14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer's second-hand smoke study

      ,
      The Lancet
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          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.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          The Lancet
          The Lancet
          Elsevier BV
          01406736
          April 2000
          April 2000
          : 355
          : 9211
          : 1253-1259
          Article
          10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02098-5
          10770318
          282cfb4f-cce6-4e3e-a043-e0b8cb30c97b
          © 2000

          https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article