Tobacco Documents Online

BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO Copy Request Form Request Number: Organization: Physicians for a smoke free Canada 31 Request Details Request Date: ....... ~..~ ......................................... .. File Number: ....~...~..~...! ........ Box Number: ......~.~...~. ........ Page Range: First Page I [ C) O (.o q ~:~ ~ C) LastPage \ [_ (,.~ ~ (.D ~ (t~3 ~ ,~ Requested By: (Print Name) ......................... Details below will be filled in by Depository Staff Only II Copy Details Copied By: .... ~'~... .~.~ ........... oeoao ooooeo • Qmmo • • Date: .... .~.~..~.f/~..q. .............. Time: .. ~'.~'.~.~V~I ......... Copy Checked By: ............................................... .. .. .. ..... Date: .................................... Time: ........................ III Delivery Details Checked By: .................................... Date: .................... Sent By: ................................ . . ........ Date:. .................... BATCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

hnperial Tobacco Limited/Limit e June 21, 1978 3810, rue St-Antoine Slreet Montreal. P.Q. H4C 1B5 {s14} ~2-eml P.O. Box 6.500 C.P. Monlrfal. P.Q. H3C3L8 Cable/Cible 'Telimp' Dr. S. J. Greem Westminster House 7 Millbank London SWIP 3JE, ~gland Dear Jim: o I refer you to item (iii) S&H 5 of CAC III, also to "CAC III - Action Paper" May 24, wb_ich indicate that CAC Cos. have responsibility that goverrm~its be in%~ived in epidemiological studies on smokers of low tar cigarettes. Attached is a copy of correspondence with Dr. Tony Miller, Director of Epidemiology, National Cancer Institute of Canada. I had sent him a copy of TRC's Research Paper 14 Part II and shall send him Part I, as he has requested. I have two possible avenues to explore in promoting the idea of epidemiological studies of low tar cigarettes, one being Miller and the other the people in Ottawa. In reality they are one and the same b~ause Ottawa uses Miller as a chief advisor. 9Then answering Miller's letter I would like to sc~ a seed and ask him • if he knows whether any Canadian epidemiology is contemplated and under what auspices such studies ndght best be organ/zed. Paul Par~ favors such an approach subject to advice from you and Pat Sheehy (the latter particularly in regard to any kind of ICC6I consideration). I'll try to reach ~u by phone next week to get the view from "the Centre." With kind regards. Yours sincerely, enclosure C C~ kC C~ ~n CD BATCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

May 3, 1978 Dr. A. B. Miller Director, Epidemiology Unit National Cancer Institute of Canada 25 Adelaide St. East Toronto, Ontario ~C IY2 Dear Dr. Millerz The other day while driving in to work, the background noise on the car radio came to life when I realized someone was talking about the importance of various causes of cancer. I just half heard the tail end of the broadcast when the speaker was talking about the relative importance of air pollutants and smoking to lung cancer. Tile next day I happened to receive a copy of the attached "Report on-a second retrospective study in North-East England," and thought it might interest you. I may be mistaken, but I think it was your nnme that came through the static and traffic noise as being the speaker. Perhaps you recall our meeting in Ottawa a few years ago at a session organized by Harold Colburn. If you do, you will remember I am anything but expert in your field, so please forgive me if I am sending coals to Newcastle. Yours sincerely, ! R. M. Glbb Vice President Research & Development enclosures R&D Library has a copy of the enclosure "Report on a second retrospective study in North-East England" TRC. O c--_D C~ C~ LJI BATCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

EPIDEMIOLOGY UNIT NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE OF CANADA Mr. R. M. Glbb, Vice President, Research & Development, Imperial Tobacco Limited, 3810, rue St.- Antoine Street, Montreal, P.Q., H4C 155 GROUPE d'EPIDEMIOLOGIE INSTITUT NATIONAL DU CANCER DU CANADA Address CorresDondence To: NCIC Epidemiology Unit Faculty of Medicine McMurrich Building University of Toronto Toronto. Ontario MSS tAll .I i ', 7 June 1978 ) 97ii-5t87 Dear Mr. Glbb, Thank you for your letter of May 3. I read the report on the Second Retrospective Mortality Study in Northeast England with considerable interest. I had not seen either this section, Part 2 which you sent me nor Part 1 of the report which I gather refers to the data from the study relating to filter and non-filter cigarette use. ! was wondering whether there is any possibility you could obtain a copy of Part 1 for me. It appears to have been published by the Tobacco Research Council last August. I believe it is possible that it was my voice you heard. Recently, I have been involved in at least two sets of interviews which, I believe, were relayed in Montreal. Although I cannot remember precisely what I said at that time, certainly my normal approach to this problem is to point out the substantially greater effect of individual smoking compared to air pollution. In the data in this particular study, there is a twentyfold excess risk for those men who smoke 23 or more cigarettes daily compared to non-smokers and n tenfold excess in women whereas the most they can come up with is an approximately twofold excess comparing highly polluted with low polluted areas. What is more, even within the analyses of air pollution not all are~ entirely convincing. Thus in one of the tables in their Appendix H there Is hardly any difference in mortality rate between the highly polluted and the non-polluted areas within non-smokers and within different current cigarette smoking categories most o£ the excess seems to occur in ex-ct8arette smokers. It is also difficult to understand why most of the excess in mortality should only be seen within the comparison high and low polluted areas there being no excess between intermediate and low polluted areas. Thls suggests there may be some other factors In the highly polluted areas, for example, particular occupational exposures at risk. Finally, their numbers seem only to permit standardization for three variables C,.)'l BATCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

-2- simultaneously whereas there are many more which seem to have an effect or reduce the difference a little and it seems likely that if all could be accounted for simultaneously most, if not all the difference, would disappear. It is these sort of analytic difficulties which have plagued the question of air pollution. Indeed as you may know, there are a number of prominent people in the United States who believe that if it were possible to take care of all the possible factors which confound such comparison then no difference would be found. However, as a working rule a twofold excess is sufficient to make one agree that it is important to reduce sources of air pollution but let us not imagine that this is the most important activity that we can perform. Yours slncerely, I ¢?7;- .... t,..,/ -;L_,. A.B. Miller, M.B., FICP(C) Director ABM/md o c~, x.o C.'r~ BATCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999