Tobacco Documents Online

SMOKE BATTLE ,~ +, rrn The U S Public Health Service has ~+ ST,l~ iIh1ES 'ri`;touched off another battle on the cancer ` LBaton Rou;e, Louisiana ; ^y causing properties of cigarettes. One off , t:'y `r'Decetnoer 3, 1959' t shoot of the controversy caused by publf of an article by Surgeon General ;.. S 1 r ;, Burney is further discussion of the cancer causing properties of urban ain Dr. Z..ittle of the o~l Cco Industry Research Cofn• mittee points to the dangers from inhala- tion of polluted urban air and says this ~~ may be the factor in the increasing rate of .. lung cancer. Since the big fuss over the supposed• to•be cancer causing cranberries, much ' more has been said about the matter of ' smoking and the growth of lung cancer. ~:; J,Not much new has been added, except in .the article by Dr. Burney in whiah he re- !` ferred to some new experiments tending to support the lies that smoking of cigar• ., ettes brings on lung cancer. Positive proof , Is yet lacking as to the link between smok- : ing and cancer. of' now, Americans are enjoying the greatest longevity in the history of the country, and possibiy, fin the world. We are doing so in spite of the hazards of cran• ; berries, cigarettes, polluted urban air, etc. Medical science is making it possible for `.us to live longer, healthier lives. So there •.is not likely to be much more worry on - the part of smokvs over the latest cancer ; talk than there has been in the past.The habit of smoking is a persistent one. It1ll take more direct evidence than is now ' available to make much of a dent in the _ use of tobacco. Tri-l~;S ; toledo, Onio ,:ove^ber 30, 1950 ©ore Of The Same? IT IS TO be suspected that, the Govern- ment's strongest statement to date linking smoking and cancer is a long, long way from the final word on the subject. Recognition of this probability is hinted in the almost apologetic explanation by Surgeon General Burney that by law the Public Health Service must tell the medical profession and the public about anything affecting public health. The gist of his warning was that thee weightt of evidence itnplicates smokingg as the main cause of the rising rate of lungg cancer. He said it was based partly on new evidence. One set of eyebrows lifted !m- mediateiy. In his denial• Dr. C. C. Little„scientific di- rector of the tobacco industry research com- mittee„said the warning was a warmed over rehash of old statistics "admittedly not' sup- ported by experimental evidence."' Human nature being what it is, it also is to be suspected that the warning will' galn notlung in influence by treading so closelyom the heels of the cranberry furor. As a layman with no pretense of inedicall knnwl- edge. the writer would think that, first of all. it would be a good idea to find out whether and how much the diagnosis of litng cancer has changed in the last few ~~ears. Is more of it'being found'ibecause mod- ern diagnosis has pinned down a disease that miQht have been diagnosed as somethinn else for ge.nerations' Ifnw manr' heart victims were buried aa victiins nf acute indigestSnn or apnnlexy before diagnostic pro- cedures were improved? • . . - . In anv case.,ciQ~kret consumot6on-nn nun,intended -has gone up by leaps and hound~ sinr.- the lung- cancer theorv was aprung on the public. That carries its own commentan',. ~ . .. ~ ~~r, f.~... BI±RALD 3R3Ti:--R , Csreenville, Texas December 1, 1959 Officially Recognized Surgeon General Leroy E. Burney of the U. S. Public Health Service wrote a piece for the November ';28 number of the Journal of the American &tedical' Association saying "the weight of evidence" impli- ; cates cigaret smoking as the main cause of lung cancer. He said scientific research has pointed to air pollution-principally smog and- auto exhaust fumes- as a probable, though lesser„ cause of lung cancer: Filter tips so far developed, he went on, do not do a good enough job of straining tars suspected as cancer producers. Director of the Tobacco Industrv Research Committee„ Dr. C. CZ,1tt1e of I+lew Xorkk com- j mented that most of the points in General Burner's article were not'~ new. Dr. Little said they were "first advanced some yearsago in statistical studies ° .,"that admittedly are not supported by experimental CA ' " '' evidence. But aside from any agreement or disagreement with the surgeon 2eneral's pronouncement, it does lend the colpr of official and'authoritative approval to the claim that .cigaret smoking Is the "main" factor in lung cancer. At~ that• it' merely sets the stage for a big argument'~ between the anti-ci¢aret people and the pollution theorists as to which is worse. I