Is tobacco cultivation and

consumption really an
ENVIRONMENTAL problem?
Is this a constructed “social problem” and is it a feature or a
bug in the quest for achieving the UN Agenda 2030
environmental goals?

Erik Atakan Befrits

Department of Physical Geography

Paper 7.5 HE credits
Environmental communications (ID: GE1019)
Spring term 2017
Supervisor: Jonas Jonsson
Is tobacco cultivation and
consumption really an
ENVIRONMENTAL problem?
Erik Atakan Befrits

Abstract
The tobacco sector is globally unique in that it is the only sector where the industry is by interpretation
of global international treaty instrument (FCTC), barred from holding a relevant stakeholder status in
policy development and to a large extent are also disqualified from publishing recognized peer
reviewed research in a majority of global medical journals. Modern knowledge regarding tobacco and
nicotine use however suggests, fairly conclusively, that tobacco/nicotine products can be provided to
consumers in attractive formats that carry risks below relevant measurement thresholds for public
health and individual health. One important reason for the “smoking epidemic” in absolute numbers
still growing globally, despite the horrific effects and costs from smoking, is very much also due to
perceived consumer surplus and benefits from nicotine use, not only from industry practices.
This paper seeks to evoke questions and challenge conventional wisdom on tobacco as a health and
environmental problem by examining a set of questions on tobacco in relation to environmental
communications theory. The findings suggest that it may be warranted to re-examine tobacco as a
general term in communication. The main problem to health, and to relevant extent also the
environment, may specifically be in relation to smoking only, as formulated more than 50 years ago.
Furthermore, this paper argues that highly relevant and cost effective solutions to negative
environmental concerns and negative health outcomes may be found with industry, consumers and
independent scientists. The current narrative, that “tobacco control” and the global public health
movement is the solution, may be a deadly and unintended consequence of excluding industry, over a
billion consumers, and also independent scientists, from partaking in global policy work. This is in
stark contrast to the inclusive policies adopted in the IPCC work.
Global “tobacco control” has since the turn of the millennium been actively resisting stakeholder
participation in policy shaping, and are re-lexicalizing all forms of nicotine use as “tobacco”.
Furthermore, the paper raises the issue of tobacco as an environmental issue, a trend since 2000 in
Sweden, at an accelerated pace since the 2015 adoption of the UN Agenda 2030 goals and increasing
internationally. In addition to the environmental threat meaning creation, there has been further
concerted efforts to construct and deploy “interpretive packages” wherein the highly heterogenic
tobacco sector is cohered into a homogenous enemy of environmentally almost catastrophic
proportions, that is purported to threaten all 17 UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals
(SDG:s).

Keywords
Environmental communications, Miljökommunikation, Kommunikationsvetenskap, Hållbarhet, Grön
ekonomi, Ekologisk ekonomi, Miljöekonomi, SDG, tobakskontroll, ”tobacco control”, FCTC,
Contents
Cover
Abstract 1
Contents 2
Introduction 3
Problem definition 4
Method, Theory and limitations 6
Analysis 8
Discussion 10
Conclusions and suggestions 11

Appendices

Appendix 1 Media archive database searches 14-17

Appendix 2 Reference letter to level of protectionism 18
Appendix 3 Slides from tobacco NGO presentation 2017 19
Introduction
Achieving the environmental aspects of the UN Agenda 20301 goals for sustainable development is a
globally agreed priority for a sustainable future. Gro Harlem Brundtland in 1983 initiated global
formalisation of relevant processes within the UN, that resulted in the 1987 report: Our common
future.2 This ground-breaking report includes the to this day probably most quoted definition of
sustainable development, almost 35 years later.3
It is becoming increasingly clear that harm reduction strategies are gaining ground in many areas of
environment, health and public health. With regards to tobacco, harm reduction stands to save
hundreds of millions of lives this century. Traditional actors in “tobacco control” have for almost half
a century used a highly effective narrative framing negative health claims in connection to harm
reduced products, in order to dissuade policy makers and regulators from considering such options.
These negative health claims have successfully been utilized in a wide range of public arenas, to set
the agenda and frame the issues in such a way that only total abstinence from nicotine, or the use of
pharmaceutical products, have been viewed as acceptable alternatives to smoking. During the last 24
months, it seems in Sweden, that organisations working against all forms of non-pharma nicotine use
are increasingly emphasizing and formalising environmental concerns related to tobacco, as key
elements of the anti-nicotine rhetoric.
The authors basis for this short paper is an interest in whether traditional “quit or die” philosophy in
tobacco control, when virtually unchanged but reframed and augmented with an environmental motif
and therefore theoretically gaining access to arenas generally reserved for environmental issues,
potentially risks having a Cuckoo like effect similar to GNP in economics4, possibly displacing other
issues that have a higher context specific validity, e g real environmental problems like monoculture or
wide scale deforestation for oil crops.
To a very large degree the work toward a sustainable, just and safe future, is dependent on global
public perception, driving acceptance, scientific funding and policy development. The public
perception of what is true and what are indeed important social problems5 is in turn generated by
several different actors, in different forms and in varying fora for claims-making, framing the issues to
support those claims, and an effective narrative to carry the issues.6
Theory and literature posits that is that there is competition in creating and defining social problems,
both within and between factions and sides to an issue, as well as between the infinite number of
possible social problems that can compete for attention. This paper seeks to briefly address and
analyse one of few examples whereby International treaty law, coupled with and an exhaustive and
cohesive inter-amplifying grouping of actors-arenas-institutions, may have managed to create and
sustain a near total monopoly on a given narrative.7
An analogy in order to easier resonate with the rationale behind the questions asked in this paper: If all
cars were universally decreed to be simply cars, and there was no realistic possibility of even
discussing fossil free electric cars in comparison to traditional combustion engine based cars, the shift

1
United Nations http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
2
United Nationshttp://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf
3
http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf point 27
4
Raworth, K. Doughnut Economics, Random House Business Books, London, 2017
5
Spector, M., and Kitsuse, J. I. (1973) Social Problems: a reformulation. Social Problems. 21(2), 145-59.
6
Hansen, A. ENVIRONMENT, MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION, Routledge 2010, chapter 2
7
Hilgartner, S., and Bosk. C. L., AJS Volume 94 number 1 (July 1988): 53-78 (Page 71)
to fossil free vehicle fleet would in all likelihood be much less feasible, or at least very severely
delayed. Would this be a problem?

Problem definition
The global tobacco industry is one of the most frequently cited8 sectors in Sweden, and globally but
less so, when giving examples of and framing of economic activity that should be seen as exclusively
negative to the environment, health and sustainability, and thus as a non-negotiable and grave threat to
the UN 17 SDG’s.9
At the same time, Sweden is unique in that Sweden is the only country globally, where 50% of total
tobacco use is in a form that allows agricultural raw material inputs that can be (are) vastly reduced in
terms of environmental problems and SDG impacts through the entire supply chain.10 In terms of
health impact at the consumer level Sweden also differs from the norm in that the same proportion of
tobacco use, that is environmentally friendlier, also carries 98% less risk to the consumer.11
The idea that a fair, just and sustainable sub-sector of the global tobacco sector may be possible and to
certain extents may already exist, has not been adequately recognized or studied to date. Further such
study may, or may not, reveal a complementary strategy in tobacco environmental work and tobacco
control work.
In 2008, a study group under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control12, a convention that is
considered binding international law to ratifying states, declared a set of conclusions that have
resonated through the global environmental discussions, in the tobacco debate and is impacting on
discussions relating to environmental and sustainability concerns.13
Some of the more radical points being posited in the WHO FCTC report were again mirrored in a very
critical supply chain study by Swedwatch14 in 2016 that reached worldwide recognition in tobacco
control circles and considerable Swedish media attention. The issues pointed out are environmental
impacts like biodiversity loss, deforestation and soil degradation. Also, social effects like increased
poverty, child labour, nutritional issues and structuralized indebtedness are put forward as negative
consequences of tobacco farming and as violations of basic human rights. Furthermore, health and
safety risks like pesticide poisoning, lung disease, skin disease, cancer and GTS or ‘green tobacco
sickness’ are emphasized, as well as the report pointing out that UN SDG goal number 3 explicitly

8
Tobaksfakta Swedish think-tank commenting on emerging environmental discussions
http://www.tobaksfakta.se/forskare-har-kartlagt-hur-tobaksbolagen-skovlar-miljo-och-halsa-i-fattiga-
lander/
9
United Nations Agenda 2030 http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-
goals/
10
Harm Reduction Journal 2011; 8:11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3119032/
11
International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations; https://www.innco.org/safer-tobacco-
products
12
Framework Convention on Tobacco Control treaty website: http://www.who.int/fctc/en/
13
FCTC 2008 COP working paper defining tobacco as environmental issue
http://apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/cop3/FCTC_COP3_11-en.pdf
14
Swedwatch NGO report criticizing British America Tobacco business practices in Bangladesh
http://www.swedwatch.org/sites/default/files/tmp/bat_81_15aug_ensida_uppdaterad_version_160816.p
df
links the consumption of tobacco to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in declaring
tobacco a global threat to the environment, health, human rights and sustainable development.15
There is little doubt, given the stakeholders claims-making, the Swedish media attention angle, the
lack of communicated counter-claims and subsequently accepted narrative, that the tobacco industry
and supply chain represents a crucial social problem due to the level of environmental threat and more
broadly threating to the Agenda 2030 SDGs. There is also little doubt, given the current level of
scientific and epidemiological evidence, that tobacco use in the form of smoking is the largest
avoidable cause of premature death and disease globally. Current WHO estimates put yearly deaths at
6 million, to rise to 8 million by 203016, and a total of 1 billion premature fatalities this century.17
By briefly illuminating a current snapshot of the situation, in a (1) factual context, (2) issue career and
growth context, and (3) framing context, the author hopes to raise awareness and interest in further in-
depth study of environmental communications regarding the tobacco industry and the tobacco supply
chain.
This paper seeks to briefly illuminate and discuss the unique situation of the tobacco industry in
relation to environmental issues as expressed in environmental communications theory. The situation
with regards to tobacco is fairly unique in the last 60 years of modern free society information
ecosystems. An international convention, the FCTC (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control)18
may function as an effective additional barrier to evidence based counter-rhetoric partaking in
discourse resulting in Hegelian synthesis.
The first aim of this paper is to suggest possible signals as to whether the framing of tobacco as a
serious environmental problem in the Swedish public eye is balanced or not and whether or not this
framing has been successful over time or is becoming so now. A prerequisite for hoping to provide
any useful insights to this question is to first briefly clarify if there is any possibility to conclude, from
a fact-based review of both intellectual camps, whether tobacco is more or less environmentally
detrimental or harmful compared to other crops. A second aim is to display and discuss, mainly
through analysis of graphical quantifications of broad media archive key-phrase searches, if tobacco
related environmental claims-making and “interpretative packaging” is a relatively new phenomenon
or if it has co-existed simultaneously with the health narrative over a longer period of time but, is now
gaining mainstream focus and momentum in Sweden’s mainstream media reporting on the tobacco
issue. The paper aims also to deduce in a comparison, whether or not it could be argued that that a
long history of claims-making and framing of tobacco as a health threat has been successfully
transposed to the entire range of UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.
Thirdly this paper seeks to address and discuss in broader terms, the issue of Swedish narratives
framing “harm reduction” as intrinsic to and inseparable from other forms of tobacco production and
consumption, thereby disqualifying “harm reduction” also on environmental and UN Agenda 2030
SDG grounds.19

15
Swedwatch NGO report criticizing British America Tobacco business practices in Bangladesh
http://www.swedwatch.org/sites/default/files/tmp/bat_81_15aug_ensida_uppdaterad_version_160816.p
df (Page 25)
16
US Centers for Disease Control https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/
17
United Nations 2008 report the Global Tobacco Crisis, published under the WHO MPOWER framework
http://www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/mpower_report_tobacco_crisis_2008.pdf
18
Framework Convention on Tobacco Control treaty website: http://www.who.int/fctc/en/
19
A Non Smoking Generation CEO OP-Ed article against Tobacco Harm Reduction May 31st 2017;
https://www.svd.se/e-cigaretter-bor-ses-som-tobak-och-inget-anat/om/debatt
Method, theory and limitations in
scope
The breadth of the issues at hand, and the brevity of this project, negates anything but cursory analysis
of the specific research questions asked. The intention of the author not to answer them but rather try
to clarify if the questions, when answered in a cursory manner but with relevant holistic perspective,
warrant further study. Put differently, the aim is a question raising analysis of archive materials in
connection to lines of thought, and analysis in environmental communications theory20, in order to
evaluate if these are relevant questions outstanding.
The main and crucial limitation in scope of this paper is the lack of depth of analysis. The trade-off
that this limitation allows the author, is to point to a series of different perspectives from which
questions may be asked. Should several answers to cursory analysis, combine to point in a certain
direction that has been neglected or dissuaded, then there is a non-trivial indication that
communications strategies and legal strategies may have pushed valid counter-claims and valid
counter-rhetoric off the agenda entirely.
The analysis begins with a necessary comparative science based and hermeneutic analytical analysis
on the factual claims-making from different special interest sources (WHO, NGOs, UN FAO and
industry)
This pre-requisite will be followed by set of media archive searches displayed in diagram format in
appendix will be analysed and briefly discussed from a graphical quantitative analytical adaptation of
Mazur’s “quantity of coverage” and coverage-attitude theses.21 22
A comparison will be performed between Swedish media activity in relation to global coverage in
English to evaluate if it is possible that intense directed activity in Sweden and “limited carrying
capacity” have played a role in vaccinating against counter-rhetoric23, and if a different saturation
effect compared to the generally accepted likely effects in the public arenas, may in fact have occurred
in Sweden.
A comment will be attempted regarding re-usability of an established frame but in a different setting
entirely.

20
Hansen, A. ENVIRONMENT, MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION, Routledge 2010
21
Mazur, A. (1981), Media Coverage and Public Opinion on Scientific Controversies. Journal of
Communication, 31: 106–115. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1981.tb01234.x
22
Mazur, A. Lee, J. Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Nov., 1993), pp. 681-720

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1427830.files/Sounding%20the%20Global%20Alarm.pdf
23
Hilgartner, S., and Bosk. C. L., AJS Volume 94 numer 1 (July 1988): 53-78;
https://www.unc.edu/~fbaum/teaching/PLSC541_Fall06/Hilgartner%20and%20Bosk%20AJS%201988.p
df
Analysis

Factual analysis

Despite being the least central to this discussion, the author will first provide a brief scientific
clarification regarding tobacco cultivation. I believe it will prove conducive to a critical and objective
framework when evaluating the further analysis.
FCTC released a report paper in May 2017 titled: The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco
Control – An accelerator for sustainable development24. Simultaneously the central WHO releases a
report – Tobacco and its environmental impact: an overview25. Swedwatch (!) too has played an
important part through its ground-breaking reporting on Tobacco Industry environmental and rights
issues, such as the Clearing the smokescreen series26. From these highly expert and credible sources it
would seem that no further analysis should be necessary, dissuaded even.
However, in counterbalance to the claims made in these reports, one ought to look firstly at
sustainability reports from industry27 28 29 in comparison to other noted multinationals, and also double
check the global databases relating to farming practices. Doing so, a somewhat different picture
emerges.
Tobacco is by no means neutral in terms of problems in modern agriculture. However, tomatoes,
onions, potatoes, grapes and banana for example30 31, require more pesticides and more fertilization
than does tobacco, and tobacco is to large extents cultivated on lands that are not equally well suited
for farming other, less profitable, cash crops32. Looking over one thousand documents lodged with the
WHO FAO databases on tobacco farming shows similar results.33 34 One conclusion that can be drawn
from these findings would be that the most detrimental farming techniques for tobacco, compounded
by the horrific health effects of smoking, can justify a very negative view on tobacco.

24
WHO http://www.who.int/fctc/implementation/publications/who-fctc-undp-wntd-2017.pdf
25
WHO http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/255574/1/9789241512497-eng.pdf?ua=1
26
Swedwatch NGO http://www.swedwatch.org/en/reports/hidden-side-effects-tobacco
27
Swedish Match Corporation https://www.swedishmatch.com/Sustainability/
28
Philip Morris International https://www.pmi.com/sustainability
29
British American Tobacco Sustainability report
http://www.bat.com/group/sites/uk__9d9kcy.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO9DCL3P/$FILE/medMDAKJK4B.pdf
?openelement
30
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/docs/fpnb17.pdf (page
60)
31
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
http://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/4bf666a3-a130-4c00-9184-824033417fe5/
32
World Bank 2003 background paper on tobacco economics in LMIC lodged with the European Union
archives
http://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_determinants/life_style/tobacco/documents/world_bank_en.pdf
33
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations statistics on fertilizer and pesticide uses for
varying crops
http://www.fao.org/search/en/?cx=018170620143701104933%3Aqq82jsfba7w&q=tobacco+fertilizer&c
of=FORID%3A9&siteurl=www.fao.org%2Fsoils-portal%2Fen%2F&ref=www.fao.org%2Fland-
water%2Fland%2Fen%2F&ss=3038j670446j18
34
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4997e/y4997e0h.htm
This view however is incomplete, since it does not take into account that tobacco is per hectare one of
the top earners for small holding farmers, and is per se not necessarily any more detrimental to farmers
or the environment compared to other crops. It is worrisome that these facts and relationships between
different crops and alternatives are not discussed in any of the reports by the WHO, the FCTC or
Swedwatch, despite being evident in the research databases.
This in itself is worthy of further study, in order to determine by what function the top global
sustainability and health organisations, as well as privately funded research projects35, choose to
increasingly disregard equally putative “facts”, for what can only be understood as political and
ideological reasons.

Search analysis

Searches in the Swedish Stockholm University media database36 using several different strings and
sources definitions yield interesting results. As seen in figure 1 and 2 the data indicate a high and
consistent presence of tobacco related issues together with environmental arguments in Sweden,
relative to English media, as expected. As can be glanced from figure 3 it seems that the interpretive
package,37 or possibly packages plural, have been reengineered in terms of the most important
condensing symbols used to evoke the wide array of different feelings and truths that society has
internalized. In the Swedish results ‘tobacco’ as a stand-alone term representing all forms of tobacco
use, or a combination of ‘tobacco’ and ‘snus’, thus creating a new key-word for the social problem
while retaining and reinforcing all the negative connotations from the “smoking” rhetoric in use since
196238 and 196439
Figures 3-7 yield an array of interesting indices. The results indicate that for Sweden, the favoured
terminologies are tobacco and snus, rather than cigarettes or smoking, in relation to both health claims
and environmental claims. Furthermore, the searches indicate that Swedish arenas and institutions
have been saturated for a long time. The basis for this indicative finding is that by looking at search
hits in figures 4 and 5 it seems Sweden has managed to consistently hold attention levels, as indicated
by hits40, corresponding to between 20% and 50% (depending on choice of stacking in Sweden, the
percentage could be well over 100% some years) of total levels in the entire English speaking world. If
correct and verified, this would mean a positively massive relative attention level in Sweden, for a
very long time. This in turn would indicate that the discussions on saturation and novelty requirement
as problems in Hilgartner and Bosk41, may only be valid as long as actual competition exists.
The data also indicate that claiming environmental concerns in relation to tobacco has been an active
narrative for a full decade longer than was the authors initial hypothesis, since ca 2000 in Sweden. As
seen when comparing figures 1 and 2, intentionally or unintentionally this 15 year low level

35
Hu, T-W., Lee, A. H. Tobacco Control and tobacco farming in African Contries J Public Health Policy.
2015 Feb; 36(1): 41–51. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4412848/
36
Stockholm University Media Archive Database https://web-retriever-info-
com.ezp.sub.su.se/services/archive.html
37
William A. Gamson, W. A., and Modigliani, A. American Journal of Sociology Vol. 95, No. 1 (Jul., 1989),
pp. 1-37
38
Royal College of Physicians 1962 report on smoking and lung cancer
https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/smoking-and-health-1962
39
US Surgeon General on smoking and lung
cancerhttps://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/NN/p-nid/60
40
Stockholm University Media Archive Database https://web-retriever-info-
com.ezp.sub.su.se/services/archive.html
41
Hilgartner, S., and Bosk. C. L., AJS Volume 94 numer 1 (July 1988): 53-78
environmental claims-making may have enabled environmental concerns and sustainability concerns
regarding tobacco as a broader category, thus including harm reduced nicotine products, to seep in and
build legitimacy and through already established common vernacular42, enabling this framing to enter
centre stage in a new environmental setting, and take up position beside and intimately interlinked
with, the 40-year-old health frame, coinciding with the Agenda 2030 being adopted in 2015.

Comparison

Analogous to Solesbury’s thinking in 197643 on necessary key prerequisites for successfully

construction a social problem, framing tobacco as a cohesive group and a very serious threat to the
environment, would mean that a lot of the work to command attention, claiming legitimacy and
invoking action has already been done. The well-established framing and vernacular, creating a
common understanding of tobacco as a universal threat to all health, and low level suggestions of
environmental issues over a long period of time, may have proven highly effective in making the
health-frame copy-pasteable to an environmental frame while retaining the full value of the established
claims made.
Studying evolving communications by established actors44 working to eradicate all forms of
tobacco/nicotine use (non-pharma), indicates that this does indeed seem to be the case.

Discussion
Tobacco is a crop and a mild stimulant with an 8000-year history, grown globally under a myriad of
different circumstances and for a myriad different consumption formats. There seems little possibility
that the consumption of tobacco and nicotine does not provide users with a wide range of perceived
benefits and pleasures, not in any way discounting also the evident harms and costs, especially from
substandard agricultural practices, tobacco smoking and the use of toxic smokeless products often with
further toxic and carcinogenic additives. There is however a general notion of tobacco, as an untold
evil entirely perpetuated by a for profit industry, this seems a little far-fetched and would imply lack of
free choice, lack of perceived benefits for the consumer, and possibly even elements of demonic
possession45.
Industrial and cottage combustibles are undoubtedly the deadliest globally used consumer product
known to man, yet over a billion humans smoke them every day and they are by a wide margin the
most common tobacco product used.
Other forms of tobacco derived nicotine consumer products are on the other hand almost entirely
benign, on the level of tea or coffee, and with every possibility of being produced entirely in line with
the Agenda 2030 SDGs through the entire supply and retail chains. This situation seems to persist

42
Ibarra, P. R. and Kitsuse J. I. (1993) Vernacular constitutents of moral discourse: An interactionist
proposal for the study of social problems. In J. A. Holstein & G. Miller (Eds.) Reconsidering social
constructionism (pp. 25-58). New York. Aldine de Gruyter.
43
Hansen, A. ENVIRONMENT, MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION, Routledge 2010 (p 40-45)
44
e g WHO, FCTC, Bloomberg philanthropies, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, ENSP, Tobacco Free Kids,
several hundreds more globally – please contact author for comprehensive list ab@innco.org
45
Anti-THR Lies website by Professor Carl V. Phillips https://antithrlies.com/2014/07/09/economic-
illiteracy-about-tobacco-from-the-antepode/
stubbornly and increasing in total numbers globally, despite a 40-year career of increasingly global
tobacco control work that is now starting to become somewhat successful, in the western world.
A relevant question arises from this, since we have fought a 40-year battle against smoking and
increasingly against all forms of tobacco use, with remarkably powerful tools, yet precious little
success. Is it possible that the time has come to adopt a view on tobacco differs from the “first do no
harm” medical approach, nor continues with the traditional micro and macro national economical
toolbox frameworks for addressing societal problems (“social problems”)?
One route for evaluating possible answers to this question is through analysing the constructed social
problem of tobacco to see how and to what extents, different aspects of tobacco are indeed societal
problems that can be easily and objectively quantified, and what parts are constructed “social
problems” without a legitimate base in evidence. Within the confines of communications theory both
are equally valid as sources of public concern and moral outrage, e g “social problems”, but I argue
that this is not ethically applicable also to a situation that concerns the largest avoidable global cause
of death.
As can be glanced from slides (figures 10-17) from a presentation by Sweden’s top tobacco think tank
Tobaksfakta46 on May 16th, most of the claims regarding low risk tobacco and nicotine products are
now hard-wired into the full array of negative connotations evoked by simply mentioning “tobacco”.
Also, the slides and other recently published materials by Tobaksfakta, make it clear that a direct link
has been created between anything related to nicotine (non-pharma) and each and every one of the 17
UN Agenda 2030 goals.
As can be understood also from figures 8 and 947, it seems clear that institutional safeguards are being
put in place, or have autonomously evolved under tacit agreement by primary definers, in order to
protect the current frame and narrative from critique, or even civil society and evidence based counter-
rhetoric. Scientific discussions on the democratic problems of using democratic fora to put in place
undemocratic and self-perpetuating agendas with strong censorship, seem to reach further than just
nationalistic politics.
It can be argued that now, a decade after Sweden, the recent materials published also by global
organisations as cited in this paper, seem to suggest a global and collectively agreed construction of
the social problem “tobacco”, that allows us and possibly even encourages us to move away from
scientific stringency and objectivity, in favour of achieving “worthy and important” goals.
Science regarding sustainable development and planetary boundaries, as well as social sciences
regarding human rights and human development, have thus far been used with (arguable) stringency
and objectivity in order to influence global policy. Certain areas of public health sciences however,
seem to not be limited by such constraints, whereby politicizing the scientific process itself risks
becoming a feature and not a bug in the “system”.
Developing a global framework to ensure a sustainable, just and fair world is indeed paramount and
imminently necessary, but wrought with issues and resistance, often based in science based yet
opposing views. This process is by definition messy, troublesome and may seem overly time
consuming to the initiated and the experts, but may be the only legitimate process by which humanity
can justly effect change, hopefully also in time. Deliberately and effectively excluding opposing views
may be more efficient in achieving desired results, but has no place in a democratic society.
Furthermore, such supremely goal oriented working methods seem susceptible to self-perversion

46
Swedish think-tank on tobacco related issues www.tobaksfakta.se
47
Email from 2 NGOs 21st May 2017 to, and reply after follow up on June 1st 2017 from, the permanent
representation of Belgium to the EU in Brussels. Citing a highly adapted (illegal?) interpretation of FCTC
article a civil servant takes it upon himself to suppress/destroy science based evidence given from
legitimate civil society
through reinforcing feed-back loops48, if there are insufficient checks and balances built in to the
system.

48
Raworth, K. Doughnut Economics, Random House Business Books, London, 2017 (page 140)
Conclusions and suggestions
With this very brief and cursory look at the tobacco narrative within the macro and communications
frameworks surrounding the environment and sustainable development 2000-2017, and the increased
interconnection with the 17 UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals since 2015, the author
hopes to have raised relevant questions to be further explored in more depth.
Tobacco is one of the most effective catch-phrases today, almost on par with climate-change in terms
of being viewed as a quite real global threat to humanity. The author suggests, and hopes this paper
supports warranted further research on, a possible view that from an objective scientific standpoint,
tobacco smoking but not tobacco itself, is indeed a massive threat to human health. It is quite possible
that “tobacco/nicotine with no combustion” per se, may present only very marginal, if any, problems
to humanity, human rights and sustainable development.
If so, then akin to a cuckoo bird, the anti-nicotine movement has had considerable initial success in
placing tobacco as a “social problem motif49” egg in every one of the 17 “nests” that make up the UN
Agenda 2030 goals for sustainable development. Cuckoo chicks are far from always successful, the
pushing out of the other chicks may be an unintended consequence that had not been necessary if food
had been plentiful, but the fact remains that the cuckoo strategy is fundamentally self-serving at the
expense of others.
The idea of the gravy train is also useful as an analogy given the high impact and high visibility of
tobacco as a “social problem”. It is more than likely that over the coming decade considerable funding
will be dedicated to specific SDGs, do study and address them. Having a consolidated presence in
each SDG will materially increase the tobacco control field’s ability to access funding for its
continued work. Depending on the factual, not constructed, relative importance of tobacco control in
relation to other sub-goals this can be viewed as either good or bad.
In sum total this paper aims to illustrate the importance of operators at every level and in every arena
needing to stay objective and focused, also on the differences between real and relevant societal issues
and constructed “social problems”.
Constructed social problems can be made look almost identical to the underlying societal ones, yet
carry materially different meanings and generate vastly different outcomes. Society at every level
(arena) has finite and limited carrying capacity to understand, address and ultimately deal with “social
problems”. Is the world possibly at cross-roads, where we need to collectively help ensure that “social
problems” are grounded in evidence and a bigger picture systems approach to allow for prioritization.

PS: This paper should by no means be taken to mean that the author suggests anything but a continued
and very determined effort to combat the harms from tobacco and tobacco smoking. This should
hopefully instead lead back to the analogy of green and brown vehicles at the beginning of this paper,
thereby imparting the vital import of recognizing and separating real issues from constructed ones.

49
P. Ibarra, J. Kitsuse, (1993) Vernacular constituents of moral discourse: An interactionist proposal for
the study of social problems. In J. A. Holstein & G. Miller (Eds.) Reconsidering social constructionism
(Page 47). New York. Aldine de Gruyter.
Bibliography

A Non Smoking Generation CEO OP-Ed article against Tobacco Harm Reduction May 31st 2017; https://www.svd.se/e-cigaretter-bor-ses-
som-tobak-och-inget-anat/om/debatt

Anti-THR Lies website by Professor Carl V. Phillips https://antithrlies.com/2014/07/09/economic-illiteracy-about-tobacco-from-the-

antepode/

British American Tobacco Sustainability report

http://www.bat.com/group/sites/uk__9d9kcy.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO9DCL3P/$FILE/medMDAKJK4B.pdf?openelement

CDC US Centers for Disease Control

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/United Nations 2008 report the

Global Tobacco Crisis, published under the WHO MPOWER framework

http://www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/mpower_report_tobacco_crisis_2008.pdf

FCTC Framework Convention on Tobacco Control treaty website: http://www.who.int/fctc/en/

FCTC 2008 COP working paper defining tobacco as environmental issue http://apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/cop3/FCTC_COP3_11-en.pdf

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/docs/fpnb17.pdf (page 60)

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations http://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/4bf666a3-a130-4c00-9184-

824033417fe5/

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations statistics on fertilizer and pesticide uses for varying crops
http://www.fao.org/search/en/?cx=018170620143701104933%3Aqq82jsfba7w&q=tobacco+fertilizer&cof=FORID%3A9&siteurl=www.fao.
org%2Fsoils-portal%2Fen%2F&ref=www.fao.org%2Fland-water%2Fland%2Fen%2F&ss=3038j670446j18

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4997e/y4997e0h.htm

Gamson, W.A., and Modigliani, A. American Journal of Sociology Vol. 95, No. 1 (Jul., 1989), pp. 1-37

Hansen, A. ENVIRONMENT, MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION, Routledge 2010, chapter 2

Hilgartner, S., and Bosk. C. L., AJS Volume 94 number 1 (July 1988): 53-78 (Page 71)
https://www.unc.edu/~fbaum/teaching/PLSC541_Fall06/Hilgartner%20and%20Bosk%20AJS%201988.pdf

Hu, T-W., Lee, A. H. Tobacco Control and tobacco farming in African Contries J Public Health Policy. 2015 Feb; 36(1): 41–51.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4412848/

Ibarra, P.R. and Kitsuse J.I. (1993) Vernacular constituents of moral discourse: An interactionist proposal for the study of social problems. In
J. A. Holstein & G. Miller (Eds.) Reconsidering social constructionism (Page 47). New York. Aldine de Gruyter.

International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations; https://www.innco.org/safer-tobacco-products

Mazur, A. (1981), Media Coverage and Public Opinion on Scientific Controversies. Journal of Communication, 31: 106–115.
doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1981.tb01234.x

Mazur, A. Lee, J. Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Nov., 1993), pp. 681-720
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1427830.files/Sounding%20the%20Global%20Alarm.pdf

Philip Morris International https://www.pmi.com/sustainability

Raworth, K. Doughnut Economics, Random House Business Books, London, 2017 (page 140)

Spector, M., and Kitsuse, J. I. (1973) Social Problems: a reformulation. Social Problems. 21(2), 145-59.

Royal College of Physicians 1962 report on smoking and lung cancer https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/smoking-and-health-
1962

Rutqvist L.E., Harm Reduction Journal 2011; 8:11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3119032/

Stockholm University Media Archive Database https://web-retriever-info-com.ezp.sub.su.se/services/archive.html

Swedish Match Corporation https://www.swedishmatch.com/Sustainability/

Swedwatch NGO report criticizing British America Tobacco business practices in Bangladesh
http://www.swedwatch.org/sites/default/files/tmp/bat_81_15aug_ensida_uppdaterad_version_160816.pdf

Swedwatch NGO report criticizing British America Tobacco business practices in Bangladesh (Page
25)http://www.swedwatch.org/sites/default/files/tmp/bat_81_15aug_ensida_uppdaterad_version_160816.pdf

Swedwatch NGO http://www.swedwatch.org/en/reports/hidden-side-effects-tobacco

Tobaksfakta Swedish think-tank commenting on emerging environmental discussions http://www.tobaksfakta.se/forskare-har-kartlagt-hur-
tobaksbolagen-skovlar-miljo-och-halsa-i-fattiga-lander/

Tobaksfakta, Swedish think-tank on tobacco related issues www.tobaksfakta.se

United Nations http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

United Nationshttp://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf point 27

United Nations Agenda 2030 http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

US Surgeon General on smoking and lung cancer https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/NN/p-nid/60

WHO http://www.who.int/fctc/implementation/publications/who-fctc-undp-wntd-2017.pdf

WHO http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/255574/1/9789241512497-eng.pdf?ua=1

e g WHO, FCTC, Bloomberg philanthropies, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, ENSP, Tobacco Free Kids, several hundreds more globally –
please contact author for comprehensive list ab@innco.org

World Bank 2003 background paper on tobacco economics in LMIC lodged with the European Union archives
http://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_determinants/life_style/tobacco/documents/world_bank_en.pdf

Figures, tables and illustrations

Figures 1-7. Stockholm University Media Database retriever searches performed May 23-May 25 2017 with SU login. https://web-retriever-
info-com.ezp.sub.su.se/services/archive.html

Figures 8-9. Email from 2 NGOs 21st May 2017 to, and reply after, follow up on June 1st 2017 from, the permanent representation of
Belgium to the EU in Brussels. Citing a highly adapted interpretation of FCTC article a civil servant takes it upon himself to suppress/destroy
science based evidence given from legitimate civil society.

Figures 10-16. Tobacco Endgame 2025 presentation and Agenda 2030 SDG connections by Ewy Thörnqvist, Secretary General of
Tobaksfakta. IOGT breakfast seminar May 18th 2017.
Appendices
Searches in Retreiver media archive database Fig 1-7

Figure 1. Tobacco and environmental search words combination Sweden 10 151 hits
Figure 2. Tobacco and sustainable development combination search international media

Figure 3. Tobacco in relation to other tobacco related search terms (smoking and cigarettes) ratio
Figure 4. Swedish media reporting saturation level with global trends superimposed

Figure 5. Tobacco reporting simplified with global results (English media) superimposed
Figure 6. Development over time tobacco search terms full year 28 005 hits

Figure 7. Development over time of different ’tobacco related’ terms in Swedish sources per 6 months 28
005 hits
Reference letter from NGO and reply from Belgium permanent
representation in Brussels May-June 2017 Figure 8-9

Figure 8. one of 27 EU letters sent on May 21st and as shown in fig 9 thrown away by the Embassy Officer

Figure 9. Reply from Health Counsellor of Belgium on June 1st, acknowledging that moral and intellectual
censorship at individual level and without regard to protocol is discretionary – indicating to have been
successfully framed as an acceptable form of behaviour in line with International Treaty, the FCTC. (Sic.)
Slides shown by Tobaksfakta on May 18th 2017 in speech about tobacco
and sustainable development Figures 10-16

Figures 10-16. Ewy Thörnqvist of Tobaksfakta. May 18th 2017 presentation on Tobacco Endgame 2025
initiative with 160 Swedish signatories and a clear message of negative environmental and SDG impacts
also from tobacco harm reduction products and strategies.