Tobacco.org

Smokes alarm as fashion outlets targeted 

CIGARETTES are being sold at high-end Adelaide clothing stores and at least one hair salon, in a "tricky and desperate" tactic to lure new young smokers.

A Sunday Mail investigation has discovered smoke company Imperial Tobacco is lavishing trendy stores with cash incentives and corporate entertainment in return for stocking Peter Stuyvesant brand cigarettes in specially designed cigarette dispensers.

They sell from $9.95 to $11.70 for a pack of 20 cigarettes.

The tobacco giant's targeting of fashion-savvy outlets to push the trendy brand has prompted calls for a State Government crackdown to ban the practice.

Marketing kits distributed by the tobacco giant to fashion retailers describe cigarettes as being safe and fashionable: "It used to be extremely dangerous. Now the only danger is you're not the coolest cat on the block."

Quit SA and Independent Senator Nick Xenophon are appalled

Jump to full article »

Just FYI: The Smoking in 'Gran Torino' Was Done for Free 

Near the end of the closing credits for Clint Eastwood's new Gran Torino is a disclaimer that caught my attention. It reads as follows:

"No person or entity associated with this film received payment or anything of value, or entered into any agreement, in connection with the depiction of tobacco products." . . . .

The site also reports that Universal Pictures (at the behest of its parent company, General Electric) has started including a somewhat weaker disclaimer on its movies that contain smoking: "The depictions of tobacco smoking contained in this film are based solely on artistic consideration and are not intended to promote tobacco consumption." Note that they don't say they weren't paid off by the tobacco industry, only that they didn't intend for it to encourage people to smoke.

The reason this is a big deal is that for decades, the tobacco companies DID pay for product placement in films. Eileen Heyes' book Tobacco USA notes that Philip Morris paid about $42,000 for Lois Lane to smoke Marlboros in Superman II, and that Sylvester Stallone got half a million bucks to use Brown & Williamson (now part of R.J. Reynolds) tobacco products in five films in the 1980s.

Jump to full article »

• Tobacco Industry Efforts to Undermine Policy-Relevant Research  

The tobacco industry, working through third parties to prevent policy-relevant research that adversely affected it between 1988 and 1998, used coordinated, well-funded strategies in repeated attempts to silence tobacco researcher Stanton A. Glantz. Tactics included advertising, litigation, and attempts to have the US Congress cut off the researcher's National Cancer Institute funding. Efforts like these can influence the policymaking process by silencing opposing voices and discouraging other scientists from doing work that may expose them to tobacco industry attacks. The support of highly credible public health organizations and of researchers' employers is crucial to the continued advancement of public health.

Jump to full article »

Leading tobacco company accused of undermining China's anti-smoking efforts  

A group of anti-smoking researchers found in formerly secret corporate documents that a leading tobacco company had attempted to divert public attention from the dangers of secondhand smoke, hoping to re-focus China's health policy.

Monique Muggli, a researcher at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota in the United States, and her colleagues published a research article based on her finding on documents from British American Tobacco (BAT). . . .

The Ministry of Health estimated in 2007 that 540 million Chinese were exposed to secondhand smoke, resulting in over 100,000 deaths annually.

"As highly regulated markets continue to result in decreasing profits for transnational tobacco companies, they will look to less regulated markets in low to middle income countries," Dr. Kelley Lee at the London-based Center on Global Change and Health, co-author of the thesis, told Xinhua Friday via an email.

"Other research has demonstrated that the industry has supported a wide range of charitable activities with the purpose of furthering its own interests," Dr. Lee said. "China is the largest cigarette market with more than 350 million smokers, .. (and) transnational tobacco companies are keen to take a larger market share in the future."

BAT was found to have provided funding for a Beijing-based charitable foundation to distract attention away from smoking to non-tobacco-induced liver diseases, among which hepatitis is a major health concern in China. BAT China tried to influence policy-makers to put priority on the No. 1 infectious disease, or hepatitis, in China, the thesis said.

Jump to full article »

• Legislators rolling in tobacco money ALTRIA DONATIONS TOBACCO DONATIONS 

When Gov. Tim Kaine proposed last week to double the tax on cigarettes, he took on a large contributor to state politicians.

Tobacco companies have over the years given millions of dollars to Virginia candidates--including to Kaine himself.

According to the Virginia Public Access Project, a database of campaign finance donations in Virginia, tobacco companies, executives and farmers have given state politicians nearly $6 million since 1996.

By contrast, anti-tobacco groups seem to donate much less . . .

Think of a big name in state politics--former Gov. Jim Gilmore, former Lt. Gov. John Hager, former Gov. Mark Warner, former state Sen. John Chichester, former House Speaker Vance Wilkins, former GOP gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore, current Democratic Party Chairman Dick Cranwell, House Speaker Bill Howell, Gov. Tim Kaine--they're all on the list of tobacco donations.

Local lawmakers on the list, in addition to Howell and Chichester, include Sens. Edd Houck and Richard Stuart and Dels. Mark Cole, Bobby Orrock and Albert Pollard.

The largest donor by far is Altria, the Richmond-based parent company of Philip Morris, maker of the Marlboro brand of cigarettes.

Jump to full article »

Tobacco firm tried to influence Thai research 

"Philip Morris scientist Roger Walk [tried] to influence scientific research and training in Thailand via the Chulabhorn Research Institute," claims the study led by Ross MacKenzie of the University of Sydney.

Walk "influenced the study and teaching of environmental toxicology," according to the lengthy paper, which cites previously confidential documents from the tobacco industry. The researchers "found that consultants to Philip Morris were able to gain access to the scientific community in Thailand," reported the paper.

In addition to influencing the institute's environmental research, Walk "Walk was also able to build relationships with government officials and scientists in Thailand to help advance the interests of Philip Morris in the country and across Asia."

Jump to full article »

LETTER: Ban on tobacco funds doesn't threaten academic freedom 

Prof. Carl V. Phillips's letter was an entertaining -- as opposed to enlightening -- read because he confuses the issue substantially.

As a U of A graduate student who has raised concerns, in my capacity as a representative on the General Faculties Council (GFC), about the university's continued acceptance of considerable sums of money from the tobacco industry, I feel compelled to respond.

Phillips makes a strong case for academic freedom. The interesting thing is that, in fact, no one is trying to interfere with the freedom of Phillips or any other academic to study, write, or speak publicly about research on smokeless tobacco, or tobacco.

The concern is that the funding for this research is, in part, being provided by the tobacco industry itself. Questioning the appropriateness of this source of funding does not compromise academic freedom. . . .

True academic freedom, of which Phillips speaks highly, can only be achieved if the source of the funding does not have a strong vested interest in the outcome.

Jump to full article »

LETTER: No safe alternative 

It's hard to understand why the University of Alberta still employs apologists for Big Tobacco.

Prof. Carl V. Phillips's unimaginative defence of "new and promising ideas" that can "reduce ... risks by 99 per cent" would be laughable if he wasn't serious. He directs us to his website, TobaccoHarmReduction.org for details, where one can find a link to another website, smokersonly.org, which contains the wisdom of another academic, Dr. Brad Rodu.

Rodu is another proponent of smokeless tobacco and is also joined at the hip with the tobacco industry. Unfortunately for Rodu, he has attracted the attention of the American Cancer Society as well as the American Dental Association. . . .

One can only hope that reason will ultimately prevail. Phillips may moan about "attacks on academic freedom" and creatively call legitimate concerns "anti-health activism," but the end result will be the same -- an industry that peddles death and disease will one day cease to exist.

Jump to full article »

LETTER: New Year's resolution 

The absurd suggestions by Prof. Carl V. Phillips fly in the face of the very principles of public health. His comments on academic freedom are fatally flawed and present as a thinly-veiled example of his shameless promotion of smokeless tobacco. To promote smokeless tobacco as an alternative to cigarettes is deceptive, as it keeps the brain's craving centre stimulated.

A new year is a good time to reflect on what's ahead, and perhaps make some big decisions. Smokers are encouraged to seek out the help they may need to quit, such as safe medicinal support and talk therapy.

Jump to full article »

LETTER: U of A right to take tobacco cash for research 

If we can all be allowed to make up our own little report cards, I would like to submit my own and since mine grades the degree of academic integrity, I award As to the University of Alberta and its president, Indira Samarasekera. High marks to all for not kowtowing to special-interest groups.

As I see it, the university can either forgo all industry support, which would mean a billion-dollar bill being passed onto taxpayers, or continue the tradition of accepting help from those who can best afford it, but within well-established guidelines.

And how were the report cards for Action on Smoking and Health, and Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada? When marking for integrity and for advocating in the public interest, I am afraid no more than a C. (It would have been a D, but I gave them a few points for effort.)

Jump to full article »

• “A Good Personal Scientific Relationship”: Philip Morris Scientists and the Chulabhorn Research Institute, Bangkok 

Methods and Findings

This paper analyses previously confidential tobacco industry documents that were made publicly available following litigation in the United States. PM documents reveal that ostensibly independent overseas scientists, now identified as industry consultants, were able to gain access to the Thai scientific community. Most significantly, PM scientist Roger Walk has established close connections with the CRI. Documents indicate that Walk was able to use such links to influence the study and teaching of environmental toxicology in the institute and to develop relations with key officials and local scientists so as to advance the interests of PM within Thailand and across Asia. While sensitivities surrounding royal patronage of the CRI make public criticism extremely difficult, indications of ongoing involvement by tobacco industry consultants suggest the need for detailed scrutiny of such relationships.

Conclusions

The establishment of close links with the CRI advances industry strategies to influence scientific research and debate around tobacco and health, particularly regarding secondhand smoke, to link with academic institutions, and to build relationships with national elites. Such strategies assume particular significance in the national and regional contexts presented here amid the globalisation of the tobacco pandemic. From an international perspective, particular concern is raised by the CRI's recently awarded status as a WHO Collaborating Centre. Since the network of WHO Collaborating Centres rests on the principle of “using national institutions for international purposes,” the documents presented below suggest that more rigorous safeguards are required to ensure that such use advances public health goals rather than the objectives of transnational corporations.

Jump to full article »

• “Efforts to Reprioritise the Agenda” in China: British American Tobacco's Efforts to Influence Public Policy on Secondhand Smoke in China 

Methods and Findings

To understand company activities in China related to SHS, we analyzed British American Tobacco's (BAT's) internal corporate documents produced in response to litigation against the major cigarette manufacturers to understand company activities in China related to SHS. BAT has carried out an extensive strategy to undermine the health policy agenda on SHS in China by attempting to divert public attention from SHS issues towards liver disease prevention, pushing the so-called "resocialisation of smoking" accommodation principles, and providing "training" for industry, public officials, and the media based on BAT's corporate agenda that SHS is an insignificant contributor to the larger issue of air pollution.

Conclusions

The public health community in China should be aware of the tactics previously used by TTCs, including efforts by the tobacco industry to co-opt prominent Chinese benevolent organizations, when seeking to enact stronger restrictions on smoking in public places.

Jump to full article »

LETTER: Research saves lives 

Re: "Universities fail the test," by Les Hagen, Letters, Dec. 11, and "U of A's double standard," by Dr. Charl Els, Letters, Dec. 13.

Les Hagen and Dr. Charl Els are upset with the U of A for accepting funding from tobacco companies.

How much research has been accomplished by this funding? How many lives have been saved by the outcome of this research?

I know that smoking is bad for you. I smoke and I understand it is an addiction as well as a social habit. Will I die from a smoking-related disease? Who knows? I do know that at some point, I will die.

The U of A should continue to accept tobacco funding because it needs the money to do the excellent work and research.

Jump to full article »

LETTER: U of A's double standard 

Re: "Universities fail the test," by Les Hagen, Letters, Dec. 11.

Les Hagen's letter stops short of mentioning that the major health faculties at the U of A -- the School of Public Health, the faculty of medicine and dentistry, and the nursing school -- have all implemented policies to ban tobacco industry funding. So have Harvard, the Mayo Clinic, the Johns Hopkins, and many other prestigious post-secondary institutions.

However, Indira Samarasekera, president of the University of Alberta, maintains that the U of A will not consider policy banning tobacco money.

Help me understand: Is the U of A so fixated on the bottom line that it is willing to ignore values in some faculties but not in others? What kind of leadership is this?

On this one, not only the university, but also Samarasekera gets an "F".

Jump to full article »

LETTER: Tobacco research has its place 

Re: "Universities fail the test," by Les Hagen, Letters, Dec. 11.

Les Hagen has followed a common approach of narrow-minded special interest groups, creating a "report card" to measure how much others obey their demands. In this case, they demand that universities prohibit research that is funded by tobacco companies, and thereby abandon their most cherished ethic, academic freedom. What Hagen does not tell us is that this is done to protect his extremist political agenda from competing ideas.

Hagen's complaints about the industry are outdated, as are his anti-tobacco tactics. Most of the new and promising ideas for substantially reducing the health effects from smoking and nicotine use are coming from the industry itself.

As a recipient of one of the research grants Hagen condemns, I work to tell smokers who are not quitting that they can still reduce their risks by 99 per cent by switching to smokeless tobacco or other low-risk sources of nicotine (see TobaccoHarmReduction.org for details).

This is perhaps the greatest untapped public health measure available in our society. . . .

Those of us in public health want to help people. But anti-tobacco extremists would rather just punish smokers with high taxes and other regulations, as well as by letting them die.

By trying to persuade or blackmail universities into cutting off research they do not approve of, Hagen and his friends hope to keep smokers from learning there are low-risk alternatives.

Jump to full article »