In 2023, 6 million tonnes of tobacco leaf were grown in more than 120 countries. Almost two-thirds (62.2%) of this was produced by three countries—China (38.1%), India (12.8%) and Brazil (11.3%). As with smoking prevalence, tobacco production has shifted from high-income countries—primarily in North America and Europe—to low and middle-income countries. Between 1961 and 2023, the percentage of global production of tobacco leaf in Asia and Africa almost doubled, from 44.3% in 1961 to 78.8% in 2023. Nine of the ten leading tobacco producers in 2023 are developing countries, and three are low-income food-deficit countries.1-3
For many farmers, particularly in low and middle-income countries, tobacco is considered an important source of income.4,5 A number of observers6-9 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.10,11 An analysis of the situation in Zimbabwe, for example, described tobacco farmers as “largely victims, rather than beneficiaries, of the sector.”12 In many cases, short-term, unreliable income is offset by costs of fertilisers and pesticides, the risks associated with dangerous working conditions and illness experienced by farm workers, and the long-term negative consequences of child labour6,13-16 (see Section 10.14 Ethical issues related to tobacco farming and production).
While governments of tobacco growing countries benefit from rural employment and income from taxation, a range of tensions exist ‘between economic reliance on tobacco production and the negative impacts of such reliance on the economies of low and middle-income countries.’17,18 These include the costs of treatment of farmers and families exposed to nicotine and chemical components of fertilisers, and pesticides, food insecurity, and environmental degradation.18,19
Further, the ostensible benefits of tobacco cultivation have been used by tobacco companies to influence domestic tobacco control policy, creating a favourable operating environment that features less regulation and lower production costs. The situation in Malawi, for example, has been described as an example of ‘state capture’; a situation in which firms operating in a country have significant capacity to shape and influence regulation and laws.20-22 In the 21st century, the China National Tobacco Corporation has played an increasingly prominent role in the African tobacco growing sector,23 joining the traditional corporate actors Philip Morris International (PMI), British American Tobacco (BAT), Imperial Brands and Japan Tobacco International and maintaining the ‘hierarchal governance of an exploitive and harmful industry.’24
Since the late 1970s, concerns have been raised regarding the environmental impacts of tobacco growing.6,25-28 Tobacco leaf cultivation is labour-intensive, requires significant use of pesticides and fertilisers, and an extensive water supply.27,29 While some tobacco leaf is air or sun-dried, the majority of cultivated leaf is flue-cured in barns using heat produced by burning wood, coal or gas.19 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, the disposal of these chemicals is strictly regulated; however this may not be the case in developing countries, where tobacco manufacturing is increasingly concentrated.25 The cultivation and manufacturing process also generates significant amounts of waste.30
10.15.1 Land clearing and deforestation
Tobacco cultivation and curing are proximate causes of deforestation and forest degradation in many developing countries, causing vegetation changes and biodiversity loss, through land clearing, the harvesting of timber for curing fuel, and soil nutrient depletion.31,32 International concerns were first raised at the 1979 World Conference on Smoking and Health in Stockholm; subsequent research included a 199933 study which estimated that on average nationally, tobacco farming accounted for 4.6% of annual global deforestation in 1990–1995 with 200 000 ha of natural woody biomass removed annually. The study 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 was 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.33
Industry response
The industry has downplayed the contribution of tobacco cultivation to deforestation, and claims careful management of sustainable leaf production. But growing concerns around the environmental impacts of leaf growing have led leading tobacco companies to issue reports and publicise programs that address these issues, generally as part of broader corporate social responsibility (CSR) agendas.23,34-37 Analysis of industry initiatives, however, has demonstrated that they are primarily designed to deflect attention from environmental impacts of tobacco cultivation, and to influence public and policy-maker attitudes toward tobacco companies14,23,28,38-41 (see Section 10.11 Corporate responsibility and the birth of good corporate citizenship). For example, between 2014 and 2020, Philip Morris International spent over US$ 13 million on environmental and CSR initiatives, primarily on cigarette litter awareness and disaster relief. Only a small portion went to African countries where most tobacco is grown. During the same period, the company earned over US$ 180 billion in profit, underscoring the limited scale of its environmental investments relative to its earnings.42
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, the effectiveness of industry actions, and 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 the use of front groups and paid consultants.31
The International Tobacco Growers’ Association (ITGA), which has been described as a tobacco industry front group,43 has taken a more robust approach. Created in 1984, it actively promotes industry agriculture initiatives and states that ‘sustainability of our farmers and their communities have been key in the core objectives of our association.’44 The association’s website also dismisses as ‘myths’ the mounting evidence that tobacco growing: has deleterious health impacts for farmers; increases poverty for tobacco farming families; and exacerbates food insecurity. It also denies that child labour is a particular problem and questions the existence of economically sustainable alternatives to tobacco farming.45
10.15.2 Agrochemical use
Commercial tobacco growing involves herbicides, fungicides and insecticides to maximise crop production. The heavy use of these agrochemicals contributes to soil degradation, reducing the capacity to grow other crops, such as food.6,46-48
Consumer concerns about chemicals in tobacco production have prompted some global tobacco companies to provide broad plans regarding sustainable cultivation, but little in the way of detail on use of pesticides and fertilisers.49-51 PMI, for example, states in its 2024 report that ‘…residues attributable to the use of highly hazardous pesticides were not detected in any of the tobacco we purchased.’ This disclosure does not clarify whether other pesticide residues were present, nor does it address the extent of pesticide use or its potential impact on soil and water quality. BAT’s 2024 Sustainability Report claims that ‘only agrochemicals that are compliant with local regulations and with the lowest possible toxicity according to WHO classification are used.’52 Despite such assurances, evidence retrieved from previously confidential internal tobacco industry documents indicates that the industry has fought to retain the rights to use certain pesticides and has sought to influence regulatory processes in some countries.53 Studies have raised concerns about the use of pesticides in Kenya54 and Pakistan55, as well as Cuba, where pesticides prohibited in Europe were still in use56.
Commercial tobacco growing ended in Australia in 2006.57 Prior to their ban in the mid-1980s, organochlorines such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and dieldrin were used in domestic tobacco cultivation;58 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.59 DDT and dieldrin residue was still evident in soil and river sediments from the tobacco-producing Ovens and King region in Victoria in 1989,60 and Philip Morris Australia was aware in 1994 that the leaf it used still contained organochlorines from pesticides banned in the preceding decade.58 Cigarette manufacturers operating in Australia are not required to divulge levels of pesticide residue in their products,58,61 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.6,62
10.15.3 Water Consumption
Tobacco production significantly contributes to the depletion of global water resources. The life cycle of a single cigarette requires approximately 3.7 litres of water from cultivation and manufacturing to transportation, consumption, and disposal. On a global scale, this amounts to an estimated 22 billion tonnes of water used annually in tobacco-related activities.27 The excessive use of pesticides and other chemicals in tobacco farming also contaminates nearby water systems with nutrient and heavy metal pollution, making them unsuitable for irrigation and reducing water sustainability.29
10.15.4 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. PMI states that it does not use GM tobacco and has ‘a program in place to systematically test the tobacco to guard against the inadvertent introduction of genetically modified tobacco into our commercial tobacco products.’63 Imperial Brands’ website in 2021 noted that the company does not ‘seek to use genetically modified tobacco, as we don’t believe our consumers wish to buy products that contain genetically modified materials’; while BAT’s 2020 ESG (environmental, social and governance) report stated it asks ‘suppliers to submit a GM risk assessment and GM testing to monitor compliance to our standard for no usage of any GM organisms in tobacco crops.’51 However, at the time of writing, neither Imperial Brands nor BAT mention GM policies on their websites or in their most recent ESG reports.64,65
The tobacco industry, however, has put considerable effort into altering the qualities of tobacco leaf and improving disease resistance through genetic manipulation since the 1980s66 and in 1990, China became the first country to commercialise GM tobacco for virus resistance.67
Tobacco companies have also used genetic engineering to reduce nicotine content68,69 as part of broader strategies to produce potentially less addictive cigarettes (see InDepth 12C). Related efforts include mapping of the tobacco genome, and funding research into genetically modified tobacco leaf that produces fewer carcinogens.70,71 Research has also been undertaken into raising nicotine levels, with the intention of increasing addictiveness;66,72-74 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.75
10.15.5 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.76 All phases of cigarette production, from leaf cultivation through cigarette manufacture to transportation, contribute to greenhouse gas emission.66 Assessments of production frequently use CO2-equivalent (CO2e) emissions, a metric measure that is used to compare greenhouse gas emissions on the basis of their global-warming potential; this is done by converting quantities of other gases to the corresponding amount of carbon dioxide with the same global warming potential.77
Most of the release of CO2e emissions occur during the agricultural production of tobacco leaf; however manufacturing pollution, distribution, and transport pollution contribute an estimated one-third of tobacco’s environmental impact due to CO2e pollution.41
A 2018 analysis using life cycle assessment reported that 32.4 megatonnes (Mt) [1 Mt = 1 million tonnes] of tobacco leaf was used to produce 6.48 Mt of dry tobacco that was used in the global manufacture of six trillion cigarettes in 2014. This process contributed some 84 Mt CO2e emissions to climate change, or 0.2% of the global total, as well as contributing to ecotoxicology levels, and water and fossil fuel depletion.27
Industry reporting
The tobacco industry has contributed to efforts to raise doubt about anthropogenic climate change among the public and policy-makers,25,41,78,79 while publicly highlighting its commitment to a range of carbon reduction schemes. As with other environmental claims, deforestation and use of pesticides for example, industry promotion of carbon reduction targets and use of renewable energy sources are listed on corporate websites and ESG reports, but provide limited transparent detail or analysis.51,80-82 These claims project legitimacy but may not drive genuine environmental progress.83
Tobacco companies prominently feature environmental awards and external recognition to enhance their reputation. PMI, BAT, Japan Tobacco International (JTI) and Imperial Brands have all been highly rated by the CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) emissions database for climate, water and forest performance.84-87 The CDP is a UK-based nonprofit founded in 2000 by institutional investors, it collects and scores voluntary climate-related disclosures from over 20,000 cities and companies.88,89 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.90 Tobacco companies have been included in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI), which ranks the sustainability of top-performing companies, and the UN Global Compact.91 These ESG rankings and awards typically do not evaluate the sustainability of the product or service itself, focusing instead on the company’s operations and ignoring the health and social harms caused by products such as tobacco. Inclusion in these ratings enables the industry to promote its climate change initiatives and credentials and appear be seen as a partner in environmental stewardship, despite the fundamental health and social harms caused by its products.91,92
Other problems with voluntary reporting include shifting baselines supplied by companies that make accurate estimates difficult to calculate, selective disclosure of favourable results, and companies ceasing to report when targets are missed.41,93 For example, after BAT-owned leaf suppliers exceeded its global target of 1.5 kg of chemicals per hectare in 2017, the company dropped the target and subsequent reports (at time of writing) do not provide data on agrochemical use.64,91 BAT, JTI and Imperial Brands have also opted out of external disclosures to the CDP Forestry reporting after receiving “F” ratings for their disclosure and impact.91 Another tobacco industry tactic is to compare its environmental footprint with that of other industries. For example, PMI downplayed the water consumption used in tobacco production and manufacturing by claiming it is lower than that of the coffee or chocolate industries. This comparison, however, fails to acknowledge the mortality and morbidity impacts of tobacco consumption.41
Tobacco companies have a record of using voluntary reporting to avoid regulation, and ‘moving from countries to avoid facing the consequences of their activities, including environmental harms’.41 Meeting local standards allows companies considerable latitude in terms of climate change policy and is a less robust commitment than establishing a company-wide best practice standard.
Voluntary industry reporting and corporate social responsibility sustainability initiatives remain unreliable in accurately determining the environmental footprint of company operations and sustainability claims. Advocates have called for bans on the promotion of CSR activities by the tobacco industry via ESG reports arguing they serve as a form of promotion.93 A more meaningful process would involve transparent and independent assessment of the tobacco industry’s environmental impact across its operations and markets.
Related reading
Relevant news and research
A comprehensive compilation of news items and research published on this topic
Read more on this topic
Test your knowledge
References
1. Food and Agriculture Organization at the United Nations (FAOSTAT). Crops and livestock products. Unmanufactured tobacco. 2025. Available from: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL/visualize.
2. Food and Agriculture Organization at the United Nations (FAOSTAT). Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries (LIFDCs) - List updated June 2023. 2023. Available from: https://www.fao.org/member-countries/lifdc/en.
3. List of developing countries as declared by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. 2022. Available from: https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/list-developing-countries.pdf.
4. Appau A, Drope J, Goma F, Magati P, Labonte R, et al. Explaining Why Farmers Grow Tobacco: Evidence From Malawi, Kenya, and Zambia. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2020; 22(12):2238–45. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31608412
5. Appau A, Drope J, Witoelar F, Chavez JJ, and Lencucha R. Why Do Farmers Grow Tobacco? A Qualitative Exploration of Farmers Perspectives in Indonesia and Philippines. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2019; 16(13). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31269640
6. Lecours N, Almeida GE, 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: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22345244
7. 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.
8. Otanez MG, Mamudu H, and Glantz SA. Global leaf companies control the tobacco market in Malawi. Tobacco Control, 2007; 16(4):261–9. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17652242
9. Hamade K. Tobacco Leaf Farming in Lebanon: Why Marginalized Farmers Need a Better Option, in Tobacco Control and Tobacco Farming: Separating Myth from Reality. Leppan WL, N. Buckles, D., Editor London: Anthem Press; 2014.
10. Magati P, Lencucha R, Li Q, Drope J, Labonte R, et al. Costs, contracts and the narrative of prosperity: an economic analysis of smallholder tobacco farming livelihoods in Kenya. Tobacco Control, 2019; 28(3):268–73. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29967193
11. Makoka D, Drope J, Appau A, Labonte R, Li Q, et al. Costs, revenues and profits: an economic analysis of smallholder tobacco farmer livelihoods in Malawi. Tobacco Control, 2017; 26(6):634–40. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29066593
12. Chingosho R, Dare C, and van Walbeek C. Tobacco farming and current debt status among smallholder farmers in Manicaland province in Zimbabwe. Tobacco Control, 2021; 30(6):610–5. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32848076
13. 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.
14. Otanez 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: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21504915
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Kulik MC, Bialous SA, Munthali S, and Max W. Tobacco growing and the sustainable development goals, Malawi. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2017; 95(5):362–7. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28479637
18. Hu TW and Lee AH. Tobacco control and tobacco farming in African countries. J Public Health Policy, 2015; 36(1):41–51. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25428192
19. No authors listed. Tobacco and its environmental impact: an overview. World Health Organization (WHO), Switzerland 2017. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/255574/1/9789241512497-eng.pdf?ua=1.
20. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Projections of tobacco production, consumption and trade to the year 2010. Rome: FAO, 2003. Available from: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/1ccc8add-d069-4403-a23c-c7a27a12773d/content.
21. Jones AS, Austin WD, Beach RH, and Altman DG. Tobacco farmers and tobacco manufacturers: implications for tobacco control in tobacco-growing developing countries. J Public Health Policy, 2008; 29(4):406–23. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19079300
22. Smith J and Lee K. From Colonization to Globalization: A history of state capture by the tobacco industry in Malawi. Rev Afr Polit Econ, 2018; 45(156):186–202. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31467461
23. Fang J, De Souza L, Smith J, and Lee K. "All Weather Friends": How China Transformed Zimbabwe's Tobacco Sector. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020; 17(3). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31979132
24. Smith J, DeSouza L, and Fang J. Eastern Africa’s tobacco value chain: links with China. Third World Quarterly, 2020; 41(7):1161–80. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2020.1736544
25. Novotny TE, Bialous SA, Burt L, Curtis C, da Costa VL, 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: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26668440
26. 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: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26295244
27. Zafeiridou M, Hopkinson NS, and Voulvoulis N. Cigarette Smoking: An Assessment of Tobacco's Global Environmental Footprint Across Its Entire Supply Chain. Environ Sci Technol, 2018; 52(15):8087–94. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29968460
28. Geist HJ. Tobacco and Deforestation Revisited. How to Move towards a Global Land-Use Transition? Sustainability, 2021; 13(16):9242. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/16/9242
29. Roy A and Mostafa MG. Comparative implications of tobacco and non-tobacco crop farming on aquatic ecosystems: a multi-index evaluation of irrigation suitability and pollution risks. J Water Health, 2025; 23(5):648-70. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40448466
30. Manthos G and Tsigkou K. Upscaling of tobacco processing waste management: A review and a proposed valorization approach towards the biorefinery concept. Journal of Environmental Management, 2025; 387:125942. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479725019188
31. 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
32. Yanda P. Impact of small scale tobacco growing on the spatial and temporal distribution of Miombo woodlands in Western Tanzania. Journal of Ecology and the Natural Environment, 2010; 2:10-6.
33. Geist HJ. Global assessment of deforestation related to tobacco farming. Tobacco Control, 1999; 8(1):18–28. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10465812
34. Philip Morris International. Protecting the Environment. 2021. Last update: Viewed Available from: https://www.pmi.com/sustainability/protecting-the-environment.
35. British American Tobacco. Sustainability 2021. Last update: Viewed.
36. Imperial Brands. Reducing Our Environmental Impact 2021. Last update: Viewed.
37. Japan Tobacco International. We’re serious about protecting the environment. 2021. Last update: Viewed.
38. 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: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16728754
39. McDaniel PA, Intinarelli G, and Malone RE. Tobacco industry issues management organizations: creating a global corporate network to undermine public health. Global Health, 2008; 4:2. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18201375
40. McDaniel PA and Malone RE. British American Tobacco's partnership with Earthwatch Europe and its implications for public health. Glob Public Health, 2012; 7(1):14–28. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21347934
41. Hendlin YH and Bialous SA. The environmental externalities of tobacco manufacturing: A review of tobacco industry reporting. Ambio, 2020; 49(1):17-34. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01148-3
42. No authors listed. Talking Trash: Behind the Tobacco Industry’s “Green” Public Relations in Expose Tobacco2022. Available from: https://exposetobacco.org/wp-content/uploads/Talking_Trash_EN.pdf.
43. 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.
44. International Tobacco Growers Association. Sustainability. 2021. Last update: Viewed.
45. International Tobacco Growers Association. Tobacco Growing: Myth and Facts. 2021. Last update: Viewed Available from: https://www.tobaccoleaf.org/sustainability/tobacco-growing-myths-and-facts/.
46. Hussain AG, Rouf ASS, Shimul SN, Nargis N, Kessaram TM, et al. The Economic Cost of Tobacco Farming in Bangladesh. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020; 17(24):9447. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/24/9447
47. Zhang Y, He X, Liang H, Zhao J, Zhang Y, et al. Long-term tobacco plantation induces soil acidification and soil base cation loss. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 2016; 23(6):5442-50.
48. Zoffoli HJ, do Amaral-Sobrinho NM, Zonta E, Luisi MV, Marcon G, et al. Inputs of heavy metals due to agrochemical use in tobacco fields in Brazil's Southern Region. Environ Monit Assess, 2013; 185(3):2423-37.
49. Philip Morris International. Good Agricultural Practices. 2018 Last update: Viewed Available from: https://www.pmi.com/resources/docs/default-source/sustainability-reports-and-policies/good-agricultural-practices-gap.pdf?sfvrsn=2fc091b5_4].
50. Japan Tobacco International. Good Agricultural Practices Protocol. Version 5.0. . 2020.
51. British American Tobacco. A Better Tomorrow; ESG report 2020. 2020. Available from: https://www.bat.com/group/sites/UK__9D9KCY.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DOAWWEKR/$file/BAT_ESG_Report_2020.pdf?open&v=1.
52. Integrated Report 2024. Philip Morris International, 2024. Available from: https://www.pmi.com/resources/docs/default-source/pmi-sustainability/pmi-integrated-report-2024.pdf?sfvrsn=92e147c8_2.
53. McDaniel PA, Solomon G, and Malone RE. The tobacco industry and pesticide regulations: case studies from tobacco industry archives. Environ Health Perspect, 2005; 113(12):1659–65. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16330343
54. Kibwage JK, Othoo CO, and Ndungu C. Environmental Audit and Policy Compliance of Tobacco Farming Practices in Migori County, Western Kenya. Journal of UOEH, 2019; 41(3):259-69.
55. Taufeeq A, Baqar M, Sharif F, Mumtaz M, Ullah S, et al. Assessment of organochlorine pesticides and health risk in tobacco farming associated with River Barandu of Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 2021; 28(29):38774–91. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33742378
56. Lopez Davila E, Houbraken M, De Rop J, Wumbei A, Du Laing G, et al. Pesticides residues in tobacco smoke: risk assessment study. Environ Monit Assess, 2020; 192(9):615. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32876774
57. Hart C. Payout deal ends tobacco farming. The Australian, 2006. Available from: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fnation%2Fhealth-science%2Fpayout-deal-ends-tobacco-farming%2Fnews-story%2Fcfbe7109cf50e015dc312be5a2f2672f&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=GROUPA-Segment-2-NOSCORE&V21spcbehaviour=append
58. 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
59. National Health and Medical Research Council, Report of the 92nd Session of the National Health and Medical Research Council (October 1981). Canberra: NHMRC; 1982.
60. 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.
61. Australian Government. Department of Health. Australian cigarette ingredient information. Ingredients used in cigarettes produced by British American Tobacco Australia, Imperial Tobacco Australia Ltd and Phillip Morris Ltd. Last update: Viewed Available from: https://www.health.gov.au/resources/collections/australian-cigarette-ingredient-information].
62. Carter SM and Chapman S. Smoking, disease, and obdurate denial: the Australian tobacco industry in the 1980s. Tobacco Control, 2003; 12 Suppl 3(suppl. 3):iii23–30. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14645945
63. Philip Moris International. Integrated Report 2024. Switzerland: Philip Morris International, 2025. Available from: https://www.pmi.com/resources/docs/default-source/pmi-sustainability/pmi-integrated-report-2024.pdf?sfvrsn=92e147c8_2.
64. Sustainability Report. British American Tobacco, 2024. Available from: https://www.bat.com/content/dam/batcom/global/main-nav/investors-and-reporting/reporting/sustainability-reporting/BAT_Tackling_Global_Challenges_2024.pdf.
65. IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC ANNUAL REPORT 2024. Imperial Brands, 2024. Available from: https://www.imperialbrandsplc.com/content/dam/imperialbrands/corporate/documents/investors/reports/oar-2024/imperial-brands-2024-annual-report.pdf.
66. Proctor RN, Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition. 1 ed: University of California Press; 2011. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnxdm.
67. Raman R. The impact of Genetically Modified (GM) crops in modern agriculture: A review. GM Crops Food, 2017; 8(4):195–208. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29235937
68. 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: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15564619
69. Wayne GF and Carpenter CM. Tobacco industry manipulation of nicotine dosing. Handb Exp Pharmacol, 2009; (192):457–85. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19184659
70. Madrigal A. Cigarette maker has conducted 33 GM tobacco tests since '05. Boone, Indianna: Conde Naste Publications, 2008. Last update: Viewed Available from: https://www.wired.com/2008/03/cigarette-maker/.
71. Elias J and Ling PM. Origins of tobacco harm reduction in the UK: the 'Product Modification Programme' (1972-1991). Tobacco Control, 2018; 27(e1):e12–e8. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29330172
72. 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
73. Rabinoff M, Caskey N, Rissling A, and Park C. Pharmacological and chemical effects of cigarette additives. American Journal of Public Health, 2007; 97(11):1981–91. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17666709
74. Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. Designed for Addictions. How the Tobacco Industry Has Made Cigarettes More Addictive, More Attractive to Kids and Even More Deadly. 2014. Available from: https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/assets/content/what_we_do/industry_watch/product_manipulation/2014_06_19_DesignedforAddiction_web.pdf
75. Lewan T. Dark secrets of tobacco company exposed. Tobacco Control, 1998; 7(3):315–8. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9825426
76. 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/.
77. European Environment Agency. Glossary; Cardon dioxide equivalent 2017. Last update: Viewed Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Carbon_dioxide_equivalent.
78. Monbiot G, Heat: How to stop the planet burning. London: Penguin Books; 2006.
79. Monbiot G. The denial industry. The Guardian, 2006; 19 Sept. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2/print
80. Philip Morris International. Sustainability. Climate change and PMI’s efforts 2019. Last update: Viewed.
81. Japan Tobacco International. Our sustainability strategy. 2021. Last update: Viewed Available from: https://www.jt.com/sustainability/strategy/index.html.
82. Imperial Brands. Sustainability Approach. Reducing Our Environmental Impact. 2021. Last update: Viewed Available from: https://www.imperialbrandsplc.com/sustainability/approach/reducing-environmental-impact.html#climate.
83. No authors listed. Greenwashing, in Tobacco Tactics2020. Available from: https://tobaccotactics.org/wiki/greenwashing/.
84. Imperial Brands. Imperial included on CDP Climate 'A' List for fifth successive year. 2024. Last update: 07/02/2024; Viewed Available from: https://www.imperialbrandsplc.com/news/Stories-and-insights/2024/climate-a-list-for-5th-successive-year.
85. Philip Morris International Received Fourth Consecutive CDP ‘Triple-A’ Rating for Climate, Forest, and Water. Business Wire, 2024. Last update: 06/02/2024; Viewed Available from: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240206905347/en/Philip-Morris-International-Received-Fourth-Consecutive-CDP-Triple-A-Rating-for-Climate-Forest-and-Water.
86. JT. External recognition. Last update: Viewed 23/10/2025. Available from: https://www.jt.com/sustainability/external_recognition/index.html.
87. BAT. Climate. Last update: Viewed 23/10/2025. Available from: https://www.bat.com/sustainability-and-esg/climate.
88. 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, 2014; 134(3):445–61. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2432-0
89. CDP. CDP Scores and A Lists. Last update: Viewed 23/10/2025. Available from: https://www.cdp.net/en/data/scores.
90. Pearse G, Greenwash: Big Brands and Carbon Scams. Collingwood, VIC: Black Inc; 2012.
91. Greenwashing, in Tobacco Tactics2022. Available from: https://www.tobaccotactics.org/article/greenwashing/.
92. Bowen F, After Greenwashing: Symbolic Corporate Environmentalism and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014.
93. STOP. What Big Tobacco’s Environmental, Social and Governance Reports Are Missing, in A Global Tobacco Industry Watchdog2022. Available from: https://exposetobacco.org/news/environmental-social-and-governance-esg/.