8/14/2019 RJR, Rodgman 1962

1/6

I

1

uthor : Alan : : ; : d _ c . , i;n

Divisi : : ancriucal ?oscarch Iot`~od: puges : : : o n c s

RD : :, 19e2, I : o . Previ.ous Rcports :

1 9 5 4, I d o . 3 1

1 1 0 . of pa ges :' 0 . . , 1 9 5 5 , N o . 1 3

- ' s :P 1956, 103DA, 195S, 1=F, S'. I C ' r " I ' 1 G A P T D H F 1 L m ' i F Z O B U S 1 1 - -

A CRITICAL AND OBJJCTIVE aPP:'~ISAL- ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - _ . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . , .Tho cincrette smo:{e-health proble~a is discussod, ar.d it is relate d to

the potential involvement of the members of the Company's Research Department .

:. p : ,Aal emphasis is placed on the lung cancer probl, m . Arguments by ~6r,ose

claiming cigarette smoke as a health hazard are presented .* as well as the

counter-argumants of those not in accord with such views . vsigzt of the ar ;-umand counter-arguments is discus ed . .n atte : . .~t has been made to prosF a tho

~. t \ u o l ,argunents objectively. tho arguments, several reco:i-aandatic_ : sare rpade .

This memorandum presents my position as briefly and as concisely as possible .

Id a co : :,panion memorandum with i . - ;t identical schematic organizationp the same

thoughts are presented in more detail . If requested, a t . :orough, fully documented

exposition of the ideas will be prep3red .

. I 1L ' ~ f O R 4 t ~ J i l ? ~

Alt0ough the major part of the sales of this Company consists of cigarc -. t : s ,

what the Company ft x=afti sellss= is ciF-arette sraoko . This Company, therdforo,

should be g=*ly concerned with the physiolojical pop erties and comp~sition of

cigarette smoke . The benefits am:' from such knowledge are obvious, particularly

' it anticipates possible future governmental regulation . During ihe past two deca

cigarette smoke has been t;he targct of a host of studies relating it to ill::esltand particula : ly to lung cancer . The ma jority of these studies incric3 : 3 t e c , ~ ;arot

smoke from a health viewpoint.NA

8/14/2019 RJR, Rodgman 1962

2/6

-2-

I. The Evidence - Pro and Con

lne cigarette smoke-lung cancer problem has been investigated

epideM . i o l o l - : .cally, pathologically, biologically, and chemically .

Each discipline has yielded pertinent information.

~. E.pide_miolorrical Data_

~ The results of 34 different statistical studies show that cigarette

smo'sing increases the risk of developing lung cancer . i3eny authorities

._believe the relationship to be one of cause-and-effect .

Co--,-,dictory data have been provided by limited statistical studies

which suggest that cigarette smoking is linked to a constitutional factor .

The results of these studies can, however, account for only a small

fraction of the difference in lung cancer incidence observed between

smokers and nonsmokers .

The statistical data from the smoking-health studios are al, . ~ ~ o s t

universally accepted . After more than ten years, criticisms of the studies

have been reduced to the dictiun A statistical studv cannot6 _nrove a cause-

and-effect relationship between two actors*

b. Patholo~o3. c a 1 D a _ t g .

qIt has been observed that cigarette smokers lungs show profound cellular

changes which are proportional to cigarette consumption, that fluorescent oc

constituents of cigarette smo :te are absorbed into respiratory tract cells

(although fluorescence and . .carcInogenicity are not synonymous), that cigarett

smoke and some of its constituents cause ciliary paral3rsis, and that

cigarette smoke collects in the lungs at cilia-free areas and at areas

with paralyzed cilia .

8/14/2019 RJR, Rodgman 1962

3/6

-3-

Contradictory evidence indicates that the abovo-describod cellular

changes can be caused by respiratory disease s and other illnesses, that

these changes occur to a degree in infants, in nonsmokers, in the windpip es

of smo'.{ers (although cancer of the windpipe is rare), and in residents of

areas of extreme air pollution, and that ciliary paral ysis can be caused by

air pollutants liko industrial and autouobile xhaust gases . Also it is

not known whether such changed cells ever become canae rous .

These fin :]ings may be sumroa .ized as follows : Since cellular changes in

the lunos and ciliary,_paraly sis can be ca!as_ed b7 factors other than eiyar ette

smdte, since these chanpes occur in nonsmokers' lungs and in the cancer-free

,Andui es of smokers, and since it is not knotim vr_nether these chan?ed c3lls

hooome cancerous, cigarette smoke, therefore, is not the only factor to be

blamed in lunP cancer c.ausation .

_Bi_ol29ical DatL

Cigarette smoke condensate is carcinogenic to mouse skin . :Szch is made

the fact that the dosage level used exceeds that of the human exposure . Othe

investiF;ators, using nominal dsage levels, did not obtain positive results

Some interpret this an an indication that cigarette smoke is not carcinogeni

It should be noted,,however, that many attempts were made to induce cancer i

animals with coal tar prior to the first success with unrealistic dosages .

Inhalation studies with cigarette smoke have yielded an increased incid

of adenomas in adenoma-susceptible mouse strains . No hAman-type carcinomas h

been produced although the previously mentioned collular changes and bronchi

conditions have .

Those findings are interpreted by some as an indication that cigarette

smoke is not carcinogenic to human lung tissue . Two facts offset such thinki

First, mice are not men, hence carcinomas should not be expected in a h

8/14/2019 RJR, Rodgman 1962

4/6

d .

rosistant to the Induc tion of carcinoma of the lung and whose usual lung

cancer is the adeno . ^ L a . Secondly, the ratio, lung cancer deaths :total cigarett

s .nokers in the United Statds, is approximately 1 :1700, hence an inhalation

e :mariment would rea,uira about 1700 mice for the prod uction of one lung carcin

asswl-ing the response of mousd and human lung tissue was the same . The b iologi

i'itz din~ s are often diamiseod with the statements Ifice are not men and iiouse

"i3, i,3,not hu.inn ltins tissue .

Ch_~ic~l H3t~

Cigarette smoke contains at least 17 compounds carcinogenic to mouse skin

Cigarette smoke also contains promoting (or cocarcinogenic) agents . Those find

at first irapugned, are now accepted but d ismissed as unimpo:3tant because none

the compounds has been shown in vivo to be carcinogenic or coparcinogenic to

human lung tissue . It is unlikely that such experiments will ever be carried o

e _ . T_hg bidonce to Date_

Obviously, the amount of evidence accumulated to indict cigarette smoke a

a h~alth hazard is overwhelming . The evidence challenging this indictment is s

Attempts to shift the blame to ither factors, e .g ., air pollutants, necessitat

acceptance of data similar to those denied in the cigarette smoke case .

IIt Injerpreta tion of th,- Evid nce

After reviewing this evidenc e, governmental health agencies and medical

? "

societies through .'i-rhe world have concluded that a cause-and -effect relations-'Nafsts between cigarette smoke and lung cancer . It is predicted that the recen

appointed S urgeon General's Ad visory Committee on 9noking and Health will reach

same conclusion .

It has been repeatedly stated that some scientists discount the cigarette sm

lung cancer theory . This is true . But it should be noted that many of those quot

this regard are on record with contra,%I .ng views, e .g., Berkson,the statistician,

stated " . . .the definitive important finding of those statistical studies is not

there is an association between smoking and lung cancer, but that there is an

8/14/2019 RJR, Rodgman 1962

5/6

association between :- oking and doatizs from all causes genarally . . . . .", and Y.ot

nP :-nber of the Scientific Advisory 3oard, TMC, stated "The state*^,mt : . . .to the e

that 'The sum total of scientific evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt t

cigarotte smoke is a causal factor in the rapidly increasing incidence of human

epidormoid c^ncer of the lung' represents a view with which we concur . ~

III . The Tobacco Inc'usta's Contribution

To investigate the tobacco smoko-health situation the Tobacco Industry has

about five million dollars to TIRC since 1954 for research . According to Little

Scientific Director, the punpose of TIftC is " . . .to encourage and support qualif

rese3rch scientists in their efforts to learn more about these complex problems V

and heart disease] ." Through December 1961, TIRC grantees publi shed 197 papers

I

on the chemistry of tobacco andits smoke, 47 on cancer research, 13 on human lunJ

studies, 78 on heart and circulation studies, 4 on gastrointestinal tract studie

5 on psycho-physiologiacl studies, and 14 miscellaneous studies (luno cancer rev

tobacco-health textbook) .

` I believe that much offthis research, particularly that on the chemicw2, bi

and biological study of tobacco and its smoke, could have and should have been c

out in the research departments of the tobacco companies . The members of this C

Research Department are as qualified, as objective, and as interested in learnin

more about these complex problems . . . . .%,"s s scientists not employed by a tobacco

not

turer . Any findings made bg us couldave any more adverse effect on the Tobacco

than those reported by TIRC grantees .

This Company is studying in detail the composition of cigarette smoke, but

data remain unpthblished because they are concerned with carcinogenic or cocarci

compounds or with patentable material . This raises an

8/14/2019 RJR, Rodgman 1962

6/6

-5-

ir.y,resti nr question about the f crmer - -- " -f compounds: If a~-~ co: - i p a

;)lead "7NIct guilty" or Not proven" to thP charae th :i t cip- rette smoke, (or : one

its constituents) is art-tt=Lr-~ factor in the causation of lun--."cancer or

sonn other disease, can the conpany justifiably take the position that publica

of d-Dta oertai ning to ci,r,ar ette s-i o ke composition or proportics should be

w i ' ' :el d because such data mig ht affect adversely the eompany's economic statu

whon the company has already impl~ in its plea that no such etiologic effect.

exd.sts?

It is not my intent to suggest that this Company accept the cigarette smo

health health oata at face value, but I do suggest that actively partici

in cigarette smoke-health studies .

B . R T - C O ' 2 4 E i d 1 4 A - T I 0 ? ? S

After consider ation of the evidence available on the ci,garette smoY,e :heal

problem and the Company's obZipntion to its customers, stockholders, and emplo

i t is r ecommended thats

1 . F .-cilities, animals, and personnel (where necessary) be acquired ts soon

possible to study biologically cigar ette smoke, tobAcco, and tobacco add

Data from such stddies mny be inaaluable if Covern .~7tal restrictions are

imposed as a result of the conclusions of the Sur geon General's Advisory

Committee on Smoking and Health .

ft ~ata ~ available 6n cigarette smoke constituents with adverse

physiological effects be published .

3 . Data on analytical pnocedues concerning such constituents be published .

4 . The Company's superv i sory personnel be provi ded with repor tslik e the

Royal College of Physici ans' =-~ -- ~ Smoki ng and Health and the Annuii l Re

of the Scientific Di rector ( T LRC) just as they were provi ded with Scienc

Looks at -nokin! z (1`:or thrup), Tobacco and Health pamphlets, and. : '

0