±ÏÎÞÑÌ

Ô­ÎÄ£ºTobacco industry efforts to avoid 100% smoke-free legislation

The tobacco industry has long known that side-stream second-hand tobacco smoke contains higher concentrations of carcinogenic substances than does mainstream tobacco smoke (7). In a confidential 1978 report, the industry described increasing public concerns about second-hand tobacco smoke exposure as ¡°the most dangerous development to the viability of the tobacco industry that has yet occurred¡± (111). The industry acknowledges the effectiveness of smoke-free environments, and how creating exceptions can undermine their impact. A 1992 internal report by Philip Morris stated: ¡°Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly affects industry volume. ¡­

Milder workplace restrictions, such as smoking only in designated areas, have much less impact on quitting rates and very little effect on consumption¡± (112).

The tobacco industry has a history of creating the appearance of scientific controversy in an attempt to counter initiatives intended to restrict tobacco use.

However, the ultimate goal of these types of industry-backed initiatives is to maintain the social acceptability of smoking and prevent adoption of meaningful smoke-free policies in public places and in workplaces (113). Measures such as ventilation and separate smoking rooms, promoted as ¡°reasonable¡± accommodations by the tobacco industry, also undermine the intended effects of legislative measures by continuing to expose people to secondhand tobacco smoke and reducing the incentive for smokers to quit (114).

Despite the incontrovertible scientific evidence of the harms of second-hand tobacco smoke, the tobacco industry has referred to such findings as ¡°junk science¡± in an attempt to discredit them (115). The industry has also used front groups in an attempt to successfully convince some people to resist accepting these findings.

Much of the impetus for discrediting scientific studies of the health effects of second-hand tobacco smoke comes from the tobacco industry, which develops and publicizes its own biased research to minimize the harmful effects of secondhand tobacco smoke because it fears that restrictions on smoking will reduce sales and profits (116¨C119). The tobacco industry has also resorted to attacks on researchers studying the effects of second-hand tobacco smoke by criticizing their motives or qualifications, even while acknowledging internally the validity of their research findings (120, 121).

Researchers funded by or affiliated with the tobacco industry are nearly 100 times more likely than independent researchers to conclude that second-hand tobacco smoke is not harmful to health (122). Much of the research funded by the tobacco industry is not published in peer-reviewed medical journals, is of poor scientific quality, and should not be used in scientific, legal or policy settings unless its quality has been independently assessed (123). The tobacco industry has even attempted to create its own peer-reviewed medical journals to publish papers on the effects of second-hand tobacco smoke that are favourable to its interests (124).

A US federal court has ruled that tobacco industry assertions that second-hand tobacco smoke exposure does not cause disease are ¡°fraudulent¡± (125).