The Tobacco Industry: A Case Study

Industries and associations such as the tobacco industry and NFL are known to protect their money and reputation. Any claim made against them could cause them to fall apart. When scientists claim that second hand smoking is harmful or that football players are at risk of brain damage, the tobacco industry and NFL will attempt to falsify the claims without proper evidence. The process by which the industries attempt to falsify the claims lacks in reliability and does not make clear the effects of the products to the public. Industries should be reevaluating their products to figure out whether or not the products are actually harmful. For better evaluations of the products, intergovernmental organizations--like the United Nations Organization--should …show more content…
For this reason, there should be an unbiased way for industries to challenge claims made against them. First, the tobacco industry spent $500,000 just to create campaigns that would connect smoking to strength and power rather than sickness. This campaign did not entail any scientific evidence in support of smoking and instead made connections without proper evidence. Furthermore, Takeshi Hirayama conducted a study to show that women whose husbands smoked had much higher death rates from lung cancer than those women whose husbands did not. To falsify Hirayama’s findings, the tobacco industry hired consultants that would undermine Hirayama’s reputation. Nathan Mantel, a consultant for the industry, claimed that Hirayama made a “serious statistical error.” However, an advisor for the industry acknowledged that Hirayama’s study was actually correct. While most scientists were convinced that secondhand smoking harmed lung functions for those exposed to tobacco smoke, the tobacco industry was worried that if people could no longer smoke in public places, that would mean that there would be less smokers and thus a decrease in profit. Clearly, the first thing on the minds of those in the tobacco industry was money. To protect their money, the only option left was to attempt to weaken the scientific evidence that exposed the dangers of secondhand smoking, and they did so through unscientific tactics. Additionally, the tobacco industry relied specifically on those who were in favor of the tobacco industry. For example, the tobacco industry hired Fred Seitz--who previously worked in the tobacco industry--to create a defense for secondhand smoking. Despite acknowledging the link between passive smoking and disease, Seitz still chose to challenge the reliability of the evidence. This underlines the fact