Portal ENSP - Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública Sergio Arouca Portal FIOCRUZ - Fundação Oswaldo Cruz

Início / Discrediting proven science

Discrediting proven science

Since scientific evidence on the harmful effects of tobacco on health began to accumulate, the industry has sought to discredit it.1 A landmark of this effort occurred in 1954, when a public relations firm hired by major tobacco companies published the advertisement “A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers”2 in hundreds of newspapers across the United States. The content, which reached millions of people, claimed that research linking smoking to lung cancer was not conclusive.

However, decades later, internal industry documents were made public showing that, at the time, companies already knew and accepted the robustness of studies linking tobacco to cancer, as well as other diseases and health conditions.3 “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public,” wrote an industry executive in a 1969 memo.4

This strategy was also extensively used to challenge evidence on the risks of secondhand smoke, including in Brazil. In the early 1990s, BAT and Philip Morris launched Project Latin—“in anticipation, rather than in reaction, to the full arrival of the ETS [Environmental Tobacco Smoke] issue in Central and South America,” as stated in an internal document. The project was funded by both companies and, by 1993, involved consultants in seven countries in Central and South America, including Brazil.5

Consultants were meant to be perceived as independent experts and were tasked with writing letters and editorials for newspapers; producing articles on secondhand smoke and health for the press and scientific journals; participating in scientific conferences as speakers or attendees; and giving interviews. They also conducted studies on indoor air pollution to downplay the risks of secondhand smoke. The results of these studies were presented to government authorities in an attempt to prevent restrictive legislation.6

More recently, in Brazil, the tobacco industry has used the strategy of discrediting research to delay the ban on cigarettes with additives, such as flavorings and sweeteners. In this case, it argues that there is no scientific evidence linking the use of additives to the attractiveness of tobacco products—which is not true.7 In 2011, industry-linked groups, such as the Interstate Tobacco Industry Union (SindiTabaco), funded a study8 by the Getulio Vargas Foundation that concluded that banning additives would not bring public health benefits.7 Despite this, the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa) issued a resolution banning these products in 2012. Since then, however, there has been a wave of legal challenges against the measure, and the issue is currently pending judgment by the Federal Supreme Court (STF).9

Another area in which the industry acts to generate doubt about scientific evidence is electronic smoking devices (ESDs). Between 2023 and 2024, the Brazilian National Congress held debates on the regulation of these products; during public hearings in the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies, industry representatives and allies presented scientific data with conflicts of interest to support the claim that ESDs are an alternative for smoking cessation.10

In addition, in 2024, the platform Quit Like Sweden was launched in Brasília with the aim of promoting smoking reduction in Brazil, inspired by the Swedish model. In the Scandinavian country, the decline in smoking prevalence was driven by the popularization of snus, which are nicotine pouches used as an alternative to cigarettes.11 Quit Like Sweden presents a number of documents and academic articles—including work by authors with conflicts of interest with the industry—on the alleged benefits of alternatives to conventional cigarettes, such as ESDs.

There is no information on the initiative’s website regarding its funding. However, the platform’s founder, Suely Castro, worked for the Centre for Substance Use Research, which provides consultancy and conducts research for tobacco and e-cigarette companies, and was affiliated with Knowledge-Action-Change, an organization supported by the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (now called Global Action to End Smoking)—which, in turn, was founded with funding from Philip Morris International.12 13

The World Health Organization (WHO) points out that by distorting scientific literature and manufacturing uncertainty, the tobacco industry seeks to steer policy decisions in its favor. This strategy can not only delay tobacco control measures but also hinder the ability of legislators, government bodies, and courts to respond to future threats.1