|
|
|
|
|
Patricia A. McDaniel, PhD, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, 530 Parnassus Ave. #366, Box 1390, San Francisco, CA 94143, 415-514-9342, pmcdanie@itsa.ucsf.edu, Gina Solomon, MD, Natural Resources Defense Council, 71 Stevenson St., #1825, San Francisco, CA 94105, and Ruth E. Malone, RN, PhD, Dept. of Social & Behavioral Sciences and Center for Tobacco Control Research & Education, University of California, San Francisco, Box 1390, San Francisco, CA 94143-1390.
This paper examines the tobacco industry’s use of human subjects to taste-test tobacco treated with experimental pesticides. We searched publicly available internal tobacco industry documents to review the history of this practice. Beginning in the late 1940s, tobacco companies routinely tested cigarettes treated with experimental pesticides using “smoke panels” composed of company employees. These panels were conducted without any prior investigation of possible health risks posed by experimental pesticides. Starting in the mid-1970s, tobacco companies began searching for ways to minimize both the health risks faced by panelists and their own liability. Their solution was to conduct reviews of toxicological data provided by pesticide manufacturers to assess any health risks. Initially, the tobacco industry tried to shift responsibility for conducting these reviews to other industries and organizations. Faced with resistance, and with a growing fear of lawsuits, the tobacco industry ultimately took responsibility for these reviews. Yet in formulating standards for the safety review, tobacco companies faced a fundamental conflict of interest. While rigorous safety testing was called for in the name of protecting human subjects, this represented a burden to pesticide manufacturers. Since the potential profit from the sale of tobacco pesticides was relatively small, any hurdles thrown up by the tobacco industry were likely to result in pesticide manufacturers abandoning the tobacco pesticide market altogether. In order to encourage their cooperation, the tobacco industry looked for ways to limit the comprehensiveness of safety reviews.
Learning Objectives: Learning objectives
Keywords: Tobacco Industry, Tobacco Policy
Presenting author's disclosure statement:
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.