In the mid-20th century, roughly 45% of U.S. adults smoked, but by 2021, that number had plummeted to 16%. This dramatic shift was not accidental: it resulted from a sustained, multi-decade struggle to change public sentiment and policy regarding tobacco. This case study examines the strategies employed by the anti-smoking movement between 1964 and 2000 to understand how advocates transformed a normalized “private choice” into a matter of public controversy.

The fight over smoking is particularly instructive because of several parallels to farmed animal advocacy:

• Both fights involve challenging a practice considered “normal.”
• Advocates oppose colossal industries embedded in many aspects of U.S. life and politics.
• Both movements aim to influence people as consumers making individual choices and citizens pressing for social change through government and corporate entities.
• Both industries highlight the pleasure of consumption, while opponents present a broad view of the products’ inherent problems and negative impacts.

The authors used a qualitative case study approach, reviewing primary and secondary sources to map the history of the smoking controversy. They focus on four specific battlegrounds where the conflict played out: research, public engagement, government and public policy, and the courtroom. By analyzing the contestation between health advocates and the tobacco industry, the authors provide actionable lessons for the animal protection movement.

Research

Research served as the foundation for the anti-smoking movement. Initially, studies established the direct health risks to smokers, such as cancer and heart disease. Over time, advocates broadened the scope to include the dangers of secondhand smoke, which reframed smoking as a threat to others and justified public regulation. Crucially, the discovery of internal industry documents exposed the tobacco industry’s deceptive marketing and disregard for public health.

Potential research-related strategies for animal advocates include:

• Map industry influence: Animal agribusiness, like the tobacco industry, creates research bodies and funds studies to defend its interests. Animal advocates should map this web of influence to gain a richer view of how the industry operates and identify potential areas of intervention.
• Collaborate with academics: Early anti-smoking research was done primarily by academics, sometimes funded by organizations like the American Cancer Society. Proactively collaborating with academics across many disciplines may benefit animal advocates by leveraging their credibility and influence.
• Shift opinion in key areas: Support from the medical establishment proved instrumental against smoking. Focusing efforts on shifting opinion in areas like animal welfare science could impact public-facing forums such as legislative hearings and news reports.
• Examine industry documents: Anti-smoking advocates greatly benefited from accessing internal industry documents that revealed unethical marketing and ongoing deception, which severely damaged industry credibility. While animal advocates use undercover investigations to expose cruelty, they could also benefit from researching available industry documents that reveal disregard for people’s health, animals, and the environment. Legal proceedings, such as antitrust or workplace litigation, are a potential source for the public release of internal documents that provide a more accurate depiction of industry actions and self-serving motivations.

Public Engagement

The tobacco industry often defended itself by appealing to the U.S. American value of “consumer choice.” Advocates countered this by shifting the conversation to youth and nonsmokers — groups that didn’t have a choice in their exposure to tobacco. Creative tactics, such as spoof advertisements and events like the Great American Smokeout, successfully drew media attention and encouraged community participation.

Potential public engagement strategies for animal advocates include:

• Reframe the “choice” argument: Opponents of animal agribusiness could make similar claims by creating youth-focused advertisements and highlighting the absence of choice for animals within the system.
• Build coalitions: A wide variety of anti-smoking groups attacked the industry on multiple fronts over a sustained period. Those seeking to transform the food system may benefit from being more intentional by building coalitions and creating collaborative strategies across different groups and issue areas.
• Target corporate power: Smoking opponents successfully drew attention to the evils of the tobacco industry while keeping the focus off tobacco farmers. Animal advocates should more intentionally highlight companies like JBS and their leaders, who most people are largely unaware of, to associate animal products with major corporate power rather than farmers.
• Use creative tactics: Successful anti-smoking campaigns used creativity and sophisticated reframing techniques to change public perspectives. The animal advocacy movement could explore the impact of tactics like spoof ads, public spectacles, and recurring events to gain attention and support.
• Support mass-participation events: Public events like the Great American Smokeout offered smokers a chance to quit, drew media attention, and demonstrated broad opposition support. Animal advocates could offer greater support to programs like Veganuary and Meatless Monday, which operate similarly and could offer similar benefits.

Government And Public Policy

The tobacco industry lobbied aggressively to defeat regulations, often using state laws to “preempt” or block stronger local ordinances. However, advocates achieved success by introducing legislation in health and environmental committees, which were less beholden to the industry than agricultural committees. Ballot initiatives, particularly in California, proved to be a powerful tool for bypassing legislative gridlock to enact tax increases and fund education programs.

Potential policy-related strategies for animal advocates include:

• Capitalize on broadening concerns: As threats posed by animal agribusiness multiply to impact personal and public health and the environment, similar opportunities are likely to arise for animal advocates to get bills heard in more favorable, non-agricultural committees.
• Form political coalitions: Major public health organizations created the Coalition for Smoking OR Health as a strategic lobbying organization. Animal advocates should explore creating political coalitions to pool resources and broaden the set of arguments they advance.
• Use ballot initiatives: Anti-smoking advocates successfully used ballot initiatives in states like California to secure tax increases and product promotion restrictions. Animal advocates have already seen the power of ballot initiatives (e.g., Proposition 12) to mandate less cruel standards for animal agribusiness. This strategy secures political change, serves as a center point for organizing, and generates earned media.
• Explore local interventions: Anti-smoking advocates had success with local legislation in progressive cities. Recent advancements in similar cities, despite preemption concerns, may encourage animal advocates to further explore these local interventions.
• Identify allies in government agencies: Smoking opponents built relationships with key people in federal and state agencies (e.g., Federal Trade Commission, Occupational Safety and Health Administration) who advanced their political interests. Opponents of animal agribusiness should investigate staff at relevant agencies to identify potential advocates and allies.

The Courtroom

Early tobacco litigation failed because the industry argued that smoking was a personal responsibility. The legal tide turned when lawyers coordinated their efforts and filed class-action lawsuits or suits on behalf of states to recover healthcare costs. This shift moved the narrative from individual blame to corporate liability.

Potential legal strategies for animal advocates include:

• Coordinate legal efforts: The Tobacco Products Liability Project coordinated the efforts of various plaintiffs’ lawyers and facilitated information-sharing between them and scientific researchers. In animal advocacy, a similar strategy is pertinent for those working on environmental, antitrust, and legislative issues, allowing allies to plan coordinated legal strategies and share information.
• Broaden concerns through litigation: Litigation broadened concerns over the tobacco industry, notably by engaging state attorneys general and building arguments around the health costs of smoking-related illnesses to the states. Given the multiple concerns related to animal agriculture — environmental impact, disease risk, industry consolidation, animal welfare, and adverse health conditions — animal advocates may be able to secure similar litigation on behalf of farmed animals.
• Leverage the media: Lawyers and stakeholders strategically used the media to move the controversy from the courtroom to the public realm, challenging the tobacco companies’ reputation and garnering support for victims. Animal advocates can utilize public platforms, including social media, to publicize legal cases while educating the public about the animal agriculture industry more broadly.

The transformation of smoking from a normal habit to a controversial practice demonstrates that systemic change is possible through a combination of research, public pressure, and policy intervention. For animal advocates, the key takeaway is to aggressively broaden the controversy surrounding animal products. By shifting the focus from individual dietary choices to systemic issues — and by targeting corporate actors rather than consumers — advocates can erode the social license of animal agribusiness and drive enduring societal change.

This summary was drafted by a large language model (LLM) and closely edited by our Research Library Manager for clarity and accuracy. As per our AI policy, Faunalytics only uses LLMs to summarize very long reports (50+ pages) that are not appropriate to assign to volunteers, as well as studies that contain graphic descriptions of animal cruelty or animal industries. We remain committed to bringing you reliable data, which is why any AI-generated work will always be reviewed by a human.