Literature DB >> 11893821

Failed promises of the cigarette industry and its effect on consumer misperceptions about the health risks of smoking.

K M Cummings1, C P Morley, A Hyland.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In January 1954, US tobacco manufacturers jointly sponsored an advocacy advertisement entitled "A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers" which appeared in 448 newspapers in 258 cities reaching an estimated 43 245 000 Americans. The advertisement questioned research findings implicating smoking as a cause of cancer, promised consumers that their cigarettes were safe, and pledged to support impartial research to investigate allegations that smoking was harmful to human health.
OBJECTIVE: To examine (1) the extent to which cigarette companies fulfilled the promises made to consumers in the 1954 "Frank Statement", and (2) the effect of these promises on consumer knowledge, beliefs, and smoking practices.
METHODS: This study reviews statements made since 1954 by the tobacco companies individually and collectively through the Tobacco Institute and Tobacco Industry Research Committee/Council for Tobacco Research on the subject of smoking as a cause disease, and the industry's pledge to support and disclose the results of impartial research on smoking and health. Many of the industry documents evaluated in this study were obtained from a collection consisting of 116 documents entitled the "Statement of Defendants' Misrepresentations" prepared by attorneys representing the state of Connecticut in the Medicaid litigation against the tobacco industry in 1998. In addition, we searched for corroborating material from tobacco industry documents collected from the tobacco industry's document websites. In order to contrast industry statements on smoking and health with what smokers' actually believed about smoking we reviewed reports of public polling data on smokers' knowledge and beliefs about smoking and disease gathered from tobacco industry sources and from surveys conducted by public health researchers.
RESULTS: Analysis of public statements issued by the tobacco industry sources over the past five decades shows that the companies maintained the stance that smoking had not been proven to be injurious to health through 1999. The public statements of the tobacco industry are in sharp contrast to the private views expressed by many of their own scientists. The tobacco documents reveal that many scientists within the tobacco industry acknowledged as early as the 1950s that cigarette smoking was unsafe. The sincerity of the industry's promise to support research to find out if smoking was harmful to health and to disclose information about the health effects of smoking can also be questioned based upon the industry's own documents which reveal: (1) scepticism about the scientific value of the smoking and health research program established by the industry; and (2) evidence that research findings implicating smoking as a health problem were often not published or disclosed outside the industry. Industry documents also show that the companies knew that their own customers were misinformed about smoking and health issues.
CONCLUSION: It is clear that the cigarette companies failed to fulfill the promises made to consumers in the 1954 "Frank Statement" advertisement. The failure of cigarette manufacturers to honour these promises has resulted in a public that even today remains misinformed about the health risks of smoking.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11893821      PMCID: PMC1766060          DOI: 10.1136/tc.11.suppl_1.i110

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Tob Control        ISSN: 0964-4563            Impact factor:   7.552


  11 in total

1.  Changes in the focus of cigarette advertisements in the 1950s.

Authors:  T L Swedrock; A Hyland; J L Hastrup
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 7.552

2.  Doses of nicotine and lung carcinogens delivered to cigarette smokers.

Authors:  M V Djordjevic; S D Stellman; E Zang
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-01-19       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  The low tar lie.

Authors:  N R Leavell
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 7.552

Review 4.  Cigarette filter ventilation is a defective design because of misleading taste, bigger puffs, and blocked vents.

Authors:  L T Kozlowski; R J O'Connor
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 7.552

Review 5.  The dark side of marketing seemingly "Light" cigarettes: successful images and failed fact.

Authors:  R W Pollay; T Dewhirst
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 7.552

6.  Consumers' knowledge and beliefs about the safety of cigarette filters.

Authors:  J L Hastrup; K M Cummings; T Swedrock; A Hyland; J L Pauly
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 7.552

7.  Do smokers understand the mortality effects of smoking? Evidence from the Health and Retirement Survey.

Authors:  M Schoenbaum
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  What scientists funded by the tobacco industry believe about the hazards of cigarette smoking.

Authors:  K M Cummings; R Sciandra; A Gingrass; R Davis
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 9.308

9.  Smokers' knowledge and understanding of advertised tar numbers: health policy implications.

Authors:  J B Cohen
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 9.308

10.  Perceived risks of heart disease and cancer among cigarette smokers.

Authors:  J Z Ayanian; P D Cleary
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-03-17       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  28 in total

1.  A promise is a promise.

Authors:  K M Cummings
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 7.552

2.  Inventing conflicts of interest: a history of tobacco industry tactics.

Authors:  Allan M Brandt
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2011-11-28       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Effectiveness of cigarette warning labels in informing smokers about the risks of smoking: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey.

Authors:  D Hammond; G T Fong; A McNeill; R Borland; K M Cummings
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 7.552

4.  The most important and influential papers in tobacco control: results of an online poll.

Authors:  S Chapman
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 7.552

Review 5.  Science, industry, and tobacco harm reduction: a case study of tobacco industry scientists' involvement in the National Cancer Institute's Smoking and Health Program, 1964-1980.

Authors:  Mark Parascandola
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.792

Review 6.  Consumer acceptable risk: how cigarette companies have responded to accusations that their products are defective.

Authors:  K Michael Cummings; Anthony Brown; Clifford E Douglas
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 7.552

7.  "The doctors' choice is America's choice": the physician in US cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953.

Authors:  Martha N Gardner; Allan M Brandt
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Tobacco Smoking: Facts and actions.

Authors:  Moeness M Alshishtawy
Journal:  Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J       Date:  2013-06-25

9.  Knowledge about the relationship between smoking and blindness in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia: results from the International Tobacco Control Four-Country Project.

Authors:  Ryan David Kennedy; Marlee M Spafford; Carla M Parkinson; Geoffrey T Fong
Journal:  Optometry       Date:  2011-05

10.  The perils of ignoring history: Big Tobacco played dirty and millions died. How similar is Big Food?

Authors:  Kelly D Brownell; Kenneth E Warner
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 4.911

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.