A 1998 report by the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on
environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) found "weak evidence of a
dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and
exposure to spousal and workplace ETS." In March of 1998, before
the study was published, reports appeared in the media alleging
that the IARC and the World Health Organization (WHO) were
suppressing information. The reports, appearing in the British
Sunday Telegraph and The Economist, among other sources, alleged
that the WHO withheld from publication its own report that
supposedly failed to prove an association between passive
smoking and a number of other diseases (lung cancer in
particular).
In response, the WHO issued a press release stating that the
results of the study had been "completely misrepresented" in the
popular press and were in fact very much in line with similar
studies demonstrating the harms of passive smoking. The study
was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in
October of the same year. An accompanying editorial summarized:
When all the evidence, including the important new data reported
in this issue of the Journal, is assessed, the inescapable
scientific conclusion is that ETS is a low-level lung
carcinogen.
With the release of formerly classified tobacco industry
documents through the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, it
was found that the controversy over the WHO's alleged
suppression of data had been engineered by Philip Morris,
British American Tobacco, and other tobacco companies in an
effort to discredit scientific findings which would harm their
business interests. A WHO inquiry, conducted after the release
of the tobacco-industry documents, found that this controversy
was generated by the tobacco industry as part of its larger
campaign to cut the WHO's budget, distort the results of
scientific studies on passive smoking, and discredit the WHO as
an institution. This campaign was carried out using a network of
ostensibly independent front organizations and international and
scientific experts with hidden financial ties to the industry.
Controversy over
harms of passive smoking EPA lawsuit >>
|
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
|
