Literature DB >> 14645955

"Conclusions about exposure to ETS and health that will be unhelpful to us": how the tobacco industry attempted to delay and discredit the 1997 Australian National Health and Medical Research Council report on passive smoking.

L Trotter1, S Chapman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Major reviews of the health effects of passive smoking have been subjected to tobacco industry campaigns to refute the scientific evidence. Following the 1992 US Environmental Protection Agency review, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) initiated a review of the health effects of passive smoking. At the time of this review, evidence that environmental tobacco smoke causes disease was being increasingly accepted in courts of law and voluntary adoption of smoking restrictions was rapidly growing.
OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate how the tobacco industry attempted to delay and discredit the publication of a report on passive smoking that the tobacco industry anticipated to contain recommendations that would be unfavourable to their business.
METHODS: A search of tobacco industry documents on the Master Settlement Agreement websites was conducted using the terms and acronyms representative of the NHMRC review.
RESULTS: The tobacco industry sought to impede the progress of the NHMRC Working Party by launching an intensive campaign to delay and discredit the report. The main strategies used were attempts to criticise the science, extensive use of Freedom of Information provisions to monitor all activity of the group, legal challenges, ad hominem attacks on the credibility of the Working Party members, rallying support from industry allies, and influencing public opinion through the media.
CONCLUSIONS: The Australian tobacco industry deliberately impeded the NHMRC Working Party's progress and successfully prevented the publication of the report's recommendations. The tobacco industry's motivation and capacity to disrupt the advancement of scientific knowledge and policy in tobacco control should be recognised and anticipated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14645955      PMCID: PMC1766130          DOI: 10.1136/tc.12.suppl_3.iii102

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


  12 in total

1.  Junking science to promote tobacco.

Authors:  D Yach; S A Bialous
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 2.  The smoke you don't see: uncovering tobacco industry scientific strategies aimed against environmental tobacco smoke policies.

Authors:  M E Muggli; J L Forster; R D Hurt; J L Repace
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Tobacco industry efforts at discrediting scientific knowledge of environmental tobacco smoke: a review of internal industry documents.

Authors:  J Drope; S Chapman
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.710

4.  Why the tobacco industry fears the passive smoking issue.

Authors:  S Chapman; R Borland; D Hill; N Owen; S Woodward
Journal:  Int J Health Serv       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 1.663

5.  The hot air on passive smoking. Experts who evaluated studies seem not to have had relevant experience.

Authors:  B Nemery; D Piette
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-08-01

6.  Industry-funded research and conflict of interest: an analysis of research sponsored by the tobacco industry through the Center for Indoor Air Research.

Authors:  D E Barnes; L A Bero
Journal:  J Health Polit Policy Law       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 2.265

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

Authors:  E K Ong; S A Glantz
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-04-08       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Tobacco industry manipulation of the hospitality industry to maintain smoking in public places.

Authors:  J V Dearlove; S A Bialous; S A Glantz
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 7.552

9.  Non-smoking wives of heavy smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer: a study from Japan.

Authors:  T Hirayama
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1981-01-17

10.  Environmental tobacco smoke. The Brown and Williamson documents.

Authors:  D E Barnes; P Hanauer; J Slade; L A Bero; S A Glantz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-07-19       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  10 in total

1.  Framing pub smoking bans: an analysis of Australian print news media coverage, March 1996-March 2003.

Authors:  David Champion; Simon Chapman
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.710

Review 2.  Philip Morris's Project Sunrise: weakening tobacco control by working with it.

Authors:  P A McDaniel; E A Smith; R E Malone
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 7.552

3.  Big tobacco "pull out all stops" for a landmark example: The Burswood Casino case.

Authors:  Bond Laura; Stafford Julia; Daube Mike
Journal:  Australas Med J       Date:  2011-12-31

Review 4.  Tobacco industry consumer research on socially acceptable cigarettes.

Authors:  P M Ling; S A Glantz
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 7.552

5.  Hedging their bets: tobacco and gambling industries work against smoke-free policies.

Authors:  L L Mandel; S A Glantz
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 7.552

6.  Global health governance and the commercial sector: a documentary analysis of tobacco company strategies to influence the WHO framework convention on tobacco control.

Authors:  Heide Weishaar; Jeff Collin; Katherine Smith; Thilo Grüning; Sema Mandal; Anna Gilmore
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2012-06-26       Impact factor: 11.069

7.  Implementation failures in the use of two New Zealand laws to control the tobacco industry: 1989-2005.

Authors:  George Thomson; Nick Wilson
Journal:  Aust New Zealand Health Policy       Date:  2005-12-14

8.  Political dynamics promoting the incremental regulation of secondhand smoke: a case study of New South Wales, Australia.

Authors:  Katherine Bryan-Jones; Simon Chapman
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2006-07-21       Impact factor: 3.295

9.  The use and misuse of health research by parliamentary politicians during the development of a national smokefree law.

Authors:  George Thomson; Nick Wilson; Philippa Howden-Chapman
Journal:  Aust New Zealand Health Policy       Date:  2007-12-06

10.  Analysis of the legislative process related to the implementation of graphic health warning labels on tobacco products in South Korea.

Authors:  Ji-Eun Hwang; Sung-Il Cho; Sun-Goo Lee
Journal:  Tob Induc Dis       Date:  2020-01-16       Impact factor: 2.600

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.