Quit now
Image of large legs overlooking a small town

How racism, injustice, and the tobacco industry go hand in hand

The tobacco industry’s modern-day exploitation of and discrimination against California’s diverse communities spans a century of predatory practices in the name of profit.123 Internal documents from Big Tobacco outline their strategies – many of which are shocking attempts to peddle deadly products to the vulnerable and underserved populations by way of product discounts and manipulative advertising. They even gave away free products to youth in housing projects in the past.4 The tobacco industry’s tactics masquerade as support for diverse communities to celebrate their unique cultures and common experiences.

Unfortunately, the tactics have worked. Big Tobacco aggressively targeted specific communities and, as a result, some populations have higher rates of tobacco use, experience greater secondhand smoke exposure at work and at home, and have higher rates of tobacco-related disease than the general population.56

The tobacco industry develops its products, pricing strategies, and marketing practices to target specific populations in very sophisticated ways. Studies have found links between the density of tobacco retail outlets and tobacco use in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, African American communities, and youth populations.78 The number of tobacco retailers and their proximity to schools in California urban areas has been associated with experimental smoking among high school students.9

Contrary to claims by the tobacco industry that the promotion of its products is not based on race or ethnicity, many unique tobacco products like menthol cigarettes, flavored e-cigarettes, little cigars, and “organic” cigarettes are targeted toward specific populations like American Indian, African American, or Latino. One study even showed targeted advertising in California neighborhoods near high schools exposed African Americans to more promotions and lower prices for the leading brand of menthol cigarettes.7

The tobacco industry has a history of misconduct and misdirection. The industry funded misleading research to show that people with mental health conditions could use tobacco products to relieve symptoms.10 The industry has even distributed free cigarettes in psychiatric facilities.11 Big Tobacco has also financially supported primary and secondary schools, universities, and colleges, and even scholarship programs for Hispanic/Latino communities to create the illusion that they’re supporting the future of the community.12

Big Tobacco mocks real the real work of corporate social responsibility. Tobacco companies were among the first corporations to financially “support” LGBTQIA+ communities by advertising in LGBTQIA+ publications and sponsoring community and Pride events. However, they also use marketing strategies designed to exploit feelings of isolation and despair the LGBTQIA+ community experiences due to systemic discrimination by promoting smoking as acceptance into LGBTQIA+ life.13

Co-opting cultural traditions, ceremonial practices, and generalizing entire communities are all part of the tobacco industry’s playbook. They appropriate American Indian cultures to sell their deadly products, preying on ancient traditions, funding powwows, and promoting brands like Natural American Spirit in the name of profit, not to show meaningful support for American Indian communities.1415

Communities that are predominantly low-income are highly profitable in the eyes of Big Tobacco, so they target them in hard-hitting ways, like pushing an endless supply of cheap and easily accessible products and keeping them flowing into these communities to keep people hooked.8

A tobacco executive stated that Asian American populations would be a profitable target due to “this community being generally predisposed toward smoking,” insinuating all people who identify as Asian are exactly alike when it comes to getting easily hooked on their deadly products.16

Even rural communities can’t escape the big city thinking of Big Tobacco, which warps rural masculine ideals by depicting rugged images of cowboys, hunters, and racecar drivers in their advertising, making people living in rural communities some of Big Tobacco’s best customers. Because of these practices, rural counties have some of the highest smoking rates in California, and rural residents start smoking at an earlier age.1718

Big Tobacco’s predatory tactics perpetuate and leverage injustice and worsen the health disparities already experienced by the communities they target. All Californians deserve to live free from the harms of tobacco use. Ending the tobacco industry’s predatory targeting isn’t just about health — it’s about creating an equitable California for everyone.


We Are Not Profit

For too long the tobacco industry has been strategically killing the Black community with menthol cigarettes.3192021

Learn more

Tobacco industry’s damage

The tobacco industry currently spends billions each year on slick marketing tactics and political influence so they can profit off death and disease.2223
Learn more
Even for people who don’t use tobacco, there can be deadly consequences.24
Learn more
The industry calls kids their “replacement customers.”25 Big Tobacco sentences them to a lifetime of addiction and disease.
Learn more
This racist and unjust industry has strategically targeted certain communities with deadly products and manipulative messaging.26
Learn more
No one’s safe from the environmental damage and health risks from toxic tobacco waste and its plastic pollution.27282930313233
Learn more
lady in a garden wearing a head scarf

Hold the Industry Accountable

California has already protected people from other harmful products, and it’s time to hold the tobacco industry to the same standards.3435
  1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Tobacco Use Among U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups—African Americans, American Indians and Alaska Natives, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 1998.
  2. Lee JG, Sun DL, Schleicher NM, Ribisl KM, Luke DA, Henriksen L. Inequalities in tobacco outlet density by race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status, 2012, USA: results from the ASPiRE Study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2017;71(5):487-492. doi:10.1136/jech-2016-208475.
  3. Lee JG, Henriksen L, Rose SW, Moreland-Russell S, Ribisl KM. A Systematic Review of Neighborhood Disparities in Point-of-Sale Tobacco Marketing. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(9):e8-18.
  4. Tobacco Control Legal Consortium. Evans v. Lorillard: A Bittersweet Victory Against the Tobacco Industry. https://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/tclc-Evans-v-Lorillard-case-study-2016.pdf. Accessed April 14, 2022.
  5. California Department of Public Health, California Tobacco Control Program. California Tobacco Facts and Figures 2021. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health; November 2021.
  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco-Related Disparities. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/disparities/index.htm. Reviewed December 3, 2021. Accessed April 14, 2022.
  7. Henriksen L, Schleicher NC, Dauphinee AL, Fortmann SP. Targeted advertising, promotion, and price for menthol cigarettes in California high school neighborhoods. Nicotine Tob Res. 2012;14(1):116-121. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntr122.
  8. Truth Initiative. Why are 72% of smokers from lower-income communities? Truthinitiative.org. https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/targeted-communities/why-are-72-smokers-lower-income-communities. Published January 24, 2018. Accessed April 14, 2022.
  9. McCarthy WJ, Mistry R, Lu Y, Patel M, Zheng H, Dietsch B. Density of tobacco retailers near schools: effects on tobacco use among students. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(11):2006-2013. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.145128.
  10. Truth Initiative. How tobacco companies linked cigarettes and mental health.truthinitiative.org. https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/targeted-communities/how-tobacco-companies-linked-cigarettes-an. Published August 23, 2017. Accessed February 16, 2022.
  11. Truth Initiative. Achieving Health Equity in Tobacco Control. trutinitiative.org. https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/targeted-communities/achieving-health-equity-tobacco-control. Published December 15, 2015. Accessed April 14, 2022.
  12. Minosa MK. Tobacco Use and Hispanics. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/assets/factsheets/0134.pdf. Published March 18, 2022. Accessed April 14, 2022.
  13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons and Tobacco Use. cdc.gov. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/disparities/lgbt/index.htm. Reviewed January 18, 2022. Accessed March 10, 2022.
  14. Truth Initiative. Tobacco is a social justice issue: Racial and ethnic minorities. Truthinitiative.org. https://truthinitiative.org/news/tobacco-social-justice-issue-racial-and-ethnic-minorities. Published February 3, 2017. Accessed April 14, 2022.
  15. D'Silva J, O'Gara E, Villaluz NT. Tobacco industry misappropriation of American Indian culture and traditional tobacco. Tob Control. 2018;27(e1):e57-e64. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053950.
  16. Muggli ME, Pollay RW, Lew R, Joseph AM. Targeting of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders by the tobacco industry: results from the Minnesota Tobacco Document Depository. Tob Control. 2002;11(3):201-209. doi:10.1136/tc.11.3.201.
  17. California Department of Public Health, California Tobacco Control Program, California Facts and Figures 2021, Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health; November 2021.
  18. American Lung Association. Cutting tobacco’s rural roots: Tobacco use in rural communities. Chicago, IL: American Lung Association;2012.
  19. Robinson RG, Sutton CD, James DA, Orleans CT. Pathways to Freedom: Winning the Fight against Tobacco. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA; 2003.
  20. Primack BA, Bost JE, Land SR, Fine MJ. Volume of tobacco advertising in African American markets: systematic review and meta-analysis. Public Health Rep. 2007;122(5):607-15.
  21. Resnick EA, Jackson KL, Barker DC, Chaloupka FJ. Cigarette Pricing Differs by U.S. Neighborhoods—A BTG Research Brief. Chicago, IL: Bridging the Gap Program, Health Policy Center, Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, 2012.
  22. Federal Trade Commission. Federal Trade Commission Cigarette Report for 2020. Washington, D.C.: Federal Trade Commission. 2021.
  23. OpenSecrets. Industry Profile: Tobacco. Opensecrets.org. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2021&id=A02. Accessed March 16, 2022.
  24. Office on Smoking and Health (US). The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US); 2006.
  25. R.J. Reynolds. Younger Adult Smokers: Strategies and Opportunities. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/rkvk0045. 1984 February 29.
  26. Anderson SJ. Marketing of menthol cigarettes and consumer perceptions: a review of tobacco industry documents. Tob Control. 2011;20 Suppl 2(Suppl_2):ii20-ii28. doi:10.1136/tc.2010.041939.
  27. Break Free From Plastic. Branded Vol. III: Demanding corporate accountability for plastic pollution. 2020.
  28. Poma A, Vecchiotti G, Colafarina S, et al. In Vitro Genotoxicity of Polystyrene Nanoparticles on the Human Fibroblast Hs27 Cell Line. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2019;9(9):1299. Published 2019 Sep 11. doi:10.3390/nano9091299.
  29. Zarus GM, Muianga C, Hunter CM, Pappas RS. A review of data for quantifying human exposures to micro and nanoplastics and potential health risks. Sci Total Environ. 2021;756:144010. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144010.
  30. Jacob H, Besson M, Swarzenski PW, Lecchini D, Metian M. Effects of Virgin Micro- and Nanoplastics on Fish: Trends, Meta-Analysis, and Perspectives. Environ Sci Technol. 2020;54(8):4733-4745. doi:10.1021/acs.est.9b05995.
  31. Ziv-Gal A, Flaws JA. Evidence for bisphenol A-induced female infertility: a review (2007-2016). Fertil Steril. 2016;106(4):827-856. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.06.027.
  32. Campanale C, Massarelli C, Savino I, Locaputo V, Uricchio VF. A Detailed Review Study on Potential Effects of Microplastics and Additives of Concern on Human Health. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(4):1212. Published 2020 Feb 13. doi:10.3390/ijerph17041212.
  33. Belzagui F, Buscio V, Gutiérrez-Bouzán C, Vilaseca M. Cigarette butts as a microfiber source with a microplastic level of concern. Science of The Total Environment. 2021;762:144165. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144165.
  34. Governor Newsom Signs Legislation Making California First in the Nation to Ban Toxic Chemicals in Cosmetics [press release]. gov.ca.gov. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/09/30/governor-newsom-signs-legislation-making-california-first-in-the-nation-to-ban-toxic-chemicals-in-cosmetics/. Published September 30, 2020. Accessed March 23, 2022.
  35. Landmark California law bans 'forever chemicals' in products for infants, children [press release]. ewg.org. https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/2021/10/landmark-california-law-bans-forever-chemicals-products-infants. Published October 5, 2021. Accessed March 23, 2022.