Row sparked by passive smoking claim
The British Medical Journal (BMJ) is at the centre of huge controversy today after publishing tobacco industry funded research, which claims that the damaging effects of passive smoking have been over-stated.
The 40-year study of 118,000 Californians asserts that the link between environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer is weaker than it is commonly thought to be.
However, anti-smoking campaigners are outraged and accuse the authors – James Enstrom of the school of public health at the University of California and Geoffrey Kabat of the department of preventive medicine at the State University of New York – of ‘deliberately downplaying the findings to suit their tobacco paymasters.’
As a further blow to the journal, its owner, the British Medical Association (BMA), appears to be distancing itself from the controversy and has criticised the journal for re-analysing a small part of data, which was deemed inadequate by many expert groups.
It has emerged that data used in the study was collected and subsequently dropped by the American Cancer Society, who has expressed serious misgivings about the results.
Dr Vivien Nathanson the BMA’s Head of Science and Ethics said: ‘It would be wrong to be swayed by one flawed study funded by the tobacco industry – set against the studies and numerous expert reviews that demonstrate that passive smoking kills.’
‘There is overwhelming evidence, built up over decades, that passive smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease, as well as triggering asthma attacks.’
She added: ‘This weekend countries from around the world are meeting to ratify the first international treaty to protect public health, the WHO Framework Convention for Tobacco Control. We should be concentrating on this not the results of flawed research.’
However, Tim Lord, chief executive of the Tobacco Manufacturers Association, commented: ‘This appears to be a large and very important study. As is clear from the BMJ s own editorial, the debate on ETS is far from over, contrary to what many people say.’
He acknowledged that: ‘Non-smokers should have access to clean air, either through no-smoking facilities or effective ventilation, at work, in the pub or at a restaurant. Smokers should continue to behave with courtesy and consideration towards non-smokers and it makes sense to avoid smoking around pregnant mothers and young children.’
But argued: ‘What is quite clear from this latest study is that the body of scientific evidence certainly does not justify total bans on smoking in the workplace or other public places.’
Amanda Sandford, Research Manager of the anti-tobacco campaigning group ASH, remains sceptical. She said: ‘The tobacco industry has been desperately tying to disprove the harmful consequences of passive smoking for years. This paper is just the latest in a long campaign to sow the seeds of doubt about the dangers of breathing in environmental tobacco smoke.’
Anti-smoking groups are keen to limit the damaging effect this research could have on their efforts to ban smoking in public places.
Ms Sandford said: ‘We would urge policy makers not to be swayed by this study but to respect the reputable science that has already shown passive smoking to be a killer.’
Professor Martin Jarvis, Assistant Director of the Cancer Research UK Health Behaviour Unit at UCL, was keen to emphasise the message.
He said: ‘This study does not change the overall picture on passive smoking. As recently as June 2002 the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that there was sufficient evidence that second-hand smoke causes cancer in humans. That major conclusion still stands.’
In a statement issued following the onslaught, the BMJ sought to defend its decision to publish the paper.
The statement read: ‘The decision to publish a paper is only taken after careful consideration and following a strict submission process, which includes peer review. It is inevitable that some research may at times be regarded as controversial.’
