HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Francis, J. A Articles by Samet, J. M Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Francis, J. A Articles by Samet, J. M Related Collections Environmental tobacco smoke

Challenging the epidemiologic evidence on passive smoking: tactics of tobacco industry expert witnesses

Institute for Global Tobacco Control, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Correspondence to:
Professor Jonathan M Samet
Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Suite W6041, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; jsamet{at}jhsph.edu

Objective: To analyse the statements given by tobacco industry defence witnesses during trial testimonies and depositions in second-hand smoke cases and in parallel, to review criticisms of epidemiology in industry-funded publications in order to identify strategies for discrediting epidemiologic evidence on passive smoking health effects.

Methods: A collection of depositions and trial testimony transcripts from tobacco industry-related lawsuits filed in the United States during the 1990s, was compiled and indexed by the Tobacco Deposition and Trial Testimony Archive (DATTA). Statements in DATTA made by expert witnesses representing the tobacco industry relating to the health effects of passive smoking were identified and reviewed. Industry-supported publications within the peer-reviewed literature were also examined for statements on exposure misclassification, meta-analysis, and confounding.

Results: The witnesses challenged causation of adverse health effects of passive smoking by citing limitations of epidemiologic research, raising methodological and statistical issues, and disputing biological plausibility. Though not often cited directly by the witnesses, the defence tactics mirrored the strategies used in industry-funded reports in the peer-reviewed literature.

Conclusion: The tobacco industry attempted to redirect the focus and dialogue related to the epidemiologic evidence on passive smoking. This approach, used by industry experts in trial testimony and depositions, placed bias as a certain alternative to causation of diseases related to passive smoking and proposed an unachievable standard for establishing the mechanism of disease.

Abbreviations: CIAR, Center for Indoor Air Research; DATTA, Tobacco Deposition and Trial Testimony Archive; EPA, Environmental Protection Agency; ETS, environmental tobacco smoke; IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer; NHANES, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; ORNL, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; OSHA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration

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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. Narkiewicz Second-hand smoke--a license to kill due to expire Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., June 1, 2007; 22(6): 1508 - 1511. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D D. Blanke and H. H Humphrey III Putting truth into action: using the evidence for justice Tob. Control, December 1, 2006; 15(suppl_4): iv1 - iv3. [Full Text] [PDF]