[HN Gopher] Philip Morris International has funded Japanese acad...
___________________________________________________________________
Philip Morris International has funded Japanese academics
Author : XzetaU8
Score : 68 points
Date : 2024-07-05 20:09 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bath.ac.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bath.ac.uk)
| jijji wrote:
| you have a tobacco company funding studies under the name
| "Foundation for a Smoke-Free World" that show smoking is not
| harmful... what else could go wrong?
| SoftTalker wrote:
| > studies under the name "Foundation for a Smoke-Free World"
| that show smoking is not harmful
|
| Is that what the studies show? I was looking for that in TFA
| but all I saw was secrecy and suspicion (not that suspicion
| isn't warranted, given past behavior, but also the tobacco
| companies were required to fund smoking-cessation research as
| part of various settlements, were they not?)
| nightpool wrote:
| Reading the linked report: https://exposetobacco.org/wp-
| content/uploads/STOP_Report_Add... it seems that the
| foundation was used specifically to fund think-tank-like
| outputs obliquely advocating for PMI's line of "heated
| tobacco products"--an e-cigarette-like product that has been
| shown by regulatory agencies to be identical to human health
| as smoking a real cigarette (since it not only contains
| addictive nicotine, like a normal nicotine ecig, but also the
| entire tobacco leaf itself, leading to similar rates of
| smoker cancer, secondhand smoke symptoms, etc, even though
| the different combustion processes means they don't create as
| much visible smoke or odor).
|
| These HTPs have become very successful in Japan, and although
| PMI publishes most of the research they use to argue for them
| directly (for example, showing they have 3x less particulates
| than cigarettes, ignoring that they have similar health
| outcomes), the FSFW seems to play more of a "think tank"
| advocacy role in commenting on government policies and
| initiatives that would stand in the way of the rollout of
| these HTPs (from the report): There is
| overwhelming evidence that tobacco tax increases are
| effective in reducing tobacco use (232), including evidence
| that it is the only intervention proven to reduce
| inequalities in smoking (233, 234). Despite this, on
| World No Tobacco Day in 2019, Marewa Glover, head of
| the [FSFW]'s "Centre of Research Excellence" in New Zealand,
| spoke out against increases in tobacco excise. In
| line with the tobacco industry argument that higher
| tobacco taxation is regressive (235), she claimed
| that such measures would disproportionately affect Maori
| populations (236). In August 2019, Glover also argued against
| the proposed ban on smoking in cars in New Zealand, saying
| (to much derision)(237) that "scientific studies have
| not proven that exposure to cigarette smoke in the
| car causes disease" (238).
|
| Luckily, seems like they've already been rejected by most
| governmental orgs: In September 2017, the
| month of the Foundation's inception, WHO released a statement
| saying that "WHO will not partner with the
| Foundation. Governments should not partner with the
| Foundation and the public health community should
| follow this lead" (267). In 2019, hundreds of global
| public health experts also called for governments and the
| public health community to reject collaboration with
| the Foundation (268).
| RandomWorker wrote:
| They are now called global action to end smoking. Makes you
| think about all the so called good organizations that just
| don't seem to be able to solve the problem. Quite smart though;
| fund an opposing team, market them , they become a lighting rod
| for all activism, then make sure to knee cap their ability to
| do anything through highly burrocratic and convoluted power
| structures, ensure your team is the CEO. And, ensure that they
| consider so many variables such that they can never make
| decisions. Or endlessly have good people write reports that no
| one reads. In fact, make sure that no one reads them and, have
| authorization on the final draft to ensure only vague and
| implausible solutions are proposed. So smart. laughable really.
| input_sh wrote:
| My country's _finally_ banning smoking inside restaurants and
| bars, and wouldn 't you know it, it appears "heated tobacco
| products" are immune to the ban because it's somehow a
| smokeless product, despite definitely emitting smoke. And while
| the ban will only come into effect mid-December, there's
| already a concerning amount of "IQOS-only" places, and there's
| still ashtrays in such places, they're just slightly more
| discreet in their design.
|
| And to top it all off the public consensus is that it stinks
| worse than a cigarette. So if nothing changes by then, we're
| gonna be in this paradoxical situation in which you can't smoke
| a strawberry-flavoured vape containing no tobacco, but you can
| smoke "smokeless" "tobacco product", which is totally not a
| cigarette 2.0 with no proven health benefits in comparison to
| cigarettes.
| wslh wrote:
| I don't know if you visited Philip Morris web page [1] lately,
| but from the content side it talks about smoke-free future, are
| they playing a two side play to confuse people about their real
| intents?
|
| [1] https://www.pmi.com/
| bowsamic wrote:
| It's just greenwashing but for tobacco
| DiscourseFan wrote:
| Corporations, as entities, don't often act to their own
| detriment. The people in them, trapped, often, in moral
| contradiction, will find ways of expressing their discomfort in
| ways that are profitable for the corporation. Somebody working
| their could genuinely believe they are doing their best to help
| others, because considering the alternative might cost them
| their job.
| leononame wrote:
| Sounds Line they're trying to get into vapes or some other
| alternatives to smoking. If I had to take a wild guess, it's
| not because they "should", as they put it, but because they've
| seen the writing on the wall. Smoking is on the way out in the
| long run and best be prepared when the time comes. By
| positioning themselves like this, they gain _some_ credibility.
|
| Don't know how reliable the research they fund is going to be,
| but I'd be wary of any tobacco/smoking substitute regardless
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Once weed is federally legal I'd guess they'll be big into
| that.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| Huge. They already are. It turns out that a lot of people
| don't smoke simply because they don't like cigarettes.
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| If nothing else, smoking is fraught with regulation, but it
| is comparatively the Wild West for vaping. When is the last
| time you saw Joe Camel or the Marlboro Man?
| ncr100 wrote:
| So "blue" - looks like sky. When the truth is a sickly sticky
| brown, tar stained lung.
|
| Neat / sad how colors in marketing can impact sentiment.
| riffic wrote:
| they're under a consent decree if I'm not mistaken from a lot
| of lawsuits that took place in the 80s and 90s.
|
| big tobacco also funds organizations like Truth, which put out
| anti-smoking advertisements that really look and feel like a
| reverse-psychological smoking advertisements in a way
| (apologies for the dose of conspiratorial tin-foil in this
| thread).
|
| EDIT:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agre...
| teamspirit wrote:
| Another stark reminder of the need for transparency and
| independence in scientific research. I, however, don't have an
| easy solution.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| It shouldn't be that much of a problem.
|
| Of course, Philip Morris will fund research that support their
| way, but if the science is good, it is worth taking. That
| research should be scrutinized for its quality: trustworthy
| data, good methodology, etc... more than who payed for it.
| Being transparent about potential conflicts of interest is a
| good thing, as it can help identifying biases, but I'd say it
| comes after good methodology and reproducibility.
|
| A study that says smoking is bad with errors all over the place
| doesn't advance science. A well made and reproducible study
| that says some particular aspect of smoking is not as bad as we
| thought it was does advance science.
|
| Other things being equal, independent research is better, but
| it doesn't mean sponsored research should be thrown away.
| leoh wrote:
| Or -- folks wanting to do good in the world got a job at PMI and
| directed funds to researchers doing useful things
| jonplackett wrote:
| Newsflash: purveyors of death sticks are unethical
| adamnemecek wrote:
| Philip Morris did something similar in 2001 in Czech Republic
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Finance_Balance_of_Smok...
|
| There was a widespread backlash, like the phrase Philip Morris
| had as much negative connotation as being associated with Epstein
| or something.
| robocat wrote:
| Interesting report:
| https://edition.cnn.com/2001/BUSINESS/07/16/czech.morris/stu...
|
| Summary: early deaths from smoking overall are a significant
| financial postive for an economy. But Philip Morris were
| excoriated in the press because the report was too inhuman. The
| report looked at many factors and priced them:
| Public finance gained between 19,523 mil. CZK and 23,793 mil.
| CZK, with the realistic estimate of 20,270 mil. CZK, from
| smoking-related taxes. Public finance saved between 943 mil.
| CZK and 1,193 mil. CZK (realistic estimate: 1,193 mil. CZK)
| from reduced health-care costs, savings on pensions and housing
| costs for the elderly -- all related to the early mortality of
| smokers. Among the positive effects, excise tax,
| VAT and health care cost savings due to early mortality are the
| most important. Increased health-care costs, absenteeism-
| related social costs, lost income tax related to early
| mortality, and fire-induced costs total between 13,849 mil. CZK
| and 16,605 mil. CZK, with the realistic estimate totalling
| 15,647 mil. CZK.
| seigel wrote:
| Interesting... Ferrari and Mission Winnow as a side investigation
| adventure.
| buffington wrote:
| This is tricky. It feels like it's an obvious conflict of
| interest. But if the researchers are free to do real science, no
| strings attached, this seems like a good thing.
|
| Even with no strings attached, it's hard to trust PMI. Imagine
| the researchers discovered, with data to prove it, that PMI's new
| smokeless tech truly did make PMI's products safe. I doubt anyone
| would trust it.
|
| But if the research discovered that smokeless tech was worse,
| with data to prove it, I suspect it'd be a lot easier to trust.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Or would it just be a ruse to keep selling smokes? I dunno...
| buffington wrote:
| Exactly. Even if PMI wants to truly support real research,
| and is willing to accept the findings - their name attached
| alone casts doubt on any of those findings.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-05 23:01 UTC)