Skip Intro - Go To Table of Contents
Launched January 17, 1997
Revised February 27, 2002
Wide Reproduction Encouraged.
Please
cite Smoke & Illusion as original source.
This section of the Smoke & Illusion site contains documents retrieved from the San Francisco State University internet site containing the Brown & Williamson Document Collection. My deepest thanks and sincere compliments to the people in the community of interest who preserved this body of documentation which, among other things, confirms the existence of a program beginning in the late 1960's and functioning at least as late as 1985, and in all probability continuing secretly in some form today, which monitors pesticide residues in commercial tobacco products brand-by-brand.
As I understand product liability law, two core conditions have to be met.
I think it's pretty clear from this collection of documents that both the industry and its consultant community engaged systematically in both activities. I've word-processed (I hope accurately) several of the core documents for your browsing convenience,and have included URLs so that you can check the originals and browse related source documents. Sorry I don't have actual hot links worked out yet - that will all happen very soon.
The programs described in this (admittedly spotty) original documentation were paid for by the tobacco multinationals acting collectively and with knowledge of the public health implications of their research, which they kept, and keep secret. These documents establish that the tobacco companies had detailed knowledge of the then-current scientific and medical literature, gathered as part of their cigarette consumer acceptance/taste testing programs - described below. We know that by the early 1980s, research sponsored by the industry and reported on at conferences where industry scientists presented papers like the Cold Spring Harbor series, had established the carcinogenicity of known tobacco pesticide contaminants, specifically the organochlorines, and of combustion by-products of pesticides, such as DDT>Benz[a]pyrene. Several of these known contaminants, such as endrin, were known to be carcinogenic down to the levels of detection, and were known to be present in specific tobacco industry products in concentrations exceeding the "limits of detection"- which are, at best, difficult to establish with the organochlorines. In addition, the pioneering but largely ignored (though known to the industry) independent research of Dr. Dietrich Hoffman had established the carcinogenic impact of the chemical suckering agent Maleic Hydrazide on both smokers and snuff dippers well before 1984. This chemical is the MH so innocently referred to in many of the documents in the B&W collection, and in the tables below.
One final introductory point, if you will. The activities of the tobacco industry have to be understood in full context, as well as detail by detail. In 1214 AD when Roger Bacon was writing down his secret processes for refining saltpeter to create explosive black powder, knowing that he was conveying a secret with great power, he created an anagram to contain the secret, and thus concluded his journal entry with
"And so, thou wilt call it thunder and destruction - if thee know the art."
I'm not creating any anagrams at this site, just the opposite I hope, but the scope and magnitude of the tobacco industry story is much like an anagram - it has to be decoded piece by piece, line by line, but with an keen eye on the emerging picture, and thee must know the art. When the documents now contained in the Galen at UCSF were preserved, we didn't get all the evidence, but I think we got enough. For example, we're incredibly lucky to have a clear record that a group with the gruesome name "The Fate Of Pesticides On Tobacco Committee" ever existed. Within these documents are references to other documents, then if not now located at North Carolina State University at Raleigh, including the full minutes of all pre-1984 meetings, as well as presumably all meetings up to the present.Wouldn't you love to have a copy of these minutes? Anyone want to try getting them from the Leaf Blending Group?
Interestingly enough, none of the trails suggested by the references in this document appear to be hot after the mid-1980's. A rather thorough set of searches of the internet, including gopher, archie and veronica searches, has not turned up any contemporary references to the "Fate Of Pesticides On Tobacco" committee, the "Tobacco Pesticide Working Group (T-PWG)" of the "Tobacco Workers Conference", the "Pesticides Residue Research Laboratory" at NCSU/R, or to any of the other organizations referred to in these documents. The CTR is very much around, along with its Scientific Advisory Committee, as are the industry front organizations, but most trails turn cold pretty quickly - as we would expect, considering what these documents tell us about efforts to conceal all relevant research. If anyone finds evidence of the past or current activities of any of these groups, or groups like them outside of North Carolina, or other useful documents, or internet sites with related documents, please let me know and I'll make them available here.
Site Author's note: This memo is reporting
on a series of meetings at which university-related laboratory scientists
discussed an ongoing program to monitor pesticide residues in tobacco
crops and products. Note that plans for expanding the program are
discussed, indicating that in 1984 the industry was using, and knew of
dangers from the new organophosphate and carbamate pesticides. Names of
author & recipients/addressees of this internal memo can be found on
the original document at http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/1318.01/1318.01.1.html
Conspiracy fans please note - go to this site and take a look
at page 1 of the document image, upper left hand corner of the page. I can
make out the words "Mr. (Wells)(Webb)" and "for
litigation" and "see (or "all") levels of DDT"
and the signature & date "EP 4/18". Since
the meeting was 4/14, this looks like an original annotation, rather than
one added later by archivists of the document collection. What do you
suppose the annotator was talking about?
The "Fate of Pesticide Residues on Tobacco" and the "Tobacco Pesticide Committee" (TPC) meetings were held on April 4, 1984 at N.C. State University.
Results were presented on pesticide residues in tobacco products. All B&W products examined for pesticide residues show a favorable position relative to the current industry average (Tables 1 & 2). These products were purchased and analyzed in 1983. Since tobacco requires 18 to 24 months of aging prior to use, the products analyzed in 1983 would have consisted primarily of 1981 crop year tobacco.
Topics discussed at this meeting included:
Residues of methiocarb (an insecticide) in flue-cured and burley tobacco
Residues of fluvalinate (an insecticide) and permethrin (an insecticide) on flue-cured tobacco
EBDC ( a fungicide) and ETU ( a metabolite) residues in tobacco
Residues after sequential application of metalaxyl ( a fungicide) and MH (growth retardant)
Effect of sprinkler irrigation on MH residues and sucker control
MH residues in 1983 U.S. tobacco products
Insecticide residues in 1983 U.S. tobacco products
MH residues in 1983 flue-cured and burley tobacco
A brief summary of each topic is given in Appendix II. A detailed report on the total pesticide residue program is on file and can be obtained through the Leaf Blending Group.
Site Author's note: To read the Appendix II
referred to, which contains analysis of these residues on the 1983 U.S.
tobacco crop and on 1983 tobacco products, but which is lengthy and
therefore not included here, go to the B&W Collection at
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/11318.02/1318.02.1.html
Expansion of N.C. State University's current program of monitoring pesticide residues on tobacco leaf and finished products. Additions include:
- Metalaxyl
- Ethylene bis-dithiocarbamates (EBDCs)
Aldicarb
Disulfoton
Carbofuran
Ethylene dibromide halogens (EDBs)A residue study with Prime ( a tobacco sucker control agent)
EBDC studies
Examination of ETU levels in smoke
A toxicologist, Dr. (name), was hired as an independent consultant. He is to review packages from pesticide manufacturers when development of a pesticide for tobacco has progressed to the point that smoke flavor evaluations are needed. His evaluation will serve as a basis for judging the safety to tobacco company panelists who smoke experimental cigarettes treated with pesticides.
Information for each pesticide used on tobacco for experimental cigarettes will be required. A copy of suggested information (provided by Dr. (name)) is attached (Appendix III). It is realized that some of the information requested (i.e., III.E and III.C.4) will generally not be available. However, the safety to the panelists can be judged through other available information requested in Appendix III.
(Signed)
1062n
Attachments
Site Author's note: This table shows industry averages plus degree of residue contamination for three cigarette brands. Note that the research does not cover many of the pesticides cited elsewhere as contaminants of both tobacco and tobacco products.
| MH | Total TDE | Total DDT | TDE + DDT | Toxaphene | Dieldrin | Endrin | |
| Current Industry Average | 59 | 0.07 | 0.19 | 0.26 | <0.30 | <0.02 | <0.02 |
| Viceroy KS | |||||||
| 1977 | 40 | 1.29 | 0.86 | 2.13 | 0.36 | ||
| 1979 | 42 | 0.67 | 0.47 | 1.14 | 0.86 | ||
| 1981 | 41 | 0.08 | 0.12 | 0.20 | 0.30 | ||
| 1983 | 54 | <0.07 | 0.12 | 0.16 | <0.30 | <0.02 | <0.02 |
| Kool 100 | |||||||
| 1977 | 60 | 0.58 | 0.28 | 0.86 | 0.49 | ||
| 1979 | 72 | 0.80 | 0.46 | 1.26 | 0.78 | ||
| 1981 | 54 | 0.07 | 0.12 | 0.19 | 0.30 | ||
| 1983 | 57 | 0.10 | 0.19 | 0.29 | <0.30 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| Belair KS | |||||||
| 1977 | 58 | 1.61 | 0.60 | 2.22 | 0.34 | ||
| 1979 | 55 | 0.93 | 0.47 | 1.40 | 0.55 | ||
| 1981 | 47 | 0.07 | 0.12 | 0.19 | 0.03 | ||
| 1983 | 53 | 0.08 | 0.19 | 0.27 | <0.03 | 0.02 | 0.03 |
Site Author's note: This table shows industry averages plus degree of residue contamination for a pipe tobacco, a chewing tobacco, and a wet snuff. Note that the research does not cover many of the pesticides cited elsewhere as contaminants of both tobacco and tobacco products.
| MH | Total TDE | Total DDT | TDE + DDT | Toxaphene | Dieldrin | Endrin | |
| Current Industry Average | 26 | 0.09 | 0.32 | 0.41 | <0.30 | <0.02 | <0.02 |
| Sir Walter Raleigh Pipe Tobacco | |||||||
| 1977 | 26 | 1.94 | 0.57 | 2.51 | 0.18 | ||
| 1979 | 19 | 1.83 | 0.69 | 2.52 | 0.20 | ||
| 1981 | 17 | 0.02 | 0.40 | 0.60 | 0.30 | ||
| 1983 | 18 | <0.07 | <0.05 | <0.12 | <0.30 | <0.02 | <0.02 |
| Current Industry Average | <10 | <0.07 | 0.15 | 0.18 | <0.30 | <0.02 | 0.02 |
| Sun Cured Chewing Tobacco | |||||||
| 1977 | 26 | 0.15 | 0.03 | 0.18 | 0.18 | ||
| 1979 | 11 | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.17 | 0.20 | ||
| 1981 | 17 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 1.40 | ||
| 1983 | 16 | <0.07 | 0.06 | <0.12 | <0.30 | <0.02 | 0.04 |
| Current Industry Average | 28 | 0.08 | 0.12 | 0.20 | 0.30 | <0.02 | 0.02 |
| Tube Rose Snuff Tobacco | |||||||
| 1977 | 26 | 0.49 | 0.18 | 0.67 | 0.91 | ||
| 1979 | 28 | 0.19 | 0.16 | 0.35 | 0.39 | ||
| 1981 | 27 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.30 | ||
| 1983 | 31 | 0.08 | 0.13 | 0.21 | <0.30 | <0.02 | 0.02 |
Site Author's note: This is the list of information which the toxicology consultant recommends that the researchers have on hand for each pesticide being tested by human subjects. Short-run batches of cigarettes are deliberately contaminated during manufacturing with a level of pesticide residue which approximates what the industry expects after field application. These dosed cigarettes are then given to "blind panels" of smokers, who answer lengthy surveys about their reaction to taste, odor, "headspace volatiles", and other consumer-acceptance factors. In other words, this consultant to the Pesticide Residue Committee and the tobacco industry thinks that the following information ought to be on hand to ensure the safety of the taste-testers. Isn't that nice?
Wouldn't that mean that, since they gathered
it during taste-testing, the industry would have full information on the
known health consequences of any given pesticide well in advance of its
actual adoption by the industry? So let's think about it - shouldn't that
kind of decision be part of a public health or legislative process, rather
than a closed, confidential industry process? To view the original of this
draft document, (created by the outside consultant referred to in Tobacco
Pesticide Committee Meeting memo above) go to
the B&W Collection at
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/1318.02/1318.02.6.html
The information below is suggested for each pesticide before the cigarettes are assigned to panelists for taste evaluation.
Site Author's note:
This is a letter soliciting business for the pesticide residue lab from
the cigar and snuff segments of the tobacco products industry. Note that
the focal point of concern over the effect of pesticides is on the flavor
and consumer acceptance. It would appear that nobody wants to raise the
health issue with their paying customers. To view the original of this
document, go to the B&W Collection at
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/1503.08/1503.08.1.html
November 4, 1982
Dear (Name of president of company):
It was
a pleasure to meet you at the Tobacco Chemists Research Conference and to
have the opportunity to talk with you about an important problem in the
tobacco industry
As we discussed last week, the problem, which has existed for several years but is becoming more acute, briefly stated, is related to determining the effect of new pesticides on the flavor of tobacco products. Tobacco is considered a minor crop by pesticide manufacturers. Therefore, development of pesticides for tobacco usually is a very low priority, and tobacco companies have taken an active part in supporting research on pesticides for a number of years to assure the availability of effective, safe pesticides for use on tobacco.
Tobacco Pesticide Working Group (T-PWG) of the Tobacco Workers Conference has undertaken the task of working out an acceptable procedure (1) for making cigarettes and other tobacco products from tobacco treated with experimental pesticides, including growth regulators, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, nematicides, soil fumigants, and fumigants for stored tobacco, and (2) for evaluating any possible effect of pesticides on the flavor of products.
At a meeting on April 13, 1982 the T-PWG proposed a subcommittee made up of a toxicologist, a pesticide analytical chemist, a pyrolysis chemist, and a biochemist. This subcommittee was to serve as an expert group to evaluate toxicological data submitted by pesticide manufacturers before tobacco companies undertake manufacture and flavor evaluation of tobacco products. An insufficient number of nominees for the subcommittee was received, and the subcommittee was not appointed.
At the October 14, 1982 meeting of the T-PWG in Raleigh, a proposal that a consultant be retained to evaluate toxicological data instead of appointing a subcommittee was offered; and the Working Group, after considerable discussion, agreed to proceed with the proposal. Further, it was proposed that the fee for the consultant be borne by tobacco companies on a market share basis.
Use of a consultant to evaluate data on pesticides (perhaps 1 to 3 per year) would remove any prevailing bias toward pesticide companies and allow for better maintaining confidentiality of the data submitted by the chemical companies. An arrangement could be made with an accounting firm to receive and disburse the monies.
I believe that companies that manufacture smokeless tobacco products will benefit from this program. Pesticides are essential to the production of quality tobacco. Yet it is important to make sure that pesticide use doesn't result in undesirable effects on flavor and acceptability and that no hazard to consumers arises because of pesticide use. This program will assure the continued production of quality tobacco leaf.
My purpose in writing to you is to provide you
with this information for presentation, as you deem appropriate, to the
Cigar Association of America, the Smokeless Tobacco Council, and other
organizations. I would appreciate knowing the reaction of those groups and
whether there is an interest on the part of those companies in
participating. Thanks for any help you can provide.
Sincerely
(Laboratory Director)
Still talking about setting up the independent
consultant here's a memo describing the efforts to create distance between
the project and the sponsors.
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/1321.01/1321.01.1.html
How about "Predicting Smoker Behavior Through Butt Analysis"? Say, maybe if you could analyze smoking behavior that way we might have a whole new method of intervention...
Not quite - but check out this
British document on how & why people unconsciously crunch, roll, chew
and otherwise mangle the cigarette filters in order to get more nicotine -
and what the cigarette companies can learn from analyzing a bucket of
butts after a sports event. You can find the (brief) document at
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/1208.02/1208.02.3.html
Here we see a strictly confidential memo from
the Executive Director of the Tobacco Advisory Council, raising the alarm
about new (August 1984) research connecting snuff with oral cavity cancer.
The hooter is that the Executive Director suggests in paragraph 3 that "member
companies will be concerned and will wish to consider whether a
distinction can be drawn between the new type of product of the "tea
bag" variety and powdered snuff administered nasally or chewing
tobacco, which are more conventional." But hey - read it yourself at
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/1503.05/1503.05.1.html
It describes the founding of the Tobacco Research Council which, through its Scientific Advisory Committee, is intended to not only deflect attacks but to create favorable information emanating from persons with impeccable scientific credentials. The language of this internal document ought to be preserved for the tobacco products industry trials - especially the part that reads
Originally CTR was organized as a public relations effort. The industry told the world CTR would look at the diseases which were being associated with smoking. There was even a suggestion by our political spokesmen that if a harmful element turned up the industry would try to root it out. The research of the CTR also discharged a legal responsibility. The manufacturer has a duty to know its product. The Scientific Advisory Board composed of highly reputable independent scientists constitute a place where the present state of the art is constantly being updated. Theoretically Scientific Advisory Board is showing us the way in a highly complex field. There is another political need for research. Recently it has been suggested that CTR or industry research should enable us to give quick responses to new developments in the propaganda of the avid anti-smoking groups. For example, CTR or someone should be able to rebut the suggestion that smokers suffer from a peculiar disease, as widely alleged in the press a few months ago. A properly designed research effort should encompass the need for instant responses on subjects of public interest in the smoking and health controversy. Finally, the industry research effort has included special projects designed to find scientists and medical doctors who might serve as industry witnesses in lawsuits or in a legislative forum. All these matters and more should be considered in asking what kind of research the industry should do."
Read the related pages to get a full flavor of
the industry's insider reasoning on how to deal with all of us at
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/2010.02/2010.02.2.html
It is a detailed memo on upcoming company research objectives and strategies, and while the original is hard to read it's full of information on industry research methods and manufacturing processes. It's formal title is "Minutes of the 19th Biological Testing Committee Meeting, Millbank, UK, 1979. Good stuff -take for example this aside on page 3:
"A brief discussion was held on samples which should be considered for future tests. These included cigarettes with inert filters (e.g., chalk, NCF(?)), binders used in various reconstitution processes, additives series, and modified cigarettes. In the latter category it was suggested that it would be important to examine the effects of ventilation, especially when coupled with other features such as cigarette (illegible) and tobacco sheet materials."
Sorry - but you'll have to ruin your own eyes
examining the rest of this 7 page document at
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/1164.07/1164.07.3.html
The U.S. tobacco industry knew that European
health authorities and legislatures were passing increasingly strict
limitations on pesticide residues. This document contains a number of
comments which would be useful in establishing such knowledge, and can be
viewed at
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/1317.07/1317.07.1.html
It's a 1968 British report on pesticide residue
levels in a small part of the 1967 U.S. crop, but it demonstrates what
smokers, chewers and dippers were up against in the late sixties. It
includes an interesting quote "The recommendations do not however put
any impediment on T.D.E. which from our figures appears to be becoming the
major residue problem." You can take a look for yourself at
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/1317.08/1317.08.1.html
This researcher discusses of the uniqueness of the problem of analyzing the fate of chemicals applied to tobacco. The problem discussed is that there are three areas to consider with tobacco, rather than just two with most plants which receive pesticide applications:
There's also a fascinating look at how the
industry calculates how much pesticide exposure smokers receive. It's not
like they didn't know, folks - this is 1967! Check it out at
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/1302.01/1302.01.1html
This was shortly before all evidence of
university-based research into the effect of pesticides on consumers of
tobacco products began disappearing from view. Here's a discussion between
two legal eagles about how to keep pesticide and additive research which
may hurt the industry's position on smoking & health out of prying
hands - like people who want to know what's addicting and killing them or
their loved ones.
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/1824.01/1824.01.1.html
First take a look at the document http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/1328.02/1328.02.1.html This is one of several such memos from a central figure in the "coding" of research information to all concerned, and relates to the following document, http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/1329.02/1329.02.1.html. As you look over this document you'll see that each of the ingredients in the manufacturing of tobacco products has been assigned one or more code words. When you take a look at this document you'll find plenty of interest on your own, but I was especially interested in the following pages:
Here's a cover memo from some legal assistants
updating internal company files with information from a life insurance
organization on the long-term health effects of DDT exposure. Take a look
at
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/1305.01/1305.01.1.html
This four page document discusses how the
industry will develop its own tests to counter criticism of the additives
it uses. Of special interest is the discussion on page 3 where it is
decided to use specially made cigarettes for these tests rather than
regular cigarettes. An interesting sidelight at
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/1314.02/1314.02.1.html
Here's a brief memo discussing the use of
phosgene gas on stored tobacco, along with comments on the need for daily
fumigation 9 months out of every year with DDVP, worker safety
considerations, etc. Yes, DDVP is, and was a known carcinogen and yes, it
was known to be a common residue in tobacco products. Take a look at
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/1317.05/1317.05.1.html
This is an internal memo on how the company is
going to organize all its information in preparation for litigation,
including information on insecticides, herbicides, fungicides,
rodenticides, and pesticides. Since the date is 1988 it's pretty clear
that the industry had lots of very well organized information on hand, as
we would expect if the "Fate of Pesticides On Tobacco Committee",
and its toxicologist consultant, have been doing their job. Take a look at
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/1324.01.1324.01.1.html
Isn't technology wonderful? Here at the end of a
19 page list of privileged, confidential information prepared in
connection with litigation, consisting of annotated tobacco product
ingredients and their code names, along with information on their healths
effects etc, is the filename of the document, left by the secretary who
typed it. Oh, and four out of the five "ingredients" on this
page are pesticides. Check out becky's work at
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/1327.01/1327.01.19.html
A magnificent 128 page document, filled with
insider reasoning, statistics, cost figures, projections, analysis of
consumer behavior, plans to deal with problems, and everything else you
could imagine. Only 12 copies of this report were ever made - very high
level, top secret stuff. The table of contents is
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/1331.01/1331.01.3
Some of my favorite pages in this document include
In this draft 5 page letter to federal health
authorities some great examples of how the industry handles their
knowledge that there are carcinogenic, neurological toxins, fetal
xenobiotics, and genetically damaging pesticides, additives, and the other
stuff in tobacco products. Watch how they say it without saying it on page
3 of the document at:
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/1503.02/1503.02.3.html
"...the opinion that smokeless tobacco causes oral cancer and other disease is just that, and not a scientifically established conclusion.
The need to identify areas where more knowledge is required is important, we think, because only through such identification and subsequent research can answers to the many unanswered questions be found. We have been urging such an effort for some time. In the meanwhile, the industry is continuing to fund independent research into the questions of smokeless tobacco and health.
In the course of preparing this response, I have spoken to the various members of the smokeless tobacco industry to inquire whether any of them has any information not generally in the public domain which would asist you in your review of the existing scientific data. All of them have told me that they have nothing in their files on the causation issue that is not also in the hands of outside experts."
When you read these words knowing what the industry knew then and knows now about pesticides, cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and other horrors years before this draft letter was written, and when you see how carefully these words misdirect the inquiry toward the lack of proof regarding tobacco, and away from any tendency it might have to examine what is IN the smokeless tobacco that is already a known cause of oral cancer - like residues of Maleic Hydrazine, endrin, and dieldrin, to name a just a few.
It's interesting that these words were left out
of the final letter sent to the commission investigating smokeless
tobacco. You can see what got cut, and what's left in at
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/1503.01/1503.01.1.html
What the writer of this letter, and the industry most definitely do not want is for anyone to realize that there is no need to establish whether or not smokeless tobacco or any tobacco product causes anything. Smoking, chewing and dipping tobacco may indeed cause disease - but we have no way of telling and, as the industry is endlessly fond of reminding us, it can't be proven. However, as long as we know that we can prevent some or (I would argue) probably most of the disease and death from these products over the next 50 years simply by requiring the industry BEGINNING NOW to produce products which are free of these chemicals. If they can't, they're out of business, and people who can - like independent Native American growers and cooperatives, operating free of any federal regulation on sovereign Native American land - can take over the challenge of supplying smokers with real, natural, organic tobacco products.
I think ending the epidemic of smoking deaths may really be as simple as that. It may not solve all the health problems of tobacco users and other people who share Planet Earth with them, but check back through the site and ask yourself if there might not be a significant improvement in everyone's quality of life if there was a global public health emergency declared along with an international ban on contaminated tobacco products?
This one-page document is a memo in which those
involved in classifying documents with a secret internal coding system are
given specific directions on handling anything even suspected of being
carcinogenic, and all documents mentioning pesticides. It also sends out a
dragnet for anything to do with Project Limit, which is described as
involving "the marketing of a "safer" cigarette through
doctors and pharmacists." Another brick in the wall, at
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/1016.01/1016.01.1.html
A hired gun at work.
This document is a detailed analysis of the
methodological weaknesses in the published work of a major scientific
industry critic, and is worthwhile reading because it shows the lengths to
which the industry goes to keep everyone playing the "it can't be
proved that tobacco causes cancer" game. They get the nation's
scientific, legal and medical talent focused on an illusory problem, and
validate their involvement by bringing in their peers to debate them over
the "issue", while the industry knows very well that whatever
damage tobacco itself may be doing, there and dozens of contaminants and
additives which are definitely known to cause cancer and a wide range of
other disease, and which are not part of carefully orchestrated, carefully
structured, carefully defected debates such as we see here. It's worth a
close, informed read at:
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/1188.09/1188.09.1.html
In addition to containing this indignant quote from a tobacco company spokesperson criticizing mouse/rat-based smoke & cancer research, this document also discusses the value of having research into the "science concerning our product" done by an outside contractor, then filtered through the "Scientific Advisory Group" to create a situation where the manufacturers could resolve the "research dilemma presented to a responsible manufacturer of cigarettes, which on the one hand needs to know the state of the art and on the other hand can not afford the risk of having in-house work turn sour."
Check it out at
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/2010.03/2010.03.1.html
As far back as 1978 the manufacturers were clearly very concerned that research into pesticides and additives could, if revealed, prove that they knew that their products were unreasonably dangerous and that they acted deliberately to conceal that knowledge. Here's an outline of the industry battle plan, which we can see being executed time and time again as we go through these archives and then out into the scientific and technical literature, as I've tried to help you do at this site.
Unfortunately you have to read these pages sideways if you don't have a swiveling monitor, but they are full of interesting payments to all kinds of people. There are evidently dozens of folks across the world kept on retainer by the industry whose task is to think up new ways to deal with public relations problems, scientific and medical criticism, etc. There are also records of payment for studies like "The Effects of combined Asbestos and benzo[a]pyrene on lungs in Mice", and the memorable ( did anyone ever see it?)
"Ecological, Statistical, Ethnological & Other Biological Studies on Air Pollution, Smoking, & Other Environmental Variables & Their Relationship To Chronic Diseases In Man."
These particular funding records are part of a
much larger document and can be found on the page
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/2048.06/2048.06.3.html
This is a large document containing a systematic
cataloging of B&W/BAT research projects. There are plenty of
interesting references, but perhaps the most interesting can be found at
the bottom of the page
http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/html/1005.02/1005.02.7.html
It certainly looks to me like at least one tobacco multinational knew of at least one instance where some kind of causation on the part of a cigarette brand was confirmed.
I'm certain that there's lots more evidence of what the tobacco products industry knew, when they knew it, what they did to hide what they knew, and what the hidden impact has been on smokers, smokers children and families, and each of us. This section of Smoke & Illusion will grow as I find more and as friends of the project contribute. Thanks for visiting.
Last modified February 27, 2002