Understanding the emergence of the tobacco industry's use of the term tobacco harm reduction in order to inform public health policy

Abstract

ObjectivesTo explore the history of transnational tobacco companies’ use of the term, approach to and perceived benefits of ‘harm reduction’.MethodsAnalysis of internal tobacco industry documents, contemporary tobacco industry literature and 6 semistructured interviews.ResultsThe 2001 Institute of Medicine report on tobacco harm reduction appears to have been pivotal in shaping industry discourse. Documents suggest British American Tobacco and Philip Morris International adopted the term ‘harm reduction’ from Institute of Medicine, then proceeded to heavily emphasise the term in their corporate messaging. Documents and interviews suggest harm reduction offered the tobacco industry two main benefits: an opportunity to (re-) establish dialogue with and access to policy makers, scientists and public health groups and to secure reputational benefits via an emerging corporate social responsibility agenda.ConclusionsTransnational tobacco companies’ harm reduction discourse should be seen as opportunistic tactical adaptation to policy change rather than a genuine commitment to harm reduction. Care should be taken that this does not undermine gains hitherto secured in efforts to reduce the ability of the tobacco industry to inappropriately influence policy.

Harm reduction in U.S. tobacco control: Constructions in textual news media

“…Givel (2011) analyzed 99 Federal tobacco policy documents spanning 2004-2008, during which Phillip Morrisat odds with other major tobacco companies -began supporting legislation (the eventual FSPTCA) embodying tobacco harm reduction. Both studies conclude the term harm reduction was used disingenuously by the tobacco industry to rehabilitate their public image, regain access to policymakers, and ensure profits (Givel, 2011;Peeters & Gilmore, 2014).…”

“…Two additional studies examined harm reduction within tobacco industry documents, casting skepticism toward the sincerity of tobacco companies (Givel, 2011;Peeters & Gilmore, 2014). Peeters and Gilmore (2014) analyzed 455 litigation documents from four tobacco transnational companies spanning 1971-2009, and found that the phrase "harm reduction" entered the industry vernacular in 1999 and began to be used publically in 2002 following an influential report published by the Institute of Medicine.…”

“…Peeters and Gilmore (2014) analyzed 455 litigation documents from four tobacco transnational companies spanning 1971-2009, and found that the phrase "harm reduction" entered the industry vernacular in 1999 and began to be used publically in 2002 following an influential report published by the Institute of Medicine. Givel (2011) analyzed 99 Federal tobacco policy documents spanning 2004-2008, during which Phillip Morrisat odds with other major tobacco companies -began supporting legislation (the eventual FSPTCA) embodying tobacco harm reduction.…”

“…Litigation in the 1990s forced "Big Tobacco" to acknowledge the addictive, hazardous qualities of cigarettes, and the industry has since morphed into highly consolidated transnationals (Bialous & Peeters, 2012). Clearly defining the tobacco industry today is difficult, with many companies having expanded into non-tobacco nicotine products and e-cigarettes, while seeking to rebrand themselves as socially responsible, and improve political alliances (Bialous & Peeters, 2012;Peeters & Gilmore, 2014).…”

“…Five were uncovered for this review; three examined tobacco harm reduction products-snus, e-cigarettes, and smokeless tobacco (Bell & Keane, 2012;Timberlake et al, 2011;Wackowski, Lewis, Delnevo, & Ling, 2013), and two examined the discursive use of harm reduction in tobacco industry and policy documents (Givel, 2011;Peeters & Gilmore, 2014).…”