There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
Scientific reports on second-hand smoke have stimulated legislation on clean indoor
air in the USA, but less so in Europe. Recently, the largest European study, by the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), demonstrated a 16% increase in
the point estimate of risk in lung cancer for nonsmokers, a result consistent with
earlier studies. However, the study was described by newspapers and the tobacco industry
as demonstrating no increase in risk. To understand the tobacco industry's strategy
on the IARC study we analysed industry documents released in US litigation and interviewed
IARC investigators. The Philip Morris tobacco company feared that the study (and a
possible IARC monograph on second-hand smoke) would lead to increased restrictions
in Europe so they spearheaded an inter-industry, three-prong strategy to subvert IARC's
work. The scientific strategy attempted to undercut IARC's research and to develop
industry-directed research to counter the anticipated findings. The communications
strategy planned to shape opinion by manipulating the media and the public. The government
strategy sought to prevent increased smoking restrictions. The IARC study cost $2
million over ten years; Philip Morris planned to spend $2 million in one year alone
and up to $4 million on research. The documents and interviews suggest that the tobacco
industry continues to conduct a sophisticated campaign against conclusions that second-hand
smoke causes lung cancer and other diseases, subverting normal scientific processes.