The pattern that repeats itself

• Doctors Recommend Cigarettes (1930s–1950s)

  Well into the 1950s, the tobacco industry featured doctors in cigarette advertisements. They recommended certain brands of cigarettes that, for example, caused less throat irritation. Even as increasingly became known about the health hazards of tobacco, the “doctors” in tobacco advertisements spoke reassuring words with broad smiles.

• The filter (1960s–70s)

  When the link between smoking and lung cancer was scientifically established, tobacco manufacturers introduced the filter. The message to consumers: “This makes the cigarette safer.” The reality: filtered cigarettes didn’t change anything, but they did ease fears and boost sales. In fact, some filters contained asbestos. And it has recently become clear that smokers ingest microplastics from the filters. Yet to this day, 75% of smokers believe the filter protects them.

  In addition to the deception, cigarette filters are the single largest contributor to environmental pollution and the “plastic soup.” Cleanup campaigns sponsored by the tobacco industry are nothing more than greenwashing.

• The “light” cigarette (1970s–1990s)

  “Light” sounded healthy. Millions of smokers switched to them instead of quitting. What turned out to be the case? Thanks to research conducted even before the product hit the market, PHILIP M. knew that this “healthy” version was utter nonsense. By punching nearly invisible holes in the filter, the levels of tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide measured by standard smoking machines could be lowered. The smoke was simply diluted with air. To smokers, the cigarettes tasted lighter and milder, suggesting they were less harmful. The opposite was true: people began inhaling deeper and more frequently, resulting in more lung cancer. In the previous criminal case, Rookpreventie Jeugd had already filed a complaint against these counterfeit cigarettes.

• The Smoke-Free Future (Now)

  Today, “harm reduction”—a term borrowed from addiction treatment—is PHILIP M.’s mantra. Cigarettes are giving way to heated tobacco, nicotine pouches, and e-cigarettes—that’s the story. All “innovations” that are supposed to lead to a “smoke-free future.” That term is borrowed from the “smoke-free generation” that health organizations are striving for.

  But all these “alternative” products contain just as much—and sometimes more—nicotine as cigarettes and are just as addictive, if not more so. So PHILIP M. is making it seem as though it has created a healthier alternative to the traditional cigarette, just as it did when it introduced the filtered cigarette and the “light” cigarette.

  However, this claim is not supported by any independent scientific evidence; in fact, evidence of the harmful effects of these new products is mounting. Mental health issues, insomnia, reduced exercise tolerance, and the gateway effect: 70 percent of users eventually switch back to cigarettes.

  Once again, young people are being lured into nicotine use with these new products, leading to addiction. This is cause for concern. The same trick for generations: allaying fears of harmful consequences and perpetuating dependence through misleading products and narratives. That is not harm reduction. That is harm production, wrapped in a marketing plan.

More Than Just the Product

The problem doesn’t stop with the deception surrounding the products. Research and testimonials show that PHILIP M., despite a legal ban on advertising, is sneaking its deceptive message under the radar into the media and popular culture. Social media, streaming platforms, movies, “cigfluencers,” articles in newspapers and magazines—PHILIP M. leaves no stone unturned in its efforts to shape public opinion.

PHILIP M. uses terms such as “smoke-free,” “harm reduction,” and “heat-not-burn” to mislead (novice) smokers. There is currently no evidence whatsoever that heated tobacco is safer than cigarettes, and the long-term effects remain entirely unclear. In any case, we know that heated tobacco also releases many carcinogens. Lab tests on human cells exposed to heated tobacco smoke show the same harmful effects as those caused by tobacco smoke.

Prohibited Advertising

Advertising nicotine products is prohibited. PHILIP M. pays little heed to this. He disseminates advertising messages via social media, through his own websites, and in podcasts, interviews, and news reports.

PHILIP M. also violates the law in its own stores and specialty tobacco shops. For example, it makes prohibited health claims about heated tobacco and gives people free samples to try. (See also the Pointer episode “Undercover in the Tobacco Industry” and the French documentary “Enfumés,” which goes undercover at Philip Morris France).

Recently, testimonies in the podcast “Voorheen Schaamteloos Randstedelijk” revealed how a major media publisher was willing to explore what it could do in exchange for 250,000 euros from a tobacco manufacturer. Internally, the fine for violating the advertising ban was simply weighed against the potential revenue. It also emerged that at media agencies, tobacco accounts operate under code names, and influencers are secretly paid to promote nicotine products after signing non-disclosure agreements with hefty fines for breach.

The result: it seems as though nicotine products are automatically becoming “cool” again. Celebrities smoking on magazine covers and in TV series, vaping in music videos and on social media. This isn’t a trend that came out of nowhere, it’s a trend that’s been carefully crafted using the industry’s bottomless marketing budgets. (See also “Tobacco Advertising Is Still Out There, Under the Radar”)

The products are a lie, and so is the marketing surrounding them.