Article Text

Download PDFPDF
“The Tobacco Products Research Trust 1982–1996”
  1. CHERYL SWANN
  1. Tobacco Products Research Trust
  2. Keats House, 24–26 St Thomas Street
  3. London SE1 9RT, UK
  4. Tobacco Products Research Trust
  5. Institute for Health Policy Studies
  6. University of California at San Francisco
  7. 1388 Sutter Street, 11th floor
  8. San Francisco, California 94109, USA.
  9. bero@cardio.ucsf.edu
    1. PETER FROGGATT
    1. Tobacco Products Research Trust
    2. Keats House, 24–26 St Thomas Street
    3. London SE1 9RT, UK
    4. Tobacco Products Research Trust
    5. Institute for Health Policy Studies
    6. University of California at San Francisco
    7. 1388 Sutter Street, 11th floor
    8. San Francisco, California 94109, USA.
    9. bero@cardio.ucsf.edu
      1. LISA A BERO
      1. Tobacco Products Research Trust
      2. Keats House, 24–26 St Thomas Street
      3. London SE1 9RT, UK
      4. Tobacco Products Research Trust
      5. Institute for Health Policy Studies
      6. University of California at San Francisco
      7. 1388 Sutter Street, 11th floor
      8. San Francisco, California 94109, USA.
      9. bero@cardio.ucsf.edu

        Statistics from Altmetric.com

        Request Permissions

        If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

        Editor,—Lisa Bero’s review of the above report1 is generous, but contains, apart from a number of minor inaccuracies, two specific points which we think should be challenged.

        (1) “More documentation of the futile search for a ‘safer’ cigarette”. The reviewer makes much of the fact that “internal tobacco company research . . . had already demonstrated by the early 1980s that the production of a safer cigarette was not feasible for a variety of practical and legal reasons.” However this view was never apparent to the trust and only came into the public domain in the mid-1990s, when the trust’s programme was terminating, with the delving into the Brown and Williamson papers.2 She also discounts the points that (a) the search for a “safer” cigarette (after the collapse of tobacco substitutes) by “product modification” required properly funded and planned studies to monitor the …

        View Full Text