Science for hire: A tobacco industry strategy to influence public opinion on secondhand smoke

Abstract

A review of internal tobacco company documents reveals that members of the tobacco industry and its corporate attorneys created an international scientific consultants program to influence public opinion on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). This program was shaped as a "product" to protect the industry from international threats of smoking restrictions. Additionally, this program was used to promote a scientific backdrop supporting the industry's position on ETS that differed from regulatory agencies and published scientific research. In this report, we detail the pervasive nature of the so-called ETS Consultants Program, outline the wide range of activities undertaken by the consultants, and highlight the role of the industry's corporate attorneys in creating and managing this program. We suggest heightened monitoring of industry-created scientific organizations, further tobacco document research, and wide dissemination of such work.

Tobacco Industry Efforts Undermining Evidence Linking Secondhand Smoke With Cardiovascular Disease

“…Two months later, John Rupp, a lawyer from Covington & Burling who helped orchestrate the tobacco industry's worldwide response to the SHS issue, 16,18 wrote 55 to the CIAR Executive Director and Board Chair about a $50 000 proposal by consultants LeVois and Layard examining the association between spousal smoking and heart disease using the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Studies (CPS-I and CPS-II) data sets. The work was submitted to OSHA and later to a scientific journal.…”

“…It is now clear that small exposures to tobacco smoke such as with SHS or smoking 1 or 2 cigarettes a day substantially affect heart disease risk because of the nonlinear dose-response effects on platelet activation, endothelial dysfunction, and other factors. 4,10 -14 The tobacco industry has contested the conclusion that SHS is dangerous because widespread acceptance of this fact builds support for smoking restrictions, 15,16 which reduce cigarette consumption 17 and thus industry profits. Beginning in 1988, the tobacco industry developed an "International ETS [environmental tobacco smoke, the industry's name for SHS] Consultants Program" to "keep the controversy alive" on SHS by recruiting physicians and scientists to develop and promote viewpoints favorable to the industry.…”

“…Beginning in 1988, the tobacco industry developed an "International ETS [environmental tobacco smoke, the industry's name for SHS] Consultants Program" to "keep the controversy alive" on SHS by recruiting physicians and scientists to develop and promote viewpoints favorable to the industry. 16,18 The industry's now-disbanded Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR) has been a mechanism for funding "special-reviewed" projects selected by lawyers and industry executives that support the industry position against smoking regulations. 19 (CIAR has, however, been essentially reconstituted as the Philip Morris External Research Program.…”

Une légalisation des drogues inscrite en promotion de la santé : les conditions

“…Ou encore, on ajoute à la cigarette certains produits pour accroître la rétention de la nicotine dans les poumons (ajout d'ammoniaque), ou encore l'absorption de nicotine par l'organisme (avec les cigarettes au menthol ou encore l'ajout d'acide « levulinic » dans les cigarettes « légères » et « ultra-légères ») (Garten et Falkner, 2004 ;Keithly et al, 2005). Une bonne partie de ces additifs se retrouvent également dans la fumée secondaire (Muggli et al, 2003). Le gouvernement a un rôle à jouer pour contrer cette action des compagnies en contrôlant mieux la fabrication de ces produits.…”

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

“…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. 4,61,70,71 Gio Gori, associate editor of JRTP, has been a paid consultant of the tobacco industry since 1980, and has testified on their behalf regarding smoking and health.…”