Looking through enemy eyes: How the tobacco industry framed the problem of tobacco control during the FCTC process

We used publically available tobacco industry documents to analyze how tobacco companies framed the tobacco control movement and its relationship to the UN and WHO as the industry prepared for, and attempted to participate in, the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control (FCTC) negotiations. Two companies developed cohesive frameworks which both characterizing the international tobacco control movement, and suggested solution mechanisms for dealing with this “problem”- British American Tobacco (BAT) and Philip Morris.

BAT characterized the tobacco control movement as the reaction to a loss of confidence in the company and the perception that the company could not regulate itself. BAT advocated “sensible regulation” in which they attempted to align with civil society through self-regulation. Philip Morris asserted that tobacco control organizations comprised an epistemic community which subverted science and was advised to both fracture the tobacco control movement and influence the FCTC through the protocol process. These divergent strategies lead to different focuses, BAT emphasized corporate social responsibility (CSR) and social alignment, while Philip Morris focused on subversion and surveillance.

This research has important implications. BAT is still emphasizing CSR and using the language of “sensible regulation” (most recently in a response to the revelation of undue influence on EU policy-making). The FDA regulation of tobacco and industry seats on the advisory board is an example of Philip Morris' attempt to influence the regulatory process from within. The continuing employment of these strategies and their influence on policy making is troubling in light of Article 5.3 of the FCTC.