How A Name and Shame Strategy Supports The Fight Against Tobacco

The tobacco industry, deadlier than the weapons industry, has caused millions of deaths and knowingly fostered addiction while governments continue to permit its harmful influence. The Economist's acceptance of tobacco funding highlights how entrenched this deadly industry remains, yet recent steps to sever ties with tobacco companies show a positive shift. Governments and society must now take decisive action to prioritise public health, remove tobacco's influence, and restore true freedom to those affected by addiction.

Key Points

• Tobacco kills more people than the weapons industry, causing 100 million deaths in the 20th century and potentially 1 billion in the 21st century.
• The addictive nature of the substance challenges the concept of freedom of choice in using tobacco.
• After being criticised for its ties to the tobacco industry, The Economist ended its engagement.
• Governments are responsible for protecting public health by prohibiting the sale of tobacco.

The tobacco industry is deadlier than the weapons industry, with tobacco being more widely available than even basic necessities like bread. In the 20th century alone, tobacco was responsible for 100 million deaths, and if current trends continue, it is expected to claim 1 billion lives in the 21st century. Tragically, half of all tobacco users will die from its effects. Despite these alarming statistics, governments continue to permit the sale of this deadly product. What is even more concerning is that the tobacco industry has been aware of the carcinogenic and harmful effects of its products for decades, as confirmed by internal documents, and it has long understood the addictive nature of tobacco. It is time for decisive action to prevent further unnecessary loss of life and to prioritise public health over corporate profits.

Addiction and Freedom: The Illusion of Choice

The tobacco industry and government often argue that using tobacco is a matter of personal choice – an exercise of freedom. However, as confirmed by the tobacco industry’s own internal documents, they openly acknowledge being ‘in the addiction business.’ This raises a crucial point: can we truly speak of freedom of choice when addiction is involved? Addiction, by its very nature, strips individuals of their ability to make free and rational choices, creating a dependency that makes people feel they need tobacco. The same principle applies to e-cigarettes, or vaping, which also fosters dependency.

Some short research leads us to an article by Andreas T. Schmidt titled “Freedom of choice and the tobacco end game.” Below is an excerpt from the abstract that further explores this issue. This clearly calls into question the notion of freedom when addiction is deliberately cultivated by an industry, making the case for stricter regulations and protection of public health.

“Endgame proposals strive for a tobacco‐free (or at least cigarette‐free) society. Some endgame proposals are radical and include, for example, a complete ban on cigarettes. Setting aside empirical worries, one worry is ethical: would such proposals not go too far in interfering with individual freedom? I argue that concerns around freedom do not speak against endgame proposals, including strong ones such as a cigarette ban. I first argue that when balancing freedom with public health goals in tobacco control, the latter wins out. But I also argue that, in principle, a concern with freedom itself already justifies endgame measures. First, such measures can increase people's lifetime freedom, that is, the freedom they have across their entire lives. Second, such measures can facilitate a better interpersonal distribution of freedom by increasing aggregate societal freedom and reducing inequalities. Overall, freedom does not preclude strict tobacco control but supports it.” (Schmidt 2022)

It could be argued that ending the sale or use of tobacco and vaping – depending on the approach taken – actually restores freedom to those who were previously addicted. By removing the addiction, individuals can experience true and lasting freedom.

With this in mind, why mention The Economist? What has changed?

Complicity and Contradiction: Unveiling the Tobacco Industry’s Enduring Influence

It’s easy to be naïve, but sometimes we wake up to the harsh reality: tobacco still holds a significant role in our society, and tobacco companies remain integral parts of powerful, wealthy organisations. We refuse to accept this as normal, yet it seems to persist; it’s not just the sight of people smoking; employees of the tobacco industry are everywhere, integrated into everyday business and influencing our world. Regardless of government regulations or corporate ethical codes, the tobacco industry always finds a way to maintain its presence and influence.

Many people claim to despise tobacco, yet ultimately, most of us tolerate the presence of those who work in or support the tobacco industry. Rather than challenging them or urging them to leave the deadliest industry in history, we allow them to remain part of our communities. We are all aware that tobacco kills more people each year than weapons do, yet by accepting these individuals and companies in our midst, we continue to normalise this business. Despite the countless lives lost, we implicitly endorse its existence through our complacency.

On Wednesday, September 11, we were informed by the UICC director that The Economist receives funding from Philip Morris. For those sceptical, search for “Economist and Philip Morris” on Google – this alone will provide enough evidence. Multiple studies conducted by The Economist have received financial support from Philip Morris.

A year ago, we were impressed by the quality of The Economist Impact Congress ‘Annual World Cancer Series’, and we intended to participate again this year. However, upon learning of the connection between The Economist and Philip Morris, we immediately decided to withdraw, along with other speakers, including DG Health Stella Kyriakedis and several MEPs.

How can a respected and well-known organisation like The Economist align itself with the tobacco industry? Even more concerning, how can they host health conferences while accepting funding from an industry that is responsible for so much suffering and death? This is not only contradictory but deeply offensive to all those who have lost their lives due to tobacco and to those impacted by the actions of the industry and its affiliates.

By accepting funding for your activity from a business whose product is the direct cause of millions of deaths each year, you are legitimising that business. This means you are confirming that such business is morally acceptable to you and that you consider such a business to be a normal and equal partner of society. Claiming to segregate this funding from health-related activities – such as stating that no tobacco money is used for health-related conferences – is merely an attempt to mask your fundamental acceptance. Well-respected organisations can never condone any such acceptance as it is a callous denial of the human suffering of millions.

What has been achieved already?

The good news is that The Economist has already cancelled congresses due to the withdrawal of various speakers and sponsors. Notably, The Guardian has conducted research and published on this topic. One of their articles highlights the deep ties with the tobacco industry. Their investigation found that Economist Impact, part of the Economist Group (TEG), has deep ties with Philip Morris International (PMI), Japan Tobacco International (JTI) and British American Tobacco (BAT).’

Even more encouraging, The Economist Group, including all its divisions beyond just Economist Impact, has decided to end its engagement with the tobacco industry. This decision, announced by the UICC on its website (The Union for International Cancer Control 2024), marks a significant positive change. It reflects a growing commitment among influential organisations to distance themselves from industries that cause extensive harm to public health, promoting greater accountability and ethical standards in corporate partnerships.

Do Governments have a responsibility?

Inspire2Live wants to take the initiative not to ban smoking but instead prohibit the sale of tobacco. The key reason for this is to shift the blame away from the individual smoker – addressing the idea of freedom of choice – and onto the industry and governments. Our primary focus is not to sue the tobacco industry but rather to hold the government accountable.  While the tobacco industry often loses lawsuits, they are still permitted to continue their harmful business with government approval. We, therefore, believe that the government is not doing enough to protect the health of its citizens. We want to sue the government based on the treaty for the protection of human rights. Article 2, ECHR: ‘The right to live’ (European Convention on Human Rights). We believe there is a real chance that we will win. After all, the Urgenda case (this was a case against the government based on this ECHR, for not doing enough to protect the citizens against climate change, and this was won at the Supreme Court level) has preceded us, and this new case is entirely in line with that: ‘Government; protect your citizens!’

We Can Do More: Blame and Shame

We have already highlighted that tobacco use, the companies involved, and their employees are still viewed as socially acceptable, ‘normal phenomena’. There is an urgent need to change this. Reading the book ‘The honour code’ from Kwame Anthony Appiah we learn how duelling, Chinese foot binding, slavery and honour-killing were brought to an end: the ones that committed these crimes felt shame. They were blamed and shame came across them. Appiah quotes Hegel:

'Anerkennung - Recognition. We human beings need others to respond appropriately to who we are and to what we do. We need others to recognise us as conscious beings and to acknowledge that we recognise them.' (Appiah 2011)

As long we are accepted in our behaviour, we continue to do the things we do. Appiah writes in his book about social phenomena, not about individuals. Society must offer 'Anerkennung'. If that changes, the whole thing changes. That is why duelling changed in England: even the poor wretches started duelling. Then, it is time for the nobility to stop and ban it. But when a society feels a sense of shame, this also happens. China was no longer taken seriously because of foot binding. When China realised this and became internationally ridiculed, foot binding stopped within a few years.

Conclusion

So, let’s try to bring a strong feeling of shame over the tobacco industry, its employees, its distributors and, of course, the ones who accept money from them.  We commend The Economist for their decision to end ties with the tobacco industry, a step that earns our renewed respect. As a result, we are eager to support their initiatives and will gladly attend their conferences again next year. This decision sets a positive example, demonstrating the value of prioritising public health over harmful affiliations.

Conflict of Interest

None