USCF study reveals another sinister campaign by Big Tobacco

[Oliver]

Research carried out by the University of California at San Francisco has revealed another strand of campaigning by tobacco companies between 1979 and 1989.

With huge amounts of evidence having emerged since the 1950s of the harmful effects of tobacco on consumers, seven tobacco companies, including Rothmans, Philip Morris and British American Tobacco colluded with each other to launch the "Social Costs/Social Values project (1979–1989)". The campaign relied on bankrolling respected social scientists to create an alternate set of cultural critique of smoking, without ever revealing their financial interests.

The idea was that in the face of mounting evidence of the impact of tobacco on health and society, these academics would put a spin on tobacco that would give it a cultural authority that displaced the empirical evidence.

Philosophers, social scientists, economists, political scientists were all involved in the program where credible seeming information was infused into the lay, non-scientific press and media through a variety of channels such as books, press releases, conferences and articles.

The people involved were not marginal, unknown academics, but included well-known and authoritative people like British philosopher Roger Scruton and renowned psychologist Hans Eysenck.

I have heard the cultural type arguments consistently over the years, often from surprising sources and from people who should know better; people who you might expect to positively rail against large corporations and their machinations, but seemingly give tobacco itself special dispensation (off the top of my head: commentator Christopher Hitchens and artist David Hockney have both made).

I'm sure you've heard them too: "Tobacco is relaxing, it aids concentration, it is a meditative aid, the most interesting people are smokers, it is a social cohesive" and so on.

In certain "intellectual circles" these statements are received wisdom, self-evident truths. I've always been amazed at the glibness by which people can treat a subject that, to me, has always been the epitome of manipulation and corruption by big industry. I used to think that they were simply in thrall to the power of nicotine and their addiction to it. I now wonder if they have been duped by this specific campaign.

We may have become blaze these days about just how corrupt Big Tobacco has been over the years, but stories like this make me so glad I'm no longer giving them my money.

Further reading:

science direct - abstract of the USCF study

New Scientist - Story

 

[TropicalBob]

SJ: It is indeed all about spin. I don't have to LIKE this, but I understand it.

During that time, we had these huge corporations whose products were being damaged by bad publicity. What's a company to do? It tries to counter known damages with perceived benefits. After all, these companies make a legal product with a long history of human use. When people lash out against Big Tobacco, they don't always understand the business end of selling any product in a free market. I understand why they did what they did. It's the American Way!

How many widget makers have swept damaging studies of their widgets under the corporate rug -- until bad publicity finally overwhelmed their marketing spin?

I can't excuse Big Tobacco, and I have gotten to the point that I don't believe much of anything my government tells me. It's all spin to make bad look good, war look desirable, freedoms look threatening, faith look real. And on and on. Spin is not truth and a free society can only make informed decisions based on true facts. That's been lost lately. Bad decisions and corporate conspiracies testify to that.

 

[Oliver]

Bleak stuff, Bob, but nothing that I don't agree with.

I find this latest stuff with Big Tobacco really unsettling though. The cynicism is pretty extraordinary, don't you think?

 

[TropicalBob]

Agree. Big Tobacco had total disdain for their customers.

But I did remember that Chevrolet installed air bags in 10,000 1957 models. They followed each car to see how the bags worked, etc. Worked fine, saved lives. Did they then move to put air bags in all cars? No. They wouldn't even mention safety in ads cause some people might get scared. Finally, government required the bags that could have saved untold thousands before being mandated. Big Auto KNEW. And did nothing until forced to.

The tobacco industry KNEW. And did nothing, too. Now we know. And the distrust grows.

 

[woody]

Mmmmm! It seems to me that tobacco companies merely paid influential people to point out the good things about smoking. Let's face it tobacco does make you feel relaxed, it helps concentration and motivation etc but they are not allowed to advertise. Who can blame them for looking for ways to promote their product. We all know the bad things about smoking and there are a great many of them but, as yet no-one stops companies that sell alcohol from promoting it even though the downsides are horrific in terms of damage to health, domestic violence, anti social behaviour to name but a few. The good sides are relaxation, social acceptance, reductions of inhibitions and so on, all of which are regularly promoted. Fast food companies are largely responsible for obesity but are allowed, at present, to freely advertise a product which quite frankly has very few benefits. I am tired of listening to endless propoganda which is slowly but surely chipping away at our freedom. Eating veal, creating carbon emmissions, wearing fur, daring to call a gollywog by it's name - well! the list is endless. Just when we are conforming to a perfect, socially acceptable and heathy lifestyle we are told that we are all living too long and are will be a massive strain on National finances in our neverending old age. Where will it end? My window cleaner is no longer allowed to clean my upstaires windows unless there is someone to hold his ladder :roll: