I've known this for years...
Claim that passive smoking does no harm lights up tobacco row
Sarah Boseley, health editor
Friday May 16, 2003
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,2763,957231,00.html
Passive smoking will not kill you, give you heart disease or lung cancer, according to a study which will inflame the controversy over tobacco bans in restaurants and the pariah status of smokers at work.
The findings from a California study, published as the lead paper and cover story of the highly-regarded British Medical Journal, provoked anguish and anger from campaigners, public health officials and the cancer society whose data it analysed.
The findings also fly in the face of a pronouncement by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organisation, that inhaling second hand cigarette smoke causes a number of forms of cancer, including lung cancer.
There were also claims that the authors had failed to declare the extent of their involvement with the tobacco industry.
The WHO and anti-smoking lobbyists, including ironically the British Medical Association which publishes the Journal, feared the industry had pulled off a coup in their fight to resist curbs on smoking in public places.
The two authors, James Enstrom of the school of public health at the University of California and Geoffrey Kabat of the department of preventive medicine at the State University of New York, analysed data from more than 100,000 Californian adults who enrolled in the American Cancer Society prevention study in 1959 and were followed until 1998.
The study focused on the 35,561 people who had never smoked, but who lived with a spouse who did. They found that passive smoking was not linked to death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer, no matter how much or how often the spouse smoked.
The authors say it is not possible that passive smoking causes a 30% increased risk of heart disease, although a small increase cannot be ruled out.
But the cancer society said its study had been misused. It was impossible to separate out the effects of a spouse smoking because in 1959, smoking was all-pervasive, it said. There was also no information on the spouse's smoking habits collected after 1972, they could have stopped in the 26 years until the study ended.
"ACS scientists repeatedly advised Dr. Enstrom that (the) data were unsuitable," said the society's vice president Michael Thun.
Dr Enstrom and Professor Kabat declared they had received funding from the tobacco industry in recent years. They also acknowledged that their study had support from the dismantled Center for Indoor Air Research.
Last December an article in the British Medical Journal showed how the CIAR was used as cover for studies funded by tobacco companies aimed at rebutting claims hat passive smoking is harmful.
But whatever the criticism, the study is given scientific credibility by its publication in one of the world's most prestigious peer-reviewed journals, whose editor Richard Smith quit a professorship after Newcastle University accepted £3.8m of funding from British American Tobacco.
An accompanying editorial, by George Davey Smith, professor of clinical epidemiology at Bristol University, says that the researchers "may overemphasise the negative nature of their findings" and points out that they found an increase in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
But he says there have been problems with passive smoking studies and he considers this one a valid addition to the debate.
The BMA attacked the validity of the paper. "It would be wrong to be swayed by one flawed study funded by the tobacco industry - set against the studies and numerous expert reviews that demonstrate that passive smoking kills," said Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics."
Sarah Boseley, health editor
Friday May 16, 2003
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,2763,957231,00.html
Passive smoking will not kill you, give you heart disease or lung cancer, according to a study which will inflame the controversy over tobacco bans in restaurants and the pariah status of smokers at work.
The findings from a California study, published as the lead paper and cover story of the highly-regarded British Medical Journal, provoked anguish and anger from campaigners, public health officials and the cancer society whose data it analysed.
The findings also fly in the face of a pronouncement by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organisation, that inhaling second hand cigarette smoke causes a number of forms of cancer, including lung cancer.
There were also claims that the authors had failed to declare the extent of their involvement with the tobacco industry.
The WHO and anti-smoking lobbyists, including ironically the British Medical Association which publishes the Journal, feared the industry had pulled off a coup in their fight to resist curbs on smoking in public places.
The two authors, James Enstrom of the school of public health at the University of California and Geoffrey Kabat of the department of preventive medicine at the State University of New York, analysed data from more than 100,000 Californian adults who enrolled in the American Cancer Society prevention study in 1959 and were followed until 1998.
The study focused on the 35,561 people who had never smoked, but who lived with a spouse who did. They found that passive smoking was not linked to death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer, no matter how much or how often the spouse smoked.
The authors say it is not possible that passive smoking causes a 30% increased risk of heart disease, although a small increase cannot be ruled out.
But the cancer society said its study had been misused. It was impossible to separate out the effects of a spouse smoking because in 1959, smoking was all-pervasive, it said. There was also no information on the spouse's smoking habits collected after 1972, they could have stopped in the 26 years until the study ended.
"ACS scientists repeatedly advised Dr. Enstrom that (the) data were unsuitable," said the society's vice president Michael Thun.
Dr Enstrom and Professor Kabat declared they had received funding from the tobacco industry in recent years. They also acknowledged that their study had support from the dismantled Center for Indoor Air Research.
Last December an article in the British Medical Journal showed how the CIAR was used as cover for studies funded by tobacco companies aimed at rebutting claims hat passive smoking is harmful.
But whatever the criticism, the study is given scientific credibility by its publication in one of the world's most prestigious peer-reviewed journals, whose editor Richard Smith quit a professorship after Newcastle University accepted £3.8m of funding from British American Tobacco.
An accompanying editorial, by George Davey Smith, professor of clinical epidemiology at Bristol University, says that the researchers "may overemphasise the negative nature of their findings" and points out that they found an increase in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
But he says there have been problems with passive smoking studies and he considers this one a valid addition to the debate.
The BMA attacked the validity of the paper. "It would be wrong to be swayed by one flawed study funded by the tobacco industry - set against the studies and numerous expert reviews that demonstrate that passive smoking kills," said Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics."