Thetobacco industry playbook,tobacco strategy or simplydisinformation playbook[1][2] describes a strategy used by thetobacco industry in the 1950s to protect revenues in the face of mounting evidence of links between tobacco smoke and serious illnesses, primarily cancer.[3]Such tactics were used even earlier, beginning in the 1920s, by the oil industry to support the use oftetraethyllead ingasoline.[4] They continue to be used by other industries, notably thefossil fuel industry, even using the same PR firms and researchers.[5]
Much of the playbook is known from industry documents made public by whistleblowers or as a result of theTobacco Master Settlement Agreement. These documents are now curated by the UCSFTruth 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 thefossil fuel industry.[5][6]
A 1969R. 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."[7][8]
InMerchants of Doubt,Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway documented the way that tobacco companies had campaigned over several decades to cast doubt on thescientific 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.[9] This is often linked toclimate change denialism promoted by the fossil fuel industry:[10][11] the same tactics were employed by fossil fuel groups such as theAmerican Petroleum Institute to cast doubt on climate science from the 1990s[12] and some of the same PR firms and individuals engaged to claim that tobacco smoking was safe, were later recruited to attack climate science.[13]
In 1953,Reader's Digest's published a précis of an article from theChristian Herald titled "Cancer by the Carton", highlighting the emergent findings of epidemiologists includingRichard Doll andAustin Bradford Hill. In response, US tobacco executives andJohn Hill, of public relations companyHill & Knowlton, held a crisis meeting at theNew York Plaza Hotel.[14] It led to the 1954 publication ofA 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[16] (a type ofresearch misconduct)[17]
Attacking and intimidating scientists who publish "inconvenient science" through threats to funding, promotion, tenure, and reputation.[2][16][18]
Using affiliations with prestigious academic or professional organizations to influence research and advance economic, political, or ideological ends[16]
Politicallobbying 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[16][19]
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.[22][23]
Documents such asBad Science: A Resource Book were used to promulgatetalking points intended to cast doubt on scientific independence and political interference.[24][13]
The playbook has been adopted by the fossil fuel industry, in its efforts to stave off global action on climate change,[2][13] and by those seeking to undermine the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) more generally.[25] The manufacture and promotion of uncertainty, especially, has been identified as inspired directly by the tobacco industry.[9][26]
Recognising that it had little or no credibility with the public, and concerned about mounting pressure to act onenvironmental tobacco smoke (ETS), the tobacco industry actively recruited fellow enemies of the EPA, setting up the "Advancement of Sound Science Coalition" (TASSC), afake grassroots group.[25] Its first director wasSteve Milloy, previously of APCO, the consultancy firm employed by Philip Morris to set up TASSC. Milloy subsequently set upjunkscience.com, a website which equates environmentalists with Nazis and now promotesclimate change denial.[27] Many of the consultants who worked for the tobacco industry, have also worked for fossil fuel companies against action on climate change. TASSC hiredFrederick Seitz andFred Singer, both now prominent in climate change denial.[27]Greg Zimmerman found a 2015 presentation titled "Survival Is Victory: Lessons From the Tobacco Wars" byRichard Reavey ofCloud Peak Energy (and formerly ofPhilip 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.[28][29] BothFred Singer andFrederick Seitz are prominent figures in climate change denial who previously worked for the tobacco industry.[30][27]
Opponents ofvaping also identify elements of the tobacco playbook in the e-cigarette industry's response to health concerns.[31][32] 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.[33][34] The soft drinks industry's attempts to avoidsugary beverage taxes and other government action to reduce obesity draws upon elements of the tobacco playbook,[35] including use ofCorporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs as a PR strategy.[36] Research contracts issued as part of CSR programmes allow soft drinks manufacturers to bury inconvenient results.[37]
^National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (2009). "RESEARCH MISCONDUCT".On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research: Third Edition (Third ed.). Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US). RetrievedMarch 8, 2025.{{cite book}}:|last1= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^Abdalla, Mohamed; Abdalla, Moustafa (2021). "The Grey Hoodie Project: Big Tobacco, Big Tech, and the Threat on Academic Integrity".Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. pp. 287–297.arXiv:2009.13676.doi:10.1145/3461702.3462563.ISBN9781450384735.S2CID221995749.
