Alright everyone, imagine an industry, which has so much money that they can simply twist the truth, so that the results are in their favor. And the survey says Big Tobacco.
In David Michaels book entitled, Doubt Is Their Product, Michaels takes us through a quick history lesson on how Big Tobacco companies were able to twist results of scientific evidence, which would delay true scientific evidence or cause doubt in the public.
One might say this all started with the phrase “Fight fire with fire”. A term coined by former North Carolina congressman Horace Kornegay in 1981, when he was president and Executive director of the Tobacco Institute.
There was evidence already on file that smoking was harmful for smokers and Big Tobacco knew that. The new threat was the effect of secondhand smoke. This was a big red flag for Big Tobacco. They knew something had to be done to stop this threat.
By the mid-1980’s there were already 37 states, which had banned smoking in public places. This movement started to become more prevalent and Big Tobacco new that. Soon after we saw the beginning of the WhiteCoat Project, a project by Big Tobacco to put positive information in front of the bad information in an effort to restore confidence in smokers.
To accomplish this Big Tobacco began to hire scientists who would perform the research for them and in turn find data, which would shine a positive light on Big Tobacco. For the scientist to decide to do this it would taint their future career. Like it says in the book, “ For every good PhD, there will always be a bad one”.
One of the first incidents was with indoor air quality and asbestos. Asbestos companies were under fire for causing lung cancer among workers working in buildings, which had traces of asbestos. Big Tobacco companies started to blame the asbestos companies for causing lung cancer. The asbestos companies, to relieve some of their stress, started to blame tobacco companies for causing the cancer, since some workers were smokers. It kept going back and forth. No one knew, who was right. All it did was create doubt.
Since we are on the topic of indoor air quality, who did Big Tobacco decide to attack next? It was OHSA. Big Tobacco was able to compile 100,000 letters against OHSA using such words as: neglected, misrepresented, presented no, and failed. It took OHSA 2-3 years to go over everything with a fine tooth comb. Big Tobacco had somewhat succeed in blaming OHSA and their data.
After OHSA, Big Tobacco decided to target the EPA, after the agency classified secondhand smoke as a Type A carcinogen. To counter the EPA, Big Tobacco developed groups like The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) and Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR).
Then Big Tobacco decided to attack the work of Dr. Takeshi Hirayama, on increased cases of lung cancer with nonsmokers. They had made attempts to falsify his work, which went nowhere. Finally all of this came to an end when Dr. Stanton Glantz, was sent an anonymous package containing many pages of documents from Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp, which disclosed the actions of the company and what they were trying to do with research. Brown and Williamson did ask for the papers to be returned, but at this point the papers had gone past the doctor’s desk. After this event the public would know what the Big Tobacco companies had been up.
Honestly . . . "Whitecoat Project" You wold think it would throughh up a BIG FAT RED flag, when the Big Tobacco companies have to coin their own term, just to find scientist to support their side. Plus, what happened to good schience, I know it says that for every good scientist there is a bad one, but these are people's lives that hang in the outcome of this science, where is the conscience? Don't get me wrong it is goo to have a healthy drive for knowledge and TRUTH, not slander. Especially when three fourths of the sientist that found any snippet kof information denying facts about second hand smoke had some affiliation wiht the Big Tobacco Companies - Do you smell money?
ReplyDeleteI do not know what to think aboutOSHA. Should I feel sorry for them; because they are continually be beaten up? OR, wish that everyone's job there get replaced, so the organization can start with a clean slate and set of rules. In how many chapters of this book does OSHA drop the ball? I can only pray they pick it up, and starting running with it in the future.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have not idea on smoking people. Cigarette does not taste so good, but people still addicted to it. Those companies will not give up these cigarette addicted for money. They spread out different advs and own subsidiaries as "health food" as a shield. How to affect people quit smoking for health? If it was really happen, how about those employees in cigarette companies for living? Can these companies support some federal health projects or being sponsors for health promotion in different health associations and departments?
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I am not surprised with the evidence that you have brought forth for this topic...the only thing that has changed that I am disgusted even further with the tobacco companies. Furthermore, how can someone, such as myself, be so disgusted with Big Tobacco and yet, they make millions every year? How did we as a society let Big Tobacco take over and the only time we decide to fight back and say that they "are in the wrong" and when we feel that our lives are on the line?? Cancer? Lung capacity? Smoking can limit one's abiities to go about their daily lives. Also, with the ways that they have created doubt...do you think that Big Tobacco will start to "back" their product even more pertaining to body image? I hear that many teens, espcially girls, smoke in order to be skinny and not eat as much....will Big Tobacco target this? Will it cause health research to target this and once again cause controversy and another institution for Big Tobacco to target?
ReplyDeleteWe are always told to look at both sides of an issue and to try and see it from both perspectives, Michaels explained in this chapter that "Industry communications must contain less of 'But that study is wrong' and more of 'Look what this study shows'". I understand that there are two sides to every issue, but what is so suprising is Big Tobacco is still trying to negate a claim that has an abundance of evidence to back up the claim that smoking is harmful to our health.
ReplyDeleteOn the issue that smoking is a "personal choice" I find it harder to believe and go along with this statement. Don't get me wrong, I personally believe in rights of an individual, except when they are harming others. Take for example drinking and driving. If people choice to do so and end up harming themselves, aside from the fact that the public may feel sorry for the victim, deep down the majority feel it was their poor choice and they suffer for that choice. However when that drunk driver hits another person and harms them, everyone is out to get them. I'd love to see more of that in the smoking industry. Sure smoking is bad for people and we should do all we can to convince people of this and help them to quit, but shouldn't we do more to help those that choose not to smoke and are still afflicted by it? Growing up in a home where my mom and dad smoked until I was in late grade school, and father still continues to smoke, we have little control as children to how this affects our health and what we can do to stop it. And don't get me started on parents who smoke in the car with their children defenseless in the back with no where to go to escape this. I believe there was a proposed bill to make this illegial, I am not sure where this is or if it ever was put into law, I don't believe so. So where do we as health educators spend our time and resources? A lot of it I feel is spent helping smokers to quit smoking, which is fantastic, needs to be spent there, but what is spent on helping those people who are affected by second hand smoke by no choice of their own?
(sigh...) Alyson, in response to your question if Big Tobacco will target young girls and weight loss, YES and THEY HAVE! I find the irony of cigarette ads in fashion magazines reflective of our society. In the articles of these fashion magazines, the writers/magazine is promoting health and time and again you read about "quiting smoking" the number one thing young women can do to increase their health. Yet, you flip the page and there's a Camel ad or an American Spirit ad. ??? Confused? Me too! Magazines accept the ads despite being public opposers to cigarettes, all for the money. They just can't turn down the price the cigarette companies are willing to, and can and do, pay for a one page ad in their fashion mag. It keeps their company afloat.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's the same for members of our government and agencies like OSHA. Unforunately, I believe that the majority of human beings can be bought out. Hell, I'd eat dirt and worms to get my tuition paid off! (Let me clarify that when I reach my core values I will let you know!) I feel like we'll be dealing with Big Tobacco until humans are no longer interested in buying the product. Will that ever happen? It's hard to say. But I can bet that industry will use every form of media to remain a part of the "American" culture which ultimately shapes our actions/thoughts/decisions and beyond.
Many people are naïve, especially when it relates to second hand smoke. There are many people who causally smoke and drink, and don’t even consider themselves cigarette smokers.
ReplyDeleteIf they don’t feel the effects within the present moment, many do believe that it’s “by chance” they will have negative side effects from the use of tobacco. Since, it takes many years to usually see side effects and being around a culture, especially in La Crosse (Thanks for it to finally passing to be smoke-free in July) where is still consider acceptable to smoke in public places will never accept as true that cigarettes and second hand smoke can cause cancer.
Cigarettes addiction is strong habit to step away from, in particular if one lacks self-efficacy to quit.
Those addicted are surviving today’s worries by getting the quick fix to release their stress, rather than thinking ahead to the future of their health. Along with to those selfish “buttheads” who like to share their second hand smoke by putting no consideration for the health of others.
Thanks to power of politics, money, and strong media campaign it will be battle to end this debate with the Tobacco Industry.
What is the difference between fact and opinion, truth and belief, natural science and behavioral science, justice and court rulings, attributable risk to population incidnce and clinical occurence of a disease?
ReplyDeleteGosh, I wish I could've followed you this week with my topic since I thought some intersting discussion was brought about pertaining to the control of tobacco companies and who makes the decisions....I mean th government can make the decisions and enable what they want, what we do not know however, is the hand that Big Tobacco plays in this...be ready for next week!!
ReplyDeleteI believe my asthma is most likely due to second hand smoke from my otherwise loving father. Every night and some mornings to my left at the kitchen table he would follow his meals with a cigarette. Driving in the car almost always required a cigarette. The inhaled steroids required to keep me from noisely wheezing during class are probably the cause of my cataracts. While I am encouraged by all the progress, I do not see a second side to tobacco control accept that perhaps we have made more progress with a legal substance than we would under prohibition. While I favor decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana, the current discussions about legalization/commercialization of marijuana in a smokeable form should be based on more research. A quick search using Google Scholar yields credible research results suggesting the similarities between tobacco and marijuana smoke. Would legalized and worse commercialized dope in California become...Son of Tobacco?
ReplyDeleteI thought the question at the end of class that G presented at the end of class: "Looking at it from the company's side . . . did they realy do anything wrong? They did what it took to keep their business going." (Something like that)
ReplyDeleteKnowing that G was palying the devils advocate here, and getting us to think outside of the box - I would have to say - YES they did something wrong!" I agree that the Tobacco companies employ people, and are trying to make money. However, they straight up and LIED to the public, to the government, but not to themselves. They knew, had proff that their product cause people to get lung cancer, that would kill them! Hi - murder it wrong! (Again, nothing against G)
Ahhh, what a question, I agree. I totally get where Gracjan was coming from too, because I often like to look at the other side, even if I am morally against it. It's funny, some people will try and say that really with anything. We could use the same argument with alcohol, that really it too is deadly, and fast food = deadly.
ReplyDeleteI think instead of looking at the companies and their morality really we need to look at the country as a whole, and US business in general. Realistically Big Tobacco is doing things to benefit themselves, doing what they have to, to survive and make their company thrive, even if that means lieing. Survival of the fittest. (Do I condone this? Absolutely not.) But one can see why they were doing it and continue to. Moola, money, cold hard cash. US business is based off of making a profit, building the "American Dream", but at whose expense, anyones'. It is how our society is. The question is, how do we even begin to change this?
I think most of smoking people know a lot of knowledge about the harm of smoking, the consequent of particular disease, harm for health and their quality of life, and second hand issue. In my view, people can have their right to choose the way they want to live. I mean they know all the risk they will get later, however, in their value, it is still more important to enjoy the moment of tabacco, then they can keep doing it. Because we health educators can only let them know about the information but never force them to accept something. However, in the case of second hand smoking, it is not only their choice to live but also influence the others quality of life. I think it is over the limit of personal value since it actually violate the benefit and well-being of the other people. I think our society should realize the severity of this issue.
ReplyDeleteAll I can say is I'll be the one reporting any smoking infractions in public places once July 5, 2010 roles around. I don't care how it affects Big Tobacco. It's time to move on.
ReplyDeleteAnother discussion we could discuss third hand smoke.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/health/research/03smoke.html
Too bad cigarette smokers couldn’t have vaporizers like those like to smoke the herb.
This chapter, like the others, poses a lot of questions in my mind, but the foremost are directly related to the profession and professionalism of scientists. Do these men and women have a code of ethics? Is there any check and balance to what they do? Should they have consequences similar to nurses, doctors, therapists etc that are subject to background checks (related to patient care) regularly and who get their license revoked upon poor conduct?
ReplyDelete----------------------
since I was out of town during Gracjan's presentation I will add my comments now after reading the responses of the other bloggers.
Clearly second hand smoke is a very real threat to human health, and clearly the efforts of Big tobacco, although unethical, have worked to muddle up this fact. It is our job to continue to do good research, and get truthful messages out to the public. Because Big Tobacco is driven by money, the only way I see the issue ever going away is to cut down on demand. If their sales go down and revenue drops enough they will be forced to turn away from tobacco. I really believe they will continue to fight and work around every regulation, and that the only thing that they will hear is the voice of the people via pocketbook.
smoking is bad for health, it already being a commonsense all round the world. But the tobacco companies are still are one of the largest and powerful companies in every countries. Why? The money, which is a inevitable factor, running into different links into the whole processes. As the film (Thanks for smoking) said, we should strengthen the education of our children. The positive way for us to refuse cigarette is essentially away for thinking about cigarette. It is still a long way to go caz it is not a question of one generation...
ReplyDelete