ILSI, Tobacco, and the World Health Organization - International Life ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

On lines 158-159, the Case Study alleges, “Financial support which the industry has provided toILSI has been considerable in the past, and may continue to be so.” This statement and speculationare not supported and are quite simply, false. The facts are:o ILSI has an annual budget of roughly $20 million dollars. ILSI has been inexistence for 23 years and has, over the course of that time, supported literallythousands of activities, only a miniscule fraction of which could have had anybearing whatsoever on tobacco-related issues.o A review of available ILSI records has revealed two very modest contributions fromtobacco companies to support the 1989 inhalation toxicology symposium and asingle unrestricted contribution in 1992 to the ILSI Research Foundation (whoseactivities are not member-driven) from the Philip Morris Family of Companies, ofwhich Kraft, a food subsidiary member of ILSI, is a part.o No tobacco company divisions are currently, nor have they ever been, members ofILSI. The obvious reason for this is because ILSI does not work on tobacco issues.ILSI’s work is focused on scientific issues related to nutrition, food safety,toxicology, and risk assessment to improve public health, which is of interest tofood, beverage, and pharmaceutical companies as well as government scientists andacademicians. It is a gross mischaracterization to refer to the limited support ILSImay have received from tobacco companies as “considerable.”o Part of the confusion on this point appears to revolve around the funding for theInternational Inhalation Toxicology Symposium series. The Case Study refers to apledge of $30,000 from R.J. Reynolds “to support the 5 th …Symposium, held in1994.” Though there was no reference cited in the Case Study, ILSI’s search of theR.J. Reynolds website found a copy of a letter dated in 1994 from Prof. Dr. UlrichMohr to Dr. Carl Ehmann of R.J. Reynolds thanking him for support for the 5 thsymposium to be held in 1995. 25 The letter is on Hannover Medical Schoolletterhead and makes no mention of ILSI by name.12
o As noted previously, Dr. Mohr, who served as the primary organizer of thesymposia, was a professor at Hannover Medical School, which was one of thecosponsors of the symposium series. Obviously, ILSI cannot speak to fundraisingefforts by or contributions that may have been made to the other cosponsors tosupport these symposia. It would appear that Dr. Mohr may have raised funds fromtobacco companies to support some of the symposia, but he did not do this withILSI’s knowledge or at ILSI’s request.In the same vein, on lines 160-164, the Case Study refers to a “1998 letter from Dr. Ulrich Mohrto…Philip Morris,” requesting sponsorship of the 7 th International Inhalation Toxicology Symposium.Again, there was no reference listed in the Case Study, but ILSI was able to locate what appears to be acopy of the letter in question on the Philip Morris website. 26 The same response as above applies hereas well. The letter is on Hannover Medical School letterhead, ILSI is not singled out, but is listed asone of four cosponsors of the symposium, and there is no indication that this request for funds wasmade at ILSI’s behest or with ILSI’s assent. Indeed, ILSI was not aware of this letter until now.Furthermore, ILSI had a very minor role in the last two symposia (1997 and 1999); its support waslimited exclusively to publication of the monographs and assistance with travel arrangements for NorthAmerican faculty, and ILSI is no longer a sponsor of the series.The last paragraph of the Case Study (lines 166-175) makes note of the fact that Dr. Malaspina servedas a member of PAHO’s Development Committee at the same time as Paul Dietrich, who was accusedof working with the tobacco companies to thwart WHO tobacco control efforts in the Report of theCommittee of Experts on Tobacco Industry Documents. There is absolutely no evidence of anycollusion between Dr. Malaspina and Paul Dietrich and to imply this type of guilt by association istotally unfounded.Finally, the Case Study wrongly concludes that ILSI “further(ed) the commercial interests of tobaccocompanies.” This accusation is entirely without merit or valid documentation. A serious, critical“read” of the Case Study and the referenced documents (where they are available) show that “the dots13
Page 1 and 2: THE INTERNATIONAL LIFE SCIENCES INS
Page 3 and 4: with expertise in chemistry and exp
Page 5 and 6: It presumably appeared among the to
Page 7 and 8: On lines 94-106, the Case Study pur
Page 9 and 10: o The last reference in the paragra
Page 11: 20 21of the same document with diff

ILSI, Tobacco, and the World Health Organization - International Life ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?