A report deciphers and provides tools to counter the rhetoric of the tobacco industry

Published in March 2026 by Hugo Molineaux of OxySuisse and their "Transparency and Truth" initiative, the report entitled "Rhetoric and Sophisms of the Tobacco Industry and its Allies" analyzes the persuasive techniques used by tobacco companies and their supporters to defend their interests.[1]. Funded by the Swiss Tobacco Prevention Fund, it draws on internal archives from tobacco companies (Philip Morris, British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International) and Swiss campaigns against anti-smoking regulations. The aim is to expose these tactics so that prevention partners, public policymakers, teachers, and the general public can, in turn, become advocates for denouncing this misinformation.

General presentation of the report and its concepts

The report begins by distinguishing between argumentation, rhetoric, and manipulation. It draws on the work of linguist, argumentation specialist, and discourse analyst Marianne Doury to define argumentation as a way of resolving a disagreement reasonably, rhetoric as the art of persuasion that mobilizes both emotions and the speaker's image, and manipulation as the subtle guidance of an audience's behavior without their awareness. A recurring example in the report is that of the Consumer Choice Center (CCC), presented as an ultra-liberal think tank funded by tobacco companies, which seeks to shift the discussion from health concerns to those of freedom, individual choice, or the alleged exaggeration of risks in order to oppose advertising restrictions.

The report classifies fallacies into four categories inspired by Marianne Doury: arguments based on resemblance, on causality, on persons, and those that fall outside these categories. Each fallacy is illustrated with historical Swiss examples (initiatives of 1979, 1993, 2022) and international examples, followed by an analysis and methods of refutation.

The fallacies of industry based on resemblance

The first major category of arguments studied is that of reasoning based on resemblance. The report identifies false analogy, "whataboutism", the worst-case scenario fallacy, appeals to tradition and appeals to novelty.

The author shows that these processes serve to trivialize the dangers of tobacco by comparing it to everyday products or activities, or to present recent nicotine products as more modern and therefore more legitimate.

The report notably debunks the false analogy: for example, opponents of the 1979 initiative compare tobacco to activities like driving, mountaineering, or hang gliding, arguing that since these activities are equally dangerous, it would be inconsistent to ban advertising only for tobacco. The report also cites Philip Morris, which likens secondhand smoke to pepper, margarine, or chlorinated water to downplay the risks. The report also addresses whataboutism, for instance, when the industry diverts attention from secondhand smoke by invoking other public health issues, such as infant nutrition or even AIDS, as seen in a campaign conducted in Argentina in the early 1990s.

He also mentions the worst-case fallacy, the argument that smoking or drinking are risks among others, and the ad novitatem argument, used to present the heated tobacco product IQOS as a "modern" and therefore more acceptable technology.

The fallacies of industry based on causality

The second set of arguments focuses on arguments based on a causal relationship. The report analyzes overgeneralization, the idea of a perfect solution, the accusation of uselessness, the strategy of retaliation, the slippery slope, the threat argument, the false dilemma, and the fallacy of the middle ground.

These arguments often appear in debates on banning advertising or regulating smoke-free places: they tend to present any measure as ineffective, excessive or dangerous for freedoms, even though scientific research judges them to be relevant in a public health policy.

The clearest example is that of overgeneralization: during the campaign against the "Tobacco-Free Children" initiative in 2022, some opponents argued that Switzerland, with its "liberal" legislation, had better results regarding youth smoking than France or Italy, which had banned tobacco advertising, concluding that advertising restrictions were ineffective. The report shows that this reasoning ignores differences in context and other explanatory factors.

The document also analyzes the slippery slope argument, where opponents of regulation suggest that an anti-smoking measure will inevitably lead to a widespread ban on numerous products or a form of total prohibition. The false dilemma arises, for example, in the idea that one must choose between economic freedom and state intervention, whereas the issue posed by public health is more nuanced. The report also cites the strategy of retaliation, where the industry responds to criticism with a counter-attack, and the threat argument, used to raise concerns about economic risk or job losses.

Industry fallacies based on personal attacks

The report also devotes a chapter to arguments centered on individuals. Ad hominem attacks are illustrated there by terms such as "fanaticism worthy of the best dictatorships," used by a Geneva elected official against the law banning smoking in public places, or by positions that present public health advocates as extremists.

Conversely, the argument from authority arises when a lobby invokes researchers or experts linked to the industry to lend weight to its positions. The report cites, for example, the role of Ragnar Rylander, a professor of medicine and consultant to Philip Morris, in taking positions that questioned the effects of secondhand smoke.

Industry fallacies beyond categorization

The final section focuses on more subtle techniques, such as concessions, straw man arguments, and "magnet concepts." The report shows that phrases like "legal product," "freedom," "choice," "responsibility," and "innovation" are used to make industry rhetoric more palatable. A striking example is Philip Morris's communications surrounding its IQOS heated tobacco brand, presented as a "normal, chocolate-like" product by a former executive quoted in the report.

The magnetic concept of freedom also appears in the speeches of several political or economic actors who claim that banning advertising for tobacco products would amount to excessively restricting consumers.

Tools to counter industry rhetoric and support public health policies

The report concludes that the tobacco industry and its allies employ a wide range of fallacies to make their positions more palatable, divert attention from the harmful effects of their products, and hinder public health measures. It emphasizes that these tactics reduce the issue of smoking to a simple matter of individual responsibility, promoting the illusion of freedom; they appeal to emotions and normalize dangerous products. The report's author also highlights an unequal power dynamic: producing misinformation is inexpensive, while refuting it requires time, expertise, and resources.

The report therefore recommends systematically analyzing the rhetoric of the tobacco and nicotine industry to reveal its hidden mechanisms. For example, when Philip Morris compares secondhand smoke to pepper, margarine, or chlorinated water, the report points out that these comparisons are misleading because they equate very different risks. Similarly, when opponents of an advertising ban claim that "legal product = legal advertising," the document cites counter-examples, such as the advertising bans for certain medications.

The text recommends against letting false analogies go unchallenged, as they often serve to trivialize tobacco and equate it with ordinary objects. The example of the 1979 campaign, where tobacco was compared to cars or mountaineering, clearly illustrates this mechanism: the report suggests reiterating that these activities do not have the same health, social, or regulatory implications. The same applies to comparisons with products like chocolate or pepper, which rely on artificial associations.

The report also advises identifying attempts to shift the debate, particularly through whataboutism or the slippery slope. When the industry diverts the discussion to other risks (such as food, road safety, or even AIDS), the report shows that it is necessary to return to the central issue: the specific harmfulness of tobacco and nicotine. Similarly, in the face of rhetoric advocating a blanket ban or an authoritarian drift, the report reiterates that a targeted public health policy is not equivalent to a total prohibition.

It also happens that the measure is presented as unnecessary because other restrictions already exist; the text then suggests recalling the data on the effectiveness of combined structural policies such as the ban on advertising, plain packaging or tax increases.

Another recommended approach is to uncover the words that normalize tobacco use: "freedom," "choice," "innovation," "legal product," "harm reduction." The example of IQOS, presented as a modern product, "like chocolate," illustrates this point. It can also involve campaigns that emphasize the "responsibility" of adults to downplay regulations. The idea is to show that these words give a respectable appearance to a commercial activity that remains based on addictive and harmful products.

In Switzerland, tobacco causes 9,500 deaths annually, 400,000 chronic diseases, and 30,000 adolescents start smoking each year.

But the analysis of industry practices goes beyond the case of Switzerland and can be extended to all countries, as evidenced for example by Analysis of global industry disinformation surrounding parallel markets. In addition to these offensive disinformation strategies, the industry also deploys defensive disinformation strategies in order to improve its global image and spread its economic, political and social influence. The Tobacco Control Research Group at the University of Bath, England, analyzed this in its recent report..

©Generation Without Tobacco

AD

[1]Hugo Molineau, Rhetoric and sophistry of the tobacco industry and its allies, OxySuisse for the Transparency and Truth initiative, published in March 2026, accessed on April 2, 2026

National Committee Against Smoking |