The hot air on passive smoking

Editor—Chapman’s piece about a newspaper report on a study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer that allegedly showed that passive smoking does not cause cancer1 reminds us of a similar incident a few years ago. On 3 June 1996 Le Soir, the leading French language newspaper in Belgium, published an article carrying the following title: “Le tabagisme passif pas nocif” [passive smoking is not harmful]. This article was based on a report by Agence France Presse and indicated that six scientific experts from all over Europe had evaluated all available studies on passive smoking and concluded that no significant risk of lung cancer was associated with it. Le Soir mentioned that the study had been sponsored by the tobacco industry and gave the names of the experts who “had accepted to perform the study on the condition that they could work without interference from the sponsors.” We were struck by the presence among these experts of one professor whom we knew relatively well—not, however, for his expertise in epidemiology or smoking issues—and conducted a Medline search to find out what these experts had published in the field of epidemiology or about the effects of smoking. This gave the results shown in the table when we used “lung,” “smoking,” or “tobacco,” as well as “epidemiol*” as (separate) search terms for the period between 1966 and 1996. This certainly confirms the terms of BAT’s memo from 1988 that Chapman mentions—namely, that scientific consultants should have “no previous record on the primary issues.” We are not questioning the scientific achievements, or indeed the integrity, of these academics, but it is obvious that none of them could reasonably be considered an expert in the epidemiology of lung cancer caused by passive smoking. It would not have been difficult for journalists to find this out. We do not imply that experimental scientists have no say in assessing the impact of toxic agents on public health, but we wonder whether it is acceptable that expert panels should consist of such scientists only. One of us seemingly fitted the profile defined in the industry’s strategy and in 1990 was approached by a lawyer working for the tobacco industry. His company wanted a “well recognised university” to organise a “balanced scientific debate” about environmental tobacco smoke in or near Brussels, “the centre of regulation in Europe.” Apart from reservations about the costs invoked in inviting a speaker from Australia, a major stumbling block seemed to be our insistence on opening the conference with a talk addressing the effects of active smoking. The conference never took place.