How the tobacco industry responded to an influential study of the health effects of secondhand smoke

Hong, Mi-Kyung

doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7377.1413

Cited by 65 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…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. 67 In each of these cases, "independent" industry consultants played a critical role in providing scientific credibility in promoting the industry's goals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The industry commissioned reports and implemented strategies to confuse or undercut the mainstream scientific literature on SHS, particularly the evidence on lung cancer. [11][12][13][14][15] Little is known about the tobacco industry's influence on maternal and child health issues.In 2001, a scientific review of SIDS was published that acknowledged funding from PM. 16 We identified and compared 2 drafts of the review in previously secret, internal tobacco industry documents that have been made available as a result of litigation against the industry, and we noted changes made after communications between the PM scientific executives and the authors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Background. Prenatal and postnatal exposure to tobacco smoke adversely affects maternal and child health. Secondhand smoke (SHS) has been linked causally with sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) in major health reports. In 1992, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first noted an association between SHS and SIDS, and both prenatal exposure and postnatal SHS exposure were listed as independent risk factors for SIDS in a 1997 California EPA report (republished in 1999 by the National Cancer Institute) and a 2004 US Surgeon General report.The tobacco industry has used scientific consultants to attack the evidence that SHS causes disease, most often lung cancer. Little is known about the industry's strategies to contest the evidence on maternal and child health. In 2001, a review was published on SIDS that acknowledged funding from the Philip Morris (PM) tobacco company. Tobacco industry documents related to this review were examined to identify the company's influence on the content and conclusions of this review.Methods. Tobacco industry documents include 40 million pages of internal memos and reports made available to the public as a result of litigation settlements against the tobacco industry in the United States. Between November 2003 and January 2004, we searched tobacco industry document Internet sites from the University of California Legacy Tobacco Documents Library and the Tobacco Documents Online website. Key terms included "SIDS" and names of key persons. Two authors conducted independent searches with similar key terms, reviewed the documents, and agreed on relevancy through consensus. Thirty documents were identified as relevant. Two drafts (an early version and a final version) of an industry-funded review article on SIDS were identified, and 2 authors independently compared these drafts with the final publication. Formal comments by PM executives made in response to the first draft were also reviewed. We used Science Citation Index in July 2004 to determine citation patterns for the referenced SIDS reviews.Results. PM executives feared that SHS and maternal and child health issues would create a powerful and emotional impetus for smoke-free areas in the home, public areas, and the workplace. In response to the 1992 US EPA report on SHS, the Science and Technology Department of PM's Switzerland subsidiary, Fabriques de Tabac Reunies, searched for "independent" consultants to publish articles addressing SHS. The first industry-funded article was a literature review focusing on smoking and SIDS, conducted by consultant Peter Lee and co-author Allison Thornton, which stated that the association between parental smoking and SIDS could have been attributable to the failure to control fully for confounders. That first review has only been cited once, in the subsequent industry-funded review.In 1997, PM commissioned a consultant, Frank Sullivan, to write a review, with coauthor Susan Barlow, of all possible risk factors for SIDS. The first draft concluded that prenatal and postnatal smokin...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 Recent examples include efforts to subvert second-hand smoke (SHS) research conducted in the United States, 61 in Europe at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 62 and in Japan by Takeshi Hirayama. 63,64 In each case, the public stances of tobacco companies sought to maintain controversy surrounding the negative health effects of smoking and SHS 4,65 through a number of actions, 66 including funding scientists to write publications critical of scientific methodology linking SHS to disease, 61,67 sponsorship of research aimed at obscuring the scientific evidence against SHS, 68 and creating an international scientific consultants program to influence public opinion on SHS. 69,70 Since the 1950's, tobacco industry funding of scientists, consultants and editors often has occurred without acknowledgement of tobacco industry support.…”

Section: Pfeifer Of the Beckman Research Institute In Duarte Ca Submentioning

confidence: 99%

The p53 tumour suppressor gene and the tobacco industry: research, debate, and conflict of interest

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…19 (CIAR has, however, been essentially reconstituted as the Philip Morris External Research Program. 20,21 ) The tobacco indus-try's efforts to subvert scientific conclusions on SHS have been previously described for lung cancer 15,[22][23][24] and sudden infant death syndrome. 25 The tobacco industry used similar strategies to undermine the evidence that SHS causes CVD to fight smoke-free regulations while later developing approaches to support new products that claim to "reduce harm.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Tobacco Industry Efforts Undermining Evidence Linking Secondhand Smoke With Cardiovascular Disease

Tong

Glantz

2007

Circulation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background-The scientific consensus that secondhand smoke (SHS) increases cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk by 30% is based on epidemiological and biological evidence. The tobacco industry has contested this evidence that SHS causes CVD, but how and why they have done it has not been described. Methods and Results-About 50 million pages of tobacco industry documents were searched using general keywords and names of industry consultants and scientists. Tobacco industry-funded epidemiological analyses of large data sets were used to argue against an epidemiological association between SHS and CVD and smoke-free regulations, but these analyses all suffered from exposure misclassification problems that biased the results toward the null. More recent industry-funded publications report an increased risk of CVD associated with SHS but claim a low magnitude of risk. When early tobacco industry-funded work demonstrated that SHS increased atherosclerosis, the industry criticized the findings and withdrew funding. RJ Reynolds focused on attacking the biological plausibility of the association between SHS and CVD by conducting indirect platelet aggregation studies, exposure chamber experiments, and literature reviews. Although these studies also suffered from exposure misclassification problems, several produced results that were consistent with a direct effect of SHS on blood and vascular function. Instead, RJ Reynolds attributed these results to an unproven epinephrine-related stress response from odor or large smoke exposure, which supported their regulatory and "reduced-harm" product development efforts. Philip Morris' recent "reduced-harm" efforts seem supportive of a similar corporate agenda. Conclusions-The tobacco industry attempted to undermine the evidence that SHS causes CVD to fight smoke-free regulations while developing approaches to support new products that claim to reduce harm. The industry interest in preserving corporate viability has affected the design and interpretation of their cardiovascular studies, indicating the need for great caution in current debates about future tobacco industry regulation and development of reduced-harm tobacco products.

show abstract

How the tobacco industry responded to an influential study of the health effects of secondhand smoke

Cited by 65 publications

References 19 publications

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

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

The p53 tumour suppressor gene and the tobacco industry: research, debate, and conflict of interest

Tobacco Industry Efforts Undermining Evidence Linking Secondhand Smoke With Cardiovascular Disease

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About