Trust Us We're The Tobacco Industry - Tobacco Control Supersite

7. Secondhand Smoke/
Environmental
Tobacco Smoke
Although the tobacco
industry has known for
nearly 20 years that
secondhand smoke
(otherwise known as
environmental tobacco
smoke, ETS) poses a
severe risk to health,
it has done everything
in its power to
downplay this risk
and fight measures
to restrict smoking
in public places
and worksites.
Indeed, industry scientists have
reviewed the evidence showing that
nonsmokers exposed to secondhand
smoke suffer significant damage to
the functioning of their small airways
and found it to be credible:
“I have reviewed the above paper
and find it to be an excellent piece
of work which could be very damaging
to our business. There are several
things that can be done to minimize
its impact.” 114
(Philip Morris, 1980)
Nevertheless, in the 1990s, Philip
Morris mounted a multi-million-dollar
campaign to undermine a study on
the dangers of ETS, undertaken by
the International Agency for Research
on Cancer, an affiliate of WHO. The
campaign was targeted at researchers,
the media, and government. Its aims
were as follows:
• “Delay the progress and/or
release of the study.
• Affect the wording of its
conclusions and official
statement of results.
• Neutralize possible negative
results of the study, particularly
as a regulatory tool.
• Counteract the potential
impact of the study on
governmental policy, public
opinion, and actions by
private employers and
proprietors.” 115
22
(Philip Morris, 1993)
The industry has long recognized
that the ETS issue could threaten its
financial future if governments could
muster the political will to pass public
smoking restrictions. A confidential
study for the U.S. Tobacco Institute
on public attitudes on smoking written
in the late 1970s remarked that
“What the smoker does to himself
may be his business, but what the
smoker does to the nonsmoker is
quite a different matter….This we see
as the most dangerous development
yet to the viability of the tobacco
industry that has yet occurred.” 116
(1978)
The industry realizes that
“The immediate implication [of
smoking bans] for our business is clear: if
our consumers have fewer opportunities
to enjoy our products, they will use them
less frequently and the result will be an
adverse impact on our bottom line.” 117
(Philip Morris, 1994)
“What do these health claims,
the heightened public sentiment for
smoking restrictions, increasing nonsmoker
annoyance toward smokers
mean for this industry? Lower sales,
of course. The Tobacco Merchants Association
took a look at smoking restriction
legislation and cigarette consumption
between 1961 and 1982. The
conclusion: that restrictive smoking
laws accounted for 21 percent of the
variation in cigarette consumption from
state to state during that time….Those
who say they work under restrictions
smoked about one-and-one-quarter
fewer cigarettes each day than those
who don’t….That one-and-one-quarter
per day cigarette reduction then, means