The tobacco industry has known about the health effects of smoking since the 1960s. Litigation in Canada and the USA has made available thousands of previously secret tobacco industry documents that show the depth of the tobacco industry’s deception.
Here are some of their lies:
Nicotine
By the early 1960s the tobacco industry had developed a sophisticated understanding of nicotine pharmacology and knew that nicotine was pharmacologically addictive. Publicly however, the tobacco industry has maintained and continues to maintain that nicotine is not addictive. The scientific community was much slower to appreciate nicotine addiction: the Surgeon General did not conclude that nicotine was addictive until 1988.
| Information from documents from the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation and British American Tobacco: |
What the tobacco industry was saying publicly: |
What the health authorities were saying: |
|
‘Moreover, nicotine is addictive. We are, then in the business of selling nicotine, an addictive drug effective in the release of stress mechanisms’. 1964.
‘. . . the cigarette is . . . among the most awe-inspiring examples of the ingenuity of man . . . The cigarette should be conceived not as a product but as a package. The product is nicotine. The cigarette is but one of many packaged layers to get to that which he seeks. . . Smoke is beyond question the most optimised vehicle of nicotine and the cigarette the most optimised dispenser of smoke.’
William L Dunn, Jr., Philip Morris, 1972
|
‘I do not believe that nicotine is addictive .. . nicotine is a very important constituent in the cigarette smoke for taste.’ 1994. |
‘After carefully examining the available evidence, this report concludes that: • cigarettes and other forms of tobacco are addicting • nicotine is the drug in tobacco that causes addiction • the pharmacologic and behavioural processes that determine tobacco addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such as heroin and cocaine.’ 1998. |
Smoking and disease
Despite mounting evidence from health authorities and research conducted by the tobacco industry into their product (initially with the view of creating a safe cigarette) that there are clear associations between smoking and ill-health, the public stance of the industry has always been to cast doubts over the scientific evidence.
| Information from documents from the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation and British American Tobacco: |
What the tobacco industry was saying publicly: |
What the health authorities were saying: |
|
‘At the best, the probabilities are that some combination of constituents of smoke will be found conducive to the onset of cancer or to create an environment in which cancer is more likely to occur.’ 1963.
‘Carbon monoxide will become increasingly regarded as a serious health hazard for smokers . . . Additional evidence of smoke-dose related incidence of some diseases associated with smoking has been published. But generally this has long ceased to be an area for scientific controversy.’ 1978.
|
‘The smoking of tobacco continues to be one of the subjects requiring study in the lung cancer problem, as do many other agents and influences in modern living. Science does not yet know enough about any suspected factors to judge whether they may operate alone, whether they may operate in conjunction with others, or whether they may affect or be affected by factors of whose existence science is not yet aware.’ 1967.
‘. . . we believe there is sound evidence to conclude that the statement ‘cigarettes cause cancer’ is not a statement of fact but merely an hypotheses.’ 1971.
’Cigarette smoking has not been scientifically established to be a cause of chronic diseases, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, or emphysema. Nor has it been shown to affect pregnancy outcome adversely.’ 1983.
|
Surgeon General: ‘Cigarette smoking is causally related to lung cancer in men: the magnitude of the effect of cigarette smoking far outweighs all other factors. The data for women, though less extensive point in the same direction.’
‘Cigarette smoking is the most important of the causes of chronic bronchitis in the United States, and increases the risk of dying from chronic bronchitis.’ ‘Male cigarette smokers have a higher death rate from coronary artery disease than nonsmoking males, but it is not clear that the association has causal significance.’
‘Cigarette smoking is a significant factor in the causation of cancer of the larynx (and) an association exists between cigarette smoking and cancer of the urinary bladder in men.’ 1964.
Surgeon General: ‘Tobacco use is associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease; stroke; aortic aneurism; peripheral vascular disease; chronic obstructive broncho-pulmonary disease; cancers of the lung, lip, larynx, oral cavity, oesoph-agus, urinary bladder, and pancreas; and gastrointestinal disorders such as peptic ulcer disease . . . In addition, maternal smoking during pregnancy retards foetal growth.’ 1972.
Surgeon General ‘Smoking is responsible for more than one of every six deaths in the United States. Smoking remains the single most important preventable cause of death in our society.’ 1989.
|
Environmental tobacco smoke
During the 1970s and 1980s scientific evidence began to suggest that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) could cause adverse health effects, such as lung cancer and cardiovascular disease, in non-smokers. The tobacco industry has always denied that passive smoking has been proven to be harmful to health.
| Information from documents from the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation & British American Tobacco: |
Sidestream research and development strategic objectives remains as follows: |
What the tobacco industry was saying publicly: |
1. Develop cigarettes with reduced sidestream yields and/or reduced odour and irritation. 2. Conduct research to anticipate and refute claims about the health effects of passive smoking. 1984. |
‘Evidence relating ETS to health effects is scanty, contradictory and often fundamentally flawed… more and better research needs to be done.’
‘Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke has not been shown to cause lung cancer in nonsmokers… such exposure has not been shown to impair the respiratory or cardiovascular health of non-smoking adults or children, or to exacerbate preexisting disease in these groups, or to cause ‘allergic’ symptoms on a physiological basis.’
|
Surgeon General: ‘An atmosphere contaminated with tobacco smoke can contribute to the discomfort of many individuals.’
‘The level of carbon monoxide attained in experiments using rooms filled with tobacco smoke had been shown to be equal to , and at times to exceed, the legal limits for maximum air pollution permitted for ambient air quality.’
‘Other components of tobacco smoke, such as particulate matter and the oxides of nitrogen, have been shown in various concentrations to affect adversely animal pulmonary and cardiac structure and function. The extent of the contribution of these substances to illness in humans exposed to the concentrations present in an atmosphere contaminated with tobacco smoke is not presently known.’ 1972.
’This review leads to three major conclusions: 1. Involuntary smoking is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in healthy non-smokers 2. The children of parents who smoke compared with the children of nonsmoking parents have an increased frequency of respiratory infections, increased respiratory symptoms, and slightly smaller rates of increase in lung function as the lung matures 3. The simple separation of smokers and non-smokers within the same air space may reduce, but does not eliminate, the exposure of nonsmokers to environmental tobacco smoke.’ 1986.
|
Further Information:
References
Source: Tobacco the Truth is out there
Extracts from (1996) by Glantz, S.A., Slade, J., Bero, L.A., Hanauer, P., and Barnes, D.E. (1996) The cigarette papers, University of California Press. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft8489p25j/
Tobacco Control Supersite
www.health.usyd.edu.au/tobacco
Tobaccopedia
http://www.tobaccopedia.org/