Tag Archives: Philip Morris International

B*llsh*t from Philip Morris

It’s only a rat!

Perhaps in my post of 4 July 2017 (http://nicotinemonkey.com/?p=1642)  in which I accuse the tobacco giant Philip Morris International (PMI) of torturing animals I was being a little unjust. I had not at that time seen their proclamation, ‘Our standards for animal testing’.

In this document they reassuringly tell us ‘PMI takes to heart public concerns about animal research’. Note how they deviously say ‘concerns about animal research (in general)’, not concerns about Philip Morris’s animal research. At least animal research as normally understood is done with the hope of finding cures for human ailments, however unscientific and misguided the endeavour of experimenting on non-human species may be.

So why does PMI carry out animal research?

We conduct research to better understand the mechanism by which tobacco smoke-related diseases develop.

Let us indulge for a moment in a little science-fiction fantasy, where at some indefinite time in the future, PMI has somehow managed to gain a perfect understanding of the mechanism by which tobacco smoke-related diseases (presumably they mean all of them) develop, what then? They add, ‘This is important for assessing the aerosol of PMI’s RRPs (reduced-risk products).’

And when they have assessed the aerosol of these products by their repulsive animal experiments, they will no doubt claim that their reduced risk products do, indeed, pose less  of a danger to the users thereof than ordinary cigarettes. Never mind that these products are still risky, that animal experiments are of dubious, if any, relevance for humans, and that the only way we’ll know how much less risky, if at all, these products are, will be if people are so misguided as to buy and use them for, say, twenty years – then we’ll know. But by then it may be too late for such willing human guinea pigs.

PMI then parrots the attempted justifications offered by animal experimenters engaged in the usual kind of medical research.

But before we get onto that, it should be noted that whereas conventional medical research is done with the intention of finding cures for afflictions like cancer and heart disease, PMI’s products are indisputably involved in the cause of cancer and heart disease, and other diseases. Therefore, obviously, the best thing PMI and others in the Big Tobacco cartel could do right now, if they were really concerned about public health, is to stop making cigarettes.

Furthermore, any research that Big Tobacco may sponsor or carry out is obviously likely to be self-serving and for this reason has come to be regarded with suspicion by the medical profession. This is why in 2013 The British Medical Journal and other major medical journals decided they would no longer consider for publication research that is partly or wholly funded by the tobacco industry – and rightly so.

Now let us look at some more of the spurious excuses PMI makes for torturing animals.

…we restrict animal studies to situations where no alternatives are available…If we could do research without any animal studies, we would. At present, we cannot.

How about the alternative of not doing the studies at all? Of course they won’t countenance that. Nonetheless, the public is supposed to be reassured by this and statements such as the following:

All activities related to animal testing are performed in accordance with applicable laws…as well as internationally established best practices in laboratory-animal care, to ensure that the animals are treated humanely and responsibly.

So that’s all right then.

Next, they throw in the pseudo-scientific shibboleth of the ‘3Rs’.

We always follow the widely recognized principles known as the ‘3Rs’ of animal research: Replace, Reduce, and Refine.

This is based on an assumption: that animal experiments produce results that are relevant to humans, or that the concept of an ‘animal model’ of human disease or physiology is valid. Such notions are highly dubious, not to say false. Here’s why:

This is a mouse

and this is a man (not to scale).

Therefore, if animals are good models for human disease one should continue and even do more of them rather than reduce them. And if they are not good models, then certainly they should be replaced. As for ‘Refine’, by which they mean ‘We use least-invasive procedures to minimize pain and distress’, this is an admission that their ‘procedures’ do cause pain and distress.

Apart from all such tests being unscientific because they are inherently incapable of producing meaningful results for humans (except by chance), one may ask what right has anyone to cause pain and suffering to even one laboratory rat? Especially for so trivial a reason as to develop new ways for humans to poison themselves with tobacco products.

I was indeed being unjust to PMI in the above-mentioned post – I was too kind.

Text © Gabriel Symonds

Top photo © Doctors Against Animal Experiments

Feebleness, duplicity and futility

Why should you need willpower to refrain from poisoning yourself?

We do not need to read very far into the current (July 2017) edition of Tobacco Control to have demonstrated to us yet again the feebleness of the current official approach to the tobacco problem, the duplicity of the tobacco industry and the futility of academic research into smoking.

Turning over the cover of the journal with its curiously ambiguous name we arrive on the first page at an editorial headed, ‘It’s the 21st century: isn’t it past time to ban menthol cigarette sales?’ The reason for posing this question is:

Because menthol appears to make smoking initiation easier…and may be associated with greater addiction or difficulty in quitting, scientific groups have urged that policy-makers ban menthol in tobacco products.    

What these scientific groups, whoever they are, apparently fail to realize, apart from the cockeyed idea that there are degrees of addiction, is that the reason smokers are addicted is nothing to do with the presence or otherwise of menthol in cigarettes, but because they are addicted to the nicotine. It’s true that menthol cigarettes may make smoking initiation easier because it to some extent disguises the horrid taste of cigarette smoke, but if menthol were banned tomorrow, what difference would it make? Can you imagine a callow youth, foolishly thinking that smoking will make him appear more grown up, approaching a purveyor of tobacco, surveying the various poisonous products on offer and then saying to himself, ‘Nah, no menthol? Forget it!’ He would obtain somehow or other, even if underage, a packet of non-mentholated cancer sticks, likely proceed to become addicted to them (whether ‘more’ or ‘less’ addicted is immaterial) and carry on smoking for years or decades.

On to the next page, under ‘Worldwide News and Comment’, we are reminded of an appalling situation:

With over a billion deaths forecast this century if current trends continue, reducing tobacco use remains an urgent priority…(emphasis added)

Why aim only to reduce tobacco use? How many tobacco-related deaths this century would be acceptable? Half a billion? One hundred million? Why is it not an urgent priority, or even an ordinary priority, to abolish tobacco?

Then Ms Ashima Sarin and Mr Rajiv Janardhana, the authors, go on as if they are hurt in their feelings :

Despite the harm of its products, the tobacco industry continues to obstruct, delay and attempt to dilute the introduction of…measures…against the tobacco epidemic.

Of course the tobacco industry obstructs, delays and dilutes. Do they think the tobacco industry will do the decent thing and close down their factories as soon as practicable?

A more hopeful stance, however, is revealed on the same page by the news that the Danish Institute for Human Rights has recommended that ‘Philip Morris International (PMI) should immediately get out of the tobacco business’, noting along the way that:

Tobacco is deeply harmful to human health, and there can be no doubt that the production and marketing of tobacco is irreconcilable with the human right to health.

And how does PMI respond to this charge? Like this:

Acknowledging and acting on the societal harm caused by our products is central to our human rights commitment and to our vision for a smoke-free future to replace cigarettes with smoke-free products.

So that’s all right then? Well, it isn’t all right. It’s downright dishonest. Note that their acknowledgement of harm is diluted by calling it ‘societal harm’. No mention of the billion deaths this century to which PMI’s poisonous products will contribute. They merely proffer their ‘smoke-free products’ as if they’re the answer to the harm caused their ordinary ‘products’ – by which they presumably mean cigarettes. And their ‘vision’ for a smoke-free future is not a future without tobacco, but one where, at some unspecified time hence, their cigarettes will be replaced with a ‘product’ where tobacco is merely heated instead of being burned. A safer cigarette! These are already available – PMI calls them iQOS or IQOS. So what are they waiting for? Why don’t they stop making ordinary cigarettes right now?

Let’s press on through Tobacco Control to a research paper from New Zealand: Achieving the tobacco endgame: evidence on the hardening hypothesis…

I won’t bore my readers by quoting the title in full, but the intriguing neologism ‘endgame’ – which I suppose in this context means the happy state where nobody smokes anymore – appears nowhere but in the title, and by ‘hardening hypothesis’ they are referring to so-called ‘hardcore’ smokers who are ‘more addicted and less able or less motivated to quit.’ All clear?

I have already commented on the illogicality of degrees of addiction, but what do they mean by ‘less able or less motivated to quit’? Degrees of quitting ability or of motivation to quit are, likewise, nonsensical. Nonetheless, motivation is assessed by the number ‘quit attempts’ a smoker may make in a year, an ‘attempt’ being arbitrarily defined as an occasion on which a smoker has refrained from smoking for at least twenty-four hours.

All this is of no practical use whatsoever. There are only two states one can be in with regard to smoking: either you smoke, or you don’t. It is not as if motivation to quit can be increased, as this paper suggests, by greater exposure to information about the harms of smoking. The implication is that if only smokers realised the damage they were doing to  their bodies and the money they were wasting by smoking, they would all have sufficient motivation and ability to quit and, therefore, presumably would just quit.

Not to worry, because this learned six-page, five-author paper comes to a reassuring conclusion: tobacco control strategies that result in reduced smoking prevalence are not accompanied by an increase in ‘hardcore’ or ‘hardened’ smokers. What a relief!

Text © Gabriel Symonds