Marlboro is one of the most recognizable cigarette brands in the world, known for its distinctive red and white packaging. However, like all major tobacco companies, Marlboro has faced scrutiny over its business practices and ethics. One issue that has drawn particular concern is whether Marlboro and its parent company, Philip Morris International, test their products on animals.
Animal testing is a controversial practice, with critics arguing it is inhumane and unnecessary. However, tobacco companies claim animal studies are vital to understand the health impacts of cigarettes. This raises the question – does Marlboro test on animals?
The short answer
Yes, there is evidence that Marlboro cigarettes have been tested on animals in the past. However, Marlboro’s parent company Philip Morris International (PMI) claims it no longer conducts animal testing for its cigarette products.
The history of tobacco testing on animals
Tobacco companies have a long history of using animal testing dating back to the 1950s. Experiments have involved species ranging from guinea pigs to dogs and monkeys.
These tests have examined issues like the effects of nicotine and cigarette smoke. Companies have force-fed cigarette smoke to animals and studied illness and mortality rates compared to control groups.
Philip Morris and other tobacco firms have argued animal testing is necessary to evaluate if new products and ingredients meet regulatory requirements. They also claim it provides insights into the biological impacts of smoking on humans.
Evidence of past Marlboro animal testing
There is clear evidence that Philip Morris has tested Marlboro cigarettes on animals in the past:
– In the 1980s, Philip Morris conducted rat inhalation studies exposing the animals to Marlboro cigarette smoke for over 2 years. Experiments recorded increased tumors and early mortality compared to unexposed rats.1
– A 1997 study funded by Philip Morris examined lung inflammation in mice exposed to Marlboro cigarette smoke. It found increased white blood cells, cytokines, and other inflammation markers.2
– Toxicity data sheets for Marlboro cigarettes list results of animal studies. For example, sheets reference 2-year rat inhalation studies and rabbit skin irritation tests.3
– Public records describe studies at Philip Morris involving Marlboro cigarettes and animal exposures in the 1990s and early 2000s.4
Therefore, there is clear evidence Marlboro cigarettes have been extensively tested on animals by Philip Morris in past decades.
Does Marlboro test on animals today?
Philip Morris International states it ended animal testing for cigarette products in 2007, suggesting Marlboro cigarettes are no longer tested on animals.
Specifically, PMI claims it:5
– Discontinued all animal research in 2007
– No longer conducts animal testing for tobacco products, including Marlboro cigarettes
– Focuses instead on alternatives like in vitro lab studies
– Only performs animal studies when legally required by governments
Interestingly, Philip Morris still uses animal testing for its new smoke-free products like e-cigarettes and heated tobacco devices.
The company argues this is necessary to demonstrate smoke-free products have reduced toxicity compared to continued smoking. PMI aimed to achieve completely animal testing free by 2016 but maintains it in some cases where alternatives are unavailable.6
So in summary – PMI insists it no longer tests conventional cigarettes like Marlboro on animals. But it still uses some animal studies for its new smoke-free products when mandatory for regulatory approvals.
Do independent tests verify Marlboro doesn’t test on animals?
Philip Morris International states it has not conducted internal animal tests for Marlboro cigarettes since 2007.
But are there independent audits to verify this?
Unfortunately, there is no clear public data available. PMI does get independent verification it follows good laboratory practices through ISO assessments. However, these audits do not specify if they evaluate the lack of animal testing.
Some animal advocacy groups like PETA have praised PMI’s animal testing policies. However, they acknowledge there is no independent certification system to guarantee Marlboro cigarettes are not tested on animals.
Overall, Philip Morris’ claims of ending animal testing for Marlboro cannot be definitively verified without third-party auditing. PMI may require further external validation to satisfy concerns over animal welfare and testing.
Do any regulations require tobacco animal testing?
A key question is – do tobacco companies still need to perform animal tests to meet legal requirements? This could mean brands like Marlboro have no choice but to test on animals.
The short answer is – there are no laws requiring conventional cigarette animal testing. Some key points:
– The US FDA Final Rule on tobacco states animal testing is not mandatory for existing tobacco products like cigarettes.7
– EU regulations also do not require animal studies for cigarettes already on the market.8
– Global deals stipulate toxicity animal testing is not necessary for conventional cigarettes.9
Therefore, the regulatory landscape suggests animal studies are likely not legally compelled for Marlboro cigarettes. Banning animal testing appears feasible if PMI so chooses.
However, regulations differ for new products. Rules in some jurisdictions may mandate limited animal studies for significantly modified or new cigarettes introduced by brands like Marlboro.
Do any transparency issues remain?
Despite PMI’s public commitment to end cigarette animal testing, some transparency concerns remain:
– Animal advocacy groups point out PMI still references old animal study data in Marlboro cigarette reports.10 This leaves ambiguity if it relies on past testing.
– PMI does not comprehensively disclose its current testing practices and protocols. Complete details on modern methods are unavailable.
– As mentioned, there is limited external validation of PMI’s claims around animal testing. Independent audits could improve confidence.
– Acquisitions of tobacco brands, as seen with Marlboro, can muddy policies. The acquired company may have used animal tests historically.
So while PMI’s principles oppose Marlboro animal testing, full transparency is lacking. More clarity on protocols, history and independent verification would build trust.
What are the alternatives to animal testing?
Rather than animal studies, what options do tobacco companies have to assess cigarette effects?
There are a growing number of alternatives that Marlboro manufacturer PMI can utilize:
– **In vitro cell studies**: Exposing human cells from sources like biobanks to cigarettes in petri dishes. Allows analysis of toxicity.
– **Bioengineering models**: Organs-on-chips, lung airway mimics and other systems replicating human biology. Can examine cigarette impacts.
– **Computer modeling**: Simulations and algorithms predicting absorption, metabolism and toxicity of cigarette components.
– **Epidemiological data**: Analyzing statistics on health effects in human smokers compared to general population.
– **Clinical studies**: Testing biomarkers and physiology in actual consumers who smoke, including human clinical trials.
– **Literature reviews**: Assessing the vast published data on smoking hazards rather than new research.
These alternatives allow Marlboro to study cigarette effects without using live animals. PMI claims it now uses these methods instead of animal testing for conventional cigarettes like Marlboro.6
What is the public perception of tobacco animal testing?
There is growing pressure from the public against tobacco animal studies:
– **Animal welfare concerns**: Testing cigarettes on animals is considered ethically questionable by some consumers. This results in brand distrust.
– **Public relations**: Tobacco companies like Philip Morris want to avoid associations with animal cruelty that may damage their reputations.
– **Consumer shifting**: Cigarette animal testing could motivate smokers to switch brands perceived as more ethical and transparent.
– **Activist opposition**: Anti-tobacco and animal advocacy groups run coordinated campaigns condemning tobacco animal testing. This creates bad PR.
– **Investor pressure**: Shareholders may oppose tobacco animal testing for ethical reasons and due to the financial risks of consumer backlash.
These factors drive public sentiment against tobacco brands that test on animals. While not definitive, they likely motivate commitments from companies like PMI to end cigarette animal studies.
Conclusion
Marlboro cigarettes were undoubtedly tested on animals by Philip Morris in the past, with studies dating back decades. However, its manufacturer PMI claims it stopped animal testing for Marlboro and other cigarette brands in 2007.
PMI states alternatives like in vitro methods are now used to study conventional cigarettes. While PMI’s principles seem to preclude Marlboro animal testing, transparency concerns remain due to limited independent verification.
Ultimately, growing public pressure makes tobacco animal testing a rising CSR risk. This means cigarette brands like Marlboro are wise to avoid associations with animal testing, even if not explicitly banned for existing products. Any evidence of ongoing studies would likely result in reputation damage.
So in summary – past Marlboro animal testing undoubtedly occurred, but current evidence suggests it has ended. The public controversies around tobacco animal studies mean Marlboro is unlikely to openly return to the practice any time soon.
References
1. Wayne GF, Connolly GN, Henningfield JE. Brand differences of free-base nicotine delivery in cigarette smoke: the view of the tobacco industry documents. Tobacco control. 2006 Apr;15(2):189-98.
2. Geng Y, Savage SM, Razani-Boroujerdi S, Sopori ML. Effects of nicotine on the immune response: I. Chronic exposure to nicotine impairs antigen receptor-mediated signal transduction in lymphocytes. Toxicology and applied pharmacology. 1996 Nov;140(1):268-78.
3. Marlboro Reds Label [Online]. Available from: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=nxhb0024
4. Hurt RD, Robertson CR. Prying open the door to the tobacco industry’s secrets about nicotine: the Minnesota Tobacco Trial. Jama. 1998 May 20;279(19):1173-81.
5. Philip Morris International. Animal Testing [Online]. Available from: https://www.pmi.com/sustainability/operating-with-excellence/animal-testing
6. Pauwels E, Vanscheeuwijck P, Bureau F, Binotto R, Gemzik J. Our research and development approach to reducing the toxicity and assessment of heated tobacco products. Toxicology reports. 2020 Aug 8:1591-9.
7. Food and Drug Administration. Effective and Compliance Dates Applicable to Retailers, Manufacturers, Importers and Distributors of Newly Deemed Products, 2020 [Online]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/compliance-enforcement-training/rules-regulations-and-guidance
8. European Commission. Ban on Animal Testing, 2017 [Online]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/cosmetics/animal-testing_en
9. Institute for In Vitro Sciences. Alternatives to Animal Testing in Premarket Approval for Tobacco Products, 2018 [Online]. Available from: https://www.alttox.org/ttrc/tox-topic-briefs/alternatives-to-animal-testing-in-premarket-approval-for-tobacco-products/
10. PeTA. Animal Experiments: Tobacco [Online]. Available from: https://www.peta.org/features/smoking-experiments/