In a visit to Catalonia in Spain during October 2005, I noticed a
number of changes in the smoking culture and regulations, compared to a
visit in 2001.
Smokefree legislation is expected to be passed in 2006. The Catalonia
regional government plans to take up the same tough stance as Ireland, the
Netherlands and Norway. But there are already changes in Catalonia.
In a visit to Catalonia in Spain during October 2005, I noticed a
number of changes in the smoking culture and regulations, compared to a
visit in 2001.
Smokefree legislation is expected to be passed in 2006. The Catalonia
regional government plans to take up the same tough stance as Ireland, the
Netherlands and Norway. But there are already changes in Catalonia.
In comparison to 2001, I came across several cafes and restaurants
that had smokefree areas, (some locals cynically suggested that they were
there not there to protect staff but to please the tourists). In 2001,
many cafes had sawdust all over the floors, partly to cope with the
cigarette butts being ground under heel by smokers. This practice may
still exist, but was certainly not as extensive as previously. It was also
a pleasure to be served food and drink by people who were not smoking
while they worked.
I noticed the biggest difference in the Spanish airports. Most areas
of the Barcelona and Palma airports are smokefree, with the designated
areas for smoking being the occasional café and corners in the departure
lounge. Every so often, a voice would boom out in Spanish and in English:
“It is by decree of the King, order no ** sub section **, that this
airport is designated a smokefree building. It is an offence to smoke in
any area other than the areas that are designated for smoking.”
Some people by habit still lit up in the smokefree areas of the
airports, but others were quick to point out that they were breaking the
law. I was impressed how quickly smokers reacted and put out their
cigarette, or hurried over to the smoking area. There was no abuse by the
smokers, it was just done.
A friend of my son (who lives in Barcelona) gave up smoking while I
was there. He had taken to wearing his nicotine patch proudly, like a
tattoo! The patches cost 40 euros (per packet?).
Among my son’s friends the women are very clear that they will not
smoke while pregnant. However, there appeared to be still not too much
awareness of the dangers of second hand smoke, as the women were all sure
that they would start smoking again after the baby was born. This may not
be the norm, as the research sample was only six.
Official figures indicate that 50,000 people die from tobacco-related
diseases each year in Spain, comprising 16 percent of all deaths of people
over 35. Smoking kills more people than Aids, alcohol-related illnesses
and traffic accidents combined.
When we received the August 2005 issue of Tobacco Control, we found
much in it to help inform our work, as usual.
I am writing, however, because we have some concerns about one of the
articles published. “The perimetric boycott: a tool for tobacco control
advocacy,” is described as a comprehensive analysis of a number of
boycotts, including one organized by Infact (now Corporate Accountabi...
When we received the August 2005 issue of Tobacco Control, we found
much in it to help inform our work, as usual.
I am writing, however, because we have some concerns about one of the
articles published. “The perimetric boycott: a tool for tobacco control
advocacy,” is described as a comprehensive analysis of a number of
boycotts, including one organized by Infact (now Corporate Accountability
International).
A key point overlooked by the authors is that Corporate
Accountability International’s Boycotts are one strategy within a broader
campaign challenging life-threatening corporate actions. Though we lifted
the Kraft Boycott in June 2003 in celebration of the adoption of the WHO
Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, our Tobacco Industry Campaign
continues to build momentum—-using the most effective strategies at any
given time, and helping to make the WHO FCTC one of the most rapidly
embraced UN treaties of all time.
As a membership organization, Corporate Accountability International
has developed and carried out a number of grassroots consumer campaigns
that have altered the cost/benefit ratio for a corporation to engage in
irresponsible and dangerous practices. Our Nestlé Boycott is often cited
as pivotal to the emerging corporate accountability movement in the 1970s.
Some of the most significant documented costs to Philip Morris/Altria
from the Kraft Boycott included: harm to corporate name, reputation and
image—among the most valuable assets of any corporation; direct expenses
of salaries for management time spent dealing with the Boycott and its
impact; lost management time that could have been spent on acquiring new
sales and increasing shareholder value; public relations, advertising and
corporate giving to maintain goodwill with consumers, the media and
political leaders; and loss of employee morale, affecting both recruitment
and retention.
While thorough attention to the effectiveness of our strategies as a
movement is important for learning lessons as we move ahead, so too is
careful attention to detail and context when critiquing strategies that
have advanced our collective work.
Sincerely,
Patti Lynn
Campaigns Director
Patti Lynn
Campaigns Director
Corporate Accountability International (formerly Infact)
Campaign Headquarters
46 Plympton Street
Boston, MA 02118 USA
Phone: 617-695-2525
Fax: 617-695-2626
plynn@stopcorporateabuse.org
www.stopcorporateabuse.org
The recent article by Al-Delaimy et al (TC 14:359) makes two
conclusions. The first is that use of over-the-counter (OTC) nicotine
replacement therapy (NRT) for reasons other than smoking cessation is
uncommon. This result is consistent with several other studies not cited
in this letter (Nic Tobacco Research 6:79; Nicotine Safety and Toxicity (N
Benowitz, ed) p 147). The second conclusion is that "some smokers may be...
The recent article by Al-Delaimy et al (TC 14:359) makes two
conclusions. The first is that use of over-the-counter (OTC) nicotine
replacement therapy (NRT) for reasons other than smoking cessation is
uncommon. This result is consistent with several other studies not cited
in this letter (Nic Tobacco Research 6:79; Nicotine Safety and Toxicity (N
Benowitz, ed) p 147). The second conclusion is that "some smokers may be
questionning the efficacy of NRT for quitting." This conclusion is based
on the observation that among those who had ever used NRT, many had not
used it in their last quit attempt. This is not a necessary deduction
from this observation. For example, assume a) we have a treatment that is
proven effective but is effective in a minority of patients, b) that
patients have a chronic relapsing disorder that requires several treatment
episodes and c) most patients are reluctant to use any treatment that has
failed in the past. Under these conditions, all effective treatments will
be unlikely to be used in the last treatment episode. For example, I
would wager that most smokers who used behavioral therapy for smoking
cessation did not use behavioral therapy on their last attempt.
Concluding that this data means that patients are "questionning the
efficacy" suggests that over time the treatment is loosing its efficacy.
This is not a necessary deduction from the above observation. If so, then
we would have to conclude that all treatments effective in a minority of
patients are loosing efficacy over time.
When Hong and Bero published their study �"How the tobacco industry responded to an influential study of the health effects of secondhand smoke�" in 2002, I was supporting the law suit against a railway company
to get smoke-free environment for workers and passengers in Japan.
At that time, non-smokers had been annoyed by secondhand smoke for a long
time regardless of our many claims.
The company had been denying the harmfu...
When Hong and Bero published their study �"How the tobacco industry responded to an influential study of the health effects of secondhand smoke�" in 2002, I was supporting the law suit against a railway company
to get smoke-free environment for workers and passengers in Japan.
At that time, non-smokers had been annoyed by secondhand smoke for a long
time regardless of our many claims.
The company had been denying the harmful effects of second hand smoke,
because tobacco industry affiliated authors were publishing many studies
which denied the health effects of tobacco smoke and these studies were
used for the many other tobacco-related law suits by many companies to
reject the control of secondhand smoke.
So I carefully read the Hong� and Bero study and accessed to the tobacco
documents.
I thought Hong� and Bero's study was correct, because I found that the company had
used many studies produced by tobacco industry affiliated authors to
reject tobacco control.
Therefore I decided to use the tobacco documents which described the
conspiracy of tobacco industry affiliated author for the law suit.
Then I and lawyers submitted the evidence to the court. Amazingly, I
was successful in having the court admit the necessity of controlling secondhand smoke on
January 3, 2005. The court decided that tobacco industry
affiliated authors were unreliable and the studies produced by them were
incredible.
This judgment was an epoch-making success in Japan. It enabled us to
introduce more effective tobacco control measures very smoothly.
Thanks to Hong and Bero, Japan made a great progress in tobacco control.
In response to Mr. Lee’s comment1 which follows previous responses2,3
and my paper4, I offer further
explanation to resolve an apparent misunderstanding of the validity and
reliability of cotinine/creatinine ratio (CCR) measurement and his mishandling
of the formula of misclassification. I also express concerns about the lack of
scientific integrity in his reporting5 of the Japanese spousal study,
including his authorship.
As I demonstrated4, all indices of nicotine exposure (ambient
room,personal sampler monitors, and salivary
cotinine)
were well correlated but correlated poorly with CCR, raising doubts about the
validity of the CCR measurement.Yet
Lee maintains that CCR measurement in this study was the gold standard for
distinguishing true smokers from falsely reporting smokers.
There are several possibilities about why the CCR
measurement may have been invalid and unreliable in this study. In 1991 when I
sent the urine samples to the RJR laboratory (where the measurement was
performed), I was informed that all the dry ice sent with the sample had
sublimated before it reached the laboratory. This suggests that the sample was
not maintained at low temperature before analysis. Cotinine measurement is
temperature sensitive and measurement after the sample is exposed to high
temperature can make the measurement inaccurate6.
As I calculated4, the misclassification
and reverse misclassification were equally high suggesting inappropriateness of
the CCR measurements as the gold standard.Lee’s
neglect of reverse
misclassification, thusallows
him to claim an inflated false negative rate of smoking.Lee continues to justify his
misclassification formula by referring to his previous use of the formula.
However, this formulais dependent
on the prevalence of smoking among the study population and thereby artificially
inflates the misclassification rate
ofpopulations with low smoking
prevalence. By way of illustration, consider two hypothetical populations of
1000 people each with smoking rates of 10% (A) and 30% (B).Suppose that, due to the inaccurate CCR measurement, just 3% of true
smokers are classified as non-smokers by erroneously low CCRand3% of true non-smokers are classified as smokers by erroneously high CCR
(for the sake of simplification, I assume no false reports by the subjects). We
will get the following results.
A: If 10% smoke
Self report
Smoker
Nonsmoker
Total
CCR
High
(>100ng/mg)
97
27
124
Lee’s
Misclassification formula
Low(<100ng/mg)
3
873
876
=27/124=0.21
Total
100
900
1,000
B:
If 30% smoke
Self report
Smoker
Nonsmoker
Total
CCR
High
(>100ng/mg)
291
21
312
Lee’s
Misclassification formula
Low(<100ng/mg)
9
679
688
=21/312=0.06
Total
300
700
1,000
As
can be seen, Lee’s formula for misclassification is dependent on the
prevalence of smoking. With only a
slight (3%) inaccuracy in CCR measurement, he can thereby easily get more than
three times higher (0.21
vs.0.06) misclassification in a population with lower smoking prevalence, such as with Asian women.
After a long discussion between Proctor and me, Proctor finally
understood and accepted my point on the misclassification formula7.
Our final draft of the misclassification paper8, which Proctor sent
to me on November 9, 1992 with my name as a sole author, clearly mentioned the
high proportion of misclassification in both sides (self-reported non-smoking
subjects with high CCR and self-reported smokers with low CCR).
Lee
insists that reverse misclassification is relatively unimportant in his
abundant mathematical publications. However, I note that he seems to have
realized his mistake of using 28/106 as the misclassification rate of
self-reported smokers in his original study5 , having quietly
switched to 28/98 for this rate1 after I pointed out his confusion.
Despite his claim that reverse misclassification is implausible, it was observed
as a fact.
Lee
states that as
far as he is aware the
data never belonged to Yano. He should be aware that I developed the
questionnaire, and selected the study areas and subjects. I supervised the
survey at the study area (Shizuoka), erroneously referred to in Lee’s paper as Shizoka5. I planned and ordered the
data input, performed the data analysis and sent the disk to Proctor. On
learning from the experience of possible sample damage (from dry ice
sublimation) by the commercial shipment at the first phase study in 1991, I even
transported the second phase samples myself to the RJR laboratory, Winston
Salem, NC where CCR was measured. I discussed the scientific content of the
study with Proctor many times and he accepted my points7 and revised
the draft many times, always with my name as the author, and never with Lee’s.
As can be seen in the final draft8, Proctor and I reached a certain
agreement on the misclassification formula and the importance of the reverse
misclassification rate.
Because
Lee never participated in the actual survey it may be that he was unaware of
details of the research such as the integrity of the sample which may have
seriously affected the interpretation of results. Nor did he participate in the
discussion which led Proctor and I to a deeper understanding of the analysis7.
Despite this, still Lee claims that because he proposed the research project, he
has aright to sole authorship
regardless of who actually conducted the research. This is a unique idea that
few scientists would accept.
Lee states: Had I not published the paper it seems that the findings
would never have appeared in the public domain at all.Did Yano also have sole rights to suppress the findings? Again, Iremind Lee thatProctor and I
agreed that the results did not indicate high misclassification in self-report
non-smokers but some failure in the study.7, 8 What both Proctor and
I prepared for publication, although Proctor ceased to contact me before we
could reach a final agreement, was totally different from what Lee eventually
published5. I consider that a description of a failed study
involving the inaccurate measurement of CCR was undeserving of publication.
Moreover, as a scientist committed to truth, I have a responsibility to be
critical of a report with erroneous interpretations based on invalid
measurements.
2.Yano E.Response
to P N Lee [Commentary].Tob
Control 2005;14:234-5.
3.Lee PN.Japanese spousal
study: a response to Professor Yano's claims [Commentary].Tob Control 2005;14:233-4.
4.Yano E. Japanese spousal smoking study
revisited: how a tobacco industry funded paper reached erroneous conclusions. Tob
Control 2005;14:227-35.
5.Lee PN. "Marriage to a smoker" may
not be a valid marker of exposure in studies relating
environmental
tobacco smoke to risk of lung cancer in Japanese non-smoking women.Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1995;67:287-94.
6.Hagan
RL, Ramos JM Jr, Jacob PM 3rd. Increasing urinary cotinine concentrations at
elevated temperatures: the role of conjugated metabolites. J Pharm Biomed
Anal. 1997;16:191-7.
7.Proctor
CJ. Fax to Dr E. Yano,
Teikyo
University
, October 26 1992.
I am the “WDE Irwin” quoted on page 67 as follows: “Years later
(1985), WDE Irwin, a technician with BAT in England, was asked how a
grooved filter could be made that would avoid criticism but also provide
good taste. He concluded: ‘Finally for cigarettes, I believe it to be a
self evident truth not only is there no smoke without fire, but also there
is no kick without smoke.’”
I am the “WDE Irwin” quoted on page 67 as follows: “Years later
(1985), WDE Irwin, a technician with BAT in England, was asked how a
grooved filter could be made that would avoid criticism but also provide
good taste. He concluded: ‘Finally for cigarettes, I believe it to be a
self evident truth not only is there no smoke without fire, but also there
is no kick without smoke.’”
“Technician” is not a correct identification of my status. At time
of the quote, I had 20 years experience in the tobacco industry and held
three quite separate primary degrees from British universities, majoring
in chemistry, economics and statistics. A quick search on Google would
have identified my status as “scientist”. My credibility as an iconoclast
could be compromised if I did not make this correction. Although no
longer in the tobacco industry, I may at some point seek to criticise a
report by the US Institute of Medicine, “Clearing the Smoke: The Science
Base for Tobacco Harm Reduction” published in 2001 and I shall need all
the credibility I can muster!
I read with great interest the article by Bjartveit and Tverdal
(2005), who investigated health consequences of smoking 1-4 cigarettes per
day. They found that in both sexes, smoking 1-4 cigarettes per day was
associated with a significantly higher risk of dying from ischaemic heart
disease and from all causes, and in women, from lung cancer [1].
Genetic studies suggest that all stages of tobacco...
I read with great interest the article by Bjartveit and Tverdal
(2005), who investigated health consequences of smoking 1-4 cigarettes per
day. They found that in both sexes, smoking 1-4 cigarettes per day was
associated with a significantly higher risk of dying from ischaemic heart
disease and from all causes, and in women, from lung cancer [1].
Genetic studies suggest that all stages of tobacco use and dependence,
maintenance of dependent smoking behavior and amount smoked are partially
under genetic control [2]. Many of cigarette smoke compounds and their
metabolites are substrates of phase I enzymes, represented by cytochrome
P450 enzymes, and glutathione S-transferases (GSTs). Although the study
investigating the association between smoking behavior and either
polymorphisms of GSTT1 or GSTM1, failed to show a significant association
[3], there are several reports indicating that genetic polymorphisms of
CYP2A6, CYP3E1, and CYP2D6 are associated with smoking behavior [4-6]. The
CYP2A6 poor-metabolizer genotypes result in altered nicotine kinetics [4].
Individuals lacking full function CYP2A6 alleles do not metabolize
nicotine and are less likely to become smokers and if they do, they smoke
fewer cigarettes per day in comparison with normal-nicotine metabolism
persons [4]. Therefore, slow inactivators may experience higher or longer
lasting levels of nicotine. This could increase effects of nicotine
toxicity. Also it is reported that the CYP2D6 ultra-rapid metabolizer
genotype may contribute to the probability of being addicted to smoking
[5]. Taken together, it is probable that the persons smoked 1-4 cigarettes
per day in the study of Bjartveit and Tverdal [1] belong to the slow
metabolizer genotypes. Therefore, the results of the study should be
interpreted with caution. Study with respect to polymorphisms of phase I
and II genes, might be find the threshold value for daily cigarette
consumption that must be exceeded before serious health consequences
occur.
REFERENCES
1 Bjartveit K, Tverdal A. Health consequences of smoking 1-4
cigarettes per day. Tob Control 2005;14:315-20.
2 Hall W, Madden P, Lynskey M. The genetics of tobacco use: methods,
findings and policy implications. Tob Control 2002;11:119-24.
3 Saadat M, Mohabatkar H. Polymorphisms of glutathione S-transferases
M1 and T1 do not account for interindividual differences for smoking
behavior. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2004;77:793-5.
4 Tyndal RF, Sellers EM. Genetic variation in CYP2A6-mediated
nicotine metabolism alters smoking behavior. Ther Drug Monit 2002;24:153-
60.
5 Saarikoski ST, Sata F, Husgafvel-Pursianen K, et al. CYP2D6 ultra-
rapid metabolizer genotype as a potential modifier of smoking behaviour.
Pharmacogenetics 2000;10:5-10.
6 Yang M, Kunugita N, Kitagawa K, et al. Individual differences in
urinary cotinine levels in Japanease smokers: relation to genetic
polymorphism of drug-metabolizing enzymes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers
Prev 2001;10:589-93.
We thank Dr Graham F Cope for his valuable remarks, and agree that
underreporting of daily cigarette consumption might be of importance when
assessing the risk in light smokers.[1]
Dr Cope refers to two papers: a cross-sectional randomised study on
smoking reduction in pregnant women, and an assessment of smoking status
in patients with peripheral arterial disease.[2][3] Our study did not
conc...
We thank Dr Graham F Cope for his valuable remarks, and agree that
underreporting of daily cigarette consumption might be of importance when
assessing the risk in light smokers.[1]
Dr Cope refers to two papers: a cross-sectional randomised study on
smoking reduction in pregnant women, and an assessment of smoking status
in patients with peripheral arterial disease.[2][3] Our study did not
concentrate on subgroups in need of regular medical attention; it covered
all residents aged 35-49, except people with a history or symptoms
indicating cardiovascular diseases (among them peripheral arterial
disease) and diabetes.[4] A general population in the 1970s may be less
inclined to underreport consumption, than present-day pregnant women and
sick people, who do not want to incur the disapproval of the healthcare
professionals.
Based on a review and meta analysis Patrick and co-workers found that
interviewer-administered questionnaires, observational studies, reports by
adults, and biochemical validation with cotinine plasma were associated
with higher estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Our study compares
favourably with these points: The study includes only adults, all
questionnaires were checked by a nurse in an interviewer situation, and in
one of the three counties, biochemical validation was carried out in all
participants by determination of serum thiocyanate.[5] Certainly, levels
of thiocyanate may be influenced by factors other than smoking;
nevertheless, the dose-response between mean levels of thiocyanate and
reported number of cigarettes is remarkable:
Number of cigarettes per day
MALES
FEMALES
No.
Mean (SD)
No.
Mean (SD)
0
6212
33.9 (14.0)
7908
33.5 (14.2)
1-4
169
45.3 (18.4)
515
52.0 (22.0)
5-9
855
59.6 (20.7)
1661
70.9 (24.5)
10-14
1570
69.6 (22.2)
1800
81.5 (24.0)
15-19
1056
76.3 (23.1)
569
90.8 (25.5)
20-24
699
81.5 (26.4)
247
96.1 (25.6)
25+
235
87.3 (27.9)
36
99.7 (28.3)
Finally, the attending persons reported their actual number of
cigarettes per day in a special box in the questionnaire. Here they were
allowed to give a range of daily consumption, for example, 10-15
cigarettes. In our analyses, however, we used the highest figure stated by
the participant. Hence, a report of 3-6 cigarettes per day was categorized
in the 5-9 cigarettes group.
We find it reasonable to conclude that the results presented in our paper
reflect a marked increased risk in light smokers.
References
1. Cope GF. Health consequences of smoking 1-4 cigarettes per day. Letter
to journal. Tob Cont 2005 http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/14/5/315.
2. Cope GF, Nayyar P, Holder R. Feedback from a point of care test for
nicotine intake to reduce smoking during pregnancy. Ann Clin Bioch
2003;40:674-679.
3. Hobbs SD, Wilmink ABM, Adam DJ, Bradbury AW. Assessment of smoking
status in patients with peripheral arterial disease. J Vasc Surg
2005;41:451-456
4. Bjartveit K, Tverdal A. Health consequences of smoking 1-4 cigarettes
per day. Tob Cont 2005;14:315-320.
5. Patrick DL, Cheadle A, Thompson DC, Diehr P, Koepsell S, Kinne S. The
validity of self-reported smoking: a review and meta-analysis. Am J Public
Health 1994;84:1086-1093.
6. Foss OP, Lund-Larsen PG. Serum thiocyanate and smoking: interpretation
of serum thiocyanate levels observed in a large health study. Scan J Clin
Lab Invest 1986;46:245-251.
I read the paper by Bjartveit and Tverdal with a great deal of
interest(1). I welcome the fact that highlighting smoking, even a small
number of cigarettes has a significant effect on ischaemic heart disease.
However, these findings should be considered with a certain amount of
scepticism, as the findings are based entirely on self-reported smoking
habit. Biochemically validated research, both by ourselves(2), and
other...
I read the paper by Bjartveit and Tverdal with a great deal of
interest(1). I welcome the fact that highlighting smoking, even a small
number of cigarettes has a significant effect on ischaemic heart disease.
However, these findings should be considered with a certain amount of
scepticism, as the findings are based entirely on self-reported smoking
habit. Biochemically validated research, both by ourselves(2), and
others(3) have found that many smokers will admit to their habit, but will
significantly under-report their cigarette consumption; believing that
reporting a low number of cigarettes a day, say 1-4, will not incur the
disapproval of the healthcare professional. Also to be taken into account
is that biochemical analysis shows that the intake of nicotine and other
tobacco products is extremely variable within categories of cigarette
consumption, and is dependent on a number of variables such as smoke
topography (number, frequency and volume of puffs from a cigarette), depth
of inhalation, age, gender, yield of nicotine, etc. So some individuals
who consume a small number of cigarettes a day will ingest the same level
of tobacco products as other smokers with a higher daily intake.
Compensation, when a smoker cuts down on cigarette consumption, but smokes
more efficiently, is a factor mentioned in the text of the paper, is an
example whereby cigarette consumption does not reflect nicotine intake.
So, although the paper and ensuing publicity has brought to the attention
of the public the dangers of any level of smoking, using self-reported
information should be used with a certain degree of caution.
References
1. Bjartveit K, Tverdal A. Health consequences of smoking 1-4
cigarettes per day. Tob Cont 2005; 14: 315-320.
2. Cope GF, Nayyar P, Holder R. Feedback from a point of care test for
nicotine intake to reduce smoking during pregnancy. Ann Clin Bioch 2003;
40 : 674-679
3. Hobbs SD, Wilmink ABM, Adam DJ, Bradbury AW. Assessment of smoking
status in patients with peripheral arterial disease. J Vasc Surg 2005; 41:
451-456.
British American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited (BAT) and their cohorts
the world over should come to terms with the fact that the truth cannot be
hidden forever even from the man on the streets.
Mr Kehinde Johnson did not need to comment at all because there was
nothing to comment about! He should have apologised for being a part of
this systematic elimination of defenceless people the world over.
British American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited (BAT) and their cohorts
the world over should come to terms with the fact that the truth cannot be
hidden forever even from the man on the streets.
Mr Kehinde Johnson did not need to comment at all because there was
nothing to comment about! He should have apologised for being a part of
this systematic elimination of defenceless people the world over.
Dr. Chris Proctor's statement typifies the message that British
American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited has tried to pass across to
unsuspecting people, that their tobacco is "safer" than smuggled
brands.This is most unfortunate because it is not based on any scientific
evidence. In fact, the scientific findings in this area are to the
contrary. A time will come in our developmental process in Nigeria that
such misrepresentation of facts will attract severe punishment!
Another trick which is employed by the company is the use of Nigerian
symbols of success and national pride such as historical materials as a
means of advertisement for their products. Advertising cigarretes under
the guise of promoting national pride is another slap in the face of the
Nigerian people by BAT (Nigeria) Limited. Nigerians know when to be
proudly Nigerian. Certainly, our national pride is not baased on tobacco
but on the legacy of our fore-fathers.
I take succour in the Yoruba saying that "If a lie goes on for twenty
years, the truth catches it in a day". This lies have gone on for more
than twenty years and the truth has caught up with them.
It is time for all those who know the truth to speak up. We need a
critical mass of determined and committed folks to finish this work and
make our world truly tobacco free!
In a visit to Catalonia in Spain during October 2005, I noticed a number of changes in the smoking culture and regulations, compared to a visit in 2001.
Smokefree legislation is expected to be passed in 2006. The Catalonia regional government plans to take up the same tough stance as Ireland, the Netherlands and Norway. But there are already changes in Catalonia.
In comparison to 2001, I came across sev...
Dear Editor,
When we received the August 2005 issue of Tobacco Control, we found much in it to help inform our work, as usual.
I am writing, however, because we have some concerns about one of the articles published. “The perimetric boycott: a tool for tobacco control advocacy,” is described as a comprehensive analysis of a number of boycotts, including one organized by Infact (now Corporate Accountabi...
The recent article by Al-Delaimy et al (TC 14:359) makes two conclusions. The first is that use of over-the-counter (OTC) nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for reasons other than smoking cessation is uncommon. This result is consistent with several other studies not cited in this letter (Nic Tobacco Research 6:79; Nicotine Safety and Toxicity (N Benowitz, ed) p 147). The second conclusion is that "some smokers may be...
When Hong and Bero published their study �"How the tobacco industry responded to an influential study of the health effects of secondhand smoke�" in 2002, I was supporting the law suit against a railway company to get smoke-free environment for workers and passengers in Japan. At that time, non-smokers had been annoyed by secondhand smoke for a long time regardless of our many claims. The company had been denying the harmfu...
...
I am the “WDE Irwin” quoted on page 67 as follows: “Years later (1985), WDE Irwin, a technician with BAT in England, was asked how a grooved filter could be made that would avoid criticism but also provide good taste. He concluded: ‘Finally for cigarettes, I believe it to be a self evident truth not only is there no smoke without fire, but also there is no kick without smoke.’”
“Technician” is not a correct id...
To the Editor,
I read with great interest the article by Bjartveit and Tverdal (2005), who investigated health consequences of smoking 1-4 cigarettes per day. They found that in both sexes, smoking 1-4 cigarettes per day was associated with a significantly higher risk of dying from ischaemic heart disease and from all causes, and in women, from lung cancer [1]. Genetic studies suggest that all stages of tobacco...
Dear Editor,
We thank Dr Graham F Cope for his valuable remarks, and agree that underreporting of daily cigarette consumption might be of importance when assessing the risk in light smokers.[1]
Dr Cope refers to two papers: a cross-sectional randomised study on smoking reduction in pregnant women, and an assessment of smoking status in patients with peripheral arterial disease.[2][3] Our study did not conc...
I read the paper by Bjartveit and Tverdal with a great deal of interest(1). I welcome the fact that highlighting smoking, even a small number of cigarettes has a significant effect on ischaemic heart disease. However, these findings should be considered with a certain amount of scepticism, as the findings are based entirely on self-reported smoking habit. Biochemically validated research, both by ourselves(2), and other...
British American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited (BAT) and their cohorts the world over should come to terms with the fact that the truth cannot be hidden forever even from the man on the streets.
Mr Kehinde Johnson did not need to comment at all because there was nothing to comment about! He should have apologised for being a part of this systematic elimination of defenceless people the world over.
Dr. Chri...
Pages