Challenging the epidemiologic evidence on passive smoking: tactics of tobacco industry expert witnesses

Abstract

The tobacco industry attempted to redirect the focus and dialogue related to the epidemiologic evidence on passive smoking. This approach, used by industry experts in trial testimony and depositions, placed bias as a certain alternative to causation of diseases related to passive smoking and proposed an unachievable standard for establishing the mechanism of disease.

The development of scientific consultants: how the tobacco industry creates controversy on the carcinogenicity of tobacco-specific nitrosamines

“…Finally, they question the suitability of TSNA–DNA adducts as biomarkers of exposure to tobacco smoke. Known arguments used by other tobacco industry expert witnesses can be identified89: for example, to claim the effects of secondhand smoke are weak or to claim that earlier studies are limited by confounding factors or misclassification of active smoking status and exposure to secondhand smoke and/or by the limitations of animal studies. Earlier published results, which did not reflect the interests of the industry, were at each time put ‘into perspective’ by repetitive publications supporting the pro-industry positions.…”

Big tobacco “pull out all stops” for a landmark example: The Burswood Casino case

“…23 In this instance, the tobacco industry has defended itself by claiming that smoking only harms the smoker and that smoking should be a choice made by each individual. 13,24 The industry maintained there were no causative associations between SHS and lung cancer or cardiovascular disease; 19,20,25 "Some epidemiological studies report that there is an association between ETS [environmental tobacco smoke] and certain diseases. However, statistical associations do not prove causation.…”

Putting truth into action: using the evidence for justice

“…As recounted by Francis et al, 14 for example, the industry's muted public statements on secondhand smoke give way in the courtroom to frontal assaults on epidemiology itself. In the public arena, manufacturers no longer find it tenable to dispute the addictiveness of nicotine, but in the courtroom, as Henningfield et al 15 show, the old denials continue unchanged, with defendants likening cigarettes to the ''addictions'' of chocolate or even carrots.…”