The researchers, led by Stanton Glantz from the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco, reached these conclusions by analysing previously secret documents from the tobacco industry and the Institute of Medicine related to the Institute’s landmark 2001 report, Clearing the smoke — a report that set the tone for the development and regulation of tobacco products in the US, particularly those claiming to be less dangerous.

The authors found that tobacco companies developed and implemented strategies with consulting and legal firms to access the IOM proceedings (that led to the FDA-commissioned Institute of Medicine report on tobacco products) and that the companies used this access to deliver specific, carefully formulated messages designed to serve their business interests.

Although the authors found no evidence that the efforts of tobacco companies exerted direct influence on the IOM committee, the analysis shows that tobacco companies were pleased with the final report, particularly its recommendation that tobacco products can be marketed with exposure or risk reduction claims provided the products substantially reduce exposure and provided the behavioral and health consequences of these products are determined in post-marketing surveillance and epidemiological studies (“tiered testing”). Recommendations within the report have policy implications that were continuing to reverberate in 2012.

The authors say: “There was a lack of clear policy on tobacco industry engagement by the [Institute of Medicine] which, combined with the general presumption of honesty upon which all scientific discourse is based, created an opportunity for the tobacco companies to advocate positions that supported their interests.”

They continue: “The presence of tobacco industry representatives on the FDA’s Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee, combined with the FDA’s official consideration of the tobacco industry as a “stakeholder,” increase the likelihood that the tobacco companies will continue to successfully manipulate the scientific discourse around tobacco product regulation, to the companies’ benefit and to the detriment of public health.”

The authors conclude: “To prevent such an outcome, the FDA and counterpart organizations in other countries need to remain cognizant of the guidelines for implementing FCTC Article 5.3* and that they are dealing with companies with a history of more than 50 years of intentionally misleading the public and who were found by two federal courts to have participated in ”a pattern of racketeering activity” in violation of the RICO Act** when assessing the role of the tobacco companies and the information they present as part of the regulatory process.”

In an accompanying Perspective, Thomas Novotny (uninvolved in the study) from the University California, San Diego says: “[The tobacco industry] should never be treated as a stakeholder because it is unlikely that the industry will ever be part of the solution to the public health challenge of tobacco use.”

Novotny continues: “The profits from selling cigarettes and alternative tobacco products are simply too great for the tobacco industry to simply fade into history. Thus, the public health community needs to do what it does best: to rally popular support for strong, science-based approaches to prevention of tobacco use, to expose the truths about the harms of tobacco use to current users, and to support government agencies in carrying out their legislatively mandated duties to protect public health.”

Notes:

*The World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, developed in response to the globalization of the tobacco epidemic. Article 5.3 relates to the protection of public health policies with respect from tobacco control from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry.

**Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act is a US federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.

Funding: This work was supported by National Cancer Institute grant CA-087472. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

See Original Here

“It is with great pleasure that I announce, ahead of World No Tobacco Day on Friday, that I have received Government approval to begin the process of introducing standardised/plain packaging of tobacco products in Ireland. While many arguments will be made against such an introduction, I am confident that this legislation will be justified and supported purely by the fact that it will save lives” stated Minister Reilly today.

As you are aware, smoking places an enormous burden of illness and mortality on our society with over 5,200 people dying every year from tobacco related diseases – one in two of all smokers will die from their addiction.

To replace the smokers who quit, the tobacco industry needs to recruit fifty new smokers in Ireland every day just to maintain smoking rates at their current level. Given that 78% of smokers in a survey said they started smoking under the age of 18, it’s clear that the tobacco industry focuses on children to replace those customers who die or quit.

The theme of World No Tobacco Day is “Ban tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship”. “The introduction of standardised packaging will remove the final way for tobacco companies to promote their deadly product in Ireland.” the Minister said. Cigarette packets will no longer be a mobile advertisement for the tobacco industry. Research has shown that packaging has been used effectively to reassure consumers about the risks of smoking for example with the use of the words “mild” or “light” on packs in the past. Research has also shown that imagery and colours are also used to influence consumers. Pack shape and design are also key measures with packets available that resemble a lipstick box.

Standardised packaging of tobacco products will remove all form of branding – trademarks, logos, colours and graphics. The brand name would be presented in a uniform typeface for all brands and the packs would all be in one plain neutral colour.

There is strong evidence that standardised packaging will:

• Increase the effectiveness of health warnings;
• Reduce false health beliefs about cigarettes; and
• Reduce brand appeal particularly among youth and young adults.

Minister Reilly concluded “plain packaging is one of a number of measures that are required to effectively denormalise smoking in our society. As such this initiative should not be looked at in isolation. Education and awareness, cessation services and extending the smoking ban to other areas are just some of the other measures which I am currently progressing.”

NOTES FOR EDITOR:

An informative video by Cancer Research UK on the power that cigarette packaging has on children is available online at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_z-4S8iicc

In partnership with computational biologists at IBM’s Watson Research Center, Philip Morris’s so-called sbv IMPROVER project creates open challenges to encourage scientists to augment traditional peer reviews of research data. On Monday, Philip Morris launched its Species Translation Challenge, which will award three $20,000 prizes to teams whose results best define how well rodent tests can predict human outcomes.

Similar competitions have emerged in the academic world, but sbv IMPROVER (short for “systems biology verification of industrial methodology for process verification in research” in case you were wondering) is the first that taps the crowd to verify industrial research. An initial challenge last year awarded $50,000 to two Wayne State University researchers who proved best at confirming genetic features that could be considered “diagnostic signatures” for particular diseases.

Why is a cigarette manufacturer sponsoring such competitions? “Our number one objective is to do something about our dangerous products,” says Philip Morris scientific communications director, Hugh Browne. (The company is known for its periodic candor about such matters, even as it continues to dominate the industry.) From heart disease to cancer to emphysema, the potential consequences of smoking are well known. But not every smoker suffers all or any of those health effects, suggesting that a combination of environmental and genetic factors lead to disease.

To understand precisely how smoking and chewing tobacco leads to complex interactions in a user’s biological systems, “Philip Morris is increasing its investments into systems biology,” Browne says. The company is looking at networks of genes, proteins, and biochemical reactions to identify the exact biological mechanisms perturbed by smoking.

But such biological data is notoriously complex to analyze. The profession as yet lacks any standard methodology for verifying results, and traditional peer-review methods have “struggled with the volume and complexity of the data,” according to Philip Morris.

Read the full article at its original location>