Environmental tobacco smoke. The Brown and Williamson documents

D. E. Barnes, P. Hanauer, J. Slade, L. A. Bero and S. A. Glantz
Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, USA.

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.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The Cigarette Controversy
Cummings et al.
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16:1070-1076.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Every document and picture tells a story: using internal corporate document reviews, semiotics, and content analysis to assess tobacco advertising
Anderson et al.
Tobacco Control 2006;15:254-261.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The most important and influential papers in tobacco control: results of an online poll
Chapman
Tobacco Control 2005;14:e1-e1.
FULL TEXT  

Tobacco industry consumer research on socially acceptable cigarettes
Ling and Glantz
Tobacco Control 2005;14:e3-e3.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Power Of Paperwork: How Philip Morris Neutralized The Medical Code For Secondhand Smoke
Cook et al.
Health Aff (Millwood) 2005;24:994-1004.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Changing Conclusions on Secondhand Smoke in a Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Review Funded by the Tobacco Industry
Tong et al.
Pediatrics 2005;115:e356-e366.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Tobacco industry efforts to present ventilation as an alternative to smoke-free environments in North America
Drope et al.
Tobacco Control 2004;13:i41-47.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

"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
Trotter and Chapman
Tobacco Control 2003;12:iii102-106.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

"Can't stop the boy": Philip Morris' use of Healthy Buildings International to prevent workplace smoking bans in Australia
Chapman and Penman
Tobacco Control 2003;12:iii107-112.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Tobacco Industry Efforts to Defeat the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Indoor Air Quality Rule
Bryan-Jones and Bero
Am. J. Public Health 2003;93:585-592.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Influence of environmental tobacco smoke on vitamin C status in children
Preston et al.
Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2003;77:167-172.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

How the tobacco industry responded to an influential study of the health effects of secondhand smoke
Hong and Bero
BMJ 2002;325:1413-1416.
FULL TEXT  

Tobacco industry success in preventing regulation of secondhand smoke in Latin America: the "Latin Project"
Barnoya and Glantz
Tobacco Control 2002;11:305-314.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Exposing Mr Butts' tricks of the trade
Cummings and Pollay
Tobacco Control 2002;11:i1-4.
FULL TEXT  

Tobacco Dependence Curricula in Acute Care Nurse Practitioner Education
Heath et al.
Am J Crit Care 2002;11:27-33.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Science in regulatory policy making: case studies in the development of workplace smoking restrictions
Bero et al.
Tobacco Control 2001;10:329-336.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Constructing ""Sound Science"" and ""Good Epidemiology"": Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms
Ong and Glantz
Am. J. Public Health 2001;91:1749-1757.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Tobacco industry efforts at discrediting scientific knowledge of environmental tobacco smoke: a review of internal industry documents
Drope and Chapman
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2001;55:588-594.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Cigarette Papers
Daynard
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 1999;24:1400-1403.
 

Prying Open the Door to the Tobacco Industry's Secrets About Nicotine: The Minnesota Tobacco Trial
Hurt and Robertson
JAMA 1998;280:1173-1181.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Why Review Articles on the Health Effects of Passive Smoking Reach Different Conclusions
Barnes and Bero
JAMA 1998;279:1566-1570.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Passive smoking: history repeats itself
Davis
BMJ 1997;315:961-962.
FULL TEXT  

Industry-Funded Research and Conflict of Interest: An Analysis of Research Sponsored by the Tobacco Industry through the Center for Indoor Air Research
Barnes and Bero
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 1996;21:515-542.
ABSTRACT