Tobacco Documents Online

C C C SCIENCE' rtay 18, 1962 Cigarettes and Cancer: Pressure Grows for the Government To Respond to Health Hazard "If tobacco were spinach,":" said a longtime cancer researcher, "the gov- ernment would have outlawed it years ago, and no one would give a damn." Tobacco, however, bears only aa superficiall botanical resemblance to spinach; it thereafter soars to a unique place in mass affection and economic significance to become politically and socially immune to legal banishment. As a consumer product that is neither food nor drug, it qualilics for federal scrutiny only under regulatiuns affeeta ing deceptive advertising, and these regulations have been invoked only to exclude health claims. The consump- tion of tobacco, in short, is not a matter that comes under any existing federal authority: In 1957;,Americans paid s5.3 billion to buy 442 billion~ cigarettes; last year, they paid $6.9 billion for 528 billion cigarettes. But while they have been puffing, the conclusion-valid or not- has been growing that cigarettes are detrimental to health'i and that they contributed heavil4 to some 37;0000 deaths from lung cancer last year. The tobacco industry vigorously disputes this conclusion, but the "position" of the American government' on the re- lationship between smoking and~ lung cancer is a 1959 reporn of the surgeon general, which states: "The weight of evidence at' present implicates smoking as the principal etiologacal factor in the increasedi in- cidence of lung, caneer." (The Ameri- can Cancer Society stated the case more strongly2~ yearsagowhcn it concludedd that a variety of studies had established "beyond reasonable doubt th~4 cigarette smoking is thc major cause of the un- precedented ir,creasein b.!ngcancer:") The surgeon general'< expression was not followed Syanygovernment attio„' outside of' stricter policing, of advertis- ing, nor, as the sales figures would seem to indicate, has cigarette con- sumption been adversely affected. Recently; however, at a number of points in the federal government; the conviction has grown that the health hazards of cigarette smoking:have.beene sufficiently well established to warrant moree potent federal action, thatt the government should move from its role of cautioningg bystander to aa moree pos- itive role. ..r Action Abroad The economic importance of the to- bacco industry andl the power of the tobacco-producing states in Congress preclUde, for the present at least, any- thing resembling the vigorous anti• smoking campaign recently undertaken by the British government. The British action followed a report by the Royal College of Physicians which conclhded "that cigarette smoking is the most likely cause of the recent world-wide increase in deaths from lung cancer." The Royal College report was prompt- ly endorsed' by the government, and the Ministry of Health subsequently dis- tributed more than 400,000 posters„ which, if they do not discourage smok- ing, will most certainly undermine the mental well-being of cigarette advertis- ing copywriters. One of the posters states: "Danger! Heavy cigarette smok- ers are tflirty times more likely to die of lbng,cancer than non-smokers. You have been warned." The British cigarette industry re- spondedl by scheduling its television adtrertising for after 9 P.M., a con- cession of questionable realism to the Royal College's concern over the effect of cigarette advertising on youth. One British firm has also removedl its product ftom vending machines to help prevent: citcumvention of the law which forbids cigarette sales to persons under 16. In Italy, meanwhile, Parliament vigorously assaulted the problemi by, slapping an outright prohibition on cigarette ad4ertising. Proh'ibition Not. Feasible Here In this country;, there is no easy political path to direct action of the British and Italian variety. In addition, the experience with prohibition has left behind deep suspicion of any ef- fort to oromotc g^vernment regulation of' individual iastes. At the same time., howzver„ the aceumulhtionn of evidence on~the hazardtofsmoking is providing support for thee view thatt it is the responsibililyy of thee government to doo something;,Tlhe White House is steering clear ofthe issue, for it canionly further arouse congressional elements that are already generally hostile to the Admin- istration: But Kennedy's broad view of therole.of government:in American life has created a background that favors government concern about to- bacco consumptiom Against' this background, thee foldow- ing developmentshave taken place:. The. Federal Trade Commission is becoming increasingly dissatisfied wtth its ability to regulate cigarette ad- vertising. It has succeeded in banningg health claims, but salbs have not been affected, and, of particular concern to the FTC, the manufacturers are putting considerable effort into wooing younger smokets: This is reflected, in part, by the heavy promotional cam- paigns conducted on college campuses, with prizes ranging,from small amounts of cash to sports cars. There is growing, sentiment at the FTC for further re- stricting advertising by requiring "af- firmative disclosure" of health hazards, rather than simply, the absence of health claims. In their more optimistic mo- ments, some FTC officials visualize this as taking the form of a warning, on each cigarette pack and advertise- ment, to the effect that excessive use of the product may be detrimental too health. The FTC requires an affirma- tive disclosure of hazards in a number of products, such as inflammable cleang ing fluids. But it is not fully confiJent about its ability to translate the avail, able medical conclusions int"a court' victory. "If we are going to try for affirmative disclosure, we know we are going into one hell of a court fight," an FTC' official said in an, intervi;w, "and we want to make sure that we are in a position to win, because it would be a disaster if we tried and lost. The position of the Public Health Service is of crucial importance for us if we go to court, bur we feel that the 1959 statement of the Health Serv- ice just :sn'r strong enough for us to make our case." Congressional Hear.ngs Officiais of the Public Health Se,J- ice say the FTC will probably have too wait a very long time if it insists oni an airtight case; but the PHS is iooking, into the preparation of a new stetement., :ts officials are noncomrnitai on the sub- ject. Meaewtiile, Johni N. Fogarty, thee congressionall benefactor of inedical research, said in ani ihterview that he would like to see the PHS play a more vigorous role on thee issue of..tobaccof and! lung cancer. The subjecq Fogartyy said, will be gone into "thoroughly" when his House Appropriations sub- committee takes up the PHS. budget next vear. (This will come as grim news to the cigarettee industry, whosesharese on the New York stock exchangee dropped ai few points.earVierthis.year (port't immediatclyafterword leaked out from a closed hearing.thaG.Fogartyg had heard

C page 2 -- SCIENCE May 18, 1962 some briet testimony on the health hazards of tobacco.). If' Fogarty does go through with hiss intentions, it will be only the secon& time that a congressional committee has gone at any length into the qpes- tion of'~ cigarettes and health. The first venture is now looked back upon as something of a disaster for all involved, the investigators as well as the industry. This took place in 1958 when the Legal and Monetary Affairs Subcom- mittee of the House Government Op- erations Committee, headedl by Con- gressman John Blatnik of Minnesota, hel& hearings on the truthfulness of advertising of filter-tip cigarettes. The subcornmittce': cunclusion was that "The cigarette manufacturers have de- ceived the American public through their advertising of'~ filter-tip cigarettes." Further hearings were plitnned, but before they were held the subcom- mittee was dissolved by its parent com- mittee. There is no hard and fast evi- dence that the subcommittee's dis- appearance was caused by its encounter with the cigarette industry-subcom- mittees come and go. But the incident has passed into the folklore of Congress as a warning, that the cigarette industry has potent~ powers of self-defense. Since Blt,tnik's investigation, no congressional committee has gone near the subject, althougK numerous bills have been in- troduced aimed at studNing or curbing public use of tobacco in one way or another. The latest of these, a resolution (S. J. Res. 174) offered hy Sen:aor Neut;erger of Oregnn, callk f-r the President "to initiate and condUct a~ strenuous public health education program on the hazards of cigarette smoking ..." Mrs. Neuberger also calls for the establish, ment of a Commission on Tobacco and Health to study the healtK hazards of tobacco and to seek solutions for the economic problems that might result from a sharp drop in cigarette con- sumption. The resolution attracted stx cospot.~ sors and was then quietly interred' in the Committee on Labor and Public Wel- fa:e. There is virtually no prospect that it will ever be given serious attention. The six major cigarette tobacco pro- ducing states are well represented in key positions in both houses, and they feel that any attempt to undermine tobacco is absolutely unnegotiable. The economic stakes involved are enormous. North Carolina farmers, for example, received $527 million for tobacco last year; Kentucky, $273 million; South Carolina, $99 million: Virginia, $96 million; Georgia, $84 ioillion: and Ten- nessee, $811 million. A direct assault through Congress would seem to be impossible at this time. But the publicity-generating pow- ers of inembers who share a; concern about, the hazard of tobacco are con« siderable, and if they make enough noise, and if the medical reports be- come sufficiently damning. it is going to become increasingly difficult for the issue to remain dormant. -D. S. GREENBERG' L