Tobacco Articles: category secret_documents

PARTIAL LISTING OF KEY SCIENTISTS AND ACADEMICIANS SUPPORTING THE ADVANCEMENT OF SOUND SCIENCE COALITION (TASSC) (PDF): Document Date 19941200/E

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Collection Philip Morris Pages 13 . . . Dr. James E. Enstrom Associate Research Professor School of Public Health University of California . . . Dr. Michael R. Fox Principal Engineer American Nuclear Society . . . Dr. Gary L. Huber Director Nutrition Unit, Department of Medicine University of Texas Health Center . . . Mr. Peter Huber Senior Fellow Manhattan Institute . . .

PARTIAL LISTING OF KEY SCIENTISTS AND ACADEMICIANS SUPPORTING THE ADVANCEMENT OF SOUND SCIENCE COALITION (TASSC)

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Document Date 19941200/E Document Type LIST . . . Organizations Mentioned TASSC, THE ADVANCEMENT OF SOUND SCIENCE COALITION Brands CORPORATE AFFAIRS/CARLSTADT; PARTIAL LISTING OF KEY SCIENTISTS AND ACADEMICIANS SUPPORTING THE ADVANCEMENT OF SOUND SCIENCE COALITION ( TASSC)

Research examines tobacco ads

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT

A recent School of Medicine study chronicles the intricate advertising campaign crafted by cigarette companies using doctors' endorsements to promote their products as healthful, starting in the 1920s and continuing for half a century. Senior author Robert Jackler, professor of otolaryngology, called the advertisements uncovered by the study “outrageous.” “Tobacco science used pseudoscientific experiments to arrive at a preordained conclusion,” he said. The advertisements used endorsements by celebrities-Mickey Mantle for Viceroys, John Wayne for Camels and even Santa Claus for Marlboro and Lucky-and throat doctors to validate their claims. “At that time, people weren’t so concerned about lung cancer,” Jackler said. “People were concerned about throat irritation. So throat doctors would endorse their products.” Memos from companies such as Philip Morris reveal that tobacco companies recruited doctors from Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania to promote their product. They also used slogans such as Lucky Strike’s, “the Finest Flavor and protects the throat,” and Old Gold’s, “ask your dentist why Old Golds are better for the teeth.” The study, published in the January issue of The Laryngoscope, also determined that physicians were paid about $11,000 annually, making an additional $5,000 in endorsements a substantial incentive to comply with industry rhetoric. In addition, companies funded extravagant dinners for those throat doctors willing to comply. . . . The Journal of the American Medical Association stopped publishing tobacco advertisements in 1953, but “a number of state and local medical journals continued advertising cigarettes into the late 1960s,” wrote Robert Proctor, professor of history, in an email to The Daily.

ALEC and the Tobacco Industry

Fri, 15 Jul 2011 04:00:00 GMT

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is an influential, under-the-radar organization that facilitates collaboration between many of the most powerful corporations in America and state-level legislative representatives. Elected officials then introduce legislation approved by corporations in state houses across the U.S., without disclosing that the bills were pre-approved by corporations on ALEC task forces. ALEC has had a long relationship with the tobacco industry. . . . ALEC's relationship with the tobacco industry started after 1979, when ALEC Executive Director, Kathleen Teague, first wrote the Tobacco Institute seeking financial support. Shortly after, Institute members started participating in ALEC events. The industry's relationship with ALEC showed its worth quickly after ALEC provided Tobacco Institute members with face-to-face access to highest-level federal elected officials. In 1981, Tobacco Institute President Samuel Chilcote accepted an invitation to attend an ALEC "Exclusive White House and Cabinet Briefing" meeting with none other than the president of the United States, Ronald Reagan and his cabinet. . . . ALEC has taken the cigarette makers' side in virtually every debate between the industry and public health. A 1987-89 R.J. Reynolds strategic plan describes ALEC as an ally who could help "create an atmosphere of tolerance and fairness in the public's attitude toward smoking and smokers." RJR considered ALEC a friendly group of elected officials who would be willing "to tell our story in such a manner that it becomes their [other legislators'] position."

The price paid: Manipulation of otolaryngologists by the tobacco industry to obfuscate the emerging truth that smoking causes cancer [FREE FULL TEXT]

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT

INTRODUCTION In the mid-20th century the tobacco industry faced a dilemma. The emergence of ever more convincing data showing a link between smoking and cancer was threatening to undermine their market. These worrisome scientific findings were reported to the public via a steadily increasing stream of newspaper and magazine articles. The industry realized that mere advertising would not be effective against the weight of scientific authority. To plan their opposition, the industry engaged the era's most sophisticated public relations experts. Their strategy was to enlist prominent scientists and redirect their research to manufacture doubt about the emerging scientific facts and thereby to fabricate a climate of scientific controversy. Supported by generous payments, some of the U.S.'s foremost physicians, scientists, statisticians, and journal editors were recruited to participate in a decades-long effort to obfuscate the emerging truth that tobacco causes cancer. Our purpose was to describe how the tobacco industry used the prestige and authority of leading head and neck surgeons to undermine scientific evidence about the role of smoking in cancer of the upper aerodigestive tract. Through consulting arrangements and research grants, a virtual Who's Who of leading head and neck surgeons from among the nation's foremost universities and cancer hospitals became involved, often unwittingly, in the industry's scheme. . . . It is difficult to evaluate the impact that the collaboration of otolaryngologists and their organizations had on the growth in the consumption of tobacco products throughout this era. What is abundantly clear, however, as evidenced by the enormous rise in smoking over the years, is that the tobacco industry's campaign to obscure the health consequences of smoking was hugely successful. It could be speculated that forceful opposition of tobacco use by otolaryngologists may have improved public awareness of the dangers of smoking and perhaps even swayed government policy. The fact that organized medicine, lulled into complacency by lucrative industry support, largely stood by the wayside meant that many consumers were deprived of the opportunity to make better informed personal choices. Fortunately, once the preponderance of evidence became overwhelming, the pendulum swung, and by the late 1960s the otolaryngology community became forceful advocates for smoking cessation. . . . CONCLUSIONS The unfortunate history of physician collaboration with the marketing arms of tobacco companies has relevance to medicine in the 21st century. Future advances in medicine are strongly dependent on robust and mutually beneficial interactions between doctors and industry. Ethically, a physician must always act on behalf of the well-being of the patient. Responsible industries seek collaborations that balance the need to maximize profits with a commitment to optimize the health of their consumers. The lesson of the highly successful campaign by the tobacco industry to manipulate medical opinion is that physicians need to adhere to the highest standards of scientific validity and remain vigilant in their advocacy for their patient's interests.

The price paid: Manipulation of otolaryngologists by the tobacco industry to obfuscate the emerging truth that smoking causes cancer : Volume 122, Issue 1, pages 75–87, January 2012

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Results: Evidence shows that marketing divisions of major tobacco companies systematically sought to use the authority and prestige of otolaryngologists to support their promotional efforts. Industry documents reveal widespread collaboration by leaders in the field through conducting research and giving well-compensated testimony favorable to tobacco interests. Invariably, industry-funded research showed tobacco in a favorable light. The industry also sought to influence otolaryngologists with free cigarettes, elegant dinners, and hospitality booths at conventions. Conclusions: In revealing this unfortunate period in our history, we by no means intend to diminish the memory of distinguished leaders whose tobacco involvements were certainly more acceptable by the standards of their own time. Rather, by exposing the pervasive tobacco industry manipulation of scientific research for commercial purposes we seek to encourage vigilance by contemporary researchers who might consider seeking funding from an industry that places the pursuit of profits above the well-being of its customers.

Big Tobacco led throat doctors to blow smoke

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Tobacco companies conducted a carefully crafted, decades-long campaign to manipulate throat doctors into helping to calm concerns among an increasingly worried public that smoking might be bad for their health, according to a new study by researchers at the School of Medicine. Beginning in the 1920s, this campaign continued for over half of a century. "Tobacco companies sought to exploit the faith the public had in the medical profession as a means of reassuring their customers that smoking was safe," said Robert Jackler, MD, the Edward C. and Amy H. Sewall Professor in Otolaryngology. "Tobacco companies dreamed up slogans such as, 'Not one single case of throat irritation with Camels;' then, to justify their advertising claims, marketing departments sought out pliant doctors to conduct well-compensated, pseudoscientific 'research,' which invariably found the sponsoring company's cigarettes to be safe," Jackler said. "The companies successfully influenced these physicians not only to promote the notion that smoking was healthful, but actually to recommend it as a treatment for throat irritation."

'Addiction Incorporated' Looks At Big Tobacco's Efforts To Suppress Info On Cigarettes

newsmanager@foxnews.com (Hollie McKay) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Despite omnipresent health warnings, an estimated 46 million Americans continue to smoke, with many claiming that they just can’t quit. So why it is so hard to kick the deadly habit? “Addiction Incorporated,” the new documentary by Charles Evans Jr., attempts to answer that question, showing how the tobacco industry sought to deceive the American public for so many years. The film tells the story of scientist Victor DeNoble’s unexpected discovery of an addictive ingredient in tobacco which led to the first ever federal regulation of the tobacco industry in the 1990s. . . . In response to the film, a rep for Philip Morris USA said that the company agrees with the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking is addictive and causes serious diseases in smokers. “Philip Morris stood alone among the major cigarette manufacturers in support of FDA regulation over cigarettes and believes that this regulation can provide significant benefits to tobacco manufacturers and adult tobacco consumers,” a company rep said. Yet according to DeNoble, the battle has only really just begun, and he is pushing for further regulation. “Someday they could produce a cigarette that only produces a little nicotine. That would mean that if young people experimented, it wouldn’t necessarily lead to a lifelong addition. But the tobacco isn’t going to lie down to this.

Local Nordic tobacco interests collaborated with multinational companies to maintain a united front and undermine tobacco control policies : Online First * > Article Tob Control doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050149

Fri, 23 Dec 2011 05:00:00 GMT

Conclusions Local tobacco companies worked with multinational companies to undermine tobacco control in distant and small Nordic markets because of concern that pioneering policies initiated in Nordic countries would spread to bigger market areas. Claims by the local Nordic companies that they were not actively involved with the multinationals are not supported by the facts. These results also demonstrate that the industry appreciates the global importance of both positive and negative public health precedents in tobacco control.

Tobacco Company Misrepresented Danger from Cigarettes, Study Finds : Toxicity Levels Obscured, Increasing Risks of Heart Disease, Cancer

elizabeth.fernandez@ucsf.edu (Elizabeth Fernandez) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT

A new UCSF analysis of tobacco industry documents shows that Philip Morris USA manipulated data on the effects of additives in cigarettes, including menthol, obscuring actual toxicity levels and increasing the risk of heart, cancer and other diseases for smokers. Tobacco industry information can’t be taken at face value, the researchers conclude. They say their work provides evidence that hundreds of additives, including menthol, should be eliminated from cigarettes on public health grounds. The article is published in PLoS Medicine. In the new, independent study, the scientists reassessed data from Philip Morris’ “Project MIX,” which detailed chemical analyses of smoke and animal toxicology studies of 333 cigarette additives. Philip Morris, the nation’s largest tobacco company, published its findings in 2002. By investigating the origins and design of Project MIX, the UCSF researchers conducted their own inquiry into the Philip Morris results. They stressed that many of the toxins in cigarette smoke substantially increased after additives were added to cigarettes.

Cigarette Additives - Doubts About Their Safety

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT

According to an analysis published in PLoS Medicine, scientific research conducted by the tobacco industry on the safety of cigarette additives cannot be taken at face value. Research leader Stanton Glantz from the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California in San Francisco and his team re-examined data from "Project MIX", a study that was conducted by the tobacco company Philip Morris, in which the company's scientists preformed a chemical analysis of the potential toxicity of 333 additives in cigarettes. The results of their study were published in Food and Chemical Toxicology in 2002. . . . They conclude: "The results demonstrate that toxins in cigarette smoke increase substantially when additives are put in cigarettes, including the level of [Total Particulate Matter]. In particular, regulatory authorities, including the [Food and Drug Administration] and similar agencies elsewhere, could use the Project MIX data to eliminate the use of these 333 additives (including menthol) from cigarettes."

Comments from Ruth Dempsey, Chief Scientist Operations Philip Morris International: re: Wertz et al, 2011 "The Toxic Effects of Cigarette Additives. Philip Morris' Project Mix Reconsidered: An Analysis of Documents Released through Litigation", PLoS Medicine, Dec 2011

Thu, 22 Dec 2011 05:00:00 GMT

Whilst I agree with Wertz et al that regulatory decisions on tobacco products must be based on sound science, I am of the opinion that their concerns on project MIX are unfounded. None of the suggestions raised by the PLoS article invalidate the conclusions of the project MIX studies. Nor do they undermine the weight of evidence constituted by decades of research on tobacco ingredients, which, together with epidemiological and observational data, has led many in the scientific and public health community to conclude that cigarettes with ingredients are not more toxic than cigarettes without ingredients. We fully support a constructive scientific dialogue, hence would have appreciated if the authors would have contacted us to obtain the relevant data and actual study protocols instead of basing their incomplete analysis on documents they found on the Internet. As a matter of fact, we have been providing detailed toxicological data for several years to many regulators around the world and shared it with the interested scientific community. In the absence of regulatory guidelines or internationally recognized methods for the toxicological assessment of tobacco ingredients, Philip Morris has developed its own internal practices based on well established toxicological principles that are similar to those used in other industries. The project MIX studies were performed according to such principles and guidelines, including OECD guidelines and INVITTOX protocols.

glantz replied to HeikeSchramke on 04 Jan 2012 at 19:01 GMT Philip Morris' response sidesteps the two most important findings in our paper: (1) After it found that the levels of many toxins in the smoke from cigarettes with additives increased (and TPM, generally by even more), Philip Morris changed the Project MIX protocol to normalize by total particulate matter (TPM), thereby obscuring the absolute increases; and (2) The animal toxicology studies were seriously underpowered, making it unlikely that it would detect statistically significant changes in biological effects due to the additives. . . . For the reasons discussed above and in our paper, we stand by our conclusion that, "In particular, regulatory authorities, including the FDA and similar agencies elsewhere who are implementing FCTC articles 9-11, could use the Project MIX data to eliminate the use of these 333 additives (including menthol, which is the major component of ingredient group 3) in cigarettes." Indeed, this exchange reinforces our recommendation that scientists and regulators cannot take at face value statements regarding the safety of its products offered by Philip Morris (or other tobacco companies).

Conservative health minister comes under fire over tobacco briefings : Leaked emails reveal that Earl Howe sought out the views of Philip Morris International in his campaign against tobacco control measures

editor@societyguardian.co.uk — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 05:00:00 GMT

The position of Tory health minister Earl Howe was under scrutiny after it was revealed he received a series of briefings from lobbyists representing a global cigarette company while drawing up his party's opposition to tobacco control measures. A whistleblower who previously worked at Philip Morris International's headquarters in Switzerland has posted scores of internal company emails and documents on the SmokinGate website. The communications lay bare the company's determination to resist anti-smoking legislation in Britain. Among them are exchanges between Howe and the company's lobbyists, Gardant Communications, that have alarmed health campaigners. The emails, exchanged in 2009 when Howe was a shadow health minister, show that the peer approached lobbyists requesting the company's views on calls for cigarettes to be sold in plain packaging. Subsequent emails show that the lobbyists gave several briefings to Howe, who led Tory opposition to the Labour government's plans to introduce a ban on behind-the-counter cigarette displays in shops. "It is deeply disturbing that Earl Howe not only met the tobacco industry but also appears to have connived with them to try to undermine public health policy while in opposition," said Deborah Arnott, chief executive of Ash, the anti-smoking pressure group. "Worse still, he did not make his contacts with the tobacco industry known during the debate in parliament, when he was fighting to prevent the legislation to put tobacco out of sight in shops becoming law. This is unacceptable and his fellow peers should be asking whether he is the right person to lead on health for the government."

Blowing Smoke: Are Cigarette Additives Toxic? : New study questions industry's research conclusions

Sun, 01 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Anticipating the impending eventuality of additive regulation, the tobacco industry conducted several studies in the late 1990s. Philip Morris’s Project MIX examined three combinations of 333 cigarette additives for possible toxicity. In 2002, analysts published a report in Food and Chemical Toxicology concluding that there was no evidence of substantial toxicity attributable to the additives. A study published last week in PLoS Medicine draws a different conclusion. Analyzing the same data collected in Project MIX, researchers from the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, and the University of California at San Francisco, found that these additives contribute a great deal to cigarette toxicity. According to researcher Stanton Glantz, professor of Medicine at the University of California at San Francisco, Philip Morris worked politically to get the regulations they wanted. “If you simply take their own data and interpret it properly, you have strong evidence that putting the additives in the cigarettes increases the toxicity of the smoke,” said Glantz in a video for SciVee.

Big tobacco scandal unfolding: Philip Morris in Secret Cooperation With a British Health Minister

Sat, 31 Dec 2011 05:00:00 GMT

Philip Morris in Secret Cooperation With a British Health Minister . . . Twenty Years of Price-Fixing and Cover-up? . . . The Marlboro Cartel By SmokinGate On November 30, 2011 · In The Cartel Reviled by many as a “merchant of death,” Philip Morris International, the world’s leading tobacco company, is a darling of investors who love its cash-generating, profit-making, stock-appreciating potential. Above all, investors love PMI’s unique “pricing power,” the key driver of its earnings. This love affair may be drawing to a bitter end. An industry insider who has revealed an international cartel operated by the world’s largest tobacco companies claims that PMI’s astonishing profit-making machine is powered by illegal price-fixing. PMI’s customers are paying inflated prices for their Marlboros; PMI’s public shareholders, fooled by the “pricing power” myth, are paying inflated prices for their stock; and PMI’s senior management are laughing all the way to the bank in their Ferraris.