Turning free speech into corporate speech: Philip Morris' efforts to influence U.S. and European journalists regarding the U.S. EPA report on secondhand smoke
Introduction
Previously secret internal corporate tobacco documents show that the tobacco industry launched an extensive public relations effort to influence the scientific debate about the harmful effects of secondhand smoke [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. The adverse health consequences of secondhand smoke exposure, also known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), have been reported by regulatory agencies and published research for decades [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. Although previous government reports such as the 1986 National Academy of Science (NAS) report on ETS [31] and the 1986 Surgeon General's Report on Involuntary Smoking [24] considered ETS a human carcinogen, neither report included a comprehensive risk assessment. In 1987, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was authorized by Congress to research indoor air pollution. Accordingly, the agency released its first draft risk assessment on ETS in June 1990. After an EPA Science Advisory Board, an independent scientific board made up of nine standing members and nine consultants reporting directly to EPA Administrator, reviewed the report, made recommendations, and the standard public comment hearing occurred, a revised draft was released in May 1992. The majority of the submissions received by the EPA during the public comment period that claimed the draft conclusions were invalid were submitted by individuals affiliated with the tobacco industry [32]. Nevertheless, the final EPA risk assessment, Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders, was finally released in December 1992. The EPA classified ETS exposure as a human carcinogen and estimated that ETS caused approximately 3000 lung cancer deaths per year in adult nonsmokers [27]. ETS exposure has also reported to be causally associated with low birth weight and SIDS in infants, acute lower respiratory infections, asthma attacks, middle ear infections in children, and heart disease in adults [29]. In June 2002, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), corroborated the EPA's findings from 9 years earlier that ETS is a human carcinogen [30].
In this paper, we expose the tobacco industry's substantial media efforts, using a select group of individual journalists, to influence public opinion on the validity of the EPA report and tobacco control measures in general. Philip Morris carried out the following: (1) recruited a unique network of journalists through an independent political and media consultant; (2) supported internship programs at a U.S. school of journalism to train and place upcoming reporters; and (3) worked with journalists associated with think tanks financially supported by the industry which promoted free market and antiregulation ideals. Through these initiatives, future journalists developed their ability and propensity to write articles criticizing the EPA's risk assessment on ETS and tobacco control in general, and the industry's financed public relations effort allowed for publication and wide dissemination.
Section snippets
Methods
Search terms used for researching the internal tobacco industry documents included all terms listed in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3. Searches were conducted online and at the Minnesota Tobacco Document Depository [33]. The British American Tobacco depository in Guildford, UK, was not specifically searched as our intention was to concentrate on the U.S.-based companies' response to the U.S. EPA report. In addition, searches on the World Wide Web were conducted for National Journalism Center alumni.
Findings
Integral to the tobacco industry's campaign to dispute the emerging public and scientific acceptance of adverse health consequences associated with secondhand smoke was an effort to derail the EPA risk assessment by exacting extreme political pressure through the first Bush administration and former congressman Thomas Bliley (R-VA) [20]. To protect its profits from the 1992 EPA risk assessment findings that secondhand smoke was carcinogenic, Philip Morris turned to its public relations firm
Discussion
This is the first report from the tobacco industry's internal corporate documents to show the manner in which the tobacco industry has influenced the print media on the issue of the health effects of secondhand smoke. Though in keeping with the tobacco industry's strategies to thwart the truth about the health consequences of smoking, this report provides rather dramatic evidence of the techniques the industry used to cultivate media articles to make sure its messages were heard. In addition to
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Laine Bergeson for her document and Internet research, Pat Erwin and Nadine Leavell for their library research support, and Ann B. Peterson and Rhonda Baumberger for their help with the manuscript preparation. This work was supported in part by NIH grant R01 CA90791: “Tobacco Industry Documents on ETS—The Next Front.”
References (111)
- et al.
Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer's second-hand smoke study
Lancet
(2000) - et al.
The tobacco industry's political efforts to derail the EPA report on ETS
Am. J. Prev. Med.
(2004) - et al.
A quantitative estimate of nonsmokers' lung cancer risk from passive smoking
Environ. Int.
(1985) The controversial controversy of a passionate controversialist
J. Clin. Epidemiol.
(2002)- et al.
Environmental tobacco smoke. The Brown and Williamson documents
JAMA
(1995) - et al.
Tobacco industry success in preventing regulation of secondhand smoke in Latin America: the “Latin Project”
Tob. Control
(2002) - et al.
ASHRAE Standard 62: tobacco industry's influence over national ventilation standards
Tob. Control
(2002) - et al.
Tobacco industry manipulation of the hospitality industry to maintain smoking in public places
Tob. Control
(2002) - et al.
Tobacco industry efforts at discrediting scientific knowledge of environmental tobacco smoke: a review of internal industry documents
J. Epidemiol. Community Health
(2001) Tobacco company set up network of sympathetic scientists
BMJ
(1998)
“Operation Berkshire”: the international tobacco companies' conspiracy
BMJ
Looking through a keyhole at the tobacco industry: the Brown and Williamson Documents
JAMA
The cigarette papers
Secondhand smoke and risk assessment: what was in it for the tobacco industry?
Tob. Control
Philip Morris' new scientific initiative: an analysis
Tob. Control
Print media converge of research on passive smoking
Tob. Control
The smoke you don't see: uncovering tobacco industry scientific strategies aimed against environmental tobacco smoke
Am. J. Public Health
Science for hire: a tobacco industry strategy to influence public opinion on secondhand smoke
Nicotine Tob. Res.
Constructing “sound science” and “good epidemiology”: tobacco, lawyers, and public relations firms
Am. J. Public Health
Turning science into junk: the tobacco industry and passive smoking
Am. J. Public Health
Junking science to promote tobacco
Am. J. Public Health
Non-smoking wives of heavy smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer: a study from Japan
BMJ
Passive smoking and heart disease. Epidemiology, physiology, and biochemistry
Circulation
Passive smoking and the risk of heart disease
JAMA
The accumulated evidence on lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke
BMJ
Environmental tobacco smoke: measuring exposures and assessing health effects
Tobacco industry response to a risk assessment of environmental tobacco smoke
Tob. Control
Tobacco industry documents: treasure trove or quagmire?
Tob. Control
Tobacco industry documents: comparing the Minnesota Depository and Internet access
Tob. Control
How to access tobacco industry documents
Tob. Control
Prying open the door to the cigarette industry's secrets about nicotine—The Minnesota Tobacco Trial
JAMA
Lobbyist funded mailing that hurt McCain campaign
Wall Street Journal
Smoke & mirrors: EPA wages war on cigarettes
Wall Street Journal
Cited by (34)
Unawareness in environmental protection: The case of light pollution from traffic
2012, Land Use PolicyCitation Excerpt :This can be done, e.g., by downplaying the importance of the issue, misguiding the discussion off track, labeling the opponent as ridiculous or untrustworthy, or attempting to subdue the discussion. Financial motives often explain these attempts (Muggli et al., 2004). On the other hand, also the importance of issues including threats can be exaggerated, i.e. the awareness of their relative insignificance can be concealed, even out of self-interested motives.
Assessing the impact of cigarette taxation on the supply chain stakeholders' revenue shares in Greece
2020, Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Operations Management and Service Evaluation