For years, tobacco research has focussed on studying the smoker.
Questions regarding the root cause of tobacco caused illness, ie; the tobacco products and
the companies who make and promote them have never been raised. Reports from the Pan
American Health Organisation (PAHO) and a recent debate in the British Medical Journal
(BMJ) bring out the fact that tobacco companies, though intensely competitive, are
actually united in campaigns against threats which are common to them.1,2 While the PAHO
report studied the role of companies like Philip Morris and the British American Tobacco
(BAT) in Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) regions, the BMJ documents highlight the role
the tobacco industry played in refuting and disclaiming evidence based on a 1981
influential Japanese study.
Ever since scientific evidence in terms of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) or second
hand smoke (SHS) has conclusively linked passive smoking and disease or death, the tobacco
industry has tried denying them. Exposure to SHS is known to cause ear infections,
bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma, lung cancer, and heart attacks, increase the risk of
miscarriage, premature birth and also cause Sudden Infant Death Syndrome in children. In
Japan, the 1981 Hirayama spousal study examined the linkages between passive smoking and
lung cancer among non-smoking wives of smokers. It concluded that wives of heavy smokers
were two times more at a risk of developing lung cancer when compared to wives of
non-smokers. The study was influential because of the amount of debate it generated and
has been quoted during the setting of regulatory proceedings and risk assessments against
the tobacco industry. Several strategies were created by the tobacco industry to actually
disclaim and refute such studies. The spousal study was refuted by the tobacco industry
which conducted its own independent research. This independent study was done by the
Center for Indoor Air Research, Japan, which is supported by the tobacco industry. The
study directly refutes claims about SHS causing any health impacts. It says no evidence
was found to link SHS to increased risk of lung cancer and disclaims the Hirayama spousal
study as having no scientific basis at all. Consultants who took part in the study were
all related to the tobacco industry.
The PAO report titled "Profits over people" shows similar strategies
being carried out in the LAC region. Consultants were commissioned to produce reports that
questioned the scientific evidence about passive smoking and ill-health. Symposia were
held so that journalists would view the tobacco industry favourably. When it came to
advertising, the industry while promoting youth smoking prevention strategies,
simultaneously also ran youth targeted cigarette-advertising campaigns, thus adopting a
dual marketing policy.
Another interesting paid evidence given out by the consultants was in terms of shifting
the debate to indoor air quality. The objective here was to convince the public that SHS
was just a minor contributor to indoor air pollution since both indoor and outdoor air
already have many other contaminants present.
A total of 40 million people die every year due to tobacco. As the number of deaths
continue to rise, it is the developing countries with its ill equipped social
infrastructure, which will face this terrible health burden.
These two reports show how human health is of no consequence when it comes to
money-making, and how smoking is being termed as a socially acceptable phenomena so that
the industry can eventually escape regulatory and legislative constraints.