TOBACCO TACTICS: NOT SO PASSIVE ABOUT SMOKING AFTER ALL

The full history of the tobacco industry's manipulation of scientific
evidence to influence national smoking policies remains to be written. But
new information is now emerging that points to widespread efforts to recruit
smoking-friendly "consultants" to the tobacco industry's cause. US
Representative Tom Bliley, Chairman of the House Committee on Commerce,
posted almost 40 000 subpoenaed documents onto the Internet in December,
1997, (http://www.house.gov/commerce/TobaccoDocs/documents.html) and April
this year. These papers include material from Philip Morris, R J Reynolds
Tobacco, Brown and Williamson, Lorillard Tobacco, and the Council for
Tobacco Research. They reveal the extent to which industry sought to defend
itself against impending tobacco litigation.

For example, in a letter from Arthur J Stevens, senior vice-president of
Lorillard, to the law offices of Jacob and Medinger, dated Feb 22, 1980, the
criteria for funding research work and securing consultants were discussed
at length. Stevens reflects on "the continuing mandate with which your
office . . . [has] been charged by your respective clients on behalf of the
[tobacco] Industry: that is, to find witnesses and researchers--and, if
necessary in order to determine the feasibility of developing a relationship
with them, engage them as consultants, or as researchers . . .". He goes on
to comment on "this important aspect of the Industry's work, that is, to
attempt to posture ourselves to defend product liability litigation and
related attacks on our products".

One memorandum is dated 1990 and comes from Covington and Burling, an
American law firm with offices in London. Marked "privileged and
confidential", it is directed to Philip Morris and reviews the activities of
a "European Consultancy Programme". The aim of the programme was to find
consultants who "are not on retainer, and therefore are not paid unless and
until they actually perform work".

The memorandum describes how conferences in Europe were targeted by
consultants to "usefully influence scientific and public opinion"; how
television briefings helped to produce "useful stories"; how political
influence was to be gained (eg, on "a particularly relevant committee of the
[UK] House of Commons"); and how publications in journals and elsewhere
might be obtained. The Lancet is also mentioned. Covington and Burling
allege that "one of our consultants is an editor of this very influential
British medical journal, and is continuing to publish numerous reviews,
editorials, and comments on ETS and other issues". This is a serious
allegation. The claim is surprising since a review of The Lancet's coverage
of smoking in 1989 and 1990 shows that all published research articles and
editorials emphasised the adverse effects of smoking, including ETS. I have
spoken to all senior editors who worked at The Lancet in 1990, and who then
had responsibility for the journal's content. They have never even heard of
Covington and Burling's European Consultancy Programme. A more likely
explanation for the claim is that the lawyers are referring to a contributor
to the journal.

Other documents available on Representative Bliley's website include
evaluations of research protocols to be considered for funding by the
tobacco industry. One study planned "To explain the biological basis for
observed correlations between smoking, coffee drinking, and alcohol
consumption behaviors, and to caution against attributing to smoking alone
the associated statistical and biological effects of coffee and alcohol".
Taken together, these new papers deserve careful and critical scrutiny. For
The Lancet's part, our ombudsman will be studying the available material,
incomplete, vague, and unconfirmed as it is, and his report will be
published later this year.

Checked-by: "Rolf Ernst"