Tobacco Documents Online

January 5, i978 Dr. H. R. Bentley Research Director Imperial Tobacco, Ltd. Lombard Street Bristol England Dear Dr. Bentley: ICOSI's Working Party on Social Acceptability has authorized my writing to you in your capacity as Chairman of ICOSI's MBRG. We are grateful for your group's willingness to help us with the medical/scientific aspects of passive smoking issues. In .this letter we are responding to your group's request that we more precisely spell out the help we need. Thanks to materials supplied by Dr. Colby and others, there is no longer a need for us to request that your group prepare a summary of medical/scientific studies regarding passive smoking. We can meet our commitments to ICOSI with the materials we now havg. We would like to request the valuable time and talents of your group to help us carry out related, critical assignments for ICOSI. The first inVolves an ICOSI position paper on passive smoking. Such a statement must have a sound scientific basis. Our starting points for the policy statementfour enclosed documents. and position paper are the These are: .~,,.~~, ~_ A statement by the Australian Tobacco--~ Industry A statement by the German Trade---. Association ~~ A paper by fan Adams ..... -' An "executive summary" article prepared by Philip Morris.

- 2 - Not all portions of these documents are acceptable to all members Of ICOSI. Not all portions of the documents will be used in the ICOSI policy paper. However, we believe that the better portions of the documents can be woven into an effective and much needed ICOSl position, Provided the scientific under- pinnings are sound. That's where we need the assistance of your group. As soon as ~RG can do it, we would appreciate your reviewing the medical/scientific positions of the four documents. Based on your review, will you please: I. Validate the medical/scientific references and inferences in the four documents. 2. Where possible and/or necessary furnish and substitute stronger, more up-to-date references and quotes. 3. Make certain that no medical/scientific references are used in an improper context. 4. As scientists, tell 9s where you feel that the references in th4 documents are possibly open to challenge and where t~ere are omissions that could create controversy about these documents. The above review of these four documents is our highest priority request for your MBRG. We cannot pr_oceed on ICOSI' s ~ritical po1'i~y~ statement until you help us by insuring that we are .Dn a medically/scientifically sound footing. We ..will deal with. the "polemics" and public persuasion aspects ~)f these four documents; so your efforts can focus strictly on the scientific statements and references to medical/scientific literature. In addition to the highest-priority review of the four documents, we would like for your group to look beyond today's major, current scientific/ medical concerns. From a longer-range perspective, we would like your opinions, as scientists, about where the trends in medical/scientific research seem to be heading. What are the emerging trends in passive smoking research? What will be tomorrow's major research; the "hot spots" and the gaps in knowledge? Long-term, where are our industry's major medical/scientific controversies likely to be .

- 3 - Finally, although numerous research sunm~aries have been made a~%~lable to us, we would like to guard against any gaps an~shortcomings in the medical/ scientific background when making-effective public affairs and public relations statements ,about passive smoking. In other words, we feel our ability to make an effective "public" case abou~t passive smoking issues would be greatly strengthened if we had a fuller medical/scientific understanding of these issues and their implications. i. The unrealistic and highly artificial test conditions allegedly showing that passive smoking is a health hazard to non-smokers. 2. Differences in the compositions of main- stream and sidestream smoke. 3. Any medical/scientific passive smoking considerations with regard to: a) pre-natal situations of parent and child. b) post-natal situations of parents and young children. ! c) so-called "allergic" reactions in passive smoking. d) non-smokers who have "compromised" or damaged respiratory systems. 4. The present "work place standards" for so- called "acceptable" ~levels of various -cigarette smoke compbnent materials, how they~ere evolved~lnd how scientifically valid they are. We realize that M~RG has a number of plans for additional research on i~assl e smoking Perhaps they will provide more understanding on the four topics above. If the four are not included in your current plans, perhaps you have thoughts about, the most-needed and most-productive next steps that should be undertaken to round out our understanding of passive smoking in relation to these four items.

- - 4 - As o~r third priority request, .we would lJ~:e to please have MBRG's thoughts about~the procedures, costs and time needed to give uS~a stronger scientific basis for public discussions of these passive smoking topics. Once again, we are appreciative of your assistance. We look forward to h~ from you ~an~ would be especially grateful if you could expedite your-review of the four documents. Please ~conta~t Re,if you~i~ave_ .a~ questions and please let me know.~your~::a l-~i~ates of completion again particularl~ On behalf of our ,tire party, I thank you. cc: Membersof Workin~ iPa~y for z]istribution in their companies Max Crohn -,- :~- William D. Hobbs J. R. Peterson S. B. Witt III