The passive smoking
issue poses a serious economic threat to the tobacco industry.
It has broadened the definition of smoking beyond a personal
habit to something with a social impact, it has been the cause
of successful litigation against employers by workers with a
history of exposure to smoke, and it has resulted in various
types of smoking restrictions. In a confidential 1978 report,
the tobacco industry described increasing public concerns about
passive smoking as "the most dangerous development to the
viability of the tobacco industry that has yet occurred." In
United States of America v. Philip Morris et al., the District
Court for the District of Columbia found that the tobacco
industry "... recognized from the mid-1970s forward that the
health effects of passive smoking posed a profound threat to
industry viability and cigarette profits," and that the industry
responded with "efforts to undermine and discredit the
scientific consensus that ETS causes disease."
Accordingly, the tobacco industry have developed several
strategies to minimise its impact on their business:
Libertarian: the industry has sought to position the passive
smoking debate as essentially concerned with civil liberties and
smokers' rights rather than with health.[citation needed]
Funding bias in research; in all reviews of the effects of
passive smoking on health published between 1980 and 1995, the
only factor associated with concluding that passive smoking is
not harmful was whether an author was affiliated with the
tobacco industry.
Delaying and discrediting legitimate research: Australia
Promoting "good epidemiology" and attacking so-called junk
science (a term popularised by industry lobbyist Steven Milloy):
attacking the methodology behind research showing health risks
as flawed and attempting to promote sound science. Ong & Glantz
(2001) cite an internal Phillip Morris memo giving evidence of
this as company policy
Creation of outlets for favorable research. In 1989, the tobacco
industry established the International Society of the Built
Environment, which published the peer-reviewed journal Indoor
and Built Environment. This journal did not require
conflict-of-interest disclosures from its authors. With
documents made available through the Master Settlement, it was
found that the executive board of the society and the editorial
board of the journal were dominated by paid tobacco-industry
consultants. The journal published a large amount of material on
passive smoking, much of which was "industry-positive".
Citing the tobacco industry's production of biased research and
efforts to undermine scientific findings, the 2006 U.S. Surgeon
General's report concluded that the industry had "attempted to
sustain controversy even as the scientific community reached
consensus... industry documents indicate that the tobacco
industry has engaged in widespread activities... that have gone
beyond the bounds of accepted scientific practice." The U.S.
District Court, in U.S.A. v. Philip Morris et al., found that
"...despite their internal acknowledgment of the hazards of
secondhand smoke, Defendants have fraudulently denied that ETS
causes disease.
Tobacco industry response Position of major tobacco companies >>
|
Second Hand Smoke Passive smoking
Long-term
effects
Short-term
effects
Causal
mechanisms
Epidemiological studies of passive smoking
1. Studies of passive smoking in animals
2.
Risk level of passive smoking
Current state of scientific opinion
1. Public
opinion
Controversy over harms of passive smoking
1. Critique of individual studies and epidemiology
2. World Health Organization controversy
3. EPA lawsuit
4. Tobacco-industry funding of research
Tobacco industry response
1. Position of major tobacco companies
|
