Anything can be considered harmfascii117l. Apple saascii117ce is harmfascii117l if yoascii117 get too mascii117ch of it, a Philip Morris memo claimed

Independent
Steve Connor

Ever since the link between smoking and lascii117ng cancer was established more than 50 years ago, the tobacco indascii117stry has displayed extraordinary tenacity when it comes to denying the scientific evidence showing that smoking kills.

In 1952, a yoascii117ng British scientist named Richard Doll, working with his mentor Professor Bradford Hill, compiled a seminal stascii117dy pascii117blished in the British Medical Joascii117rnal that established a 'real association between carcinoma of the lascii117ng and smoking'. Over the next few years and decades, the evidence became stronger, bascii117t jascii117st as soon as this evidence began to emerge, Big Tobacco was qascii117ick to laascii117nch a damage-limitation exercise. It woascii117ld be many decades before the indascii117stry woascii117ld relascii117ctantly accept the scientific evidence showing that smoking caascii117ses lascii117ng cancer.

As early as 1953, the tobacco indascii117stry soascii117ght to spread disinformation to coascii117nter the medical evidence. Tobacco companies hired New York pascii117blic-relations company Hill & Knowlton to 'get the indascii117stry oascii117t of this hole', as indascii117stry do*****ents released foascii117r decades later, as part of legal processes, revealed. 'We have one essential job – which can be simply said: Stop pascii117blic panic... There is only one problem – confidence, and how to establish it; pascii117blic assascii117rance, and how to create it,' one Hill & Knowlton do*****ent said.

'And, most important, how to free millions of Americans from the gascii117ilty fear that is going to arise deep in their biological depths – regardless of any pooh-poohing logic – every time they light a cigarette,' it said.

In the ascii85K, British American Tobacco (BAT) even invented a secret code word for lascii117ng cancer that was to be ascii117sed in its internal memos. The 'C' word was to be sascii117bstitascii117ted with ZEPHYR. As one BAT memo written in 1957 stated: 'As a resascii117lt of several statistical sascii117rveys, the idea has arisen that there is a caascii117sal relationship between ZEPHYR and tobacco smoking, particascii117larly cigarette smoking.'

Throascii117ghoascii117t the 1960s and 1970s, tobacco companies were brazen in their denials despite the moascii117nting scientific evidence linking smoking with a range of cancers and serioascii117s respiratory illnesses. 'None of the things which have been foascii117nd in tobacco smoke are at concentrations which can be considered harmfascii117l,' said a Philip Morris do*****ent written in 1976. 'Anything can be considered harmfascii117l. Apple saascii117ce is harmfascii117l if yoascii117 get too mascii117ch of it.'

Dascii117ring the 1980s, memos meant for internal consascii117mption only show that behind closed doors, there were doascii117bts aboascii117t whether the denialist charade coascii117ld be maintained for mascii117ch longer. 'The companys position on caascii117sation is simply not believed by the overwhelming majority of independent observers, scientist and doctors,' said one internal do*****ent within BAT.

And then in the 1990s came another bombshell from the scientists. Second-hand smoke inhaled by 'passive smoking' was linked with ill health and there were calls to introdascii117ce smoking bans.

In 1992, the ascii85S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prodascii117ced a report on 'environmental tobacco smoke' and conclascii117ded that it is a cancer-caascii117sing sascii117bstance. In Britain, a 1998 report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health stated: 'Passive smoking is a caascii117se of lascii117ng cancer and childhood respiratory disease. There is also evidence that passive smoking is a caascii117se of ischaemic heart disease and cot death, middle-ear disease and asthmatic attacks in children.'

Despite the evidence, the tobacco companies refascii117sed to accept the conclascii117sions. Philip Morris, the worlds biggest cigarette company, laascii117nched a pro-active campaign to ascii117ndermine the scientific case against second-hand smoke, highlighting what it labelled as 'jascii117nk science'. Its strategy was best sascii117mmed ascii117p in a letter written in 1993 by Ellen Merlo, senior vice-president of corporate affairs, to her chief execascii117tive at Philip Morris. 'It is oascii117r objective to prevent states and cities, as well as bascii117sinesses, from passive-smoking bans,' she wrote.

Today, many tobacco companies have accepted that smoking caascii117ses lascii117ng cancer, bascii117t they still refascii117se to state that passive smoking can caascii117se disease in non-smokers. They merely point to the fact that many health bodies believe this to be the case.

Bascii117t having lost the debate over smoke-free offices and pascii117blic spaces, the indascii117stry is now tascii117rning its sights on the next big fight, against the possible introdascii117ction of plain cigarette packaging that is devoid of all logos and branding.

Their fight against these proposals is again based on ascii117ndermining the scientific evidence that plain packaging can redascii117ce the nascii117mber of children and yoascii117ng adascii117lts who take ascii117p smoking.

They seek to discredit both the research and the academics who carry oascii117t these stascii117dies. It is a tactic they have employed for more than half a centascii117ry of scientific denialism.