E. Franklin Dukes
Aug. 4, 1997
The immediate and long-term future for tobacco producers and tobacco producing communities looks uncertain, with or without the settlement between manufacturers and states' attorneys-general along the lines of what was announced in June. The increased globalization of the market, continuing concerns and pressures about public health, and increased excise taxes very likely mean a decrease in domestic production. If the settlement is actually enacted, there will be even greater pressures on manufacturers to seek cheaper tobacco. While some larger producers may survive and even thrive in the global market, and American tobacco may continue to be valued such that it attracts a profitable price in that market, there is a substantial likelihood that many thousands of smaller growers, some large growers, and hundreds of communities in tobacco growing regions will suffer substantial economic hardship. It is even more likely that virtually all growers, their families, and communities will contine to experience the strains of uncertainty about their future.
Tobacco growers have always been concerned about their future, and have worked hard for many years to help ensure stability and prosperity for themselves, their families, and their communities. They have been supported in varying degrees by public officials, by Extension agents and researchers, and by their customers the leaf purchasers and manufacturers of tobacco products. But they have also had to deal not only with the risks associated with the farming part of their operations (natural calamities such as drought, hail, and blue mold, as well as economic factors such as interest rates, prices, and purchase intentions), they have also been beset by intensive and unsettling pressures from public officials, from the public health community, and even from their purported allies within the tobacco industry.
With the announcement of the settlement, various political leaders and industry officials have jumped forward to claim to speak for the tobacco growers. Some of these individuals do have legitimacy and respect for the work they have done over the years, but many of these individuals are seen as carpetbaggers seeking only to further their own careers by jumping on the "let's save the farmers" bandwagon.
Three years before the settlement, a small group of public health advocates began a process of contact, dialogue, and mutual education with tobacco producing interests. Given the prevailing assumptions that irreconcilable differences between the two groups left nothing to talk about, the near-absolute absence of any prior discussions or relationships, and the high stakes and continuing controvery surrounding both tobacco production and anti-smoking efforts, it is not surprising that the effort began with caution and even suspicion, or that progress has been slow and uneven. What is truly surprising is that enough dialogue, learning, and discovery of new common ground has occurred to offer serious and substantial contributions to the current settlement debate and to thinking about the long-term future of tobacco growing communities.
The most important of those contributions are detailed here. These should not be taken to represent all tobacco growers and all public health advocates' views, and some portions of what follows are of greater interest and/or more acceptable to some individuals than others.
1. Protection of the Tobacco Program
Continuation of the tobacco program of price supports and quota is the highest priority of most tobacco growers. The tobacco program was designed to give back to the growers some control over their destiny, and to create stability for the industry. From the public health side, possible negative effects of eliminating the tobacco program include:
Differences remain about the financing of the program, about the role that federally-supported crop insurance plays in the program, and about the duration of the program. Nonetheless, many public health advocates have publicly indicated their support for continuation of the major components of the program, at least in the foreseeable future.
2. Funding to Prevent Economic Hardship and to Prepare for Transition
A substantial amount of funding provided through the settlement should be allocated to assist in transition for communities hurt by any decline in tobacco production. This money might be used to purchase retired quota as well as for investment in education, economic development, capital access, and other items.
It is most important that the control of these investments be determined by those communities themselves. A lot of attention has been paid to the large sums of money which are in the news, but less attention has been given to how such an investment program might work.
3. Legitimate and Effective Controls to Prevent Youth Access to Tobacco Products
Tobacco growers have been consistently joining public health advocates in condemning youth access to tobacco products. As yet, there have been just a few initiatives where this concern could develop into support for specific policies which would offer effective controls on youth access. More discussion needs to occur to increase understanding and develop concrete proposals which will help reduce and prevent youth access to tobacco products.
4. Controls on Imported Tobacco
Tobacco growers are concerned about the amount and low price of foreign tobacco being used in manufacturing domestic tobacco products. Public health advocates share that concern, although not necessarily for the same reason.
Tobacco growers who are also smokers have expressed a concern shared by public health advocates about additives, pesticides, reconstituted leaf, and other unregulated practices which might be allowed in tobacco production and manufacturing overseas. Other areas of interest, such as determination of a "safe" cigarette, remain to be explored.
5. The Need for Discussion, Learning, and Collaboration When Appropriate
Growers and health advocates are at some risk for participating in discussions with one another, and both sides have occasionally been criticized by their own friends and allies for doing so. But potential benefits to all sides from continuing are substantial.
When all communication is conducted through filters of media and third-party reports, what is most likely to come through is what is shouted the loudest and what is most inflammatory and "newsworthy." Direct, face-to-face discussions invariably result in new, more accurate understandings. They create empathy and therefore recognition of common values, goals and concerns. When people realize that they can talk to each other with civility, they can work together when appropriate on certain issues while opposing each other on other issues. And areas of joint interest continue to be discovered as discussion proceeds.
At the personal level, people who used to be considered opponents learn that they do share many values, such as hard work, community involvement, personal and social responsibility, and a concern for youth and community economic, physical and mental health.
Continued benefits will depend upon good faith, commitment, and the hard work of interacting with people who are different to bring forth new relationships and new ideas.