fabricating or falsifying scientific research was the playbook's first move. This meant using flawed methodologies to bias results and selectively publishing only favorable studies. That pattern constitutes a form of research misconduct designed to be difficult to detect or counter quickly.

  Scientists who produced inconvenient findings were not merely disputed. They were targeted through threats to their funding, their chances of promotion, their tenure, and their professional reputations.

  Manufactured "fear, uncertainty and doubt" was the playbook's third component. The method involved funding studies designed to look like independent science but built to undermine consensus. Debunked claims were then repeated as though the debate remained open.

  Cultivating affiliations with prestigious academic and professional organizations was the fourth move. These relationships gave industry-aligned positions the appearance of independent endorsement. Political lobbying served as the fifth move, aimed at shaping government policy and steering it away from regulation. The sixth promoted industry self-regulation and the doctrine of personal responsibility as substitutes for government oversight.

  Astroturfing completed the seven-part structure. This meant fabricating or indirectly funding front groups that falsely claimed to represent grassroots public opinion. These entities were often given names designed to imply civic purpose or independence. The document "Bad Science: A Resource Book" served as a distribution tool, circulating talking points meant to cast doubt on scientific independence.

• 4. The Climate Connection

  ›

  Philip Morris hired the consultancy firm APCO to create the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, known as TASSC. Concerned that it had little credibility with the public on environmental issues, the tobacco industry designed TASSC to appear as a grassroots coalition. Its actual purpose was to challenge the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

  Steve Milloy served as TASSC's first director, having come directly from APCO. He later founded junkscience.com, a website that equates environmentalists with Nazis and promotes climate change denial.

  TASCC also recruited Frederick Seitz and Fred Singer. Both became prominent figures in climate change denial. In 2015, Greg Zimmerman found a presentation titled "Survival Is Victory: Lessons From the Tobacco Wars." Richard Reavey of Cloud Peak Energy had delivered it; he had previously worked at Philip Morris. Reavey explicitly acknowledged the parallels between the coal and tobacco industries. He urged fellow coal executives to accept the facts of climate change and work with regulators on solutions that would preserve the industry.

  The American Petroleum Institute deployed the same tactics against climate science from the 1990s. Some of the PR firms that had previously promoted tobacco as safe were later recruited to challenge climate science.

  George Monbiot identified think tanks funded first by tobacco companies and later by Exxon and other fossil fuel firms. All of them actively participated in climate change denial. His list includes the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, The Heritage Foundation, and the Hudson Institute. It also names the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the Reason Foundation, the Independent Institute, and George Mason University's Law and Economics Centre. The World Health Organization subsequently published its own tobacco control playbook. That step acknowledged how widely these techniques had spread and how systematically they needed to be countered.

• 5. Beyond the Cigarette

  ›

  Opponents of vaping identified elements of the tobacco playbook in the e-cigarette industry's response to health concerns. Tobacco companies had taken stakes in soft drinks companies and applied the same tactics around colors and flavors. These were the techniques they had originally used to attract young potential smokers.

  Coca-Cola funded health researchers through Corporate Social Responsibility programs. Provisions in those agreements gave Coca-Cola the right to review research before publication and control over study data and disclosure of results. Some agreements stated explicitly that Coca-Cola could prevent publication entirely. Research contracts of this type allowed soft drinks manufacturers to suppress inconvenient findings.

  A 2019 article in the Emory Law Journal drew parallels between the tobacco playbook and the National Football League. The NFL had worked to downplay the issue of chronic traumatic encephalopathy in American football. The New York Times noted a number of tobacco-linked figures involved in the NFL's defense.

  The public relations strategies of major technology companies have also been compared to the tobacco industry playbook. The 2019 Emory Law Journal analysis made the structural logic visible. Once a set of tactics proves effective at stalling regulation, other industries facing the same challenge tend to find them.