Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Tobacco industry’s T.O.T.A.L. interference
  1. Lisa Henriksen1,
  2. Maggie Mahoney2
  1. 1 Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA
  2. 2 Public Health Law Center, Tobacco Control Legal Consortium, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
  1. Correspondence to Lisa Henriksen, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford Prevention Research Center, 1070 Arastradero Road, suite 353 Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA; lhenriksen{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Swedish Match and the National Association of Tobacco Outlets launched a website in 2016 that encourages retailers and policy makers to oppose regulating the tobacco retail environment.1 2 T.O.T.A.L., an acronym for Tobacco Ordinances – Take Another Look, features talking points for defeating U.S. state and local efforts to restrict the sale of flavoured tobacco, regulate tobacco product displays in stores, restrict price discounting by eliminating coupon redemption and other discounts, increase the minimum package size of small cigars, and increase the minimum legal purchase age to 21. The industry website highlights U.S. cities where such restrictions are proposed and uses video testimonials to engage retailers in opposition.

T.O.T.A.L. employs many of the same arguments that the tobacco industry uses to influence marketing restrictions in other countries. Using a taxonomy of argument frames identified by Savell and her colleagues,3 table 1 lists the talking points from the website that illustrate industry claims about insufficient evidence (policy is not evidence-based), legal objections (policy is illegal), regulatory redundancy (policy is unnecessary) and negative unintended consequences (policy will incur unanticipated economic, health or other costs).

View this table:
Table 1

Tobacco industry arguments to oppose regulating the retail environment

Predictably, …

View Full Text


  • Contributors LH created initial draft and MM provided critical revisions.

  • Funding LH is supported by the National Cancer Institute’s State & Community Tobacco Control Initiative (U01-CA154281). MM is supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Grant #73750).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.