A tobacco industry study of airline cabin air quality: dropping inconvenient findings

Abstract

Objective: To examine an industry funded and controlled study of in flight air quality (IFAQ). Methods: Systematic search of internal tobacco industry documents available on the internet and at the British American Tobacco Guildford Depository. Results: Individuals from several tobacco industry companies, led by Philip Morris, designed, funded, conducted, and controlled the presentation of results of a study of IFAQ for the Scandinavian airline SAS in 1988 while attempting to minimise the appearance of industry control. Industry lawyers and scientists deleted results unfavourable to the industry's position from the study before delivering it to the airline. The published version of the study further downplayed the results, particularly with regard to respirable suspended particulates. The study ignored the health implications of the results and instead promoted the industry position that ventilation could solve problems posed by secondhand smoke. Conclusions: Sponsoring IFAQ studies was one of several tactics the tobacco industry employed in attempts to reverse or delay implementation of in-flight smoking restrictions. As a result, airline patrons and employees, particularly flight attendants, continued to be exposed to pollution from secondhand smoke, especially particulates, which the industry's own consultants had noted exceeded international standards. This case adds to the growing body of evidence that scientific studies associated with the tobacco industry cannot be taken at face value.

Tobacco Industry Documents from Outside Sources: New Perspectives on Industry Strategies on Local Levels

“…What is known from earlier TIDR on Finland is that the tobacco industry began to take a special interest in the Nordic countries since Iceland proposed harmonizing tobacco legislation in those nations in 1987 (13). To counter the adverse proposal PM started to work with local manufacturers against the Nordic Council (14).…”

Changing Conclusions on Secondhand Smoke in a Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Review Funded by the Tobacco Industry

“…68 Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, which published the article by Sullivan and Barlow, 16 requires that acknowledgments include "details of funding." The Sullivan review, 16 as well as the other cases described above, 15,63,64,66,67 illustrates the need for journals to require complete disclosure of all sponsor involvement in the conduct of a study and the preparation of the manuscript. However, such disclosure guidelines have been demonstrated repeatedly not to be effective with the tobacco industry, which seeks actively to minimize its role.…”

“…For example, in 1988, PM led other tobacco companies in designing and controlling an airline indoor air quality study 63 that downplayed exposure to SHS and its potential health effects when smoking restrictions on airlines were being debated. 64 In 1995, the industry generated and controlled the conduct and content of a study, eventually published under Peter Lee's name, 65 that was designed specifically to refute a landmark study on lung cancer and SHS among nonsmoking women. 13 In addition, the industry funded 15 a 2003 British Medical Journal article 66 that reported no causal relationship between SHS and lung cancer, which was criticized for being conducted in a way that almost ensured negative conclusions.…”

The Philip Morris Nordic journalist program: Strategies, implementation and outcomes

“…The Philip Morris management was concerned by plans to ban smoking onboard the Nordic airlines SAS and Finnair in 1987 [13]. To oppose these plans, PM organized media briefings to promote the message that airborne ETS was not a health hazard to nonsmoking passengers [18].…”