Chemistry matters. Join us to get the news you need.

If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)

ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.



Tobacco ad in C&EN

April 4, 2016 | APPEARED IN VOLUME 94, ISSUE 14

I was disgusted to find the 14-page “special promotional supplement” from British American Tobacco (BAT) in the March 14 issue of C&EN. Regardless of the advertising revenue this may have generated, that is insufficient justification for the American Chemical Society to help big tobacco look respectable. The special report portrayed BAT as concerned about reducing toxicity of tobacco products and expending significant money on tobacco safety research. R&D Director David O’Reilly proffered that BAT is developing several “reduced risk” products “because consumer needs vary.”

The facts are these: (1) There is no consumer “need” for BAT’s tobacco products; (2) persuading consumers that new products are “safe(r)” is in BAT’s interest to grow its business; (3) BAT’s goal is not a reduction, but an increase, in the use of tobacco, whether smoking or smokeless; (4) the new products have risks (Environ. Health Perspect. 2014, DOI: 10.1289/ehp.122-a244); (5) there is concern and evidence that e-cigarettes are a gateway for new smokers and nicotine addiction; (6) BAT is the second-largest tobacco company in the world; (7) BAT vigorously fought an $8 billion judgment in Canada in 2015 that found it inadequately warned smokers of health hazards, yet (8) BAT and other tobacco companies continue to vigorously fight regulation of advertising and packaging around the world; (9) BAT continues to buy tobacco companies in developing countries to expand its sales of cigarettes and other tobacco products and to lobby to increase market access (such as during China’s World Trade Organization negotiations so that it could target that population of 1.2 billion to make up for declining Western markets); and (10) BAT’s head of product stewardship, Audrey Richter, wrote that BAT aims to “contribute to the development of global voluntary and regulatory product standards for e-cigarettes.” Translation: BAT will fight for the least restrictive universal regulation so that it is free to broadly market its products globally.

To its everlasting shame, the American Medical Association published tobacco advertisements in the Journal of the American Medical Association for 20 years despite known risks, lending respectability to a killer. It would be a shame if ACS through C&EN does the same.

Robert Johnston
Lake Jackson, Texas

Kevin Davies, C&EN’s publisher, responds: The promotional supplement sponsored by British American Tobacco was excerpted from the company’s “Science & Technology 2015” report. A condition of accepting the advertising was that the promotional supplement focus on BAT’s R&D and quality-control efforts, as well as spotlight career opportunities for chemists within the organization. C&EN does not endorse e-cigarettes or tobacco products of any kind.



This article has been sent to the following recipient:

Ronald Myers (April 5, 2016 2:16 PM)
I agree completely with the comments of Robert Johnston. This BAT supplement was disgusting and shameful on the part of ACS to include it in C&EN! When I first read through that March 14 issue, I remember my mouth dropping open in total surprise at seeing the BAT ad; page after disgusting page of it. Also, as to Kevin Davies and his obviously "scripted and business-speak" attempt to justify this ad, all I can say is wow, what nonsense! In my opinion,saying that C&EN doesn't endorse tobacco is ludicrous and hypocritical in that ACS/C&EN decided to run the ad, and that action, itself, is an endorsement of BAT and its products! In my more than 45 years as an ACS member, I can honestly say that this BAT ad was the only time I remember being embarrassed and ashamed of ACS! Hopefully, ACS and C&EN will not bow to such questionable and inappropriate ad revenues in the future.
Dr. Harold Arvidson (April 6, 2016 1:15 PM)
I think it is troublesome when businesses or organizations take ethical or moral positions. Smoking tobacco is a legal activity in the United States. Individuals can make personal decisions about the health risks for themselves, but it is intrusive and authoritarian when another person applies pressure to force their views on others. In a democratic nation the elected legislature is given the authority to make societal judgements on what is permitted. Until now governments have judged that smoking is permitted. I oppose ACS taking a stand for or against smoking.
Currently the state of North Carolina had passed a law regulating the use of bathrooms by transgender individuals. There is a political debate over the balance the risks to young girls of biological males dressed as women using women's bathrooms versus the risks and inconvenience of transgender males using male bathrooms. The North Carolina legislature has responded to the fears of citizens to pass bathroom regulations. Some have characterized these as discriminatory to transgenders. PayPal has now decided to complete a business decision in North Carolina because of this law. PayPal seems to dismiss the safety concerns of parents of young girls in making this decision. I hope that ACS never involves itself in complicated, controversial societal judgements that are outside its expertise in the chemical sciences.

Leave A Comment

*Required to comment