10.14 The environmental impact of tobacco production

Last updated: December 2016 

Suggested citation: MacKenzie, R., Freeman, B., & Winstanley, MH. 10.14 The environmental impact of tobacco production. In Scollo, MM and Winstanley, MH [editors]. Tobacco in Australia: Facts and issues. Melbourne: Cancer Council Victoria; 2016. Available from: http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-10-tobacco-industry/10-14-the-environmental-impact-of-tobacco-producti

 

In 2012, 7.5 million tonnes of tobacco leaf were grown in more than 120 countries.1 Two-thirds (64.8%) of this production was produced by three countries, China (42.3%), Brazil (11.4%), and India (11.1%).2 Like smoking prevalence, tobacco production has shifted from high-income to low and middle-income countries. Between and 1961 and 2006, global production of tobacco leaf rose from 57% to 90% in low and middle-income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and Asia.3   

For many farmers, particularly, but not exclusively, in low and middle-income countries, tobacco is considered an important source of income. A number of observers,4-6 however, have described how industry control of tobacco growing and the leaf trade has resulted in cycles of indebtedness, particularly among farmers contracted directly by leading cigarette manufacturers. Further, short-term, unreliable income is often offset by damage caused by tobacco cultivation to the local environment, costs of fertilisers and pesticides, dangerous working conditions and illness experienced by farm workers, food insecurity and child labour4, 7-10 (see Section 10.15). For governments, tobacco growing provides income through trade and taxation, at least in the short term.11 From the tobacco industry’s perspective, production costs in low and middle-income countries are lower, and markets are often less regulated.12, 13

Since the late 1970s, concerns have been raised regarding the environmental impacts of tobacco growing.4, 14, 15 Tobacco leaf cultivation is labour-intensive, requires significant pest and disease control, use of fertilisers, and extensive water supply.  While some tobacco leaf is air, or sun-dried, the majority of cultivated leaf, particularly in low and middle-income countries is flue- cured in barns using heat produced by burning wood, coal or gas. Manufacturing cigarettes from tobacco crops generates a further range of hazardous chemical by-products, including ammonia, nicotine hydrochloric acid and toluene. In high-income countries, appropriate disposal of these chemicals is strictly regulated; the same may not be true in developing countries where tobacco manufacturing is increasingly concentrated.14, 16

In response to growing concerns around the environmental impacts of leaf growing, leading tobacco companies have taken steps to address these issues, generally as part of broader corporate social responsibility (CSR) agendas.17-20 Analysis of industry initiatives, however, demonstrates that they have been aimed at deflecting attention from environmental impacts of tobacco cultivation issues, and at influencing public and policy-maker attitudes toward tobacco companies.21-23          

10.14.1 Land clearing and deforestation

Tobacco cultivation and curing is a “proximate cause” of deforestation due to associated land clearance, use of timber for wood fuel, and soil nutrient depletion.24 International concerns were first raised at the 1979 World Conference on Smoking and Health in Stockholm. Subsequent research included a 199911 study which reported that flue-cured tobacco consumed the equivalent of 1.2–2.5 million hectares of open forests or woodlands annually for curing. It concluded that tobacco’s impact on forest resources had reached ‘high’ or ‘serious’ levels (above the national mean average of 4.6%) in almost one-third of the 66 low or middle income countries in which tobacco is grown, including Uruguay, Bangladesh, Malawi, Jordan, Pakistan, Syria, China, Zimbabwe, Tunisia and Burundi. In contrast, the impact of tobacco farming on woodland in high income regions such as North America was low, and a net increase in forest cover had been recorded.11 Subsequent findings suggest that 4% of annual global deforestation in the 2000s has been attributable to tobacco growing. The problem is particularly acute in low and middle-income countries, and accounted for 18% of deforestation in China, 20% in Zimbabwe, 26% in Malawi, and close to 30% in Bangladesh.24   

Tobacco industry response has been to downplay the impact of tobacco cultivation on deforestation, and to claim careful management of sustainable leaf production. The International Tobacco Growers’ Association, which describes itself as “a non-profit organisation founded in 1984 with the objective of presenting the cause of millions of tobacco farmers to the world”25 but is, in fact, a tobacco industry front group, has produced a range of publications promoting industry sustainable agriculture initiatives. Tobacco companies19, 26-28 claim similar adherence to principles of environmental protection, but argue that as they do not own tobacco farms, their oversight of cultivation processes is limited.  British American Tobacco (BAT), for instance, states “[w]e do not own tobacco farms or directly employ farmers -  but our approach to agriculture and working with farmers means that we have strong influence”.18

External verification of outcomes of these programs has not been made available, and an urgent need exists for independent monitoring of the scale of tobacco-related deforestation, effectiveness of response to the problem, and the tobacco industry strategies to influence public policy on the environment. Industry strategies to shape understanding of deforestation have focused on claims of economic benefits and responsible behaviour by industry toward consumers and communities, and have been promoted at national and international levels through use of front groups and paid consultants.24

10.14.2 Pesticides

Commercial tobacco growing involves herbicides, fungicides and insecticides to maximise crop production. Consumer concerns about chemicals in tobacco production has prompted global companies to provide broad assurances regarding sustainable cultivation, but little in the way of detail on use of pesticides and fertilisers.19, 29, 30 British American Tobacco states that its “integrated pest management approach seeks to protect crops by drawing on all available methods to achieve a significant reduction in the use of chemicals” adding that that their “growing programmes lead the industry in reducing the use of agrochemicals”.30 Despite such assurances, evidence retrieved from previously confidential internal tobacco industry documents indicates that that the industry has fought to retain the rights to use certain pesticides and has sought to influence regulatory processes in some countries.31   

Commercial tobacco growing ended in Australia in 2006.32 Prior to their ban in the mid-1980s, organochlorines such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and dieldrin were used in domestic tobacco cultivation;33 testing in 1981 found that Australian cigarettes contained 43 times more DDT and 30 times more dieldrin than samples of British or American-manufactured cigarettes.34 DDT and dieldrin residue was still evident in soil and river sediments from the tobacco-producing Ovens and King region in Victoria in 1989,35 and Philip Morris Australia was aware in 1994 that leaf it used still contained organochlorines from pesticides banned in the preceding decade.33 Cigarette manufacturers operating in Australia are not required to divulge levels of pesticide residue in their products,36 and leaf used in cigarettes sold domestically is primarily sourced from low and middle-income countries, where use of agrichemicals is more common and less strictly regulated.4, 37   

10.14.3 Genetically modified tobacco leaf

Public concern about genetically modified (GM) agriculture has led tobacco companies to take a cautious approach to its use, or at least to publicising any involvement in related research. Philip Morris International states that it will buy “only conventional varieties of tobacco and avoid genetically modified tobacco”,38 while British American Tobacco “takes all reasonable precautions” to avoid purchase of genetically modified leaf in response to consumer concerns.39  

Historically, the tobacco industry has put considerable effort into altering the qualities of tobacco leaf through genetic manipulation. GM technology offers the potential to maximise crop output disease resistance, but tobacco companies have also looked to use genetic engineering to manipulate nicotine concentration. Reducing nicotine40 is part of broader efforts to produce a potentially less harmful cigarettes that include mapping of the tobacco genome, and has funding research into genetically modified tobacco leaf that produces fewer carcinogens.41 Research has also been undertaken into the possibility of raising nicotine levels, with the intention of increasing addictiveness;42-44 the best-known example may be BAT’s ‘super-tobacco’, a genetically engineered plant variant that contained a much higher than usual amount of nicotine and was intended to make the company’s products more addictive.45   

10.14.4 Tobacco production and climate change

Climate change, the large-scale, long-term shift in the planet's weather patterns or average temperatures, is the result of increased greenhouse gas emissions, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, among others. These emissions have been increasing since the pre- industrial era, and are caused primarily by economic activity, and population growth.46 All phases of cigarette production, from leaf cultivation through cigarette manufacture to transportation, contribute to greenhouse gas emission.44 There is an urgent need for comprehensive estimates of carbon produced through the tobacco life-cycle. 

In 2006, British American Tobacco estimated that production of one million cigarettes generated 0.79 tonnes of carbon dioxide, which would mean that roughly 4,740,000 tonnes would be produced annually by global cigarette manufacturing.47 Other analyses suggest that this figure significantly underestimates emission levels. In 2002, modelling by Carnegie Mellon University’s Green Design Institute estimated that the United States tobacco industry, alone, produced around 16 million tonnes of carbon, the annual emission equivalent of 4.4 million cars.44      

While the tobacco industry has supported efforts designed to raise doubt around climate change among the public and policy-makers,47-49 it publicly highlights its commitment to a range of carbon reduction schemes. As with other environmental claims, deforestation and use of pesticides for example, industry promotion of its carbon reduction targets and use of renewable energy sources are listed on corporate websites, but provide little detail or analysis.19, 50, 51 Importantly, British American Tobacco states that it will meet legal and regulatory obligations related to environmental management “in the countries in which we operate”.52 The company sells its brands in 200 markets, manufactures cigarettes in 41 countries, and buys some 400,000 tonnes of tobacco from 90,000 farmers and third party suppliers, mainly in developing countries and emerging economies in Africa, Asia and Latin America.18 Meeting local standards allows the company considerable latitude in terms of climate change policy and represents a less robust commitment than establishing a company-wide best practice standard. 

All four leading global tobacco companies highlight their participation in CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) emissions database.  A UK-based not-for-profit organisation founded in 2000 by 35 institutional investors, CDP aims to transmit investor concerns about sustainability to companies, cities, states and other potential investment targets, while providing information to investors on climate change-associated performance.53 More than 5600 companies and 533 cities voluntarily provide relevant data to CPD.54 Despite its impressive database, analysis of the CDP has raised a number of questions about its effectiveness, particularly as corporations decide which, and how much, information they supply.55 Philip Morris International’s claim that  “CDP ratings provide companies with a credible, trusted benchmarking system for environmental information at the global level”51 is, for instance, disputed by Bowen who argues that the CDP  promotes climate change initiatives and credentials provided by firms “whether or not they affect their substantive environmental impacts”.56 Further, there are “no costs or carbon commitments”57 for the more than 800 signatory investors (representing some US$100 trillion in assets).54    

Recent news and research

For recent news items and research on this topic, click here  (Last updated May 2017)      

References 

1. World Lung Foundation, The tobacco atlas. Washington: World Lung Foundation; 2015. Available from: http://www.tobaccoatlas.org/ 

2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAOSTAT). Crops. Tobacco, production quantity. 2016. Available from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data 

3. Geist HJ, Chang K-t, Etges V, and Abdallah JM. Tobacco growers at the crossroads: Towards a comparison of diversification and ecosystem impacts. Land Use Policy, 2009; 26(4):1066–79. Available from: www.science-direct.com/science/journal/02648377

4. Lecours N, Almeida GEG, Abdallah JM, and Novotny TE. Environmental health impacts of tobacco farming: A review of the literature. Tobacco Control, 2012; 21(2):191–6. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/191.abstract

5. World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Conference of the Parties. Economically sustainable alternatives to tobacco growing (in relation to articles 17 and 18 of the who Framework Convention on Tobacco Control). Report by the working group. Provisional agenda item 5.5 (FCTC/COP/4/9 for Uruguay 15-22 November 2010)15 August Geneva: World Health Organization, 2012. Available from: http://apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/cop5/FCTC_COP5_10-en.pdf 

6. Otañez MG, Mamudu H, and Glantz SA. Global leaf companies control the tobacco market in Malawi. Tobacco Control, 2007; 16(4):261–9. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/16/4/261.abstract

7. Lecours N. The harsh realities of tobacco farming: A review of socioeconomic, health and environmental impacts, in Tobacco control and tobacco farming: Separating myth from reality. Leppan W, Lecours N, and Buckles D, Editors. London: Anthem Press; 2014. p 99–138.

8. Otañez M and Glantz SA. Social responsibility in tobacco production? Tobacco companies' use of green supply chains to obscure the real costs of tobacco farming. Tobacco Control, 2011; 20(6):403–11. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/6/403.abstract

9. Human Rights Watch. Teens of the tobacco fields: Child labor in United States tobacco farming. 2015. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/12/09/teens-tobacco-fields/child-labor-united-states-tobacco-farming 

10. Human Rights Watch. “The harvest is in my blood”. Hazardous child labor in tobacco farming in Indonesia. 2016. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/05/24/harvest-my-blood/hazardous-child-labor-tobacco-farming-indonesia 

11. Geist HJ. Global assessment of deforestation related to tobacco farming. Tobacco Control, 1999; 8(1):18–28. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/1/18

12. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Projections of tobacco production, consumption and trade to the year 2010. Rome: FAO, 2003. Available from: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/y4956e/y4956e00.pdf 

13. Jones AS, Austin WD, Beach RH, and Altman DG. Tobacco farmers and tobacco manufacturers: Implications for tobacco control in tobacco-growing developing countries. Journal of Public Health Policy, 2008; 29(4):406–23. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19079300

14. Novotny TE, Bialous SA, Burt L, Curtis C, Luiza da Costa V, et al. The environmental and health impacts of tobacco agriculture, cigarette manufacture and consumption. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2015; 93(12):877–80. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26668440

15. Javadian S, Stigler-Granados P, Curtis C, Thompson F, Huber L, et al. Perspectives on tobacco product waste: A survey of framework convention alliance members' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2015; 12(8):9683–91. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26295244

16. Novotny T and Zhao F. Consumption and production waste: Another externality of tobacco use. A review. Tobacco Control, 1999; 8(1):75–80. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/8/1/75

17. Philip Morris International. Environmental performance. 2016. Last update: 2016; Viewed 2 December 2016. Available from: http://www.pmi.com/eng/sustainability/pages/environmental_performance.aspx 

18. British American Tobacco. Sustainable agriculture and farmer livelihoods. 2016. Last update: 2016; Viewed 30 November 2016. Available from: http://www.bat.com/group/sites/UK__9D9KCY.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO52APTT 

19. Imperial Tobacco. Respecting natural resources. 2016. Last update: 2016; Viewed 30 November 2016. Available from: http://www.imperialbrandsplc.com/Responsibility/Respecting-natural-resources 

20. Japan Tobacco International. Environment activities. 2016. Last update: 2016; Viewed 30 November 2016.

21. Otanez MG, Muggli ME, Hurt RD, and Glantz SA. Eliminating child labour in Malawi: A British American tobacco corporate responsibility project to sidestep tobacco labour exploitation. Tobacco Control, 2006; 15(3):224–30. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/15/3/224

22. McDaniel P, Intinarelli G, and Malone R. Tobacco industry issues management organizations: Creating a global corporate network to undermine public health. Globalization and Health, 2008; 4:2. Available from: http://www.globalizationandhealth.com/content/pdf/1744-8603-4-2.pdf

23. McDaniel PA and Malone RE. British American tobacco's partnership with earthwatch Europe and its implications for public health. Global Public Health, 2012; 7(1):14–28. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2010.549832

24. Lee K, Carrillo Botero N, and Novotny T. ‘Manage and mitigate punitive regulatory measures, enhance the corporate image, influence public policy’: Industry efforts to shape understanding of tobacco-attributable deforestation. Globalization and Health, 2016; 12(1):55. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12992-016-0192-6

25. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Tobacco industry front group: The international tobacco growers’ association. Washington: Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, 2011. Available from: http://global.tobaccofreekids.org/files/pdfs/en/IW_interference_ITGA_fact_sheet.pdf 

26. Japan Tobacco International. Tobacco supply chain - sustainable wood. 2016. Last update: 2016; Viewed 1 December 2016. Available from: https://www.jt.com/csr/supply_chain/sustainable_wood/ 

27. British American Tobacco. Natural resources: Ensuring long-term agricultural productivity. 2016. Last update: 2016; Viewed 30 November 2016. Available from: http://www.bat.com/group/sites/UK__9D9KCY.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO9QEFMY 

28. Philip Morris International. Environmental sustainability 2016. Last update: 2016; Viewed 2 December 2016. Available from: http://www.pmi.com/eng/sustainability/good_agricultural_practices/pages/environmental_sustainability.aspx 

29. Philip Moris International. Integrated pest management 2016. Last update: 2016; Viewed 3 December 2016. Available from: http://www.pmi.com/eng/sustainability/good_agricultural_practices/pages/integrated_pest_management.aspx 

30. British American Tobacco. Integrated pest management: Using safer and fewer chemicals. 2016. Last update: 2016; Viewed 3 November 2016. Available from: http://www.bat.com/group/sites/UK__9D9KCY.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO52AQ4U 

31. McDaniel P, Solomon G, and Malone R. The tobacco industry and pesticide regulations: Case studies from tobacco industry archives. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2005; 113(12):1659–65. Available from: http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/7452/7452.pdf

32. Hart C. Payout deal ends tobacco farming. The Australian, 2006. Available from: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/payout-deal-ends-tobacco-farming/story-e6frg8y6-1111112425673

33. Chapman S. 'Keep a low profile': Pesticide residue, additives, and freon use in Australian tobacco manufacturing. Tobacco Control, 2003; 12(suppl. 3):iii45–53. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/12/suppl_3/iii45

34. National Health and Medical Research Council, Report of the 92nd session of the national health and medical research council (October 1981). Canberra: NHMRC; 1982.

35. Environment Protection Authority, Biocide contamination in the aquatic environment. A study of the Ovens and King Rivers region. Scientific series srs 90/004. Melbourne, Australia: EPA; 1990.

36. Australian Government Department of Health. Voluntary agreement for the disclosure of the ingredients of cigarettes. 2000. Last update: 2000; Viewed 29 November 2016. Available from: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/tobacco-ingred-vol .

37. Carter S and Chapman S. Smoking, disease, and obdurate denial: The Australian tobacco industry in the 1980s. Tobacco Control, 2003; 12(suppl. 3):23iii–30. Available from: http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/suppl_3/iii23

38. Philip Moris International. Product integrity. 2016. Last update: 2016; Viewed 1 December 2016. Available from: http://www.pmi.com/eng/sustainability/good_agricultural_practices/pages/product_integrity.aspx 

39. British American Tobacco. Leaf research. 2016. Last update: 2016; Viewed 1 December 2016. Available from: http://www.bat.com/group/sites/UK__9D9KCY.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO9EBGLP 

40. Dunsby J and Bero L. A nicotine delivery device without the nicotine? Tobacco industry development of low nicotine cigarettes. Tobacco Control, 2004; 13(4):362–9. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/13/4/362.pdf

41. Madrigal A. Cigarette maker has conducted 33 gm tobacco tests since '05. Boone, Indianna: Conde Naste Publications, 2008. Last update: Viewed Available from: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/03/cigarette-maker.html 

42. Douglas CE. Taking aim at the bull's-eye: The nicotine in tobacco products. Tobacco Control, 1998; 7(3):215–18. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/7/3/215.pdf

43. Rabinoff M, Caskey N, Fissling A, and Park C. Pharmacological and chemical effects of cigarette additives. American Journal of Public Health, 2007; 97(11):1981–91. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17666709

44. Proctor R, Golden holocaust: Origins of the cigarette catastrophe and the case for abolition Berkeley University of California Press; 2011.

45. Lewan T. Dark secrets of tobacco company exposed. Tobacco Control, 1998; 7(3):315–9. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/7/3/315

46. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change [core writing team]. ed. Pachauri RK and Meyer LA. Geneva 2014. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/ 

47. Novotny TE, Bialous SA, Burt L, Curtis C, Costa VLd, et al. The environmental and health impacts of tobacco agriculture, cigarette manufacture and consumption. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2015; 93:877–80.

48. Monbiot G, Heat: How to stop the planet burning. London: Penguin Books; 2006.

49. Monbiot G. The denial industry. The Guardian, 2006; 19 Sept. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2/print

50. Japan Tobacco International. Environmental management. 2016. Last update: 2016; Viewed 6 December 2016. Available from: http://www.jti.com/how-we-do-business/corporate-social-responsibility/environment-health-safety/

51. Philip Moris International. Climate change 2016. Last update: 2016; Viewed 6 December 2016. Available from: http://www.pmi.com/eng/sustainability/climate_change/Pages/climate_change.aspx 

52. British American Tobacco. Integrated environmental, health and safety policy manual. Group environmental policy statement. 2014. Last update: 2014; Viewed 5 December 2016. Available from: http://www.bat.com/group/sites/uk__9d9kcy.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO9DEM2W/$FILE/medMD9SGFL4.pdf?openelement

53. Depoers F, Jeanjean T, and Jérôme T. Voluntary disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions: Contrasting the carbon disclosure project and corporate reports. Journal of Business Ethics, 2016; 134(3):445–61. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2432-0

54. CDP. CDP: Driving sustainable economies. 2016.

55. Pearse G, Greenwash: Big brands and carbon scams. Collingwood, VIC: Black Inc; 2012.

56. Bowen F, After greenwashing: Symbolic corporate environmentalism and society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014.

57. Kolk A, Levy D, and Pinkse J. Corporate responses in an emerging climate regime: The institutionalization and commensuration of carbon disclosure. European Accounting Review, 2008; 17(4):719–45. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09638180802489121

 

      Previous Chapter Next Chapter