"That article you quoted was written in 2002. "
Do you mean that any article written about history has to be written at the time, or is invalid? This article is dealing with history in the Fifties. Why can't it be written at a latter time? Don't be foolish.
The scientific/medical community had already accepted it a long time ago, which is precisely my point. Paid tobacco deniers were the only ones creating any doubt, for about 30 years.
They paid the price. It'll be interesting to see if Exxon has its own "tobacco settlement case".
====================
Cigarette manufacturers have only recently acknowledged the medical and scientific consensus that smoking causes serious diseases such as lung cancer, respiratory disease and heart disease.1–6 For most of the past 100 years, cigarette manufacturers have told smokers that their products were not injurious to health.7–27 In fact, cigarette companies frequently promised consumers that their brands were better for them than their competitor's brands because the smoke was less irritating, smoother, and milder.27 In 1935, RJ Reynolds told consumers that Camel cigarettes were so mild that "they don't get your wind" and that you could "smoke all you want". In 1943, Philip Morris told smokers " you're safer smoking Philip Morris . . .this cigarette has been scientifically proved less irritating to the nose and throat . . .eminent doctors report that every case of irritation of the nose and throat due to smoking cleared completely or definitely improved." In 1943, Lorillard promoted its Old Gold brand by claiming it was "lowest in nicotine, lowest in throat—irritating tars and resins." In 1946, Brown and Williamson used baseball legend Babe Ruth to pitch Raleigh cigarettes, with the claim that "Medical science offers proof positive . . .No other leading cigarette is safer to smoke!" Ironically, Babe Ruth later died of throat cancer.
As publicity about the health risks of smoking increased in the 1950s the industry recognised that the design of products that were perceived by consumers to be safer could be profitable. For example, in 1953 one unnamed tobacco company research director was quoted as saying: "Boy, wouldn't it be wonderful if our company was the first to produce a cancer-free cigarette? What we could do to competition."28 In the 1950s and 1960s, in response to information linking cigarette smoking with cancer, the tobacco industry propagated massive amounts of advertising that helped position filters and lower tar cigarettes as technological fixes.29, 30
Product claims of less throat irritation, milder tasting smoke, and low tar and low nicotine were good selling points for cigarette brands as demonstrated by the increasing market share of filtered cigarettes in the 1950s and 1960s and later by the growth of low tar/low nicotine brands in the 1960s.31 Ironically, medical science has shown that making cigarette smoke milder, less irritating, and lower in nicotine increased smokers' ability to inhale the smoke into their lungs thereby negating any health benefit that might have been gained by altering the product.32–34 The question of when cigarette manufacturers should have known about the serious health consequences of smoking their products and what they told consumers about these risks is the crux of current litigation.
Evidence now indicates that senior scientists and executives within the cigarette industry knew about the cancer risks of smoking as early as the 1940s35 and were aware that smoking could cause lung cancer by the mid 1950s.36 By 1961, cigarette companies had access to dozens of published scientific studies warning that cigarette smoking and chemical agents found in tobacco smoke might cause cancer.37 Despite growing knowledge of the serious health risks associated with cigarette smoking, cigarette companies continued to reassure smokers that their products were safe. In January 1954, Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, Lorillard, and American Tobacco jointly placed an advertisement entitled "A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers" which appeared in 448 newspapers in 258 cities, reaching an estimated 43 245 000 people.7, 38 The "Frank Statement" advertisement questioned research findings implicating smoking as a cause of cancer, promised consumers that their cigarettes were safe, and pledged to support impartial research to investigate allegations that smoking was harmful to human health. This paper examines the extent to which cigarette companies fulfilled the promises made to consumers in the 1954 "Frank Statement" advertisement and the effect of these promises on consumer knowledge, beliefs, and smoking practices.
========================
Whether or not the top cigarette executives believed their own statements that smoking was safe, at least some of their scientists clearly thought otherwise. In 1953, a young chemist at RJ Reynolds', Dr Claude Teague, conducted a comprehensive literature survey on smoking and cancer in which he referenced 78 scientific papers on the topic of smoking and cancer.36 Based on this comprehensive literature review, Teague concluded: "studies of clinical data tend to confirm the relationship between heavy and prolonged tobacco smoking and incidence of cancer of the lung. Extensive though inconclusive testing of tobacco substances on animals indicates the probable presence of carcinogenic agents in those substances."36 Teague was employed at RJ for Reynolds' for 35 years (1952-1987) and held various executive level positions at the company including that of director of research and development
============================
In 1956, a chemist who later also became the director of research at RJ Reynolds, Dr Alan Rodgman, commented on the implications of his research studies that had set out to isolate and/or identify several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons present in the cigarette smoke of Camel cigarettes.56 Rodgman stated in 1956 that: "[s]ince it is now well established that cigarette smoke does contain several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and considering the potential and actual carcinogenic activity of a number of these compounds, a method of either complete removal or almost complete removal of these compounds from cigarette smoke is required."56 In a 1959 memo Rodgman noted that: "there is a distinct possibility that these substances [polycylic hydrocarbons] would have a carcinogenic effect on the human respiratory system."57 Scientists at RJ Reynolds were not the only ones acknowledging the probable association between smoking and cancer. A 1958 report authored by a British American Tobacco scientist who visited with leading industry and non-industry scientists in the USA and Canada, noted that: "with one exception the individuals whom we met believe that smoking causes lung cancer."58 A 1961 Liggett and Myers memorandum stated that there are "biologically active materials present in cigarette tobacco. These are: a) cancer causing; b) cancer promoting; and c) poisonous."59 By 1978, a scientist at Lorillard acknowledged that: "[t]he [smoking] habit can never be safe."60
All from the same paper..
tc.bmjjournals.com
But don't worry, cuz it was written in 2002. |
