Tobacco Documents Online

TIhiES ";,;'ST,l ~~t 2he U. Public Health See as ouched off another battle on the cancer ~ton Rou;e; Louisiana r{I' 4,j y causing properties of cigarettes. One off t.y~ir'Decetnoer 3, 1959 shoot of the controversy caused by publf, ~ 01r'w1f, ''cation of an article by Surgeon General S l Burney is further discussion of the cancer ,,,~a. • F causing properties of urban ain Dr. Z..ittle of the o~l Cco Industry Research Cofn• mittee points to the dangers from inhala- lion 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 h b i es, cran err N,more h sobeenasaidgab ut thelmatteruof 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. . ,.. :, > ,:c of now, Americans are enjoying the greatest longevity in the history of the country, and possibly in 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-f ;S Toledo, Ohio i:ove^ber 30, 195: 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 the weight of evidence itnplicates smoking as the main cause of the rising rate of lung 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 willi galn notlung in influence by treading so closelyom the heels of the cranberry furor. HIi= 3R3Ti --R r .•Greenville, Texas s c: :'December 1, 1959 't `,tl ©fficially 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 Medical 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,1ft1e of New Xork. com- mented that most of the points in General Burnev's article were noV new. Dr. Little said they were "first advanced someyearsago in statistical studies that admittedly are not supported by experimental evidence." But aside from any agreement or disagreement with the surgeon 2eneral's pronouncement, it does lend the colpr of 0fficial andauthoritative approval to the claim that .cigaret smoking Is the "main" factor in lung cancer. At~ that, it mereh• sets the stage for a big argument' between the anti-ci¢aret people and the pollution theorists as to which is worse. As a layman with no pretense of inedical 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 lung cancer has changed in the lastfew vears. Is more of it'being foundibecause mod- ern diagnosis has pinned down a disease that miQht have been diagnosed as somethinn else for ge.nerations' Ifnw many heart victims were buried as victims of acute indigestSnn or apnnlexy before diagnostic pro- cedures were improved? • . . . In any case.ciQOret consurnot6on-nn nuniintended -has gone up by leaps and hound~ sinr.. the lung- cancer theory was aprung on the public. That carries its own commentan'. . ' . _ . ~r, f.~... .1 ~~4~