RESEARCH PAPER

"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

L Trotter and S Chapman^*

School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Professor Simon Chapman
School of Public Health, Edward Ford Building A27, Room 129A, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia; simonchapman{at}health.usyd.edu.au

Background: Major reviews of the health effects of passive smoking have been subjected to tobacco industry campaigns to refute the scientific evidence. Following the 1992 US Environmental Protection Agency review, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) initiated a review of the health effects of passive smoking. At the time of this review, evidence that environmental tobacco smoke causes disease was being increasingly accepted in courts of law and voluntary adoption of smoking restrictions was rapidly growing.

Objective: To demonstrate how the tobacco industry attempted to delay and discredit the publication of a report on passive smoking that the tobacco industry anticipated to contain recommendations that would be unfavourable to their business.

Methods: A search of tobacco industry documents on the Master Settlement Agreement websites was conducted using the terms and acronyms representative of the NHMRC review.

Results: The tobacco industry sought to impede the progress of the NHMRC Working Party by launching an intensive campaign to delay and discredit the report. The main strategies used were attempts to criticise the science, extensive use of Freedom of Information provisions to monitor all activity of the group, legal challenges, ad hominem attacks on the credibility of the Working Party members, rallying support from industry allies, and influencing public opinion through the media.

Conclusions: The Australian tobacco industry deliberately impeded the NHMRC Working Party’s progress and successfully prevented the publication of the report’s recommendations. The tobacco industry’s motivation and capacity to disrupt the advancement of scientific knowledge and policy in tobacco control should be recognised and anticipated.

Keywords: tobacco industry documents; passive smoking; environmental tobacco smoke

Abbreviations: AHA, Australian Hotels Association; EPA, Environmental Protection Authority; ETS, environmental tobacco smoke; IWG, Independent Working Group; MSA, Master Settlement Agreement; NHMRC, National Health and Medical Research Council; PMA, Philip Morris Australia; TIA, Tobacco Institute of Australia

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• McDaniel, P A, Smith, E A, Malone, R E (2006). Philip Morris's Project Sunrise: weakening tobacco control by working with it. Tobacco Control 15: 215-223 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Durkin, S J, Germain, D, Wakefield, M (2005). Adult's perceptions about whether tobacco companies tell the truth in relation to issues about smoking. Tobacco Control 14: 429-430 [Full Text]  
• Ling, P M, Glantz, S A (2005). Tobacco industry consumer research on socially acceptable cigarettes. Tobacco Control 14: e3-e3 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Champion, D., Chapman, S. (2005). Framing pub smoking bans: an analysis of Australian print news media coverage, March 1996-March 2003. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 59: 679-684 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Mandel, L L, Glantz, S A (2004). Hedging their bets: tobacco and gambling industries work against smoke-free policies. Tobacco Control 13: 268-276 [Abstract] [Full Text]