Literature DB >> 7609234

Environmental tobacco smoke. The Brown and Williamson documents.

D E Barnes1, P Hanauer, J Slade, L A Bero, S A Glantz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the tobacco industry's public and private responses to rising concern over the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). DATA SOURCES: Documents from Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation (B&W), the British American Tobacco Company (BAT), and other tobacco interests provided by an anonymous source, obtained from Congress, and received from the private papers of a former BAT officer. STUDY SELECTION: All available materials, including confidential reports regarding research and internal memoranda exchanged between tobacco industry lawyers.
CONCLUSIONS: Privately, B&W and BAT began conducting research related to ETS in the mid 1970s. BAT researchers appear to have determined that sidestream smoke produces irritation, that it contains toxic substances including N-nitrosamines, and that it is "biologically active" (eg, carcinogenic) in laboratory tests. During the 1980s, the primary purpose of BAT's research related to ETS was to develop a new cigarette that emitted less irritating and less biologically active sidestream smoke. Publicly, the tobacco industry has denied that exposure to ETS has been proven dangerous to health. It has criticized the methodology of published research on ETS, even when some of its own consultants have privately acknowledged that the research was valid. In addition, the industry has funded scientific research with the stated purpose of anticipating and refuting the evidence against ETS. The tobacco industry's strategy regarding passive smoking has been remarkably similar to its strategy regarding active smoking. It has privately conducted internal research, at least some of which has supported the conclusion that passive smoking is dangerous to health, while it has publicly denied that the hazards have been proven.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7609234     DOI: 10.1001/jama.274.3.248

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  26 in total

Review 1.  Constructing "sound science" and "good epidemiology": tobacco, lawyers, and public relations firms.

Authors:  E K Ong; S A Glantz
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Support for tobacco control policies: how congruent are the attitudes of legislators and the public?

Authors:  Nicole A de Guia; Joanna E Cohen; Mary Jane Ashley; Linda Pederson; Roberta Ferrence; Shelley Bull; David Northrup; Blake Poland
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2003 Jan-Feb

3.  How the tobacco industry responded to an influential study of the health effects of secondhand smoke.

Authors:  Mi-Kyung Hong; Lisa A Bero
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-12-14

Review 4.  "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.

Authors:  L Trotter; S Chapman
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 7.552

Review 5.  "Can't stop the boy": Philip Morris' use of Healthy Buildings International to prevent workplace smoking bans in Australia.

Authors:  S Chapman; A Penman
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 7.552

6.  The nature, scope, and development of the global tobacco control epistemic community.

Authors:  Hadii M Mamudu; Mariaelena Gonzalez; Stanton Glantz
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2011-09-22       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  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

8.  Conflicts of interest in nutritional sciences: The forgotten bias in meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michel Lucas
Journal:  World J Methodol       Date:  2015-12-26

Review 9.  Tobacco industry manipulation of research.

Authors:  Lisa A Bero
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2005 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.792

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.