From Tobacco to Food: Why Climate Progress Depends on Managing Transitions, not Mandates

Written by Brian Labatte

Major social change rarely fails because the evidence is weak. It fails because institutions underestimate how hard it is for people and organizations to let go of old assumptions and move toward new defaults.

The long arc of tobacco reduction offers a useful, if imperfect, lesson for today’s food and climate challenge because food is “the new tobacco,” but because both reveal how deeply embedded systems resist change until governance, norms, and incentives shift together.

Tobacco was once framed as a private choice: legal, culturally normal, and outside the reach of public policy. That story collapsed only after decades of mounting scientific evidence, public hearings, litigation, and regulatory scrutiny revealed the broader social costs. Eventually, new defaults such as smoke-free indoor spaces, advertising limits, higher prices, and enforcement, made healthier behavior the path of least resistance.

Food and climate sustainability present a far larger and more complex challenge. According to planetary-health research, food systems are now among the largest drivers of greenhouse-gas emissions, land-use change, biodiversity loss, freshwater stress, and nutrient pollution. These are not marginal effects; they sit at the heart of long-term planetary stability. 

This comparison matters because it highlights a central truth: climate progress will not come from awareness alone. It will come from changing how institutions define their role.

That insight is captured well in Managing Transitions, which distinguishes between change and transition. Change is external: new policies, targets, or programs. Transition is internal, the psychological and organizational process of letting go of old assumptions, navigating uncertainty, and embracing new ways of operating. Bridges argues that successful change depends on guiding people through three stages: Ending, Neutral Zone, and New Beginning. (“Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change.” – William Bridges, Balance, 1980.)

Viewed through this lens, the food-climate transition becomes clearer.

The ending underway today is not about telling people what to eat. It is about letting go of the idea that food is only a personal or cultural matter and therefore beyond climate and sustainability governance. Scientific frameworks such as the Planetary Health Check place food squarely within a planetary risk dashboard, alongside energy, land, water, and materials. Once food systems are recognized as systemic drivers of climate and ecological risk, institutional responsibility follows. 

The neutral zone, the most uncomfortable phase is where we are now. Competing frames dominate public discussion: consumer choice, farmer livelihoods, health, climate, biodiversity, innovation, regulation. Authority is fragmented across procurement, agriculture, health, trade, and climate departments. In this zone, there is a real risk of symbolic actions that sound ambitious but leave underlying systems unchanged.

History suggests that progress here comes not from grand declarations, but from building upon evidence and stacking practical steps that keep future options open. In tobacco control, this meant local smoke-free policies, disclosure requirements, and advertising limits that gradually shifted norms without foreclosing stronger action later.

The new beginning emerges when new defaults take hold. In food systems, this does not mean universal dietary mandates. It means normalizing plant-forward procurement, improving nutrient circularity, protecting land aligned with science-based targets, and correcting market signals that over-promote high-impact products. When these defaults are embedded in institutions, individual choice is preserved. But the sustainable option becomes easier.

This is where municipalities can play a pivotal role.

The Plant-Based Cities Movement is not asking cities to dictate diets. We are asking for something far simpler: a staff-led conversation with food services and procurement teams to explore low-risk, budget-aligned opportunities to reduce food-related emissions over the coming year. The goal is to learn what is feasible within existing contracts, community priorities, and operational realities.

Our role is to support that exploration by sharing peer-city examples, reducing implementation risk, and helping staff identify options that fit local context while preserving choice.