Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here
What Can I Do?


Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP
Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE
Resources
Resources
Find useful publications, online documents & more.


DrugScreening.org


 

Big Tobacco Tried to Cloud Secondhand Smoke Research, Study Says
October 23, 2007

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
Research Summary

U.S. tobacco companies worked to discredit research showing the ill health effects of secondhand smoke, according to California researchers who reviewed a cache of secret industry documents.

The Sacramento Bee reported Oct. 16 that researchers Eliza Tong of the University of California at Davis and Stanton Glantz of the University of California at San Francisco also detailed how the industry relied on dubious research to back claims of producing "reduced risk" cigarettes.

The authors reviewed about 5,000 internal industry documents, including 47 dealing with the link between secondhand smoke and heart disease, and concluded that the industry actively suppressed research with negative findings, such as failing to publish complete results of studies or attributing ill health effects to stress and factors other than tobacco smoke.

"This special report exposes the deceitful practices of the tobacco industry in its attempts to fight smoke-free regulations and serves as an eye-opener for the public-health community and the federal government as the 'reduced-harm product' debate picks up steam," said M. Cass Wheeler, CEO of the American Heart Association.

"I think they are still trying to frame the issue to minimize the risks," said Tong. "Secondhand smoke does cause cardiovascular disease, and any research by tobacco industry should be treated with skepticism."

The report was published in the October 2007 issue of the journal Circulation.

This article summarizes an external report or press release on research published in a scientific journal. When available, links to the sources are provided above.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:
(Comments now appear first to last)

Your Turn! Post a public comment (guidelines):

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
To keep this feature useful for everyone, please:

  1. Keep it clean, courteous, brief, and on-topic. Comments are for discussion of the above article, not general rants or manifestos. Serial comments intended to circumvent the 250-word limit may be deleted.

  2. Do not post promotional web links, personal information or requests for assistance (get help).

  3. Proof your comments carefully, use good spelling and punctuation, and don't use ALL CAPS. Comments are published immediately and cannot be edited.

Deceptive, slanderous and commercial posts are prohibited. We reserve the right to remove comments. (Report a comment).

Have questions or feedback? Contact us.