Complain about a product or service

Tobacco Industry Smokescreen Obscured Links Between Second-Hand Smoke and SIDS

March 10, 2005
Cigarette manufacturers influenced scientific papers that questioned the link between secondhand smoke and sudden infant death, according to a new study of once-secret industry documents.

• Fan May Reduce SIDS Risk • Serotonin Imbalance May Contribute To SIDS • Prenatal Smoking Linked To SIDS Risk • Hearing Test May Predict Sudden Infant Death Syndrome • Sudden Death in Very Young Babies Linked to Sitting Position • Protein May Be Linked To SIDS Deaths • Pacifiers May Reduce SIDS Risk • Brainstem Abnormality Linked to SIDS • Parents Alerted to Winter SIDS Risk • Pediatricians Revise SIDS Prevention Recommendations • Tobacco Industry Smokescreen Obscured Links Between Second-Hand Smoke and SIDS • Hotel Safety Drive Opens • 1999 Recommendations • Watch Out for False Claims

The key article, commissioned by Philip Morris and published in a respected pediatric epidemiology journal in 2001, discounts the significance of research showing a link between exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

The article has been cited in at least 19 other scientific papers, misleading physicians, their patients and researchers about the risk of secondhand smoke exposure.

"Undermining people's understanding of the link between secondhand smoke and SIDS places infants everywhere at increased risk," according to Stanton Glantz, PhD, director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California - San Francisco (UCSF) and senior author of the new study analyzing the tobacco company documents.

Analysis of the Philip Morris documents shows that the company sought and paid an author to write an article for publication in a scientific journal, guided his writing and suggested changes in his conclusions in order to call into question the published studies showing links between secondhand cigarette smoke and SIDS.

The new report was prepared by researchers at UCSF and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and appears in the March issue of the journal Pediatrics.

The article Philip Morris commissioned was part of the company's overall scientific strategic plan for addressing secondhand smoke (SHS) and childhood health issues, the documents show.

One document summarized the "impact assessment" for this project as follows: "Should provide the necessary scientific background for a policy on the acceptability of smoking around children."

The key article acknowledges that smoking during pregnancy can endanger the fetus, but casts doubt on the published scientific finding that secondhand smoke increases the risk of sudden infant death -- a finding highlighted in 1992 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and reinforced by the California Environmental Protection Agency in 1997.

The tobacco company carried out this disinformation campaign even after the landmark 1998 settlement between all of the major U.S. tobacco manufacturers and 46 states. In the settlement, the tobacco firms agreed to pay the states $206 billion over the first 25 years and continuing amounts after that, and agreed to stop creating controversy about the evidence linking smoking and disease.

The tobacco industry's disinformation campaign regarding secondhand smoke and maternal and child health can be counteracted, the UCSF and CDC researchers write in their analysis.

"Secondhand smoke must be recognized as an established, controllable risk factor for SIDS, like prone sleep positioning," they conclude. "Clinicians and public health officials should intensify their efforts to promote reducing infant exposure to secondhand smoke as an effective strategy for reducing SIDS."

The documents show that the tobacco industry hired scientists on at least two different occasions to prepare articles challenging the SHS/SIDS connection. The first one failed to attract an influential journal. But then Philip Morris retained a consultant to write a comprehensive review of all known risk factors for SIDS.

Philip Morris was to provide the literature review, and the hired scientist was to write the paper. The company's documents show that Philip Morris budgeted $50,000 to $100,000 for this project.

The company's papers reveal a concerted effort by Philip Morris to influence the paper's content and conclusions. When the author completed his first draft, he sent it to the company for review. The original conclusion stated that secondhand smoke increased the risk of SIDS. But a Philip Morris scientific affairs executive questioned this conclusion.

The author accommodated many of Philip Morris' suggested changes, and when he submitted his final draft to them, he had removed his original conclusion about the effect of secondhand smoke on infants.

Instead, he wrote that "the majority of the effects of smoking can be explained by prenatal smoking by the mother," and that postnatal (infant) secondhand smoke effects were "less well established" than prenatal smoking.

As published, the article mentions the financial support of Philip Morris, but does not acknowledge that the article was initiated, reviewed and influenced by the tobacco company.

Not only does the limited acknowledgement mask the extent of the tobacco company's influence on the conclusion, but totally hidden from view is the fact that the article was essentially conceived by the tobacco company in the first place, UCSF's Glantz points out.

"This study of Philip Morris activity since the tobacco industry signed the Master Settlement Agreement in 1998 shows that the industry continues to use its 50-year old strategies to sow confusion about the real dangers of secondhand smoke and to distort the entire scientific process," says Glantz.

"The new study shows clearly that Philip Morris continues to orchestrate a behind-the scenes effort to undermine the credibility of the health warnings their web site acknowledges," Glantz says. In their paper, he and his co-authors call into question the practice of accepting tobacco industry funds to support research.

"The tobacco industry's long and consistent history of manipulating the content and presentation of scientific results raises questions about publishing work funded by the tobacco industry," they write.

Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.

Back to the top |

Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use

Advertisements on this site are placed and controlled by outside advertising networks. ConsumerAffairs.com does not evaluate or endorse the products and services advertised. See the FAQ for more information.

Company Response Welcome If complaints about your company appear on our site, we welcome your response. Please see the Response Form for more information.

For more information, see the FAQ and privacy policy. The information on this Web site is general in nature and is not intended as a substitute for competent legal advice.  ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. makes no representation as to the accuracy of the information herein provided and assumes no liability for any damages or loss arising from the use thereof. 

Copyright © 2003-2008 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc.  All Rights Reserved.    The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission.