Philip Morris International has supported non-smoking programmes around the world ‘to advance its own interests’, say health professionals
The tobacco company Philip Morris has sponsored courses for doctors in multiple countries, in what critics have called a “grotesque” strategy.
Medical education programmes on quitting smoking and harm reduction in South Africa, the Middle East and the US have been supported by Philip Morris International (PMI) or its regional subsidiaries, according to advertising material seen by the Guardian.
The World Health Organization (WHO) said there was a risk that public health efforts could be undermined and called for partnerships of this kind to be banned.
Dr Tess Legg, of the Tobacco Control Research Group at the University of Bath, said sponsoring medical education was part of a “strategy to influence how science is used in medical practice and an attempt to rebuild the industry’s credibility among health professionals”.
I’m a little torn here because I can understand the arguments of people like Dr. Legg, but on the other hand, shouldn’t tobacco companies be spending their profits on stopping tobacco use? The article doesn’t suggest Philip Morris is influencing the courses, just that they are sponsoring them.
I think tobacco companies should be spending as much of their money as we can get them to spend on getting people to quit smoking, so how should that money best be spent?
The influence is implied. It’s the same type of unethical behavior that we’ve seen from countless industries, only this time they’re starting at the source. It’s no different than them sponsoring the American Lung Association, food corporations sponsoring the American Heart Association, or oil companies sponsoring various carbon mitigation initiatives. It’s only beneficial to them if it will eventually skew the narrative in their favor.
But that doesn’t answer my question, which is how should tobacco companies be required to spend their profits on tobacco use cessation?
They already do. As of 2023, the NIH deemed vaping an effective form of smoking cessation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10389080/
That talks about taxation. Which is mostly paid by consumers. I’m talking about using their profits.
That’s been covered by their sponsorship of the American Lung Association since the ‘80s. They provide free nicotine patches to smokers looking to quit. My point about vaping is that they now produce their own form of cessation, so there’s no grounds for the government to get them to sponsor or subsidize a competitor.
America is one country. This is a global issue.
Agreed. In classic American corporate fashion, it’ll take substantial lawsuits to “encourage” big tobacco to get on board.