Anne Landman's Collection
No Title
Abstract
This 1988 letter written on Philip Morris USA letterhead was introduced as a trial exhibit recently in the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) trial against the industry. It indicates the purpose and bias of the Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR), a group set up by the industry to conduct research on indoor air. Written by Thomas S. Osdene (Director of PM's Science and Technology Department) and sent to Samuel Chilcote (President of the Tobacco Institute) the letter states,
"I think many of us have conceptualized the ETS issue as a battlefield in which the arena is dominated by public relations and legal issues while the ammunition which is used happens to be science. It has been the purpose of CIAR, as well as its precursor, the ETS Advisory Committee, to provide ammunition in this fight."
The letter indicates Philip Morris' oppositional view of public health efforts to reduce disease caused by tobacco, and indicates the extent to which the company was willing to go to fight public health.
Fields
- Quotes
As you well know, we have been concerned with the scientific aspects of the ETS issue for sometime. I think many of us have conceptualized the ETS issue as a battlefield in which the arena is dominated by public relations and legal issues while the ammunition which is used happens to be science. It has been the purpose of CIAR as well as its precursor, the ETS Advisory Committee, to provide ammunition in this fight. I believe the most important issue one needs to examine is the role that science can play in this major controversy...
I am totally convinced, as I am sure my scientific colleagues are, that the values obtained have absolutely no biological consequence; however, the key issue is that anv increase (in nicotine and/or particulates) is being now used in a political sense to beat us over the head as well as being used as a "scientific" basis for making policy decisions. Thus, I am afraid that unless we can counter the above claim and state that the very small increase of particulates and/or nicotine has no significance either biologically or to human health, we will not move far. It is my opinion that one requires a well known or, preferably, a number of well known people who would have medical qualifications to make that kind of a statement...
- Company
- Philip Morris
- Author
- Osdene, Thomas Stefan, Ph.D. (Director of Science and Technology, Philip Morris [1986])Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry. Ten years of research when he started with PM in 1965. Worked in Chemical Research Division of PM 1965-66; Chemical and Biological Research Division 1966-69; Director of Research 1969-1984, also assumed independent position as Director of Research and Extramural Studies during these years; became Director of Science and Technology in 1984, reporting directly to Philip Morris USA Executive VP Mark Serrano. Involved with Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR) 1988. Attended PM's Operation Downunder Conference in June, 1987. Retired 1993.
- Recipient
- Chilcote, Samuel D., Jr. (TI President (1981-1997))Chilcote has knowledge of The Tobacco Institute's and the tobacco industry's participation in public fraud and disinformation relative to health hazards of tobacco use, in the manipulation of nicotine in tobacco products and in marketing of tobacco products to children.
Nonprofit organization funded by the tobacco industry. CIAR was formed in March 1988 by tobacco companies "to sponsor "high-quality research on indoor air issues and to facilitate communication of research findings to the broad scientific community."
Contract research lab; does gov't work and also takes private contracts.
1993 First scientist to report in 1950 on the carginocencity of cigarettes in rats painted with tar. Assistant at Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research Directed the American Health Foundation (AHF) from 1984 to his death in 1998.
John Salvaggio was a CTR Special Projects Researcher. (N.M. Tobacco Companies Personnel List; professor at Tulane University
Document Images
CS
PHILIP MORRIS
U. S. A.
OPERATIONS CENTER. RICHMONO. VIRGINIA
Taoaus S. Osaaxa. Pa. D.
O/0[CTO/! OR 'JCIENCE
ANO TECNNOLO6T
Dr. Samuel D. Chilcote, Jr.
President
The Tobacco Institute
1875 I Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Dear Sam:
April 25, 1988
Thank you very much for your letter which I received on
April 19 regarding the ETS issues. As you well know,
we have been concerned with the scientific aspects of
the ETS issue for sometime. I think many of us have
conceptualized the ETS issue as a battlefield in which
the arena is dominated by public relations and legal
issues while the ammunition which is used happens to be
science. It has been the purpose of CIAR as well as
its precursor, the ETS Advisory Committee, to provide
ammunition in this fight. I believe the most important
issue one needs to examine is the role that science can
play in this major controversy. As you well know, on a
number of occasions over the years, we have generated
data by measuring particulates as well as nicotine and
other gases in smoking versus nonsmoking situations.
In every case we have seen the following phenomenon:
namely, that the amount of particulate as well as
nicotine in a space in which smoking is permitted or is
taking place, has a very slight increase over that of
the controlled (nonsmoking) space. The increase is
really quite minuscule. In addition, most of the
studies done by others have often been conducted poorly
thus yielding questionable results. I am totally
P. O. BOX 26603 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23261 f80a1 27a-2692
Dr. S. D. Chilcote 2 April 25, 1988
convinced, as I am sure my scientific colleagues are,
that the values obtained have absolutely no biological
consequence; however, the key issue is that any
increase (in nicotine and/or particulates) is being now
used i n a pol i ti cal sense to beat us over the head as
well as being used as a "scientific" basis for making
policy decisions. Thus, I am afraid that unless we can
counter the above claim and state that the very small
increase of particulates and/or nicotine has no
significance either biologically or to human health, we
will not move far. It is my opinion that one requires
a well known or, preferably, a number of well known
people who would have medical qualifications to make
that kind of a statement. This person or persons would
make the statement, after reviewing the experimental
results obtained from the literature, that exposure to
the levels measured, even over an extended period of
time (e.g., in aircraft--the Piedmont study as well as
the JAL study and also the restaurant and workplace
studies), will not affect human health. The
difficulty, I believe, is finding a suitably qualified
person or persons who would be willing to make
meaningful statements based on the results of our
studies in the United States. Perhaps the answer is
that we might be able to move towards this goal more
easily in Canada or overseas. The thought occurs to me
whether the former Medical Directors of T.I., who used
to be on your staff, would be willing to make such
factual statements on results obtained. I strongly
bel i eve thi s i s key to the whol e ETS i ssue, si nce the
only thing that the science can provide us with is
actual (or real life) measurements, while it is the
interpretation thereof, whether rightly or wrongly,
that is now being used in the legislative and political
processes. Having stated that, which I believe is
basic to the issue, I would point out to you that CIAR
and its precursors have addressed a number of the
questions which you pose in your letter to me.
The analysis of research critical of ETS: As you are
aware, we have once again revisited Hirayama and we
will pursue this with great vigor. The reason for the
importance of relooking at Hirayama is because it is
this database which I believe forms the
pseudo-scientific basis for the push against ETS. As
you know, the results of several studies, I believe 11
or 13, were subject to "meta analysis" by the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel. This is the addition
of all of these studies regardless of their merits and
then pretending there is a scientific trend.
3
Dr. S. D. Chilcote 3 April 25, 1988
Since Hirayama contributed the majority of the total
database, if we could show that Hirayama's data is not
correct, this certainly might change the scientific
environment. However, even if we show that Hirayama's
results are inappropriate or misused, the major
question still arises, how is this going to be used to
defend our position? I believe once again we will be
depending on a spokesperson who has suitable
qualifications to do this.
There have been additional analyses done over the
period of time and I would remind you that recently a
study by Dr. J. Kilpatrick, which was presented in
Japan, reanalyzed some of the Hirayama data. In
addition, we have had Dr. L. Husting undertake a study
which looks at the epidemiology of low risk
associations as determined by the case-control method.
As I am sure you have heard Dr. Ernst Wynder at the ETS
Meeting in Tokyo also gave some cautionary comments
about this type of epidemiology. I might, however, say
that Barbara Hulka, who was the Chairman of the NAS
panel, seemed to be totally impervious at the Tokyo
meeting to any suggestions made by Dr. Wynder.
Therefore, I would think it would be very difficult to
get her or members of her group to change their minds
because, frankly, I do believe that the attitude is
"please, don't bother me with facts."
In terms of the second issue, Sponsorship of research
into alleged health effects of ETS, with the exception
of some work by Dr. Salvaggio we have avoided this
issue. I would remind you that there were restrictions
placed upon us over the period of time regarding any
determinations of any smoke components in body fluids.
This, I believe led to discouragement of doing specific
experimentation of this area.
The next subject, Sponsorship of research into overall
air quality, was and continues to be a major thrust of
CIAR's work, and I would remind you that we have
undertaken a number of studies in aircraft (mentioned
above) as well as workplace and restaurant studies
undertaken i n New York, Da11 as, and now to be done i n
Washington. In all of these, the levels of
particulates and nicotine, and to some extent carbon
monoxide, were determined. Philip Morris has
undertaken some studies in railways in the New York
City area. In addition, CIAR has sponsored work with
Dr. S. DiNardi in which he has looked at the overall
air quality (with emphasis on respirable suspended
Dr. S. D. Chilcote 4 April 25, 1988
particulates) in shopping malls and offices, as well as
studies undertaken at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
evaluating personal nicotine monitors. The project
with Dr. D. Eatough is directed at trying to understand
the relationship between a nonsmoker's exposure to ETS
and the dose actually received, - as well as to
investigate additional chemical markers for ETS in
indoor environments. I am quite sure if you wish, we
could give you greater details about these, but I think
for the purpose of this letter this summation is
sufficient.
I believe that if we continue down this line, and we
must, then it is vital that there be a unified position
and an appreciation of the role that science and
therefore CIAR can play in this controversy. I believe
further that the frustration which is felt by all of us
is uppermost in the minds of members of CIAR. You are
aware that we have had problems regarding the selection
of an Executive Director and in addition, it has been
difficult to plan a program which will give rapid
results in a short time span. It is my opinion that
CIAR originally was not intended for providing
short-term results; nevertheless, we are vigorously
pursuing the avenues open to us and we will certainly
seek any input from you and your groups regarding this.
In terms of Communication with the scientific community
related to ETS and overall indoor air quality, there
are two points. 1) It has been our wish and intention
that we establish: a) a newsletter; and b) perhaps
more importantly, get access to or form a new journal
for the entire question of overall air quality. This
of course would be a peer review journal. I do believe
that the time to establish this and to get material
published with due speed is however still a long way
off. Unfortunately, I cannot think of an effective way
to cut the time in conducting good studies and in turn
getting their results rapidly published in a scientific
journal. 2) I believe it is very important that we
recruit other industries which have interest in the
question of indoor air quality, and I believe that this
is another function which CIAR must undertake.
However, this can only be done if we broaden our areas
of research to include studies not solely related to
ETS. The CIAR board plans to meet in early May and
spend two days reviewing what has been achieved, and
more importantly agree upon what needs to be done in
the future.
Dr. S. D. Chilcote 5 April 25, 1988
I trust that these comments will be of some assistance
to you in the context of the overall ETS program.
Please be advised that my need to appear in New Jersey
sometime in the very near future may well prevent me
from joining you at the meeting of the Institute's
Communication and State Activities Policy Committee.
Nevertheless, feel free to call on me or any members of
the CIAR board if we can be of any help.
Sincerely yours,
bc: F. Resnik
M. Serrano
xc: R. Pages
