Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Blowing Smoke Rings

By George Monbiot, AlterNet. Posted February 13, 2006.


How the tobacco industry duped both academic journals and the media.
Advertisement

Three weeks ago, while looking for something else, I came across one of the most extraordinary documents I have ever read. It relates to an organization called Arise, which stands for Associates for Research into the Science of Enjoyment. Though largely forgotten today, in the 1990s it was one of the world's most influential public health groups. First, I should explain what it claimed to stand for.

Arise was founded in 1988 and seems to have been active until 2004. It described itself as "a worldwide association of eminent scientists who act as independent commentators." Its purpose, these eminent scientists claimed, was to show how "everyday pleasures, such as eating chocolate, smoking, drinking tea, coffee and alcohol, contribute to the quality of life."

It maintained that there were good reasons for dropping our inhibitions and indulging ourselves. "Scientific studies show that enjoying the simple pleasures in life, without feeling guilty, can reduce stress and increase resistance to disease. … Conversely, guilt can increase stress and undermine the immune system … This can lead to, for instance, forgetfulness, eating disorders, heart problems or brain damage."

The "health police," as Arise sometimes called them, could be causing more harm than good.

Arise received an astonishing amount of coverage. Between September 1993 and March 1994, for example, it generated 195 newspaper articles and radio and television interviews, in places like the Wall Street Journal, the International Herald Tribune, the Independent, the Evening Standard, El Pais, La Repubblica, RAI and the BBC. Much of this coverage resulted from a Mori poll, called "Naughty but Nice," that Arise claimed to have commissioned, into the guilty pleasures people enjoyed most.

Here is a typical example (this one was written by Reuters):

"Puritanical health workers who dictate whether people should smoke or drink alcohol and coffee are trying to ruin the quality of life, a group of academics said. 'Many of us hold the view that it is a person's right to enjoy these pleasures,' said David Warburton, a professor of pharmacology at Reading University in England. 'Much of health promotion is based on misinformation. It is politically driven.'"

The Today program gave David Warburton an uncontested interview in the prime spot -- at 8:20 a.m. He extolled the calming properties of cigarettes and poured scorn on public health messages. Arise was also featured three times in the Guardian. Coverage like this continued until October 2004, when the Times repeated Arise's claim that we should stop "worrying about often ill-founded health scares" and "listen to our bodies, which naturally seek to protect themselves from disease by doing the things we enjoy." In hundreds of articles and transcripts covering its assertions, I have found just one instance of a journalist -- Madeleine Bunting in the Guardian -- questioning either Arise's science or the motivation of the scientists.

The man who claimed to run the group, Warburton, was head of psychopharmacology at the University of Reading. During the period in which Arise was active, he published at least a dozen articles on nicotine in the academic press. In 1989, in The Psychologist, he mocked the finding by the U.S. surgeon-general that nicotine is addictive. Most of his articles were published in the journal Psychopharmacology, of which he was a senior editor. They maintained that nicotine improved both attention and memory. I have read seven of these papers. On none of them could I find a declaration of financial interests, except for two grants from the Wellcome Trust.

In 1998, as part of a settlement of a class action against the tobacco companies in the United States, the firms were obliged to place their internal documents in a public archive. Among them is the one I came across last month. It is a memo from an executive in the corporate services department of Philip Morris -- the world's largest tobacco company -- to one of her colleagues. The title is "Arise 1994-95 Activities and Funding."


Digg!

George Monbiot is the author of "Poisoned Arrows" and "No Man's Land" (Green Books). Read more of his writings at Monbiot.com. This article originally appeared in the Guardian.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A VERY GOOD QUESTION
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Feb 13, 2006 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Surely there is one obvious question with which every journal and every journalist should begin. "Who's funding you?"

Mr. Monbiot makes a convincing argument for his obvious question.

In a broader context I would like this question answered before each interwiew of a politician in the media. This information should also be published in the public record of how each legislators voted on each piece of legislation This is public knowledge and could and should be provided by the media in their reporting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nanny Police
Posted by: nylaw13 on Feb 13, 2006 7:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, that group may be funded by the tobacco companies, but guess who provides loads of funding to all of the anti-smoking and smoking ban campaigns --- the giant pharmaceutical companies. Smoking may not be a great thing to do, but the dangers have been known for years, regardless of the official talking points of the tobacco companies. A friend of mine, in her mid-80's and a former smoker, will tell you that when she was growing up, cigarettes were known as "cancer sticks." So, I say, let's not blame the tobacco companies, as really, for years and years we have all known the dangers.
As for the "second hand" smoking "studies" - most of them have been funded by big pharma and organizations like the American Lung Association, which, by the way, receives loads of money from big pharma and from their smoking ban activities.

I say - we (the smokers and the non) can all get along IF we seek to accomodate each other and not turn one into the current pariah de jour.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nanny Police Posted by: jp77
» RE: Nanny Police Posted by: nylaw13
» RE: Nanny Police Posted by: jp77
» RE: Nanny Police Posted by: Jimbo
» RE: Nanny Police Posted by: Kneel
talk about blowing smoke
Posted by: codingguy on Feb 13, 2006 7:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this article may be interesting to some, but it is hardly important. As a former newspaper editor, i can safely say that a story like "guilty pleasures good for you" would strike a chord and get some play, and we see stories like that all the time, not just in this one isolated instance and certainly not just from perpetual villains the tobacco companies. And getting one item on "Good Morning America" and a few more in the Guardian -- a progressive paper, it should be noted -- hardly constitutes a media frenzy.

Nor is there anything new in the idea that the tobacco companies have manipulated scientists and researchers as a delaying action as the evidence mounted that smoking was bad news.

But what makes this article particularly insignificant is that during the time this organization existed, the tobacco companies were forced to pay unprecedented punitive damages in the billions of dollars to individual and state governments for the harm they have caused. So for all their efforts to create a different scientific reality, they failed miserably.

Of course, none of this worries (or is mentioned by) hard ideologues like Monbiot, who have their own agendas to push. Basically, a waste of space IMHO.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: talk about blowing smoke Posted by: Basenjis
A better question: why would you watch propaganda?
Posted by: ScottP on Feb 13, 2006 2:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's face it, if you turn on the TV you get entertainment or propaganda. There is no other channel. So if you watch The Today program, you get the same basic thing you get from Fox News or a rerun of I Love Lucy, regardless of whether they claim the speaker is a scientist or a CEO.

If the author of the previous post ("talk about blowing smoke") is a former newspaper editor as he claims, he backs up my assertion that even newspapers are to be taken with many grains of salt. Notice he's completely unremorseful about the lack of factuality of newspapers. What matters to them is sales, factuality should not be assumed.

Notice that Exxon is using a similar approach very effectively in their quest to delay the realization by the public that we are in fact destroying the atmosphere upon which all life depends. To claim that this is insignificant is to be a stooge. Thanks to the author for reminding us that there are well documented reasons why we should not watch TV.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Twisting the funding around
Posted by: launcher on Feb 17, 2006 7:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I commend Mr Monbiot on his digging up a grand smoking gun. In a nice twist, a lot of tobacco industry money is now batting for the other side. By legislation in several states, the tobacco companies are footing the bill for millions of dollars in health-related research.

Michigan in particular has greatly benefited from the industry's long-standing strategy to refute nicotine's addiction. Tobacco-settlement money has spurred new research in the life sciences. Here's an old press release:
UMich Life Sciences Corridor

Maybe too little too late, but I enjoy the irony. Go Blue!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The tobacco fronts were just the warm up.
Posted by: acaryatid on Feb 20, 2006 1:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's wonderful that another tobacco front group has been uncovered but by now most people know the negative effects of smoking. It would be helpful to get out in front of their current poisonous profit campaign.

Phillip Morris has joined with the makers of PCB's and Agent Orange to feed the world. 85% of our food now contains Glyphosate, also known as Round Up weed killer. It is made by Dow, DuPont and Monsanto and if that doesn't scare you as an alliance, it should.

The toxic FRANKENFOOD is called GMO's and arguments by front orgs suggest it's safe. Despite all the front orgs and spin it's toxic. The only question of how toxic is in the secret documents of the companies who have a history of coverups.

America's health crisis reflects a full decade of swallowing the stuff. Hiding behind names like Nabisco, KRAFT, Oscar Meyer, Philladelphia and more, the tobacco boys have become the KRAFTERS of America's diet. . Is it any wonder we have a national reflux epidemic?

As wonderful as it is to expose their dirty history, it's a matter of life and death to watch where they're hiding now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]