10.14 The environmental impact of tobacco production
Show / hide chapter menu
As noted in Section 10.8.1, tobacco growing is shifting from developed countries and becoming concentrated in developing countries. Global tobacco production is forecast to continue increasing at least until the year 2010, and is expected to be matched by growing demand for tobacco products in the developing world as population and income increase.197
For the farmer, tobacco growing often presents an attractive alternative crop to food, for as well as bringing in a higher income, tobacco growers may also receive practical as well as financial assistance from the tobacco industry198 (although this is not necessarily the case199, 200) At the government level, tobacco growing may also be regarded in a favourable light due to the financial benefits it brings through trade and taxation, at least in the short term.201 From the point of view of the tobacco industry, production costs in the developing world are lower and the market is less regulated,197 making for a more conducive operating environment.
Since the late 1970s, concerns have been registered by a number of environmental agencies regarding the impact of tobacco growing.201 The tobacco crop itself requires a high degree of maintenance, including pest and disease control, a regular water supply and fertilisers to optimise output. Although some tobacco leaf is air or sun-dried, the majority of varieties grown (particularly in the developing world) require curing with generated heat, usually fuelled by wood, coal or gas. Beyond the primary industry, cigarette companies run manufacturing operations to turn leaf into various tobacco products ready for distribution, marketing and sale to end users. The tobacco manufacturing industry generates a number of chemical by-products that are considered hazardous, including ammonia, nicotine and nicotine by-products, hydrochloric acid and toluene. In developed countries, appropriate disposal of these chemicals is strictly regulated; the same may not be true in developing countries where tobacco manufacturing is becoming more concentrated.202
The environmental impact of tobacco production has been taken up by the major tobacco companies as part of their portfolio for corporate social responsibility. The major tobacco companies display their environmental credentials by describing on their websites their adoption of sustainable and low-impact practices from farm to factory.3, 5, 19 But no matter how clean or green tobacco production can be, ameliorating environmental concerns ignores the most obvious environmental impact of tobacco production—the deaths of almost five million people worldwide each year.203
10.14.1 Land clearing and deforestation
In some countries tobacco growing has lead to extensive land clearance and deforestation to make room for new crops, and to provide timber to fuel the heaters used to dry the tobacco leaf following harvest.
Recent, independent information on the status of land maintenance in tobacco farming areas is lacking. The most authoritative review available examines data from 1990–95.201 This study found that in the early 1990s, 211,000 hectares of forests or woodlands were cleared each year for the purposes of tobacco farming, more than 90% of this occurring in the developing world.201 This was equivalent to 1.7% of global net losses of natural forest each year, or a mean average in tobacco-growing countries of 4.6% of total national deforestation in the five-year period from 1990-95.201 Overall, around half of the wood consumed for tobacco farming was gathered from common land and native forests, rather than from sustainable sources, and in some countries usage of wood from unmanaged sources was much higher.201 Case reports on farming activity in specific countries attested to the environmental damage caused by farming, and also to the ineffectiveness of measures for reforestation, citing instances of inappropriate plant stock and poorly supported programs.199, 204 Likewise, extravagant tobacco industry claims of extensive tree planting from the same time period did not stand up to scrutiny.205
Geist concluded that tobacco's impact on forest resources had reached 'high' or 'serious' levels (higher than the national mean average of 4.6%) in almost one third of the 66 developing countries in which tobacco is grown, including South Korea, Uruguay, Bangladesh, Malawi, Jordan, Pakistan, Syria, China, Zimbabwe, Argentina, Tunisia and Burundi. In contrast, the impact of tobacco farming on woodland in developed regions such as Canada and North America, where there was a net increase in forest cover, was low.201 Reports commissioned by the tobacco industry in the 1980s and 1990s also signalled alarm at deforestation due to tobacco growing and curing.201, 205
The International Tobacco Growers' Association (ITGA),[29] an affiliation of tobacco growers, claims that preservation of natural resources is a priority and that sustainability is encouraged in most countries where tobacco farmers use wood for fuel. The ITGA states that tobacco growers have contributed to the doubling of natural woodland in regions of southern Brazil.206
On their websites, the major international tobacco companies claim adherence to principals of environment protection and sustainability while pointing out that in the main, the companies do not own tobacco farms and nor have direct control over farming practices.[30] For example, BAT encourages farmers to use non-wood fuels and sponsors forestry programs, as well as using packaging materials from suppliers who use sustainable sources.1 Philip Morris International states that it has developed 'Good Agricultural Practices' guidelines that include avoidance of deforestation and establishment of reforestation.5 Independent verification that reforestation programs such as those publicly supported by the tobacco industry are successful is not available.
10.14.2 Pesticide use
Commercial tobacco growing involves the use of a range of herbicides, fungicides and insecticides to maximise crop production. In recognition of consumer concern about chemicals present in tobacco, as well as the environmental sequelae of inappropriate use of agrichemicals, all three tobacco companies operational in Australia include reassurances about leaf quality on their websites. Imperial Tobacco states that it performs tests 'for the presence of residues of plant protection products' on the leaf it uses.[31]3 Philip Morris and BAT both point to their companies' leaf growing programs that aim to promote quality crops without compromising environmental or human safety5, 8 (at least prior to use).
Until they were banned in the mid-1980s, Australian-grown tobacco was treated with organochlorines such as DDT and dieldrin,207 chemicals that have the ability to accumulate in the environment and the body. In 1981 the National Health and Medical Research Council expressed concern when the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories determined that Australian cigarettes contained 43 times more DDT and 30 times more dieldrin than samples of British or American cigarettes.208 Residues of DDT and dieldren were still evident in soil and river sediments from the tobacco producing Ovens and King region in Victoria in 1989,209 and may have been implicated in a higher rate of breast cancer detected between 1982 and 2002 in women living in the area.210
Research has shown that at least one Australian tobacco manufacturer—Philip Morris—was aware as recently as 1994 that the leaf it was using still contained organochlorines from pesticides banned in the preceding decade.207 Australian cigarette manufacturers are not required to divulge the levels of pesticide residues present in their tobacco products. Now that all tobacco leaf in Australian cigarettes is acquired on the international market and much of this leaf is sourced from developing countries, where use of agrichemicals may be less regulated, the question of pesticide residues levels in Australian cigarettes remains open, despite the assurances of the tobacco manufacturers.207 There is evidence from internal industry documents that the tobacco industry internationally has fought hard to retain the rights to use certain pesticides and has sought to influence regulatory processes in some countries.211
10.14.3 Tobacco production and climate change
Climate change (or global warming) is caused by the increased concentration of certain gases trapped within the earth's atmosphere. These gases, which include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and manufactured substances such as chlorofluorocarbons, are heated by and retain warmth from the sun, leading to rises in average temperatures. These 'greenhouse gases' are present in greater quantities due to a range of human activities, including burning fossil fuels, clearing land, some aspects of farming (including using fertilisers), and some industrial processes.212
All phases of tobacco production have the potential to contribute to climate change, from farming to curing the leaf (which for some kinds of tobacco requires the use of heat generated by wood, oil, coal or gas), and the manufacturing process.
The tobacco industry generally acknowledges issues concerning climate change, presenting policy statements and evidence of benchmarking towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. BAT and ITG dedicate many pages on their international websites to their engagement with responsible environmental policies. In contrast, PMI makes only general comment about its aims of reducing factory emissions, and adhering to world ISO standards.
ITG, BAT and Japan Tobacco are among the 3000-plus signatories to the Carbon Disclosure Project,[32] responding to regular questionnaires stating their performance in reduction of greenhouse emissions and progress towards targets. PMI is not a participant in this project.
As an aside, the tobacco industry did not always embrace global environmental concerns. In the early 1990s, lobby groups closely connected with Philip Morris contributed to the public debate about climate change by denouncing the scientific evidence upon which arguments for global warming were based—along with other scientific 'controversies' such as the health impacts of second-hand smoke and radioactive waste from nuclear power reactors.213, 214
10.14.4 Genetically-modified tobacco leaf
Public anxiety about genetically-modified crops has lead to ambivalent attitudes towards GM tobacco. According to ITG, 'we do not wish to use genetically-modified (GM) tobacco, as we believe that our consumers do not wish to purchase products that may contain GM materials.'3 Other companies are investing substantially in GM research.
Over the decades the tobacco industry has put considerable effort into altering the qualities of tobacco leaf through genetic manipulation. From an agricultural viewpoint, GM technology has offered prospects for maximising crop disease resistance and output. Tobacco companies have also experimented with genetic engineering as a way of manipulating nicotine concentrate—both reducing it,215 with the aim of providing a potentially less hazardous product, and increasing it, with the apparent intention of boosting addictiveness.216, 217 The most notorious example of tobacco industry efforts to achieve the latter is the case of BAT's 'super-tobacco', a genetically-engineered plant variant which contained a much higher than usual amount of nicotine and was intended to make the company's products more addictive.218
GM science is now being applied in the pursuit of less harmful forms of tobacco. Philip Morris (USA, Inc) has contributed $17.5 million to fund the mapping of the tobacco genome by the North Carolina State University,[33] and has also funded research into genetically-modified tobacco leaf that produces fewer carcinogens when smoked. RJ Reynolds, another US-based firm, has also successfully applied for field permits to test new tobacco strains.219 Vector Tobacco, a company 'committed to developing products that significantly reduce the harmful elements found in cigarettes'81, has launched QUEST, a brand that uses leaf genetically engineered with reduced nicotine.81, 220
[29] See: http://www.tobaccoleaf.org/index.asp. ITGA is also discussed in Section 10.20.5.
[30]Although this may be somewhat disingenuous. For example there is evidence that the tobacco companies may exert influence over farmers via the leaf dealers.227
[31]Imperial Tobacco does not manufacture cigarettes in Australia, but does import here. BATA manufactures tobacco products for ITA under licence. However ITA does import a range of tobacco products. See Section 10.4.3.
[32] The Carbon Disclosure Project is an independent, international non-profit institution which encourages publicly listed corporations to measure, manage and reduce emissions. The CDP website is the largest repository of corporate greenhouse gas emissions data in the world. See: http://www.cdproject.net/
[33] See: http://www.tobaccogenome.org/
Copyright © 2012 The Cancer Council. All rights reserved.