By Raquel Gurgel | 14 October, 2024

 

Executives of the e-cigarette manufacturer Juul estimated that the rise of vapes could lead to the loss of 2.6 million jobs by 2045, due to a decline in demand for tobacco leaves. During the same period, the Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) industry would generate only 23,000 jobs in tobacco farming. This information comes from internal Juul documents from 2019, obtained by the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents (TTID) at the University of California, and reviewed by the Brazilian news website O Joio e o Trigo.

The report underscores the need to promote alternative livelihoods for workers in the tobacco supply chain, in line with Article 17 of the WHO FCTC. However, the documents show that Juul executives discussed strategies to convince tobacco-producing countries that vapes could benefit their economies, despite their own projections indicating otherwise.

The decline in demand for tobacco leaves would occur because they are less necessary for vapes than for conventional cigarettes. According to the document analysis, one of the company's preliminary estimates states that a pod of liquid nicotine extracted from tobacco requires about 0.9 grams of tobacco leaf, compared to 22 grams needed to produce a pack of cigarettes. In addition to nicotine salts derived from tobacco leaves, the ENDS industry can also use synthetic nicotine, produced in laboratories, as a base for liquids.

The conversations among Juul executives reveal that the estimates were a sensitive point in the company's global expansion plans. In April 2019, Jed Cullen, who was then responsible for the company’s strategic and corporate development, wrote: "There may be a separate argument to make that we are stimulating global leaf demand in this process, but my sense is that the average tobacco farmer loses out in the long run as we cannibalize combustible cigarette consumption."

The documents also show that the company was concerned about potential opposition from governments and tobacco farmers regarding the rise of vapes. “One of the biggest challenges we will face in the Asia-Pacific region, and elsewhere, is the fear/opposition from ministries of trade, foreign affairs, and industry, who believe that by replacing cigarettes and thus tobacco farming, we will negatively impact their economies,” wrote Heather Shapiro, the former director of global public policy at Juul, in an email. Considering subsidizing the lobbying efforts in tobacco-producing countries, she asked her team for projections of the demand for tobacco leaves needed to produce a pod – but the response was discouraging, as the estimate indicated that producing a pod of liquid nicotine requires 24 times fewer tobacco leaves than a pack of cigarettes. 

The analysis by O Joio e o Trigo shows that, in May 2019, the Juul team prepared a document evaluating two possible “narratives” that could be used in discussions with tobacco-producing countries. One of the narratives would be aimed at countries that produce high-quality tobacco leaves, from which Juul planned to purchase the raw material. In this case, the argument would be that, despite the decline in traditional tobacco use, technologies for extracting liquid nicotine from tobacco leaves could ensure a viable activity for tobacco farmers, creating jobs in these countries – an argument contradicted by Juul's own projections, which showed that only 23,000 jobs would be generated worldwide, while 2.6 million would be lost.

The other narrative would be directed at countries from which Juul would not purchase tobacco leaves but that have a “significant tobacco lobby”. In these cases, the company would promise to provide “support” to tobacco farmers to abandon cultivation.

Need to Promote Alternative Livelihoods

In tobacco-producing regions, a sharp decline in demand for leaves can have a significant economic impact if there are no strategies to promote economically viable alternatives for workers. In this sense, it is fundamental that these regions implement Article 17 of the WHO FCTC. “Preparation for a sudden drop in demand for tobacco leaves in southern Brazil is still quite limited. Most municipalities, if not all, lack an economic diversification strategy, and a sharp reduction in leaf purchases could have significant socioeconomic impacts,” exemplifies agricultural engineer Germano Pollnow, a researcher at the Center for Tobacco and Health Studies at the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (CETAB/Fiocruz) in Brazil, and a member of the WHO FCTC Knowledge Hub for Articles 17 and 18. 

“My perception is that the concern of municipalities is much more focused on the immediate need to maintain tobacco farming as an important economic activity rather than thinking about the medium and long term with economic diversification. This applies to both the primary sector (agriculture) and the industrial sector, in the case of those municipalities with industrial plants belonging to cigarette manufacturers,” he evaluates.

For farming families, he says, the impact would be profound: “Many of them rely on tobacco cultivation for most of their income, and the lack of pursuit and implementation of viable alternatives could lead to a reduction in household income, increased debt, rural exodus, and exacerbated social disparities. This would directly affect food security and the social well-being of these communities.”

An example of this can be found in Brazil itself. Today, tobacco cultivation is concentrated in the southern states, which primarily produce Virginia tobacco for export. However, for a long time, the major production hub was in northeastern states like Alagoas, which produced dark tobacco. A few decades ago, global demand for dark tobacco began to decline, being replaced by Virginia tobacco, which is less suitable for cultivation under the conditions of northeastern Brazil. Since family farmers were not supported by policies promoting alternatives, they still struggle to transition to other activities today.

Historically, many groups linked to the tobacco industry have criticized the WHO FCTC, claiming that it is necessary to protect tobacco cultivation. They argue that for many tobacco growers, abandoning this crop or diversifying their activities would not be an option. However, the decline in demand for tobacco leaves is not, in itself, bad news. If it occurs due to the global reduction in the number of smokers – not those who are substituting conventional cigarettes with electronic devices – it is a victory for public health.

Mr. Pollnow points out that news like Juul's projections actually underscore the importance of implementing the Treaty, particularly Article 17, to safeguard these workers. “This demonstrates the need for tobacco-producing countries to have a clear and well-defined policy with structured objectives and goals for implementing alternatives to tobacco cultivation. Article 17 of the WHO FCTC is fundamental in this context. Its effective implementation could help regions that currently depend on tobacco find new sources of livelihood. If these new alternatives are rooted in local and regional food supply, they can promote significant advances in food security and sustainable economic development in the medium and long term,” he evaluates.

He also emphasizes the need to recognize the economic impact that tobacco farming has on producing regions, but not to defend this model solely because of the jobs it generates or the income it provides for families: “There are studies showing that other activities can be as economically viable as tobacco farming. Instead of treating tobacco farming as an activity to be maintained at all costs, we need to promote the transition to models that ensure economic and food security for the communities in producing regions.” 

He points out that this means investing in alternatives such as food production, value addition, agro-industrialization, organic production, agroecology, and crops that can sustainably replace tobacco. “The key is to always focus on the well-being of workers and the construction of a healthier and more sustainable future for all, rather than defending a model that, in the long run, is neither beneficial for farmers nor for public health,” Mr. Pollnow concludes.

*

The information and views set out on this news are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), the Parties to the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, or the Secretariat of the WHO FCTC.