Tobacco Agriculture & Children

Tobacco Agriculture & Children
The use of child laborers in tobacco production is widespread in the major tobacco producing
countries including Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Malawi, the United States and
Zimbabwe.18 In Brazil, for example, some 520,000 children under the age of 18 work on tobacco
farms, 32 per cent of whom are younger than 14.19 Those companies (mostly foreign) that
purchase Brazil’s tobacco have reportedly asked that school schedules be rearranged so that
children would be available to work in the fields.20
Although the tobacco sector is not unique in its use of child labor, the rigors of working the
tobacco crop places the health and physical development of the children at risk and demands
urgent attention. The hazards to children begin during the preparation of the soil, where highly
toxic fumigants such as methyl bromide are often used to kill nematodes and other soil
organisms. During the course of cultivating the crop, children working in the tobacco fields are
directly exposed to a cocktail of highly toxic agro-chemicals. These chemicals -- which include
aldicarb, butralin, and endosulfan -- cause damage to eyes, skin, internal organs, and are
potentially carcinogenic and mutagenic. Exposure to these chemicals poses a considerably
higher risk to children than adults since exposure in the early years can lead to a greater risk of
cancer, damage to the child’s developing nervous system and cause immune system
dysfunction. 21
In addition, children picking tobacco have been reported to experience green tobacco sickness
(GTS), a type of nicotine poisoning which is caused by the absorption of nicotine through the
skin.22 GTS is characterized by symptoms that may include nausea, vomiting, weakness,
headache, dizziness, abdominal cramps, difficulty in breathing, as well as fluctuations in blood
pressure and heart rates. Researchers in the United States have found that moisture on
tobacco leaves greatly increases the severity of GTS because it enhances the absorption of
nicotine, a toxin, by the skin. Since harvesting often occurs under wet conditions, including
morning dew, avoiding exposure is difficult.23

The Case of Brazil:

The Case of Brazil:
Although Brazil is the world’s largest exporter of tobacco, it is the multinational companies that
make the majority of the profit. Two U.S.-based companies, Universal Corporation and Dimon
Inc., have contracts with nearly half of Brazil's tobacco farmers, while Souza Cruz, a subsidiary
of British American Tobacco (BAT), contracts with most of the rest.14 Farmers must sign a
contract in advance promising to only sell their crop to one company and then are legally bound
to purchase seeds, fertilizers and pesticides from that same company.15 The companies
determine how much land will be cultivated and how much of each type of fertilizer and
pesticide must be used. Company inspectors make regular visits to the farms to make sure
their guidelines are being followed. Even though Brazilian leaf sells for about half the price of
U.S.-grown leaf, apparently it is still not cheap enough for the companies.16 In the past, prices
for different grades of tobacco fluctuated according to supply and demand. Following a growers’
strike in the late 1980s, however, the companies “tightened the pricing noose” by banding
together. In an effort to keep production costs even lower, the tobacco companies now “decide
prices among themselves, and punish growers heavily should they decide to sell
elsewhere....the big companies join together to estimate the growers’ cost of production plus a
modest margin. To help enforce their control, the companies hold back a share of the farmer’s
payment until the entire harvest is delivered.” Farmers who try to withhold their crops over
grading disputes often have their crops seized by police acting on behalf of the companies.

Tobacco Cultivation: Other Issues to Consider

Tobacco Cultivation: Other Issues to Consider
The tobacco industry likes to boast that tobacco is one of the most lucrative crops on a perhectare
basis. What it fails to mention is that tobacco is also extremely labor and input intensive.
Preparing tobacco seedlings for transplant requires weeks of watering and frequent applications
of fertilizers and pesticides. Once transplanted, the plants require yet more applications of
pesticides and fertilizers, and frequent weeding. Then the plants must be harvested and cured.
In many countries, this process requires the construction of special curing barns that use large
amounts of fuel, usually coal or firewood. After subtracting the cost of inputs (not to mention the
value of all of the family labor which is required to cultivate, harvest and cure the crop), the net
economic benefits of growing tobacco are far less than the tobacco industry would have people
believe.
Nevertheless, many farmers remain stuck in the tobacco trap. In many developing countries,
this is due to the fact that the companies provide loans, inputs and technical assistance which
are not available for other crops. Often, farmers under this type of contracting system find
themselves heavily in debt to the companies and, since the companies control the prices paid to
them, are unable to extricate themselves from tobacco cultivation. In Brazil for example, officials
predicted in 1998 that approximately 35 percent of the tobacco growers would finish the harvest
owing more money to the companies than they earned. The companies are “strangling the
growers,” according to a local official. “Each year they come up with a new way to squeeze the
growers tighter.”13

Tobacco Companies Profit at the Expense of Tobacco Farmer

Tobacco Companies Profit at the Expense of Tobacco Farmers
Between 1990 and 1998, Philip Morris’ international tobacco profits more than tripled, from $1.3
billion to $4.97 billion.8 The leaf dealers have also been prospering. Universal, for example, saw
its profits jump 23 percent in 1998, to $258 million.9 Even as their share prices plummet,
tobacco company executives have seen their salaries soar. In 1999, Philip Morris Chairman
Geoffrey Bible collected $20.6 million in salary, bonuses and stock options.10 Meanwhile, the
companies have been pressuring farmers to sell their tobacco at lower and lower prices. In
1998, the average U.S. tobacco farm had a net income of only $19,597.11
The disparity between the earnings of the farmers and the industry is clearly illustrated in the
United States. Between 1980 and 1998, the inflation-adjusted cost of growing tobacco
increased by nearly 200 percent. Yet during the same period, the average price per pound that
tobacco companies paid for flue-cured tobacco leaf rose just 19 percent, while the price they
paid for burley increased by only 14 percent. At the same time, these companies raised the
price of cigarettes by over 250 percent. Accordingly, from 1980 to 1998, the tobacco growers’
share of each dollar spent in the United States on a pack of cigarettes dropped from seven
cents to about two cents, while the cigarette companies’ share increased from 37 to 49 cents.
Since then, the tobacco growers’ share has shrunk even further, while the cigarette companies’
share continues to grow.12

the FCTC: A Threat to Tobacco Growing Communities?

The FCTC: A Threat to Tobacco Growing Communities?
Multinational cigarette companies have sought to publicly link themselves with tobacco farmers
as a means of putting a “human face” on the industry. A document from a major 1985 Philip
Morris International meeting on smoking and health issues, for example, details the company’s
efforts to “enlist the help of our natural allies such as the trade [sic] and growers” (emphasis in
original) to oppose tobacco tax increases and other anti-smoking measures. The document
states that “we have already helped organize growers in a number of countries” and that “we
intend to do more on tax and health issues with the growers in Europe.”5 Another Philip Morris document from 1989 suggests the creation of a “global agro-lobby” citing as some of the
benefits the “purity of the agro-lobby”, “useful Third-World bias” and that agricultural issues are
the “weak flank of W.H.O.”6 By convincing farmers that the public health community and WHO
are out to destroy their source of livelihood, the companies have been able to enlist farmers’
opposition to all sorts of regulations.
Because tobacco companies are the sole purchasers of tobacco, individual farmers are
reluctant to publicly criticize the practices of the industry out of fear of retaliation. In fact, many
of the organizations purporting to speak for farmers, such as the International Tobacco Growers
Association (ITGA), rarely, if ever, criticize the tobacco industry for actions which might imperil
the economic security of tobacco farmers. Rather, they reserve their opposition for tobacco
control efforts such as the FCTC, whose impact will not be felt by tobacco farmers for many
generations.
Even under the most optimistic tobacco control scenarios, global tobacco consumption is
projected to increase over the next three decades. According to the World Bank, if current
trends continue, the absolute number of smokers will increase from the current 1.1 billion to 1.6
billion in 2025 (due in part to an increase in global population), even as overall prevalence falls
in some countries. While future declines in consumption will clearly reduce the number of
tobacco farming jobs in the future, this will occur over many generations.7 There is simply no
realistic scenario under which anyone farming tobacco today will be put out of work as a result
of the passage of the FCTC. Opposition to the FCTC is about protecting the profits of the
tobacco industry, not the livelihoods of tobacco farmers.
A much greater threat to the viability of tobacco growers are the tobacco companies
themselves. By encouraging more and more countries to cultivate tobacco, by pressuring for the
elimination of price support systems such as in the United States, by spending tens of millions
of dollars designing cigarettes containing less tobacco, and by playing off countries against
each other, the companies are attempting to drive down the global price of tobacco leaf in order
to ensure continued profits for the companies.

Tobacco Agriculture: Some Facts

Tobacco Agriculture: Some Facts
The tobacco industry estimates that globally, 33 million people are engaged in tobacco
cultivation. However, this figure includes not only farmers who rely entirely on tobacco, but also
farmers who grow other crops besides tobacco, seasonal laborers, family members and other
part-time workers. Of these 33 million, approximately 15 million are in China and 3.5 million in
India.
Although tobacco is grown in more than 100 countries, just four countries (Brazil, China, India
and the United States) account for two-thirds of total global production and only two countries,
Malawi and Zimbabwe, are significantly dependent on export earnings from tobacco.1 Out of the
141 countries that export tobacco, only 18 derive more than one percent of their total export
earnings from tobacco. In only four of those 18 countries do tobacco exports account for more
than five percent of total export earnings.2
In some countries, tobacco is grown on small family farms that contract with large multinational
companies. In others, tobacco is grown on large plantations and sold at auction. Whatever
system is used, the profits from tobacco cultivation accrue largely to large multinational
companies. Three U.S.-based companies dominate the global leaf trade – Universal, Dimon and
Standard Commercial. The leaf companies – which select, purchase, process and sell tobacco
– work with the multinational cigarette companies to determine where, how much and what kind
of tobacco will be produced.3 As multinational cigarette companies increase their overseas
manufacturing capacity, the leaf dealers have followed, setting up leaf procurement and
processing facilities near the new factories. Today, they operate in dozens of countries on five
different continents. In a constant drive to increase profits, these companies regularly shift
production from country to country regardless of the impact on local growers or economies