panaceachronicles

Pure, Natural Coca Leaf – A Healing Gift Of The Divine Plant


by Leave a comment

The Coca Cultivators Handbook

For the past few years I’ve been hoping that somebody who has actually grown Coca in a greenhouse would write a little guide for growers, but probably for some very good reasons it looks like nobody is going to take that chance. So I thought I would do the best job possible working mainly with historical data. Even though I’ve been researching Coca history and traditions for a long time by exploring Coca literature from the 1700’s and 1800’s, I never really appreciated how much practical growing advice was scattered throughout this fascinating long-lost literary history. 

Of course what’s missing at this point in the development of the Coca Cultivators Handbook – first edition – is any reference to contemporary under-glass and under-lights Coca cultivation of the kind that Cannabis growers have gotten very good at. There is no question at all that Coca can be grown indoors with exactly the same technology as Cannabis, and I hope that is already happening in some very private places. Maybe I can help things along a little with some of the information here and then perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me will share what they know too.

Speaking of greenhouses and Coca cultivation, we will look at the classic 1880’s Coca greenhouses of Angelo Mariani outside Paris, and explore his advice on growing the very highest quality Coca leaf under glass.

Mariani was without doubt the first true connoisseur of Coca Leaf itself and had barely

A handful of magic beans

disguised contempt for the Cocaine craze of his time. His Bordeaux wine-based “Vin Mariani” was celebrated worldwide and set the standard for Coca wine, and he knew more about high-quality Coca Leaf production than any other European or American of his time or probably since. He maintained two first-class Coca plantations in Bolivia and greenhouses in several cities in France, and his advice is simple but definitely gold standard.

So here’s a list of what you’ll find in this first edition, and feel free to click on any of the images to go to Amazon and read inside the book. 

Finally – do you know something you want to share about Coca? I’m calling on readers, growers, botanists and other Friends of Mama Coca to communicate with me and help expand and evolve this resource. Just click HERE to send me a message.

  • The bean is ready!

    Summary Of Coca Cultivation Techniques

  • Coca Cultivation Over The Centuries
  • Coca’s Natural Home Environment
  • Botany of the Coca Plant: Part One
  • Botany of the Coca Plant: Part Two
  • Traditional Andean Coca-Growing Regions
  • Ideal Coca-Growing Conditions
  • The Exquisite Coca Flower
  • The Importance Of Humidity
  • Coca Soils Of The Montaña

  • It’s all good!

    Best Kinds of Earth For Coca Cultivation

  • How To Select Viable Seeds
  • Protecting Seeds & Seedlings
  • Planting Out & Cultivating Coca
  • Daily Life Of A Coca Grower
  • High Quality vs. Inferior Coca Leaf
  • Peruvian vs. Bolivian Leaf – A Comparison
  • Ensuring High Quality Coca Leaves
  • Harvesting & Curing Coca Leaf: Part One
  • Traditional Harvesting Techniques: Part Two
  • Natural Enemies Of Coca
  • Commentaries On Coca

  • Happy leaves

    Searching For Wild Coca

  • Angelo Mariani – Master Coca Grower
  • Coca & Its Therapeutic Properties
  • Proper Cultivation Techniques
  • Harvesting For Maximum Purity & Potency
  • Preparation of the Coca Leaves
  • Coca Leaf – A Better Medicine
  • Natural Medicinal Preparations Of Coca Leaf
  • Your Keys To This Ancient Knowledge

I especially hope that you enjoy reading and exploring the “Keys To Knowledge” hyperlinked bibliography at the end of this little Handbook as much as I enjoyed putting it together for you.


by Leave a comment

Villages Can Thrive

Brief Explanation: This is a proposal for addressing protein energy malnutrition in rural communities that my friends Peter, Luis and I (we called ourselves AF&T) created a few years back as part of another, bioenergy-related project. The people we submitted the proposal to weren’t responsive, but I still believe that it is such a high-potential approach to empowering rural women to feed themselves and their families with enough high-quality protein to thrive that I am posting it for anyone in the community who can use it. My friends and I would, of course, be happy to help if needed.

Proposal Summary

AF&T’s proposal seeks to interrupt the protein energy malnutrition (PEM) cycle in women from childhood through child-bearing age. Maternal PEM is the direct cause of both fetal malnourishment and low birth weight children and the low or absent capacity of the mother to provide breast milk for her newborn and infant children. AF&T will demonstrate that palatable, nutritious plant leaf protein, extracted from specific high protein plants using appropriate village-scale technology, can be produced at the local level in almost any environment and can address the primary obstacle to controlling and potentially eradicating PEM, which is that most people living in rural villages have inadequate access to high quality protein both for themselves and for their animals. All actions required to implement this proposal at the village level are consistent with the normal role of women in rural settings worldwide. 

Proposal Narrative

Inadequate access to protein means, for much of the rural underdeveloped world, inadequate access to animal protein. Women and children in developing countries frequently bear the principal responsibility for accompanying domestic animals on their search for widely dispersed and low quality forage. In many cases this search burns more calories than the forage that is found provides. Thus, both the animals and the people run permanent and increasing caloric deficits. Pregnant women are not exempt from accompanying the animals, resulting in gradual progressive starvation of both the mother and the unborn child. Women who run a caloric deficit before and during pregnancy, and more specifically a protein energy deficit, not only more frequently give birth to low birth-weight and otherwise health-compromised newborns, their breast milk production is also compromised.

It is a vicious cycle, resulting in permanent developmental damage to children, vulnerability of the newborn and infant to disease, injury, and infection and all too frequently in death before the age of  two. In turn, this results in more frequent pregnancies, and the accompanying progressive drain on the woman’s nutritional resources, as well as the loss of the protective effect of breast-feeding against pregnancy. AF&T proposes to develop and demonstrate a village-scale appropriate technology that can be used to extract high quality plant protein from purpose grown drought-tolerant crops that can be used to provide adequate high protein feed for domestic animals with little expenditure of caloric energy in search of forage. In turn, this appropriate technology will mean greater access to milk, meat, eggs and other forms of animal protein using only local resources and labor, requiring no external resources or support once installed.

The rationale for developing an appropriate technology that can be used to extract plant proteins for use as animal feed, rather than simply using the whole plant as feed, is that by separating the proteins from the rest of the plant materials those plant materials can be used for other purposes, including the production of biogas in household digesters which are ubiquitous in much of the rural underdeveloped world, and for other purposes including animal bedding and household heating and cooking fuel, while preserving the high value proteins as animal feed.

In a parallel phase of our proposed program, recognizing that a significant part of the rural underdeveloped world is vegetarian on the basis of religious beliefs, AF&T will take the protein extracted from purpose-grown high protein plants using the village-level appropriate technology referred to above, and will develop a high protein plant extract that is both palatable and nutritious using a process developed over thousands of years to make high protein vegetarian Miso from a wide variety of plant materials including soy, barley, chickpea and other plant proteins. We expect that this process will eliminate the primary obstacle to acceptance of plant leaf protein extracts in the past, which has been that, untreated, it has a bitter and unacceptable “green taste”. By applying the principles and techniques for the production of tasty and nourishing Miso from plant materials to the protein extracted using a variation on already established methods such as the well-known “Lucerne” method, we plan to develop a nutritious palatable high protein paste that can be eaten by itself or mixed into virtually any other food, or consumed as a broth, as is the case with traditional Miso.

The “Lucerne” method consists of macerating plant materials in water to create a slurry – Alfalfa is the plant material typically used in the case of the “Lucerne” method – and then slowly raising the temperature of the slurry until the plant proteins coagulate and rise to the surface, where they are skimmed off, then dried and ground into a high protein powder. As noted, while this material is indeed high in proteins, it is also rich in oils and pigments, accounting for its unacceptably bitter “green taste”. We will demonstrate that by applying the traditional Miso fermentation process to this extract, this bitterness and green taste will be removed, resulting in a highly nutritious, high protein food that is stable without refrigeration.

After a comprehensive review of many leaf protein resources worldwide, we have identified Pennisetum purpurem as the best candidate for leaf protein extraction. We propose to build upon known leaf protein extraction technologies to develop a methodology that can turn purpose-grown high protein Pennisetum purpurem (and other leafy non-food plants) into both (A) a nutritious, and palatable source of human food-grade protein and (B) a nutritious, abundant source of high quality animal feed that does not require foraging.

The basis for AF&T’s selection of  Pennisetum purpurem as our plant choice for leaf protein is supported by over 30 years of experience in ranch and livestock management on the part of one of our partners, and by a body of science that affirms the quality and palatability of Pennisetum purpurem as animal feed. There is also solid supporting scientific evidence that simple extraction methods using village-scale appropriate technology can be effectively used for extracting protein from herbaceous plants. Further, there are both scientific studies and voluminous anecdotal evidence that leaf protein can be an effective intervention in cases of childhood Protein Energy Malnutrition (PEM) and disease, and that leaf protein is also an effective animal feed, whether found in nature as forage or provided as feed.

Recognizing that, however desirable it may be as a leaf protein resource, Pennisetum purpurem is not a one-size-fits-all source of plant protein. AF&T has researched other common high leaf protein indigenous plant species capturing data on growing and climate conditions, fertilizer needs and application rates, best cultivation practices, and leaf protein levels.  These species include: (1) Amaranthus tricolor ( African/Chinese spinach, Tampala, Bledo); (2) Cnidoscolus chayamansa (Chaya, Tree spinach,Chaya col, Kikilchay, Chaykeken); (3) Crotolaraia longirostrata (Chipilin; also Sunnhemp); (4) Medicago sativa (alfalfa, Lucerne); and (5) Vigna unguiculata (cowpeas, Caupi, Frijol de Vaca, Frijo Mica, Feijao de Corda).

AF&T’s Phase I experimental plan has three main components. 1) produce a Miso-like leaf protein paste that is can be added to any food base or consumed by itself without a strong “green taste”;  2) test and compare several extraction methods and technologies establishing extraction and flavoring protocols; and 3) conduct a series of leaf protein palatability tests..

Upon a successful Phase I, we plan to move from small scale trials designed to identify the optimum extraction methods to moving those extraction methods to full village scale capable of supporting a model village of 500 people with 50 domestic animals, and initiating overseas leaf protein production trials. We plan to partner with a well-networked NGO to begin the familiarization process, and provide various forms of leaf protein foods to selected groups in developing countries and generate data on key indicators of improved maternal, fetal, newborn and infant nutrition including birth weight, ratio of live births, newborn and infant weight gain, and incidence and duration of successful breast feeding. AF&T’s primary partner, MMC, through its global online network will engage the local medical, scientific and analytical resources and capacities needed to monitor and evaluate the impact of these foods on human nutrition. AF&T will also generate U.S. data for leaf protein extraction residue used as animal feed, including weight gain, milk and egg production, fiber quality, fertility and reproduction.

Working with collaborators, AF&T will use our protein extraction experience and protocols to design and build a prototype protein extraction technology using essentially “off-the-shelf” components and placing a small number of prototypes in developing country communities. After prototype development and testing, we intend to model our dissemination of this technology following the “Heifer Project” model. Just as the Heifer Project puts animals, which are essentially meat and milk protein machines, into the hands of village-level entrepreneurs (mostly women), after a training program, AF&T’s vision is to put increasing numbers of Leaf Protein extraction units into similar hands after training. We will utilize the global village-level reach of MMC and other NGO partners to identify, qualify, train and support these food entrepreneurs and help them establish their local biomass grower networks. They will be able to produce culturally acceptable, nutritionally and clinically potent protein food products with high nutritive values that will gradually become a part of peoples’ volitional diets, with the residues of the process to be used as a high value animal feed that we believe will provide a community nutritional level solution to the human toll now wrought by Protein Energy Malnutrition.

APPENDIX – FOOD-GRADE PROTEIN & BIOENERGY PRODUCTION

Energy Cane (Pennisetum pupura) Concentrate Process

This process was developed for use with energy cane used as a substrate for a bioenergy project. It is based on a similar process used in the EU to extract leaf protein from Alfalfa for use as both human and animal feed. This same process can be directly scaled down for use with appropriate low-technology at the village level.

Animal feed values for Pennisetum p. are shown in this table.

If Pennisetum p. energy cane in excess of the bioenergy installation requirements is produced, that portion of excess cane can be taken through the process described below to extract additional co-product value.

In this way a crop of energy cane can generate three distinct revenue streams: (1) as a source of high value protein curd extracted from the macerated whole plant (2) as Brown Juice plus the fibrous pulp from which the Green Juice has originally been extracted, utilized as a biogas production booster when combined with animal manure and other substrates and (3) as a source of enhanced animal feed production when excess cane is produced but not used in the AD processes.

1. Pulping and pressing of energy cane

Immediately after cutting, the cane is pulped and pressed forcefully to separate a large part of the nutritional factors from the indigestible fiber. Done rapidly, this stage also limits hydrolysis of cellular proteins by proteases. The nutritional elements, consisting principally of chloroplastic and cytoplasmic proteins, pigments and vitamins, are recovered in the green juice expressed.

The co-product of this green juice production, the ligneous and cellulosic fibers of the stalk and leaves, is dried and used as fodder, as it remains an excellent source of high quantity animal feed. Its overall nutritive value, moreover, is improved because of the shattering of the stalk fibers (the nutrients are freed and the fibers themselves more easily digested by the cellulytic ferment in the rumen).

2. Heat coagulation of protein

The green juice, adjusted to pH 8.5 utilizing acetic acid to slow down the action of phenyloxydase and to improve the structure of the coagulum, is pre-heated and then brought to 85-90* C by steam injection. This causes coagulation without degradation of almost all the proteins which are within the pigments; fat-soluble vitamins, lipids and minerals.

3. Separation of the coagulum

Next, the coagulum (moist green curd containing the majority of the nutrients) is centrifuged from the rest of the solution (designated brown juice from this point on in the process).

This curd contains more than 50 % of crude protein, of which 80 % is true protein, accompanied by some free amino-acids or peptides. Heat coagulation extracts on average 8 % of the original DM of the crop and 20 – 25 % of its protein.

4. Drying and storage

The curd, as paste, having been mechanically separated from most of the brown juice is dried on a heated belt utilizing process heat from the generator unit of the AD facility. So far, the making of concentrates for animal or human consumption is the same.

Then, the concentrate is pelletized and stored in sealed silos’ cells under inert gas, awaiting distribution.

For human feeding, the energy cane concentrate is ground. This meal (on average with moisture content of 8 %) must be kept dry, away from air, heat and light. Thus, it is bagged hermetically immediately.

To protect pigments and vitamins an antioxidant is added

– For animal feed: Ethoxyquin (150 mg/kg)

– For human feed : Ascorbic acid (500 mg/kg).

5. By-product usage

The brown juice, still containing 13 – 15 % of the original dry matter (DM) is mainly soluble Nitrogen mineral salts and sugars It is mixed with the fibrous residue. This mixture is dried in high temperature air in a rotating drum. The by-product thus obtained is ground, pelletized and stocked for marketing. It contains 16-20 % protein, 25-30 % cellulose and 100-150 mg carotene/kg. It is excellent fodder for cattle and rabbits.

For the profitability of this industry, the realization of the value of the two products (protein extract and co-product representing- respectively 8 % and 92 % original DM) is essential.

6. Homogeneity of energy cane concentrate (ECC)

The protein content of ECC varies slightly, from 50 – 60 %, although the protein content of energy cane as cut varies from 15 – 25 %, according to the timing of the cut and vegetative stage of the crop. Thus the variation in quality of the vegetation processed results in a quantity of ECC between 6 and 12 % of original DM with an average of 8%


by Leave a comment

Your Money And Your Life

The bigger they are …

Highwaymen in the Middle Ages gave travelers a choice – they could hand over their cash and all their possessions, or they could hand over their life. At least those criminals gave their victims a choice.

Big tobacco wants both. “They just keep lining up for a smoke, so we grab ’em, drain ’em, and toss ’em aside – there’s plenty more coming down the highway. “

This post offers you an inside look at how Big Tobacco spreads its money around to buy scientists and regulators in order to create meaningless tobacco regulations based on purposely faked science so they can say “See, we’re playing by the rules, so you can’t touch us.” 

Well, I do believe that Big Tobacco has outsmarted itself with its attempt to move smokers away from smoking and into vaporizing. That’s because in order to accomplish this massive feat of social engineering Big Tobacco has inadvertently revealed some things about their industrial practices that will, when clearly understood, point directly to their massive corporate crimes.

This post is an excerpt from a World Health Organization internal document titled: “Tobacco Company Strategies to Undermine Tobacco Control Activities at the World Health Organization”. This 250 page report reveals the extent of Big Tobacco’s subversion, corruption, intimidation and seduction of scientists, regulators, institutions, and anti-tobacco efforts worldwide. WHO estimates that by 2050 Big Tobacco will have killed 1 Billion people in its rampage, and this is a detailed look at how it has managed to accomplish the miracle of killing millions of people for profit and never being held criminally accountable.

This courageous and powerful report reveals in great detail the remarkable efforts Big Tobacco makes to cover its tracks, and it seems pretty clear that the only reason it would go to that enormous trouble and expense would be if they knew that if the truth about what they are really up to were to get out there, and if the truth could break through all that very expensive social engineering they’ve been doing for decades, they would all be doing the CNN perpwalk.

The reason this is relevant to a blog on Coca and Cannabis is that if you look closely at the methods Big Tobacco has used to systematically subvert scientists and government agencies worldwide to protect itself and pursue its goals, you can explain a lot of otherwise puzzling and inconsistent things about the American “War on Drugs”. After you read the following excerpt, and maybe the whole WHO report, see if you don’t agree with me that the “War on Drugs” has had the smell of Big Tobacco all over it since the 1970’s.

THE REPORT, Section Seven: “Subverting Science And Health”

Distorting WHO Research

Tobacco companies have a long history of distorting science to oppose restrictions on tobacco. Some of the tactics the tobacco companies have used for decades to manipulate the scientific and public debate include:

1.     Secretly Funding Speakers at WHO Conferences

Tobacco companies have attempted to influence the tone and content of WHO- sponsored scientific conferences by paying “independent” scientists to attend and present papers. For example, Japan Tobacco Inc. (JTI) planned to pay 40 scientists to “present ‘neutral’ papers” at the 6th World Health Conference on Smoking or Health held in Japan in 1987.117 JTI calculated that the 40 scientists they would plant at the conference would exert significant influence:

“J.T.I. is trying to change the very nature and tone of the conference through these efforts.”118

INFOTAB, too, planned to encourage the submission of papers favorable to tobacco companies to the 6th WCToH.119

JTI also planned to get a scientific foundation controlled by tobacco companies (SRFS) involved as a member of the Academic Committee for the conference, to permit JTI to participate in the screening of papers for the conference:

“If the SRFS can send members to this committee, ‘neutral’ papers could be submitted to the conference.”120

2.     Holding Scientific Symposia to Promote Pro-Industry Positions, with Tobacco Companies’ Role Concealed

As part of its campaign to undermine the IARC ETS study, tobacco companies arranged for several symposia on ETS at which speakers chosen for views consistent with the tobacco companies’ position would present papers. Tobacco company sponsorship of some of these symposia was concealed or minimized. Some of these conferences were primarily sponsored by tobacco company front organizations, such as Healthy Buildings International and CIAR.121 The views expressed at the symposia were disseminated by tobacco companies as “independent” scientific viewpoints.122

3.     Misrepresenting Tobacco Company Work as WHO- Supported

In an apparent attempt to enhance the credibility of a tobacco company-sponsored ETS conference, industry officials widely misrepresented the conference as WHO- sponsored, based on the attendance at the conference of a single WHO official.123

4.     Using “Independent” Consultants with Concealed Tobacco Company Ties to Lobby WHO Scientists

Echoing its use of front organizations as surrogates, tobacco companies have used outside scientists with concealed tobacco company ties to approach and lobby WHO on scientific questions related to tobacco.

5.     Contacting WHO Study Scientists to Influence Study Results

As part of their plan to undermine the IARC ETS study, tobacco companies set out to establish contacts with the study investigators and collaborators.124  With some exceptions,125 the tobacco companies arranged to have contacts made through outside scientists acting as tobacco company consultants.126 The tobacco company affiliation of the consultants who contacted the IARC investigators was frequently concealed.127 These contacts with IARC scientists were to be used to gather “the best information about the status and likely findings of the study,”128 convince study investigators of the weaknesses of the IARC study,129 and, ultimately, achieve “the objective of no report or a report which draws mild conclusions from its data.”130

Through their contacts with IARC investigators and collaborators the tobacco companies were successful in gaining a large amount of information about the design and conduct of the study. More importantly, they were able to gain confidential information about preliminary study results and about how the study was likely to be interpreted. The tobacco companies were not able to influence the outcome of the study, however.

6.     Presenting Tobacco Company Arguments Through “Independent” Scientists with Concealed Tobacco Company Ties

Tobacco companies’ scientific consultants have also lobbied WHO on scientific issues without revealing their tobacco company ties. For example, Peter Lee, a tobacco company consultant, wrote to the Director-General of WHO,131 apparently at BAT’s request, providing a lengthy criticism of a WHO study of mortality from tobacco use. In his letter, Lee described himself as “an independent statistician/epidemiologist who has followed the literature on smoking and health very closely for over 20 years.” He did not disclose any tobacco industry affiliations.132

7.     Compromising Independence and Credibility of WHO Studies by Involving Investigators in Tobacco Company Research or Activities

Tobacco companies, through their front organization CIAR, attempted to involve IARC and its investigators in collaborative ventures. These ventures included (1) using IARC investigators to conduct studies on ETS confounders that could be used by tobacco companies to challenge the IARC study, (2) offering research grants to IARC investigators, and (3) offering to put an IARC investigator on CIAR’s advisory board.133

According to the study coordinator, IARC itself did not pursue any proposed collaboration once IARC became aware of CIAR’s tobacco company connections.134 One IARC collaborator did, however, conduct a study for CIAR on confounders. The tobacco companies’ purpose in using an IARC collaborator was almost certainly to undermine the IARC study results by attempting to produce evidence, under the name of one of IARC’s own investigators, that would undercut the study.

Tobacco companies conducted and publicly promoted a large number of studies, conferences, and literature reviews on ETS that were designed to challenge the validity of the IARC ETS study. These activities were generally carried out through third parties to create the appearance that the data and opinions were independent of tobacco industry influence.

The data from these studies were used successfully by industry officials when the IARC study results were released to cast doubt on the study. For example, the Sunday Telegraph cited the tobacco company-financed studies as evidence that:

“Passive smokers inhale the equivalent of just six cigarettes a year from other people’s smoke, according to the largest ever study of actual exposure levels of non-smokers. The figure, which undermines previous warnings about the dangers of passive smoking, is a thousand times lower than that faced by direct smokers, and so tiny that it could not be measured statistically.”135

8.     Creating an Ostensibly Independent Coalition of Scientists

Tobacco companies sought to create an ostensibly independent coalition of scientists in Europe to help criticize the IARC study and other scientific studies used to support tobacco control policies.136 Like The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) created by Philip Morris and a public relations firm in the US, the European group would appear to be independent but would be initiated and funded by tobacco companies and by other industries.137

The committee of experts was unable to determine the success of this plan. Ong and Glantz have reported, however, that the likely outcome of this initiative was the European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF),138 although ESEF claims to receive little or no tobacco industry funding.139 ESEF has listed on its website at least two working papers criticizing the IARC ETS study, and the methods used in ETS epidemiological studies.140  Lorraine Moody, ESEF’s “key contact,”141 wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal claiming that the IARC study showed a possibly “trivial or nonexistent” risk of lung cancer from ETS, demonstrating that the health risks of ETS are overstated.142

9.     Misrepresenting Scientific Studies to the Media and Regulators

The results of the IARC ETS study, released in 1998, showed that non-smoking spouses of smokers have an estimated 16% increased risk of developing lung cancer and that non-smokers exposed to ETS in the workplace have an estimated 17% increased risk of developing lung cancer.143 IARC’s reported results were consistent with the results of other ETS studies, showing an increased risk of lung cancer for nonsmokers exposed to ETS by a spouse or in the workplace.144 However, there were not enough subjects in the study for the increased risk to reach “statistical significance,” using common statistical methods (i.e., at the 95% confidence level).145

Shortly after the results of the IARC ETS study were released, BAT issued a press release stating: “New scientific research from the World Health Organization has shown the risk of lung cancer from environmental tobacco smoke to be either non-existent or too small to be measured at a meaningful level.”146 Thus, BAT claimed that the lack of statistical significance was equivalent to a finding that there was no relationship between ETS and lung cancer. These claims were picked up first by the Sunday Telegraph and then by other news outlets.

Despite subsequent clarifying statements from IARC and WHO about the study results, the misrepresentation of the study results in the BAT news release was repeated in media accounts around the world. Tobacco companies may also have distorted the IARC study results when addressing regulatory authorities.

10.  Staging Media Events or Other Diversions to Discredit or Distract Attention from WHO Tobacco Control Activities

Tobacco companies planned a series of distractions from the 8th World Conference on Tobacco OR Health.  These plans, at  least some of which were carried out, included a media campaign just before the 8th WCToH, emphasizing the need for childhood immunizations; a major soccer game to distract attention from Jimmy Carter’s arrival; training journalists to disrupt a press conference held by the conference organizers; and embarrassing US Senator Ted Kennedy by planting journalists to ask questions about drinking and sexual harassment allegations.

One unattributed BAT document with the handwritten title “Dietrich/WHO” on the title page also planned an event, called the “Global Children’s Health Conference,” to “distract the media from extensive coverage of the May 31, 1990 International Anti- Smoking Day and the 1990 theme of Smoking and Children.”147 According to the document, through the Institute  for IIHD, run by Paul Dietrich (see Chapter VI), BAT would hold a conference for business and government leaders and launch a longer- term strategy to increase private funding for children’s health issue. In describing the program strategy, the BAT document states:

“ The event will be staged to pre-empt monitored WHO meetings and conferences“,150 had confidential WHO contacts,151 and obtained confidential documents and information.152 Examples of clandestine surveillance activities are described in several of the case studies.

“The conference can facilitate the development of a long-term initiative to counteract the WHO’s anti- smoking campaign 

“At no time during the event will the issue of smoking be addressed…

“…Design the Conference to address primary health needs of children underscoring the ‘real crisis’. Develop an oblique critique of WHO’s anti- smoking campaign which identifies it as trivial when the global infants’ and children’s crisis is evaluated.

“Introduce alternative solutions which, in the long-term, could successfully undermine the WHO’s overall mandate.”148

It appears that BAT did not carry through with this conference.

11.  Conducting Systematic Surveillance of WHO Activities

Tobacco companies have carried out intensive monitoring of WHO and its Regional Offices to gather intelligence about its tobacco control programs.149

Some of the industry’s intelligence-gathering has been conducted openly, through attendance at open meetings and conferences and through open contacts with WHO and other UN officials.

There is also evidence, however, that tobacco companies have secretly monitored conferences,150 had confidential WHO contacts,151 and obtained confidential documents and information.152

Examples of clandestine surveillance activities are described in several of the case studies.

This ends the excerpt. You can read and download the full 250 page UN Report in PDF format here:

“Tobacco Company Strategies to Undermine Tobacco Control Activities at the World Health Organization” 

If you are inclined to look at references, here they are – just for this section. The entire report contains thousands of similarly damning references that put the moral degradation and greed of this industry on full display. And they really don’t care, because they have convinced themselves that they are untouchable. They would do well to remember – Al Capone was brought down by a simple little tax violation and not by any of his vast criminal conspiracies and crimes. 

I think that the industry’s attempt to engineer a shift from smoking to vaporizing is going to reveal the tobacco industry’s equivalent of a simple little tax evasion crime that will be enough, when all the evidence is brought to bear, for the initiation of a crimes against humanity trial in the World Court that will ultimately result in worldwide government and civil seizure of tobacco industry assets.

Notes & References

WHOIIOCUIUICC: Strategies and Tactics. January 31, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501045143–5147 at 5143. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32846.

Appendix I, INFOTAB January 1989 Discussion Paper. January 30, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501045258–5268 at 5262. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33561.

World Watch: Protecting our Global ‘Next Generation’-A Proposed Conference on Children’s Health Issues. October 1989. 300516227–6285 at 6235. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33691.

WHOIIOCUIUICC: Strategies and Tactics. January 31, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501045143–5147 at 5143. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32846.

Hartogh JM. To all members of the ICOSI task force 4th world conference on smoking and health. [Memo by E. Brueckner.] June 26, 1979. British American Tobacco Company. 100433043–3047 at 3046. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33162.

WHOIIOCUIUICC: Strategies and Tactics. January 31, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501045143–5147 at 5146. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32846.

Appendix I, INFOTAB January 1989 Discussion Paper. January 30, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501045258–5268. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33561.

WHOIIOCUIUICC: Strategies and Tactics. January 31,  1989. Philip Morris Companies  Inc. .2501045143–5147  at  5146. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32846.

PMI Corporate Affairs Action Plan 1990. November 2, 1989est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2500019979–9999 at 9980–9982. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33558.

Sullivan J. IARC Study. September 2, 1993. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501117793– 7797 at 7795. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33603

Egawa E. April 25, 1986. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021654119–4123. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 66.

Bloxidge JA. International Tobacco Growers’ Association (ITGA). October 11, 1988. British American Tobacco Company. 502555415–5417 at 5417. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33284.

Boyse S. 8th World Conference on Tobacco and Health. August 28, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 202019292–9293 at 9292. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33262.

Bible G. Corporate Affairs Conference I Action Plan. December 13, 1986. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021596422–6432 at 6429. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32834.

Appendix I, INFOTAB January 1989 Discussion Paper. January 30, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501045258–5268. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33561.

Interview with Alan Lopez, Coordinator, Epidemiology and Burden of Disease, World Health Organization, May 4, 2000.

Oldman M. [Letter to G Pedlow]. March 13, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 502555357–5363 at 5363. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33278.

Agro-Tobacco Services-Programme Review No1. 1992. British American Tobacco Company. 502552606–2611 at 2609. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33290.

Interview with Alan Lopez, May 4, 2000.

Lee PN. Dr. Helmut Schievelbein. August 9, 1979. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501159889–9891 at 9889. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33717.

Minutes of the Meeting of the Working Group of the E.E.C. Tobacco  Manufacturers’ Associations, Held in Luxemburg on 4th and 5th October 1979. November 11, 1979. Philip

Morris Companies Inc. 2501015083–5096 at 5088. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33716.

Belcher P. Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCTH). February 9, 1994. Rothmans International. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2024188905–8907 at 8905. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33715.

Independent Scientific Review of the Toxic Substances Board Report, May 1989, Summary, Commissioned by the Tobacco Institute of New Zealand. 1989est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2504203558–3559. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33535.

Collett C. Memo to Ted Sterling re: International Symposium on Environmental Tobacco Smoke, November 3-4, 1989.

November 1989est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2062856942. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33536.

Rothman’s International Tobacco ETS Workshop. May 1992est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501237099. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33532.

25 . Pen Pictures of Guest Speakers. May 1992est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501237101– 7103 at 7101. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33531.

S&H. Re: Dr. Furst-Review of Non-Smoker Problem CTR Special Pro}ect. 1976est. Lorillard Tobacco Company. 03747419. TDO Supersite at www.tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 33714.

From the record before Congress, the Case for Defeat of S. 772. 1983est. Tobacco Institute. TIMN 0353310–3320 at 3312. TDO Supersite at www.tobaccodocuments.org/. UQ 33729.

Purvis A, Johnson J. Privileged and confidential attorneyIclient connumications. Trial Report, SummaryITestimonyIPro}ection. April 21, 1988. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2025880540– 0543. Bliley Documents at www.tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 33730.

Tobacco Institute Newsletter. March 12, 1982. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 515841024. Bliley Documents at www.tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 98.

Hoel D. Confidential-For counsel only. July 10, 1979. Philip Morris Companies Inc.

  1. Bliley Documents at www.tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 99.

Tobacco Institute Newsletter. March 12, 1982. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 515841024. Bliley Documents at www.tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 98.

Lyberopoulos H. ARISE 1994-95 Activities and Funding. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2024208096–8099. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33779.

Information on Associates for Research in Substance En}oyment Meeting in Venice. 1991est. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. 508300651–0667 at 0652. http://www.rjrtdocs UQ 33749.

Wilhelmus J. WHO. April 18, 1995. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2063625254. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33541.

Luik J, Snel J, Warburton D. ARISE (Associates for Research into the Science of En}oyment): A Summary of the Workshop Held in April 1995. April 1995est. R.J. Reynolds  Tobacco Company.  511818234–8241. www.rjrtdocs.com. UQ 33731.

The World Health Organization. December 1985est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2023267436. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 46.

36 . Reif H. Continuation of the Vettorazzi Pro}ect. March 25, 1992. Philip Morris Companies Inc. PM 2025594741–4743 at 4742. http://www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33466.

Consultant to ICOSI on International Organisations. August 1980est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2025049734. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 37.

Developing Countries Group (DCG). Progress report covering events since the ICOSI board of directors meeting October  5I8th,  1980. February 1981est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2025049364–9374 at 9365. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 40.

Hauser. [Letter to AG Leeks]. April 20, 1983. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2023273908– 3909. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 42.

Secretariat Interim Report. December 28,1984. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2023272512– 2617 at 2514. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 43.

CASIN. January 11, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 300557237–7259 at 7241. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33350.

CASIN. January 11, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 300557237–7259 at 7240. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33350.

CASIN. January 11, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 300557237–7259 at 7256. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33350.

Interviews with Neil Collishaw, Leanne Riley, and Barbara Zolty, all former employees of the WHO’s Tobacco or Health Program, Feb. 4, 2000.

Boca Raton Action Plan: WHOIIOCUIUICC: Strategies and Tactics. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501045143–5147 at 5146. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32846.

E–mail communication from Neil Collishaw. March 29, 2000.

Interviews with Neil Collishaw, Barbara Zolty, and Leanne Riley, February 4, 2000.

E–mail communication from Barbara Zolty, March 2, 2000.

Sullivan J. IARC Study. September 2, 1993. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501117793– 7797 at 7795. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33603.

Von Maerestetten C. IARC. July 26, 1993. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2025493295. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33776.

IARC Study. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501347168–7173 at 7172. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33595.

Pages R. Update 2: IARC study of ETS and lung cancer. August 2, 1993. Philip Morris Companies  Inc. 20232999819. http://www.pmdocs.com.  UQ 33733.

Memo on vaccines for world health organization. October 25, 1971. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2012581044. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 4.

Boca Raton Action Plan: WHOIIOCUIUICC: Strategies and Tactics. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501045143–5147 at 5146. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32846.

Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association. Invoice. August 17, 1995. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2050761274. http://www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33546.

Schrankel K. Final Report to Contributors of Anethole Research Fund. August 25, 1998. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2063597040. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33548.

Minutes of Anethole Task Force. May 2, 1996. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2063616600. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33547.

Minutes of Anethole Task Force. May 2, 1996. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2063616600. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33547.

Schrankel. Final Report to Contributors of Anethole Research Fund. August 25, 1998. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2063597040. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33548

TIMN270055–0059 at 0058. http://www.tobaccoinstitute.com. UQ 32904.

Hartogh JM. To all members of the ICOSI task force 4th world conference on smoking and health. [Memo by E. Brueckner.] June 26, 1979. British American Tobacco Company.

100433043–3047. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33162.

Oldman M. [Letter to G Pedlow]. March 13, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 502555357–5363 at 5358. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33278.

  1. Developing Countries Ad Hoc Group (DCG). Progress Report Covering Events Since the ICOSI Board of Directors Meeting on 19th February, 1980. August 1980est.

  2. Philip Morris1987. British American Tobacco Company. 301760973–0979 at 0979. Guildford Document

 Depository. UQ 33254

Appendix I, INFOTAB January 1989, Discussion Paper. January 30, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501045258–5268 at 5262. Minnesota Document Depository. UQ 33561.

Pro}ect Report Covering Pro}ects and Action Plans Since the Board of Directors Meeting on March 30, 1981. 1981est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2025048077–8088 at 8077. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 41.

                Pro}ect Report Covering Pro}ects and Action Plans Since the Board of Directors Meeting on March 30, 1981. 1981est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2025048077–8088 at 8082. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 41.

Verkerk H. Fifth World Conference on Smoking and Health-Winnepeg.  Philip  Morris Companies Inc. 2501021564–1586 at 1577. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32888.

Secretariat Interim Report. December 28, 1984. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2023272512– 2617 at 2594. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 43.

Marcotullio. INFOTAB Board of Director’s (BOD) Meeting-March 30, 1981. April 6, 1981. 502741855. Bliley Documents at www.tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 60.

Witt S. International Committee on Smoking Issues Lausanne-November 10-12, 1977.

November 18, 1977. 502330545. Bliley Documents at www.tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 61.

Schlosser A, Mine K (Chadbourne, Parke). Representative Compilation of Literature Describing the Benefits of Tobacco. April 29, 1986. Brown & Williamson Company. 681870460–0654 at 0602. Bliley Documents at

www.tobaccodocuments.org.  UQ 64.

INFOTAB. INFOTAB Workshop. Undated. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501021710– 1711. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32891.

Hauser. April 20, 1983. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2023273908. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 42.

Secretariat Interim Report. December 28, 1984. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2023272512– 2617 at 2594. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 43.

Simpson B, Hauser N. Background Papers for the INFOTAB Advisory Group Meeting, December, 5-7, 1983. November 25, 1983.

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company. 699101438–1473. www.bwdocs.aalatg.com. UQ 32853.

International Organizations Monitoring Service. Industry Sectors and International Organizations-Tobacco Update and Outlook on World Health Organization Activities Affecting MNCs. March 5, 1986.  Philip  Morris Companies Inc. 2024272808- 2814 at 2812. Bliley Documents at www.tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 33777.

Oldman M. [Letter to D. Bacon, enclosing “Agro-Tobacco Services (ATS), Proposal for a Consultancy Agreement”]. January 7, 1992. British American Tobacco Company. 502552644–2654 at 2650. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33302.

Oldman M. [Letter to D. Bacon, enclosing “Agro-Tobacco Services (ATS), Proposal for a Consultancy Agreement”]. January 7, 1992. British American Tobacco Company. 502552644–2654 at 2647. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33302.

Oldman M. [Letter to G. Pedlow]. March 13, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 502555357–5363 at 5361. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33278.

Oldman M. [Letter to G. Pedlow]. March 13, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 502555357–5363 at 5358. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33278.

Oldman M. [Letter to G. Pedlow]. March 13, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 502555357–5363 at 5361. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33278.

Oldman M. [Letter to D Bacon enclosing Agro- tobacco Activity Report for January 1993]. February 10, 1993. British American Tobacco Company. 502552508–2513 at 2512–2513. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33296.

Oldman M. Paper for ITGA General Meeting, 1994. 1994est. British American Tobacco

Document Depository. UQ 33256.

Bacon D. Development Aid, Progress. November 28, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 202049931–9932 at 9931. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33256.

Bacon D. Development Aid, Progress. November 28, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 202049931–9932 at 9932. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33256.

Bible G. Corporate Affairs Conference I Action Plan. December 13, 1988. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021596422–6432 at 6429. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32834.

Boca Raton Action Plan: Status Report for the Period Ending January 31, 1989. January 31, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2500103969–4056 at 3989. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32863.

Boyse S. [Letter to Peter Hazel, David Bacon, and JJ Mostyn]. August 8, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 304004032. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33184

Dietrich P. WHO spends money on what? The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 1989. UQ 33662.

Oldman M. [Letter to D. Bacon enclosing Activity Report, September/October 1993]. November 1, 1993. British American Tobacco Company. 502555329–5331 at 5331. UQ 33276.

Boca Raton Action Plan: Status Report for the Period Ending May 31, 1989. May 31, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021592752– 2764 at 2752. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32859.

Boca Raton Action Plan: Status Report Ending July 31, 1989. July 31, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2023547120–7135 at 7121. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32860.

Boca Raton Action Plan Summary Report December 3, 1988-October 30, 1989. October 30, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2503005015–5050. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32862.

Oldman M. [Letter to D. Bacon enclosing Activity Report, September/October 1993]. November 1, 1993. British American Tobacco Company. 502555329–5331 at 5331. UQ 33276

Ntaba H. Letter to the Editor, International Health and Development, Vol. 1, No. 2, Summer, p. 31. UQ 33689.

Boca Raton Action Plan: Status Report for the Period Ending September 30, 1989. September 30, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501204997–5021 at 4998. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32861.

Boyse S. [Letter to Paul Dietrich]. August 7, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 300516113. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33571.

Rupp J. Statement, Philip Morris International (Latin America). November 30, 1992. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2023591405. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32903.

Bacon D. Who Benefits from WHO? November 24, 1993. British American Tobacco Company.

  1. UQ 33311.

Agenda: “Primer Encuentro de Periodistas Y la Industria Del Tabaco.” June 1991est. British American Tobacco Company.  300565679– 5681. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33675.

BAT Smoking Issues Briefing, Taiwan. September 6–8, 1992. British American

Tobacco Company. 300565674–5675. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33677.

Agenda, Meeting of Social Communicators and the Tobacco Industry. November 1992est.

British American Tobacco Company. 300565668–5671. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33678.

Oldman M. [Letter to G. Pedlow]. March 13, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 502555357–5363 at 5359. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33278.

Bloxidge JA. International Tobacco Growers’ Association (ITGA). October 11, 1988. British American Tobacco Company. 502555415– 5417. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33284.

Oldman M. [Letter to G. Pedlow]. March 13, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 502555357–5363 at 5360. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33278.

Oldman M. Agro-Tobacco Services (ATS), Proposed Plan. November 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 502552655–2667 at 2659. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33303.

INFOTAB International Workshop, Brussels, October 13-16, 1986. October 16, 1986. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501446636–7080 at 6723–6724. www.pmdocs.com UQ 33566.

Boca Raton Action Plan: Appendix A, WHOIIOCUIUICC: Strategies and Tactics. January 31, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501045143–5147.www.pmdocs.com UQ 32846.

Wells JK. INFOTAB Advisory Council Meeting July 14 and 15, 1982. July 21, 1982. Brown &Williamson Company. 680002301–2307.

Bliley Documents at www.tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 20.

Bible G. Corporate Affairs Conference I Action Plan. December 13, 1988. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021596422–6432 at 6429. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32834.

Egawa E. April 25, 1986. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021654119–4123 at 4121. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 66.

Egawa E. April 25, 1986. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021654119–4123 at 4121. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 66.

INFOTAB International Workshop, Brussels, October 13-16, 1986. October 16, 1986. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501446636–7080 at 6677. www.pmdocs.com UQ 33566.

Egawa E. April 25, 1986. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021654119–4123 at 4120. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 66.

Whitley C. Statement of Charles O. Whitley on behalf of the Tobacco Institute before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, Committee on Energy and Commerce,  US House of Representatives [Draft]. July 9, 1990. Tobacco Institute TIMN 0032095–2141  at 2118. Bliley Documents. www.tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 32912.

Zhang M. [Attaching Press article in the China Daily on the CIAR’s GEP workshop in Guangzhou.] September 9, 1997. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2063608546–8547. http://www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33752.

Whitley C. Statement of Charles O. Whitley on behalf of the Tobacco Institute before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, Committee on Energy and Commerce,  US House of Representatives [Draft]. July 9, 1990. Tobacco Institute TIMN 0032095–0032141 at 2118. Bliley Documents. www.tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 32912.

Press release by the organizers of the expert discussion of the “Physician’s View of Passive Smoking”: Health Danger through Passive Smoking Not Proven. April 1984. Philip Morris Companies. 1002965608–6509. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33770.

Masironi R. [Letter to W. Kloepfer]. December 2, 1986. Philip Morris Companies Inc.

2025816621–6624. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33771.

Greenberg D. IARC. September 15, 1993. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021184116–4121 at 4119. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33590.

Walk, R.A. IARC Multi-Center Case Control Study of ETS and Lung Cancer, Your memo dated 21 May 93. July 13, 1993. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2025493287. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33616.

IARC Study. 1994est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501347168–7173 at 7169. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33595.

Pages R. IARC Study of ETS and Lung Cancer. May 21, 1993. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2500015757. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33617.

Walk, R.A. IARC Multi-Center Case Control Study of ETS and Lung Cancer: Update of information. July 30, 1993. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2029041838–1839. http://www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33618.

Interview with Paolo Boffetta, April 17, 2000.

Greenberg D. IARC. September 15, 1993. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021184116–4121 at 4119. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33590.

IARC Study. 1994est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501347168–7173 at 7169. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33595.

Greenberg D. IARC. September 15, 1993. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021184116–4121 at 4118. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33590.

Boyse S. [Letter to Ron Tully.] April 18, 1990. British American Tobacco Company. 400099555. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33507.

Boyse S. [Letter to PN Lee.] December 19, 1989. British American Tobacco Company. 400099679. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33509.

Lee P. May 8, 1990. British American Tobacco Company. 502587275–7284 at 7275. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33236.

Winokur M. [FAX to H. Reif attaching “CIAR and IARC, Next Steps and Options.”] December 19, 1994. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2028381587–1588 at 1588. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33746.

Interview with Paulo Boffetta, April 17, 2000.

Matthews R, MacDonald V. Passive smokers inhale six cigarettes a year. Sunday Telegraph. August 16, 1998.

Lyberopoulos, H. Presentation on IARC [enclosing overheads]. April 19, 1994. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501355931–5944 at 5942. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33604.

Hockaday T, Cohen N. Thoughts on TASSC Europe. March 25, 1994. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2025492898–2905 at 2899. http://www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33758.

Lindheim J. Presentation on Scientist Pro}ect. May 5, 1994. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2025493201–3207 at 3205–3206. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33708.

Ong E, Glantz S. Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer’s second–hand smoke study. The Lancet. 2000; 355: 1253–59.

www.esef.org.  March 2000.

www.esef.org.  March 2000.

www.esef.org.  March 2000.

Mooney L. Smoking out bad science. Wall Street J. March 19, 1998; A18.

Boffetta P, Agudo A, Ahrens W, et al. Multicenter case–control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90: 1440– 50.

Hirayama T. Non–smoking wives of heavy smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer: A study from Japan. BMJ 1981; 282:183–85.

Repace JL, Lowery AH. A quantitative estimate of nonsmokers’ lung cancer risk from passive smoking. Environment Int. 1985;11:3–22.

US Environmental Protection Agency. Health effects of passive smoking: Assessment of lung cancer in adults and respiratory disorders in children. Office of Research and Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. EPA/600/6–90/006F, 1992b.

Boffetta P, Agudo A, Ahrens W, et al. Multicenter case–control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90: 1440–50.

British American Tobacco. [ News release]. March 5, 1998. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2063594010–4240 at 4018. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33750.

World Watch: Protecting our Global ‘Next Generation’-A Proposed Conference on Children’s Health Issues. October 1989. 300516227–6285 at 6235. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33691.

World Watch: Protecting our Global ‘Next Generation’-A Proposed Conference on Children’s Health Issues. October 1989. British American Tobacco Company. 300516227–6285 at 6236. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33691.

INFOTAB . Item 2 Report From The Secretary General . January 1, 1982est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021594826–4836. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32.

Background to the Structure and Operations of the Activist Movement. November 15, 1994.

Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501110753– 0775. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 68.

Seymour M. 6 September 1996 IARC European Response Plan Workshop. August 8, 1996.

Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2063604476– 4498. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 71.

Hauser N. Trip Report-RomeIFAO November 26-29, 1984. November 26, 1984. Philip Morris

Companies Inc. 2023272592–2597. http://www.pmdocs.com. UQ 91.

Hoel D. Confidential-For Counsel Only. July 10, 1979. Brown & Williamson Company.

680040577–0579. Blilely Documents at www.tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 99.

Pages B. IARC. September 13, 1993. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2029173981. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32848.

Dietrich P. [Letter to Sharon Boyse]. October 8, 1991. British American Tobacco Company.

300516052–6053. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 32879.

Proctor C. WHO Meeting in Budapest. March 10, 1994. British American Tobacco Company.

  1. UQ 33214.

Ecoffey D. CASIN . British American Tobacco Company. 304002746–2749. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33253.

Boyse S. 8th World Conference on Tobacco and Health. August 28, 1991. British American

Tobacco Company. 202019292–9293 at 9292. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33262.

Tully R. 8th WCTH. January 29, 1992. British American Tobacco Company. 300504241– 4252. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33334.

Global Business Forum. June 12, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 300557205– 7210. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33348.

CASIN. January 11, 1991. British American

Tobacco Company. 300557237–7259. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33350.

Hartogh J. Report by Task Force 5th World Conference on Smoking and Health, Winnipeg, Canada, July 1983. February 26, 1981. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2025049376–9377. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33514.

The World Health Organization (WHO): Its Work Related to the Activities of the International Tobacco Industry. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501442830–2897 at 2501442889–2897. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 5.

Lojacono G. Research Group Informal Meeting On: Health Effects of ETS in Europe-Paris-P. Broussell Hospital (Ville}uif 13I14 March, 1991). March 1991est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501356073–6076. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33534.

JMH–possibly Hartogh J. Action Plan proposed by ICOSI Task Force 4th World Conference on Smoking & Health. January 29, 1979. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501015212–5215. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33549.

The World Health Organization (WHO): Its Work Related to the Activities of the International Tobacco Industry. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501442830–2897 at 2834. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 5.

Tully R. 8th WCTH. January 29, 1992. British American Tobacco Company. 300504241– 4252. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33334.

The World Health Organization (WHO): Its Work Related to the Activities of the International Tobacco Industry. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501442830–2897 at 2889– 2890. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 5.

Informal Meeting of the IARC Research Group on ETS and Human Cancer. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501349504–9507. http://www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33636.

47th WHO World Assembly:  Informal  meeting of some members of the IARC study group “ETS and the Lung Cancer”. Geneva May 3-6, 1994. Philip Morris Companies Inc. May 5, 1994.

2501347143–7144.  www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33637.

Wilhelmus J. WHO. April 18, 1995. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2063625254. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33541.

CECCM. IARC Study. April 4, 1995. British American Tobacco Company. 500804531– 4537. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33774.

Cerioli A. Report on my attendance to the Conference “Conoscenze Scientifiche, Seperi Popolari e Socita Umana alle Soglie del Duemile. Attualite del Pensiero di A. Maccacaro.” January 27, 1997. Philip Morris

Companies Inc. 2502250796–0797. http://www.pmdocs.com. UQ 29.

Menchaca. January 25, 1990. British American Tobacco Company. 502587287. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33237.

Lojacono G. Research Group Informal Meeting On: Health Effects of ETS in Europe-Paris-P. Broussell Hospital (Ville}uif 13I14 March, 1991). March 14, 1991est. Philip Morris

Companies Inc. 2501356073–6076. http://www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33534.

Pages R. [Forwarding note from H. Reif: IARC Study]. July 19, 1993. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2025470098. www.pmdocs.com.  UQ 32800.

Dietrich P. [Letter to Sharon Boyse, Enclosing Memo of Visit to Thailand and Philippines]. January 29, 1992. British American Tobacco Company. 300516024–37. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33682.

 

WHOIIOCUIUICC: Strategies and Tactics. January 31, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501045143–5147 at 5143. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32846.

  1. Appendix I, INFOTAB January 1989 Discussion Paper. January 30, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501045258–5268 at 5262. pmdocs.com. UQ 33561.

  2. World Watch: Protecting our Global ‘Next Generation’-A Proposed Conference on Children’s Health Issues. October 1989. 300516227–6285 at 6235. Guildford Document Depository. UQ

  3. WHOIIOCUIUICC: Strategies and Tactics. January 31, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501045143–5147 at 5143. pmdocs.com. UQ 32846.

  4. Hartogh JM. To all members of the ICOSI task force 4th world conference on smoking and health. [Memo by E. Brueckner.] June 26, 1979. British American Tobacco Company. 100433043–3047 at 3046. Guildford Document Depository. UQ

  5. WHOIIOCUIUICC: Strategies and Tactics. January 31, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501045143–5147 at 5146. pmdocs.com. UQ 32846.

  6. Appendix I, INFOTAB January 1989 Discussion Paper. January 30, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501045258–5268. pmdocs.com. UQ 33561.

  7. WHOIIOCUIUICC: Strategies and

January 31,  1989. Philip Morris Companies  Inc.

.2501045143–5147  at  5146. www.pmdocs.com.

UQ 32846.

  1. PMI Corporate Affairs Action Plan 1990. November 2, 1989est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2500019979–9999 at 9980–9982. pmdocs.com. UQ 33558.

  2. Sullivan J. IARC Study. September 2, 1993. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501117793– 7797 at 7795. pmdocs.com. UQ 33603

  3. Egawa E. April 25, 1986. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021654119–4123. pmdocs.com. UQ 66.

  4. Bloxidge JA. International Tobacco Growers’ Association (ITGA). October 11, 1988. British American Tobacco Company. 502555415–5417 at 5417. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33284.

  5. Boyse S. 8th World Conference on Tobacco and Health. August 28, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 202019292–9293 at 9292. Guildford Document Depository. UQ

  6. Bible G. Corporate Affairs Conference I Action Plan. December 13, 1986. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021596422–6432 at 6429. pmdocs.com. UQ 32834.

  7. Appendix I, INFOTAB January 1989 Discussion Paper. January 30, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501045258–5268. pmdocs.com. UQ 33561.

  8. Interview with Alan Lopez, Coordinator, Epidemiology and Burden of Disease, World Health Organization, May 4,

  9. Oldman M. [Letter to G Pedlow]. March 13, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 502555357–5363 at 5363. Guildford Document Depository. UQ

  10. Agro-Tobacco Services-Programme Review No1. British American Tobacco Company. 502552606–2611 at 2609. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33290.

  11. Interview with Alan Lopez, May 4,

  12. Lee PN. Helmut Schievelbein. August 9, 1979. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501159889–9891 at 9889. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33717.

  13. Minutes of the Meeting of the Working Group of the E.E.C. Tobacco Manufacturers’ Associations, Held in Luxemburg on 4th and 5th October 1979. November 11, 1979. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501015083–5096 at 5088. pmdocs.com. UQ 33716.

  14. Belcher P. Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCTH). February 9, 1994. Rothmans International. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2024188905–8907 at 8905. pmdocs.com. UQ 33715.

  15. Independent Scientific Review of the Toxic Substances Board Report, May 1989, Summary, Commissioned by the Tobacco Institute of New Zealand. 1989est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2504203558–3559. pmdocs.com. UQ 33535.

Collett C. Memo to Ted Sterling re: International Symposium on Environmental Tobacco Smoke, November 3-4, 1989.

November 1989est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2062856942. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33536.

  1. Rothman’s International Tobacco ETS Workshop. May 1992est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501237099. pmdocs.com. UQ 33532.

25 . Pen Pictures of Guest Speakers. May 1992est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501237101– 7103 at 7101. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33531.

  1. S&H. Re: Dr. Furst-Review of Non-Smoker Problem CTR Special Pro}ect. 1976est. Lorillard Tobacco Company. 03747419. TDO Supersite at tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 33714.

  2. From the record before Congress, the Case for Defeat of S. 772. 1983est. Tobacco Institute. TIMN 0353310–3320 at 3312. TDO Supersite at tobaccodocuments.org/. UQ 33729.

  3. Purvis A, Johnson J. Privileged and confidential attorneyIclient connumications. Trial Report, SummaryITestimonyIPro}ection. April 21, 1988. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2025880540– 0543. Bliley Documents at tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 33730.

  4. Tobacco Institute Newsletter. March 12, 1982. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 515841024. Bliley Documents at tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 98.

Hoel D. Confidential-For counsel only. July 10, 1979. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 6267450002. Bliley Documents at www.tobaccodocuments.org.  UQ 99.

  1. Tobacco Institute Newsletter. March 12, 1982. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 515841024. Bliley Documents at tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 98.

  2. Lyberopoulos H. ARISE 1994-95 Activities and Funding. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2024208096–8099. pmdocs.com. UQ 33779.

  3. Information on Associates for Research in Substance En}oyment Meeting in Venice. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. 508300651–0667 at 0652. http://www.rjrtdocs UQ 33749.

  4. Wilhelmus J. WHO. April 18, 1995. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2063625254. pmdocs.com. UQ 33541.

  5. Luik J, Snel J, Warburton D. ARISE (Associates for Research into the Science of En}oyment): A Summary of the Workshop Held in April 1995. April 1995est. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.  511818234–8241. rjrtdocs.com. UQ 33731.

  6. The World Health Organization. December 1985est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2023267436. pmdocs.com. UQ 46.

36 . Reif H. Continuation of the Vettorazzi Pro}ect. March 25, 1992. Philip Morris Companies Inc. PM 2025594741–4743 at 4742. http://www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33466.

  1. Consultant to ICOSI on International Organisations. August 1980est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2025049734. pmdocs.com. UQ 37.

  2. Developing Countries Group (DCG). Progress report covering events since the ICOSI board of directors meeting October 5I8th,  1980. February 1981est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2025049364–9374 at 9365. pmdocs.com. UQ 40.

Hauser. [Letter to AG Leeks]. April 20, 1983. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2023273908– 3909. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 42.

Secretariat Interim Report. December 28,1984. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2023272512– 2617 at 2514. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 43.

  1. January 11, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 300557237–7259 at 7241. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33350.

  2. January 11, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 300557237–7259 at 7240. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33350.

  3. January 11, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 300557237–7259 at 7256. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33350.

  4. Interviews with Neil Collishaw, Leanne Riley, and Barbara Zolty, all former employees of the WHO’s Tobacco or Health Program, Feb. 4, 2000.

  5. Boca Raton Action Plan: WHOIIOCUIUICC: Strategies and Tactics. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501045143–5147 at 5146. pmdocs.com. UQ 32846.

  6. E–mail communication from Neil Collishaw. March 29,

  7. Interviews with Neil Collishaw, Barbara Zolty, and Leanne Riley, February 4,

  8. E–mail communication from Barbara Zolty, March 2,

  9. Sullivan J. IARC Study. September 2, 1993. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501117793– 7797 at 7795. pmdocs.com. UQ 33603.

  10. Von Maerestetten C. IARC. July 26, 1993. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2025493295. pmdocs.com. UQ 33776.

  11. IARC Study. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501347168–7173 at 7172. pmdocs.com. UQ 33595.

Pages R. Update 2: IARC study of ETS and lung cancer. August 2, 1993. Philip Morris Companies  Inc. 20232999819. http://www.pmdocs.com.  UQ 33733.

  1. Memo on vaccines for world health organization. October 25, 1971. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2012581044. pmdocs.com. UQ 4.

  2. Boca Raton Action Plan: WHOIIOCUIUICC: Strategies and Tactics. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501045143–5147 at 5146. pmdocs.com. UQ 32846.

  3. Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association. Invoice. August 17, 1995. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2050761274. pmdocs.com. UQ 33546.

  4. Schrankel K. Final Report to Contributors of Anethole Research Fund. August 25, 1998. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2063597040. pmdocs.com. UQ 33548.

  5. Minutes of Anethole Task Force. May 2, 1996. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2063616600. pmdocs.com. UQ 33547.

  6. Minutes of Anethole Task Force. May 2, 1996. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2063616600. pmdocs.com. UQ 33547.

Schrankel. Final Report to Contributors of Anethole Research Fund. August 25, 1998. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2063597040. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33548 TIMN270055–0059 at 0058. http://www.tobaccoinstitute.com. UQ 32904.

Hartogh JM. To all members of the ICOSI task force 4th world conference on smoking and health. [Memo by E. Brueckner.] June 26, 1979. British American Tobacco Company. 100433043–3047. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33162.

Oldman M. [Letter to G Pedlow]. March 13, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 502555357–5363 at 5358. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33278.

Companies Inc. 2025049727–9733 at 9728.

56.

Temple B. Re: ICD Meeting-4 October 1991.

www.pmdocs.com. UQ 39.

September 13, 1991. British  American Tobacco                 61. Developing Countries Ad Hoc Group (DCG).

57.

Company. 300516087–6090. UQ 33573.

Temple B. Industry Council for Development

Progress Report Covering Events  Since the

ICOSI Board of  Directors Meeting October

(ICD). May 1, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 300516092–6095 at 6092–6093.

Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33781.

5I8th 1980. February 1981est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2025049364–9374 at 9368–

9369. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 40.

58.

Finnegan T, Senkus M, Zahn L.

Action Plan proposed by ICOSI Task Force on 4th World Conference On Smoking & Health Stockholm, June 18-22,1979. January 30, 1979. Council for Tobacco Research. 10395689–5695.

62.

Observations on the Fifth World Conference on Smoking and Health by  a  Consultant, Winnipeg, July 1983.  July 1983est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501021685–1709 at 1685. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32890.

59.

http://www.ctr–usa.org/ctr. UQ 32797.

Secretariat interim report. December 28, 1984.

63.

Observations on the Fifth World Conference on Smoking and Health by a Consultant,

Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2023272512. com. UQ 43.

Winnipeg, July 1983. July 1983est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501021685–1709 at

Marcotullio RJ. INFOTAB Board of Director’s (BOD) Meeting-London, March 30, 1981. April

64.

1688. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32890.

INFOTAB . Item 2, Report From The Secretary

6, 1981. 502741855–1859. Bliley Documents at

www.tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 60.

General . January 1982est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021594826–4836 at 4833.

Witt S. International Committee on Smoking Issues Lausanne-November 10-12, 1977.

www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32.

Hauser N. Trip Report-RomeIFAO November

November 18, 1977. 502330543–0563 at 0556–

0557. Bliley Documents at www.tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 61.

26-29, 1984. November 26, 1984. Philip Morris

Companies Inc. 2023272592–2597.

www.pmdocs.com. UQ 91.

Ely B. Infotab Board Meeting 30th and 31st October, 1983. November 18, 1983. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company. 680404650.

Developing Countries Strategy Group. January 1985est. Philip Morris Companies Inc.

2025013364. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32892.

www.bwdocs.aalatg.com. UQ 32824.

Vogel C. Minutes of the Kansas City Sub

Corti A. Director of Information Services, INFOTAB. Latin American Meetings-

Group. December 7, 1978. Tobacco Institute.

GenevaIRome, March 9-15, 1987. January 15,

  1. Developing Countries Ad Hoc Group (DCG). Progress Report Covering Events Since the ICOSI Board of Directors Meeting on 19th February, 1980. August 1980est. Philip Morris 1987. British American Tobacco Company. 301760973–0979 at 0979. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33254

Appendix I, INFOTAB January 1989, Discussion Paper. January 30, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501045258–5268 at 5262. Minnesota Document Depository. UQ 33561.

  1. Pro}ect Report Covering Pro}ects and Action Plans Since the Board of Directors Meeting on March 30, 1981. 1981est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2025048077–8088 at 8077. pmdocs.com. UQ 41.

  2. Pro}ect Report Covering Pro}ects and Action Plans Since the Board of Directors Meeting on March 30, 1981. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2025048077–8088 at 8082. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 41.

  3. Verkerk H. Fifth World Conference on Smoking and Health-Winnepeg. Philip  Morris Companies Inc. 2501021564–1586 at 1577. pmdocs.com. UQ 32888.

  4. Secretariat Interim Report. December 28, 1984. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2023272512– 2617 at 2594. pmdocs.com. UQ 43.

  5. INFOTAB Board of Director’s (BOD) Meeting-March 30, 1981. April 6, 1981. 502741855. Bliley Documents at www.tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 60.

Witt S. International Committee on Smoking Issues Lausanne-November 10-12, 1977.

November 18, 1977. 502330545. Bliley Documents at www.tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 61.

Schlosser A, Mine K (Chadbourne, Parke). Representative Compilation of Literature Describing the Benefits of Tobacco. April 29, 1986. Brown & Williamson Company.

681870460–0654 at 0602. Bliley Documents at

www.tobaccodocuments.org.  UQ 64.

INFOTAB. INFOTAB Workshop. Undated. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501021710– 1711. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32891.

  1. April 20, 1983. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2023273908. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 42.

  2. Secretariat Interim Report. December 28, 1984. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2023272512– 2617 at 2594. pmdocs.com. UQ 43.

Simpson B, Hauser N. Background Papers for the INFOTAB Advisory Group Meeting, December, 5-7, 1983. November 25, 1983.

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company. 699101438–1473. www.bwdocs.aalatg.com.

UQ 32853.

  1. International Organizations Monitoring Service. Industry Sectors and International Organizations-Tobacco Update and Outlook on World Health Organization Activities Affecting MNCs. March 5, 1986. Philip  Morris Companies Inc. 2024272808- 2814 at 2812. Bliley Documents at tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 33777.

  2. Oldman M. [Letter to D. Bacon, enclosing “Agro-Tobacco Services (ATS), Proposal for a Consultancy Agreement”]. January 7, 1992. British American Tobacco Company. 502552644–2654 at 2650. Guildford Document Depository. UQ

  3. Oldman M. [Letter to D. Bacon, enclosing “Agro-Tobacco Services (ATS), Proposal for a Consultancy Agreement”]. January 7, 1992. British American Tobacco Company. 502552644–2654 at 2647. Guildford Document Depository. UQ

  4. Oldman M. [Letter to G. Pedlow]. March 13, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 502555357–5363 at 5361. Guildford Document Depository. UQ

  5. Oldman M. [Letter to G. Pedlow]. March 13, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 502555357–5363 at 5358. Guildford Document Depository. UQ

  6. Oldman M. [Letter to G. Pedlow]. March 13, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 502555357–5363 at 5361. Guildford Document Depository. UQ

  7. Oldman M. [Letter to D Bacon enclosing Agro- tobacco Activity Report for January 1993]. February 10, 1993. British American Tobacco Company. 502552508–2513 at 2512–2513. Guildford Document Depository. UQ

  8. Oldman M. Paper for ITGA General Meeting, 1994. British American Tobacco

80.

Company. 502552280–2293 at 2288. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33286.

Opukah S. ECOSOCIFAO Positions on Tobacco. August 18, 1994. British American

88.

89.

Brady B. March 3, 1992. British American Tobacco Company. 202049846–9847 at 9847. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33255.

Brady B. March 3, 1992. British American

Tobacco Company. 502570804. Guildford

Tobacco Company. 202049846–9847 at 9847.

Document Depository. UQ 33304.

Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33255.

81.

May R. The World Bank Position Towards Tobacco. October 17, 1992. Philip Morris

90.

Hartley R. [Note to Mr. B.D. Bramley].June 28, 1993. British American Tobacco Company.

Companies Inc. 2028464078.

502587026–7027 at 7026. Guildford Document

www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32864.

Depository. UQ 33230.

Oldman M. [Letter to D. Bacon enclosing “Some Thoughts on the Future Management of the Industry’s Agro-Tobacco Programme”].

March 29, 1995. British American Tobacco

91.

Oldman M. [FAX to D. Bacon enclosing “Some Thoughts on the Future Management of the Industry’s Agro-Tobacco Programme”]. March

29, 1995. British American Tobacco Company.

Company. 502555220–5226 at 5522. Guildford

502555220–5226 at 5522. Guildford Document

Document Depository. UQ 33269.

Depository. UQ 33269.

Oldman M. [Letter to D. Bacon enclosing

activity Report for June]. July 3, 1992. British American Tobacco Company. 502552616–2620

92.

Oldman M. [FAX to D. Bacon enclosing “Some

Thoughts on the Future Management of the Industry’s Agro-Tobacco Programme”]. March

at 2617. Guildford Document Depository. UQ

29, 1995. British American Tobacco Company.

33299.

502555220–5226. Guildford Document

82.

INFOTAB . Item 2, Report From The Secretary General . January 1, 1982est. Philip Morris

93.

Depository. UQ 33269.

Bacon D. Development Aid, Progress.

Companies Inc. 2021594826–4836 at 4827.

November 28, 1991. British American Tobacco

www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32.

Company. 202049931–9932 at 9932. Guildford

83.

Industry Sectors and International Organizations-Tobacco Update and Outlook on

94.

Document Depository. UQ 33256.

The 1995 Agro-Tobacco Programme,

World Health Organization Activities Affecting

MNCs. March 5, 1986. Philip Morris

Proposals for Discussion. 1994est. British

American Tobacco Company. 502552341–2343

Companies Inc. 2024272808–8014 at 8012.

at 2341. Guildford Document Depository. UQ

Bliley Documents at

33288.

84.

www.tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 51.

Honour H. September 11, 1991. British

95.

Oldman M. Paper for ITGA General Meeting, 1994. 1994est. British American Tobacco

American Tobacco Company. 202049970–9973

Company. 502552280–2293 at 2289. Guildford

at 9971. Guildford Document Depository. UQ

Document Depository. UQ 33286.

85.

33257.

Bacon D. Development Aid, Progress.

96.

The ITGA 1996 Work Programme. Tobacco Courier. December 1, 1995est. British American

November 28, 1991. British American Tobacco

Tobacco Company. 601030389–0413 at 0395.

Company. 202049931–9932 at 9931. Guildford

Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33319.

Document Depository. UQ 33256.

  1. Bacon D. Development Aid, Progress. November 28, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 202049931–9932 at 9931. Guildford Document Depository. UQ

  2. Bacon D. Development Aid, Progress. November 28, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 202049931–9932 at 9932. Guildford Document Depository. UQ

  3. Interview with Neil Collishaw, Feb. 4,

  4. Bible G. Corporate Affairs Conference I Action Plan. December 13, 1988. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021596422–6432 at 6429. pmdocs.com. UQ 32834.

Boca Raton Action Plan: Status Report for the Period Ending January 31, 1989. January 31, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc.2500103969–4056 at 3989. www.pmdocs.com.

UQ 32863.

  1. Boyse S. [Letter to Peter Hazel, David Bacon, and JJ Mostyn]. August 8, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 304004032. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33184

  2. Dietrich P. WHO spends money on what? The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 1989. UQ

  3. Oldman M. [Letter to D. Bacon enclosing Activity Report, September/October 1993]. November 1, 1993. British American Tobacco Company. 502555329–5331 at 5331. UQ 33276.

Boca Raton Action Plan: Status Report for the Period Ending May 31, 1989. May 31, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021592752– 2764 at 2752. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32859.

  1. Boca Raton Action Plan: Status Report Ending July 31, 1989. July 31, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2023547120–7135 at 7121. pmdocs.com. UQ 32860.

  2. Boca Raton Action Plan Summary Report December 3, 1988-October 30, 1989. October 30, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2503005015–5050. pmdocs.com. UQ 32862.

Oldman M. [Letter to D. Bacon enclosing Activity Report, September/October 1993]. November 1, 1993. British American Tobacco Company. 502555329–5331 at 5331. UQ 33276

  1. Ntaba H. Letter to the Editor, International Health and Development, Vol. 1, No. 2, Summer, p. 31. UQ

  2. Boca Raton Action Plan: Status Report for the Period Ending September 30, 1989. September 30, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501204997–5021 at 4998. pmdocs.com. UQ 32861.

  3. Boyse S. [Letter to Paul Dietrich]. August 7, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 300516113. Guildford Document Depository. UQ

  4. Rupp J. Statement, Philip Morris International (Latin America). November 30, 1992. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2023591405. pmdocs.com. UQ 32903.

Bacon D. Who Benefits from WHO? November 24, 1993. British American Tobacco Company.

  1. UQ 33311.

  2. Agenda: “Primer Encuentro de Periodistas Y la Industria Del Tabaco.” June 1991est. British American Tobacco Company. 300565679– 5681. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33675.

BAT Smoking Issues Briefing, Taiwan. September 6–8, 1992. British American

Tobacco Company. 300565674–5675. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33677.

Agenda, Meeting of Social Communicators and the Tobacco Industry. November 1992est.

British American Tobacco Company. 300565668–5671. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33678.

  1. Oldman M. [Letter to G. Pedlow]. March 13, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 502555357–5363 at 5359. Guildford Document Depository. UQ

  2. Bloxidge JA. International Tobacco Growers’ Association (ITGA). October 11, 1988. British American Tobacco Company. 502555415– 5417. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33284.

  3. Oldman M. [Letter to G. Pedlow]. March 13, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 502555357–5363 at 5360. Guildford Document Depository. UQ

  4. Oldman M. Agro-Tobacco Services (ATS), Proposed Plan. November 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 502552655–2667 at 2659. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33303.

  5. INFOTAB International Workshop, Brussels, October 13-16, 1986. October 16, 1986. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501446636–7080 at 6723–6724. pmdocs.com UQ 33566.

  6. Boca Raton Action Plan: Appendix A, WHOIIOCUIUICC: Strategies and Tactics. January 31, 1989. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501045143–5147.pmdocs.com UQ 32846.

  7. Wells JK. INFOTAB Advisory Council Meeting July 14 and 15, 1982. July 21, 1982. Brown &Williamson Company. 680002301–2307.

Bliley Documents at www.tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 20.

  1. Bible G. Corporate Affairs Conference I Action Plan. December 13, 1988. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021596422–6432 at 6429. pmdocs.com. UQ 32834.

  2. Egawa E. April 25, 1986. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021654119–4123 at 4121. pmdocs.com. UQ 66.

  3. Egawa E. April 25, 1986. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021654119–4123 at 4121. pmdocs.com. UQ 66.

  4. INFOTAB International Workshop, Brussels, October 13-16, 1986. October 16, 1986. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501446636–7080 at 6677. pmdocs.com UQ 33566.

  5. Egawa E. April 25, 1986. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021654119–4123 at 4120. pmdocs.com. UQ 66.

  6. Whitley C. Statement of Charles O. Whitley on behalf of the Tobacco Institute before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, Committee on Energy and Commerce, US House of Representatives [Draft]. July 9, 1990. Tobacco Institute TIMN 0032095–2141  at 2118. Bliley Documents. tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 32912.

Zhang M. [Attaching Press article in the China Daily on the CIAR’s GEP workshop in Guangzhou.] September 9, 1997. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2063608546–8547. http://www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33752.

  1. Whitley C. Statement of Charles O. Whitley on behalf of the Tobacco Institute before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, Committee on Energy and Commerce, US House of Representatives [Draft]. July 9, 1990. Tobacco Institute TIMN 0032095–0032141 at 2118. Bliley Documents. tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 32912.

  2. Press release by the organizers of the expert discussion of the “Physician’s View of Passive Smoking”: Health Danger through Passive Smoking Not Proven. April 1984. Philip Morris Companies. 1002965608–6509. pmdocs.com. UQ 33770.

Masironi R. [Letter to W. Kloepfer]. December 2, 1986. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2025816621–6624. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33771.

  1. Greenberg D. September 15, 1993. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021184116–4121 at 4119. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33590.

  2. Walk, R.A. IARC Multi-Center Case Control Study of ETS and Lung Cancer, Your memo dated 21 May 93. July 13, 1993. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2025493287. pmdocs.com. UQ 33616.

  3. IARC Study. 1994est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501347168–7173 at 7169. pmdocs.com. UQ 33595.

Pages R. IARC Study of ETS and Lung Cancer. May 21, 1993. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2500015757. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33617.

Walk, R.A. IARC Multi-Center Case Control Study of ETS and Lung Cancer: Update of information. July 30, 1993. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2029041838–1839. http://www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33618.

  1. Interview with Paolo Boffetta, April 17, 2000.

  2. Greenberg D. September 15, 1993. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021184116–4121 at 4119. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33590.

  3. IARC Study. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501347168–7173 at 7169. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33595.

  4. Greenberg D. September 15, 1993. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021184116–4121 at 4118. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33590.

  5. Boyse S. [Letter to Ron Tully.] April 18, 1990. British American Tobacco Company. 400099555. Guildford Document Depository. UQ

Boyse S. [Letter to PN Lee.] December 19, 1989. British American Tobacco Company. 400099679. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33509.

  1. Lee P. May 8, 1990. British American Tobacco Company. 502587275–7284 at 7275. Guildford Document Depository. UQ

  2. Winokur M. [FAX to H. Reif attaching “CIAR and IARC, Next Steps and Options.”] December 19, 1994. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2028381587–1588 at 1588. pmdocs.com. UQ 33746.

  1. Interview with Paulo Boffetta, April 17,

  2. Matthews R, MacDonald V. Passive smokers inhale six cigarettes a year. Sunday Telegraph. August 16,

  3. Lyberopoulos, H. Presentation on IARC [enclosing overheads]. April 19, 1994. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501355931–5944 at 5942. pmdocs.com. UQ 33604.

Hockaday T, Cohen N. Thoughts on TASSC Europe. March 25, 1994. Philip Morris

Companies Inc. 2025492898–2905 at 2899. http://www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33758.

  1. Lindheim J. Presentation on Scientist Pro}ect. May 5, 1994. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2025493201–3207 at 3205–3206. pmdocs.com. UQ 33708.

  2. Ong E, Glantz S. Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer’s second–hand smoke study. The Lancet. 2000; 355: 1253–59.

  3. esef.org. March 2000.

  4. esef.org. March 2000.

  5. esef.org. March 2000.

  6. Mooney L. Smoking out bad science. Wall Street J. March 19, 1998;

  7. Boffetta P, Agudo A, Ahrens W, et al. Multicenter case–control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90: 1440– 50.

  8. Hirayama T. Non–smoking wives of heavy smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer: A study from Japan. BMJ 1981; 282:183–85.

Repace JL, Lowery AH. A quantitative estimate of nonsmokers’ lung cancer risk from passive smoking. Environment Int. 1985;11:3–22.

US Environmental Protection Agency. Health effects of passive smoking: Assessment of lung cancer in adults and respiratory disorders in children. Office of Research and Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. EPA/600/6–90/006F, 1992b.

  1. Boffetta P, Agudo A, Ahrens W, et al. Multicenter case–control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90: 1440–50.

  2. British American Tobacco. [ News release]. March 5, 1998. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2063594010–4240 at 4018. pmdocs.com. UQ 33750.

  3. World Watch: Protecting our Global ‘Next Generation’-A Proposed Conference on Children’s Health Issues. October 1989. 300516227–6285 at 6235. Guildford Document Depository. UQ

  4. World Watch: Protecting our Global ‘Next Generation’-A Proposed Conference on Children’s Health Issues. October 1989. British American Tobacco Company. 300516227–6285 at 6236. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33691.

  5. INFOTAB . Item 2 Report From The Secretary General . January 1, 1982est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2021594826–4836. pmdocs.com. UQ 32.

Background to the Structure and Operations of the Activist Movement. November 15, 1994.

Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501110753– 0775. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 68.

Seymour M. 6 September 1996 IARC European Response Plan Workshop. August 8, 1996.

Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2063604476– 4498. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 71.

Hauser N. Trip Report-RomeIFAO November 26-29, 1984. November 26, 1984. Philip Morris

Companies Inc. 2023272592–2597.

www.pmdocs.com. UQ 91.

Hoel D. Confidential-For Counsel Only. July 10, 1979. Brown & Williamson Company.

680040577–0579. Blilely Documents at www.tobaccodocuments.org. UQ 99.

Pages B. IARC. September 13, 1993. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2029173981. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 32848.

Dietrich P. [Letter to Sharon Boyse]. October 8, 1991. British American Tobacco Company.

300516052–6053. Guildford Document

Depository. UQ 32879.

Proctor C. WHO Meeting in Budapest. March 10, 1994. British American Tobacco Company.

  1. UQ 33214.

Ecoffey D. CASIN . British American Tobacco Company. 304002746–2749. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33253.

Boyse S. 8th World Conference on Tobacco and Health. August 28, 1991. British American

Tobacco Company. 202019292–9293 at 9292. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33262.

Tully R. 8th WCTH. January 29, 1992. British American Tobacco Company. 300504241– 4252. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33334.

Global Business Forum. June 12, 1991. British American Tobacco Company. 300557205– 7210. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33348.

CASIN. January 11, 1991. British American

Tobacco Company. 300557237–7259. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33350.

Hartogh J. Report by Task Force 5th World Conference on Smoking and Health, Winnipeg, Canada, July 1983. February 26, 1981. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2025049376–9377. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33514.

  1. The World Health Organization (WHO): Its Work Related to the Activities of the International Tobacco Industry. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501442830–2897 at 2501442889–2897. pmdocs.com. UQ 5.

Lojacono G. Research Group Informal Meeting On: Health Effects of ETS in Europe-Paris-P. Broussell Hospital (Ville}uif 13I14 March, 1991). March 1991est. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501356073–6076. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33534.

JMH–possibly Hartogh J. Action Plan proposed by ICOSI Task Force 4th World Conference on Smoking & Health. January 29, 1979. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501015212–5215. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33549.

  1. The World Health Organization (WHO): Its Work Related to the Activities of the International Tobacco Industry. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501442830–2897 at 2834. pmdocs.com. UQ 5.

Tully R. 8th WCTH. January 29, 1992. British American Tobacco Company. 300504241– 4252. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33334.

  1. The World Health Organization (WHO): Its Work Related to the Activities of the International Tobacco Industry. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501442830–2897 at 2889– 2890. pmdocs.com. UQ 5.

Informal Meeting of the IARC Research Group on ETS and Human Cancer. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2501349504–9507.

www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33636.

47th WHO World Assembly:  Informal  meeting of some members of the IARC study group “ETS and the Lung Cancer”. Geneva May 3-6, 1994. Philip Morris Companies Inc. May 5, 1994.

2501347143–7144.  www.pmdocs.com. UQ

33637.

Wilhelmus J. WHO. April 18, 1995. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2063625254. www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33541.

CECCM. IARC Study. April 4, 1995. British American Tobacco Company. 500804531– 4537. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33774.

Cerioli A. Report on my attendance to the Conference “Conoscenze Scientifiche, Seperi Popolari e Socita Umana alle Soglie del Duemile. Attualite del Pensiero di A. Maccacaro.” January 27, 1997. Philip Morris

Companies Inc. 2502250796–0797.

www.pmdocs.com. UQ 29.

Menchaca. January 25, 1990. British American Tobacco Company. 502587287. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33237.

Lojacono G. Research Group Informal Meeting On: Health Effects of ETS in Europe-Paris-P. Broussell Hospital (Ville}uif 13I14 March, 1991). March 14, 1991est. Philip Morris

Companies Inc. 2501356073–6076.

www.pmdocs.com. UQ 33534.

Pages R. [Forwarding note from H. Reif: IARC Study]. July 19, 1993. Philip Morris Companies Inc. 2025470098. www.pmdocs.com.  UQ 32800.

Dietrich P. [Letter to Sharon Boyse, Enclosing Memo of Visit to Thailand and Philippines]. January 29, 1992. British American Tobacco Company. 300516024–37. Guildford Document Depository. UQ 33682.

 

 

 


by Leave a comment

Invisible Poisons

The tobacco industry is extremely careful not to fund studies of pesticide residues on its cigarette products in any country but particularly in the US. The industry is aware that if the extent of this chemical contamination were known, US regulators would have no choice but to call an end to industry’s game.

That may sound like a cold-blooded way to refer to the slaughter of untold millions of people across generations of smokers and their families, but you can be certain that as far as the tobacco industry is concerned it’s a game, and they’re playing for keeps.

There has only been one small study of pesticides in actual commercial cigarettes since the 1970’s, but if that study is at all representative of the state of the 2018 commercial cigarette market (parenthetical comment – it is) then regulators worldwide ought to be pulling cigarettes from shelves and running them through pesticide testing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geiss, O., Kotzias, D., “Determination of Ammonium, Urea and Pesticide Residues in Cigarette Tobacco“. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin (FEB), No. 12 (2003), 1562– 1565

I can hear it now. “Well,  that data is from 2003. That was 15 years ago. And besides those pesticides aren’t permitted on tobacco anymore.”

Oh, really?

So, you would think that if nasty old Endosulfan, Heptachlor and 4,4-DDE, and a whole lot more organochlorine and organophosphate pesticides weren’t being used on tobacco anymore then the tobacco industry scientific organization CORESTA wouldn’t be publishing “good practice” guidelines in 2016 that lists acceptable limits on them – right?

Wrong

https://www.coresta.org/agrochemical-guidance-residue-levels-grls-29205.html

Well, just because the tobacco industry chooses to publish good practice limits on those banned pesticides, that doesn’t mean they are still being used – right?

But they are being used worldwide and for the most part their use is unregulated and their presence in tobacco products goes totally undetected because it is never looked for.

Let’s look at pesticide use on tobacco in Brazil – as good a place to start as any. We could look at dozens of other countries, but Brazil is the biggest exporter of tobacco to the US. 

Note that Brazilian tobacco uses twice as much pesticide per hectare as cotton and three times as much as soybeans. That is significant – it means that the tobacco plants are drenched with these chemicals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, OK. So tobacco uses a lot of pesticides. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are using banned pesticides, or pesticides known to be dangerous if inhaled even in small doses on a chronic basis.

Actually, they are. If you click here and are a patient reader there’s all the evidence you’ll ever need that tobacco from Brazil is lethal – and not because it’s tobacco.

That link is a pretty detailed research piece that looks at the health impact of pesticides on tobacco farmers in Brazil, and in the process it talks in detail about the pesticides they are exposed to. Of course, these are the same pesticides whose residues wind up on Brazilian tobacco. Check it out.

So, it’s clear that a great many pesticides being used on tobacco in Brazil. This isn’t the only piece of evidence, by far. When you look at all the evidence, it is clear that banned organochlorine and organophosphate pesticides are being used intensively on Brazilian tobacco as recently as early 2018.

The reason that’s important is that all of the trash from the Brazilian tobacco industry – not the tobacco leaf, but the stems and waste from the factory floors – winds up being shipped to the US for manufacturing into American cigarettes. That tobacco trash and stems is if anything more heavily contaminated with pesticides than the tobacco leaf (because it includes systemic pesticides), which is kept in Brazil and Argentina for making cigarettes out of real leaf tobacco – the kind demanded by smokers in Latin America.

The contaminated tobacco trash is sent to the US, and look who’s bringing it in. (We’ll get to why in a minute.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That’s a whole lot of tobacco trash, isn’t it? Well, those are only the records of two shipments of toxic waste brought to the US by Big Tobacco. There are plenty more. Now, let’s talk about why they are bringing in all those tobacco stems from Brazil and other waste dumps on the planet.

It’s really pretty simple. The tobacco industry figured out years ago that American smokers didn’t really care what they were smoking, and since the tobacco companies could sell the actual leaf to Europeans and Latin Americans who cared, why not use all those stalks and stems and trash that they were just throwing away and figure out how to make cigarettes out of it?

Here’s a short video by Philip Morris showing in detail how they take tobacco waste and turn it into cigarettes. They treat this process as though it is a miraculous achievement. While you watch how this cigarette giant makes fake tobacco for American smokers, remember those pesticide residues on those millions of pounds of Brazilian tobacco waste they’re grinding up and bragging about.

There is major deception at @ 2:11-20. Can you can spot it now that you know about the pesticide residues in that trash they’re turning into cigarettes?

Click here for the video.

At this point you may be asking what contaminated Brazilian tobacco trash has to do with where we started – banned pesticides in commercial cigarettes in Europe, including two prominent American brands.

The relevance is that the banned pesticides in those 2003 EU cigarettes got into them exactly the same way that banned pesticides are getting into every US cigarette manufactured with Brazilian tobacco stems and trash in 2018 – except that the poisonous stems used by EU manufacturers in 2003 probably came from India rather than Brazil. The tobacco pesticide picture is virtually the same in both countries, which is to say that tobacco farmers and their families are being poisoned faster than flies, and the tobacco stems and trash that are being exported to Europe and to America are used for the same thing – to make fake tobacco cigarettes chock full of invisible poisons just like in the Philip Morris video above.

So where does that leave us? If you’ve read this far you’re in for a treat.

I live in Oregon, where Cannabis is tested every day for pesticide residues, so there are lots of labs that have the latest equipment and are run by very skilled folks. We’re going to be testing for a number of things, but I will be especially interested if we find organochlorines of recent application as I expect we will. A skilled lab can tell the difference between a pesticide that has been in the soil for 20 years and the same pesticide that has been applied recently.

I’m in the process of working with three of them to do some test runs on randomly-sampled commercial cigarettes by Philip Morris and RJR. (Just for fun I’m going to include my old friend “American Spirit”, and hope that we don’t find too many positives. That would be a shame after all those years of naturalness) The results are going to the Oregon Health Authority with a petition to set the same “Action Levels” on pesticide residues in tobacco that they now set on Cannabis, and for the same public health reasons.

Stay tuned.

If you like what I’m trying to do here please hit that little donate button below and drop a thank you on me – I would appreciate knowing that you care about the work I’m doing. Thanks.

 

 

 

 

 


by Leave a comment

Stone Killers

I am posting this with only one comment: here is a table showing all of the pesticides used worldwide by the tobacco industry. It is published by CORESTA, the tobacco industry’s captive science & research institute.

So this is it – the official 2017 tobacco industry guide to the pesticide chemicals used on tobacco worldwide for just one reason – to increase profits.

Many of these pesticides are damaging to human health at very low levels of chronic exposure – just like a smoker gets 100-200 times a day, 365 days a year puffing away and inhaling the pesticide residues invisibly contaminating the tobacco in their cigarette. (Except that it isn’t really tobacco, but that’s another post.)

While the tobacco industry publishes pesticide standards for its members, it makes clear that nobody actually has to follow this industry guidance. The tobacco companies are safe from accountability because there is no testing of commercial cigarettes in the United States for the presence of any of these chemicals, and what little testing the FDA, EPA and USDA do perform almost seems deliberately designed to shield the tobacco industry from investigation. Odd.

I know this is a huge list – it’s enough to make my eyes spin. But almost every one of the pesticides on this list, just by itself, is enough to cause serious damage to human adults, children and babies. The US government, along with the health authorities of every state, seem collectively uninterested in knowing what dozens of these violent chemicals, all being heated, vaporized and inhaled at once, are doing to smokers, their families and everybody else downwind every day of their lives.

One last thing – notice that there are a lot of banned pesticides on the list. That’s because the Tobacco industry recognizes that large stores of these chemicals still exist and farmers still use them for one simple reason – they  kill bugs. Every pound of tobacco that bugs eat is one less pound the farmer has to sell to feed his family.

So of course hundreds of thousands of small tobacco farmers worldwide are going to use triple-witching stuff like Endrin, Heptachlor, Aldrin, and Dieldrin whenever they can get it – which is pretty much anytime they want. Because while manufacturing of these incredibly toxic chemicals is banned almost everywhere – guess what? There seem to be a few factories in China, of all places, churning out the oldies but goodies by the ton and selling them in countries where 50% of all pesticides are used on just one crop – tobacco.

But of course regulatory authorities in the ‘advanced’ countries like the US don’t test for these banned pesticides in anything anymore, much less in tobacco products like cigarettes, because “nobody uses them anymore and all the old stores have been used up or destroyed long ago”.

Table 1.   Crop Protection Agent (CPA) Guidance Residue Levels (GRL)

This is not a list of recommended CPAs (Crop Protection Agents) for tobacco. That is a matter for official and/or industry bodies in each country.

  • GRLs have not yet been set for all CPAs registered for tobacco. Setting GRLs is an ongoing process based on a list of priorities decided by frequency of use and importance to leaf production.
  • The presence of a compound does not imply endorsement by CORESTA
  • The entries in the list do not replace MRLs (Maximum Residue Levels) set by the authorities. Compliance with MRLs is a legal requirement for countries that have set them for
No. CPA GRL

(ppm)

 Residue definition Notes
1 2,4,5-T 0.05 2,4,5-T
2 2,4-D 0.2 2,4-D
3 Acephate 0.1 Acephate
4 Acetamiprid 3 Acetamiprid
5 Acibenzolar-S-methyl 5 Acibenzolar-S-methyl
6 Alachlor 0.1 Alachlor
 

7

  

Aldicarb (S)

  

0.5

 sum of Aldicarb, Aldicarb sulfoxide and Aldicarb sulfone, expressed as Aldicarb
8 Aldrin + Dieldrin 0.02 Aldrin + Dieldrin
9 Azinphos-ethyl 0.1 Azinphos-ethyl
10 Azinphos-methyl 0.3 Azinphos-methyl
11 Benalaxyl 2 Benalaxyl
12 Benfluralin 0.06 Benfluralin
 

13

  

Benomyl (a)

 sum of Benomyl, Carbendazim, and Thiophanate-methyl expressed as Carbendazim  

see Carbendazim
14 Bifenthrin 3 Bifenthrin
15 Bromophos 0.04 Bromophos
16 Butralin 5 Butralin
17 Camphechlor (S) (Toxaphene) 0.3 Camphechlor (mixture of chlorinated camphenes)
18 Captan 0.7 Captan
19 Carbaryl 0.5 Carbaryl
 

20

  

Carbendazim (a)

  

2

 sum of Benomyl, Carbendazim, and Thiophanate-methyl expressed as Carbendazim
 

21

  

Carbofuran (S)

  

0.5

 sum of Carbofuran and 3- Hydroxycarbofuran expressed as Carbofuran
22 Chinomethionat 0.1 Chinomethionat
23 Chlorantraniliprole 10 Chlorantraniliprole
24 Chlordane (S) 0.1 sum of cis-Chlordane and trans- Chlordane
25 Chlorfenvinphos (S) 0.04 sum of (E)-Chlorfenvinphos and (Z)-Chlorfenvinphos

 

No. CPA GRL

(ppm)

 Residue definition Notes
26 Chlorothalonil 1 Chlorothalonil
27 Chlorpyrifos 0.5 Chlorpyrifos
28 Chlorpyrifos-methyl 0.2 Chlorpyrifos-methyl
29 Chlorthal-dimethyl 0.5 Chlorthal-dimethyl
30 Clomazone 0.2 Clomazone
31 Cyfluthrin (S) 2 Cyfluthrin (sum of all isomers)
32 Cyhalothrin (S) 0.5 Cyhalothrin (sum of all isomers)
33 Cymoxanil 0.1 Cymoxanil
34 Cypermethrin (S) 1 Cypermethrin (sum of all isomers)
 

35

  

DDT (S)

  

0.2

 sum of o,p’- and p,p’-DDT, o,p’-

and p,p’-DDD (TDE), o,p’- and p,p’-DDE expressed as DDT
 

36

  

Deltamethrin (b)

  

1

 sum of Deltamethrin and Tralomethrin expressed as Deltamethrin
 

 

37

  

 

Demeton-S-methyl (S)

  

 

0.1

 sum of Demeton-S-methyl, Oxydemeton-methyl (Demeton-S- methyl sulfoxide) and Demeton-S- methyl sulfone expressed as Demeton-S-methyl
38 Diazinon 0.1 Diazinon
39 Dicamba 0.2 Dicamba
 

40

  

Dichlorvos (c)

  

0.1

 sum of Dichlorvos, Naled and Trichlorfon expressed as Dichlorvos
41 Dicloran 0.1 Dicloran
42 Diflubenzuron 0.1 Diflubenzuron
 

43

  

Dimethoate (d)

  

0.5

 sum of Dimethoate and Omethoate expressed as Dimethoate
44 Dimethomorph (S) 2 sum of (E)-Dimethomorph and (Z)-Dimethomorph
 

45

  

Disulfoton (S)

  

0.1

 sum of Disulfoton, Disulfoton sulfoxide, and Disulfoton sulfone expressed as Disulfoton
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

46

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dithiocarbamates (as CS2) (e)

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dithiocarbamates expressed as CS2

 In countries where fungal diseases such as blue mould are a persistent problem in the field throughout the growing season, the use of dithio- carbamates (DTC) fungicides may be an essential part of the season-long disease management strategy and in keeping with GAP as a means of ensuring crop quality and economic viability for the producer. Under high disease pressure residues of dithio- carbamates (DTC) fungicides slightly in excess of the specified GRL may be observed.   In countries where there is not a field fungal disease problem the use of fungicides is not necessary, and there should be no residues detected. Consistent with GAP, dithiocarbamates (DTC) fungicides must be used only according to label instructions to combat fungal diseases in the seedbed and in the field.

 

No. CPA GRL

(ppm)

 Residue definition Notes
 

47

  

Endosulfans (S)

  

1

 sum of alpha- and beta-isomers and Endosulfan-sulphate expressed as Endosulfan
48 Endrin 0.05 Endrin
49 Ethoprophos 0.1 Ethoprophos
50 Famoxadone 5 Famoxadone
 

51

  

Fenamiphos (S)

  

0.5

 sum of Fenamiphos, Fenamiphos sulfoxide and Fenamiphos sulfone expressed as Fenamiphos
52 Fenitrothion 0.1 Fenitrothion
 

53

  

Fenthion (S)

  

0.1

 sum of Fenthion, Fenthion sulfoxide and Fenthion sulfone expressed as Fenthion
54 Fenvalerate (S) 1 Fenvalerate (sum of all isomers including Esfenvalerate)
55 Fluazifop-butyl (S) 1 Fluazifop-butyl (sum of all isomers)
56 Flumetralin 5 Flumetralin
57 Fluopyram (g) 5 Fluopyram
58 Folpet 0.2 Folpet
59 HCH (a-, b-, d-) 0.05 HCH (a-, b-, d-)
60 HCH (g-) (Lindane) 0.05 HCH (g-) (Lindane)
 

61

  

Heptachlor (S)

  

0.02

 sum of Heptachlor and two Heptachlor epoxides (cis- and trans-) expressed as Heptachlor
62 Hexachlorobenzene 0.02 Hexachlorobenzene
63 Imidacloprid 5 Imidacloprid
64 Indoxacarb (S) 15 Sum of S isomer + R isomer
 

65

  

Iprodione (S)

  

0.5

 sum of Iprodione and N-3,5- dichlorophenyl-3-isopropyl-2,4- dioxoimidazolyzin-1-carboxamide expressed as Iprodione
66 Malathion 0.5 Malathion
 

 

 

 

 

67

  

 

 

 

 

Maleic hydrazide

  

 

 

 

 

80

  

 

 

 

Maleic hydrazide (free and bounded form)

 In some instances, where GAP is implemented and label recom- mendations with regard to application rates and timing are strictly adhered to, residue levels may exceed the current GRL of 80 ppm as a result of extreme weather conditions and the current technology available for application. However, as with all CPAs, all efforts should be made to strictly follow label application rates, and use should be no more than necessary to achieve the desired effect.
68 Metalaxyl (S) 2 sum of all isomers including Metalaxyl-M / Mefenoxam
69 Methamidophos 1 Methamidophos
70 Methidathion 0.1 Methidathion
 

71

  

Methiocarb (S)

  

0.2

 sum of Methiocarb, Methiocarb sulfoxide, and Methiocarb sulfone expressed as Methiocarb

 

No. CPA GRL

(ppm)

 Residue definition Notes
 

72

  

Methomyl (f)

  

1

 sum of Methomyl, Methomyl- oxime, and Thiodicarb expressed as Methomyl
73 Methoxychlor 0.05 Methoxychlor
74 Mevinphos (S) 0.04 Mevinphos (sum E and Z isomers)
75 Mirex 0.08 Mirex
76 Monocrotophos 0.3 Monocrotophos
 

77

  

Naled (c)

 sum of Dichlorvos, Naled, and Trichlorfon expressed as Dichlorvos  

see Dichlorvos
78 Nitrofen 0.02 Nitrofen
79 Omethoate (d) sum of Dimethoate and Omethoate expressed as Dimethoate see Dimethoate
80 Oxadixyl 0.1 Oxadixyl
81 Oxamyl 0.5 Oxamyl
82 Parathion (-ethyl) 0.06 Parathion
83 Parathion-methyl 0.1 Parathion-methyl
84 Pebulate 0.5 Pebulate
85 Penconazole 1 Penconazole
86 Pendimethalin 5 Pendimethalin
87 Permethrin (S) 0.5 Permethrin (sum of all isomers)
88 Phorate 0.05 Phorate
89 Phosalone 0.1 Phosalone
90 Phosphamidon (S) 0.05 Phosphamidon (sum of E and Z isomers)
91 Phoxim 0.5 Phoxim
92 Piperonyl butoxide 3 Piperonyl butoxide
93 Pirimicarb 0.5 Pirimicarb
94 Pirimiphos-methyl 0.1 Pirimiphos-methyl
95 Profenofos 0.1 Profenofos
96 Propoxur 0.1 Propoxur
97 Pymetrozine 1 Pymetrozine
 

98

  

Pyrethrins (S)

  

0.5

 sum of Pyrethrins 1, Pyrethrins 2,

Cinerins 1, Cinerins 2, Jasmolins 1

and Jasmolins 2
99 Tefluthrin 0.1 Tefluthrin
 

100

  

Terbufos (S)

  

0.05

 sum of Terbufos, Terbufos sulfoxide and Terbufos sulfone expressed as Terbufos
101 Thiamethoxam 5 Thiamethoxam
 

102

  

Thiodicarb (f)

 sum of Methomyl, Methomyl- oxime, and Thiodicarb expressed as Methomyl  

see Methomyl
103 Thionazin 0.04 Thionazin
 

104

  

Thiophanate-methyl (a)

 sum of Benomyl, Carbendazim, and Thiophanate-methyl expressed as Carbendazim  

see Carbendazim

 

No. CPA GRL

(ppm)

 Residue definition Notes
 

105

  

Tralomethrin (b)

 sum of Deltamethrin and Tralomethrin expressed as Deltamethrin  

see Deltamethrin
 

106

  

Trichlorfon (c)

 sum of Dichlorvos, Naled, and Trichlorfon expressed as Dichlorvos  

see Dichlorvos
107 Trifluralin 0.1 Trifluralin

 

 

  • Carbendazim is the degradation product of Benomyl and Thiophanate-methyl. In the case the same sample contains residues of both Carbendazim and/or Benomyl/Thiophanate-methyl, the sum of the residues should not exceed 2
  • Deltamethrin is the degradation product of Tralomethrin. In the case the same sample contains residues of both Deltamethrin and Tralomethrin, the sum of the two residues should not exceed 1
  • Dichlorvos is the degradation product   of  Naled  and     In the case the same sample contains residues of both Dichlorvos and/or Naled/Trichlorfon, the sum of the residues should not exceed 0.1 ppm.
  • Omethoate is the degradation product of Dimethoate. In the case the same sample contains residues of both Dimethoate and Omethoate, the sum of the two residues should not exceed 0.5
  • The Dithiocarbamates Group includes the EBDCs: Mancozeb, Maneb, Metiram, Nabam and Zineb – as well as Amobam, Ferbam, Policarbamate, Propineb, Thiram and
  • Methomyl is the degradation product of Thiodicarb. In the case the same sample contains residues of both Methomyl and Thiodicarb, the sum of the two residues should not exceed 1
  • Fluopyram added to GRL list June

If you like what I’m trying to do here please hit that little donate button below and drop a thank you on me – I would appreciate knowing that you care about the work I’m doing. Thanks.


by Leave a comment

Smoking & Health – Fake Science Kills

What if every scientific study on cigarettes, smoking and health run by the tobacco industry and all of the “data” that has emerged over the past 50 years is severely compromised at the deepest levels?

What if most or all of the data the tobacco industry has been generating continuously to support its claims is fundamentally compromised by flawed research protocols and methodologies, contaminated research materials, inexplicable oversights, and good old-fashioned deceptive practices? What if all this can be directly linked to a single, underlying,’Achilles Heel’ flaw that can be easily verified?

What would that imply for regulations on tobacco products, for anti-tobacco legislation, for treaties and international agreements, for health care and insurance policies, for victims and juries, and for generations of legal decisions and precedent – if all were based on flawed science?

It is.

The core assumption of virtually all smoking & health research is that it is studying tobacco and only tobacco.

A corollary assumption is that cigarettes are tobacco and that cigarette smoke is tobacco smoke.

So when cigarette smoke is generated for research purposes, the assumption is that the smoke being studied is tobacco smoke or, if that assumption is ever questioned, its functional equivalent.

It’s not.

Virtually every research study on smoking and health run by the tobacco industry and its worldwide network of scientists and doctors since the 1970’s is based on the use of University of Kentucky standard “Reference Cigarettes”. Most or possibly all of the data derived using these standard Reference Cigarettes, which are used worldwide in virtually all tobacco industry studies involving cigarettes, are compromised and must be re-evaluated.

There are four main reasons why I believe that tobacco industry standard Reference Cigarettes consistently produce false and misleading data.

  1. There is non-random selection bias in the commercially-sourced leaf tobacco components of Reference Cigarettes.

Explanation

The tobacco leaf used in production of Reference Cigarettes is “commercially-sourced”, and is a non-random sample of the commercially tobacco types available at the time of the manufacturing run. Reference cigarette manufacturers, working to published industry standards, simply use whatever Flue-Cured, Burley, Maryland and Oriental tobacco leaf is convenient for a particular run of Reference Cigarettes. (It’s unclear whether there is more than one manufacturer for a run of reference cigarettes.) The Flue-Cured, for example, could be from North Carolina or Brazil or Zimbabwe. As long as it’s “Flue-Cured”, it meets tobacco industry scientific research standards and no other selection standards or procedures are specified by the certifying body for the tobacco industry. This means there is significant potential variability between the “Flue-Cured” selected for manufacturing into a run of Reference Cigarettes and the Flue-Cured that another manufacturer might use in their cigarette production. The same is true for all tobacco types selected and used in Reference Cigarettes.

  1. There is uncontrolled and unacknowledged variability in the “sheet tobacco” components of Reference Cigarettes.

Explanation

Tobacco Sheet is manufactured from tobacco waste, stems and scrap of variable, multiple, indeterminate foreign and domestic origins, and includes non-tobacco constituents that also vary depending on the “sheet” or “recon” tobacco manufacturing process used. Tobacco sheet is a 20-25% component of Reference Cigarettes. Millions of pounds of foreign-sourced tobacco waste is imported into the US annually for the specific purpose of “tobacco sheet” manufacturing by multiple manufacturers in multiple factories using multiple processing methods. Yet the industry standards for Reference Cigarette manufacturing don’t acknowledge this critical source of variability in the components of Reference Cigarettes, the reference standard for all industry-sponsored cigarette testing worldwide. The highly variable nature of a 20-25% component of all Reference Cigarettes seems sufficient in itself to invalidate data based on the use of Reference Cigarettes. Further, some of the Reference Cigarette recon is standard recon and some is “Sweitzer method” recon, and the two processes are not equivalent.

Finally, there’s variation in tobacco itself. “Tobacco is not a homogeneous product. The flavor, mildness, texture, tar, nicotine, and sugar content vary considerably across varieties or types of tobacco. Defining characteristics of different tobacco types include the curing process (flue-, air-, sun-cured) and leaf color (light or dark), size, and thickness. A given type of tobacco has a different quality depending on where it is grown, its position on the stalk (leaves near the bottom of the stalk are lower in quality), and weather conditions during growing and curing.” (from Tobacco and the Economy , USDA)

  1. There are known but not included in analysis, highly variable concentrations of agrichemical and pesticide residues on the leaf tobacco component and in the sheet tobacco component of Reference Cigarettes. 

Explanation 

Tobacco leaf, sheet, waste and scrap all carry a burden of biologically active pesticides that are not on the industry list of “toxicants” tested for in standardizing the Reference Cigarettes. Extensive research literature establishes the widespread presence of pesticide residues on commercially-sourced tobacco and tobacco waste. When testing is performed on cigarette smoke using the Reference Cigarettes as a baseline or standard, the measured smoke stream constituents will be the byproducts of the interaction of recognized, known and acknowledged tobacco constituents along with an undetermined number and concentration of unknown pesticides whose common presence on commercial, and especially on imported tobacco is well-established. There is no way to tell how the measured ‘toxicants’ in any sets of results using Reference Cigarettes have been affected by combustion of pesticide residues because the tobacco being used is not tested for the presence or concentration of those residues. Because of this error in research design, any smoke stream ‘toxicant’ data based on Reference Cigarettes will be flawed in unpredictable ways and should not be accepted without re-evaluation.

  1. The tobacco leaf used for manufacturing Reference Cigarettes is sourced from standard unsegregated commercial markets for Flue-Cured, Maryland, Oriental, and Burley tobacco leaf.

Explanation

Commercially sourced tobacco is, unless otherwise specified, an aggregated universe of tobacco leaf grown and handled under a wide range of environmental and agronomic conditions. Only tobacco leaf grown domestically under controlled conditions and kept separate from commercial tobacco could be used as to produce a reference cigarette that would be uniform enough in biochemical makeup to legitimately serve as a universal standard. A large proportion of the Flue-Cured and Maryland, and nearly all the Oriental Tobacco in the commercial market at any given time is from foreign sources. This means that the Reference Cigarette manufacturers who simply source by category have no idea where any given batch of leaf comes from or what its biological parameters might be aside from any commercial sampling or batch testing testing they may or may not do. As a result there simply can’t be uniformity or standardization of important parameters of the biological makeup of the tobacco plant materials used in manufacturing Reference Cigarettes.

So that’s it. Well, actually there a whole lot more, supported by reams of references all from peer-reviewed sources. But for now I thought I would just lay this out as clearly and simply as possible and see if anyone cares that the tobacco industry has been creating fake science for 50 years now and they have never really been called on it much less held accountable in meaningful ways.

The “Tobacco Settlement”, for example, is a horrible joke and a legal travesty but it is based on what can be shown to be such deliberately bad science and deceptively derived evidence that the whole issue of liability and intent on the part of the Tobacco industry should be open to re-litigation and to criminal prosecution as well.

Meanwhile I’m pursuing a couple of “think global, act local’ options here in Oregon that ought to get things moving a little pretty soon.

If you like what I’m trying to do here please hit that little donate button below and drop a thank you on me – I would appreciate knowing that you care about what I’m doing. Thanks.


by Leave a comment

Toxic Waste In Cigarettes – Are We Angry Yet?


Can you believe that RJR tried to get a tax credit for disposing of tobacco waste by processing it into cigarettes instead of dumping it in the landfill? Check it out – links to the original court case are below.

As this post is written the tobacco fields of Virginia and the Carolinas are flooded and destroyed. There are millions of pounds of waterlogged tobacco lying in mud mixed with sewage and dead pigs,the whole mess waiting to be plowed under or hauled away.

Or not. It turns out that cigarette giant RJR has a series of secret processes for making all kinds of tobacco waste into cigarettes. The tobacco farmers may be 100% wiped out, but I’ll bet RJR already has crews out there gathering up those dead stalks while they’re firing up the equipment to run that crap through their secret “G-Series” processes. More on that shortly.

But … if a few months from now that second-hand cigarette smoke drifting around on the streets suddenly starts smelling faintly like rancid pigshit with maybe a hint of faux mint you’ll know why.

Here’s the background on the secret G-Series processes that RJR doesn’t voluntarily reveal to anyone. 

To Set The Scene

Picture a North Carolina courtroom in 1998. The great, all-powerful RJ Reynolds has just filed an appeal against a ruling by the North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources. And lost.

The ruling says sorry, RJR can’t classify the tobacco stems, scraps, dust and trash that it uses to manufacture its cigarette products as solid waste.

Now, doesn’t that bring up the question – why would RJR want to classify its manufacturing materials as solid waste?

It sounds like a sneaky little tax loophole but hey, if RJR wants to get a tax credit for disposing of their waste in an environmentally sound fashion, what’s the problem?

The problem is that RJ Reynolds claims it is “disposing of” this waste by manufacturing it into cigarettes, and says that qualifies it for tax breaks because the waste isn’t going into landfills.  It’s being bought and smoked by their customers.

There are some really clever folks down North Carolina way.

Can’t you just see those no-neck monsters with cheap haircuts sitting around the table gloating, all fashionably attired in blue dress shirts with white collars. “Get this – we already know how to take all that trash that doesn’t cost us a dime and get a bunch of dumb fucks to pay us big bucks to smoke it, and now our lawyers are saying we’re gonna get ourselves a big tax break for making them smoke that shit and not tossing it into the landfill. Pretty damn sweet!”

The Secret G-Series Processes

What made the RJR boys giggle is that their research scientists have been really successful over decades of work in coming up with a whole series of ways to use worthless tobacco trash and waste to make cigarettes. These processes, code-named the “G Series” were a major set of developments for RJR. They form the base of a major part of their wealth, allowing them to manufacture synthetic smoking materials out of tobacco trash and recycled waste and supply it to the entire US cigarette industry. (The Europeans won’t touch this shit.)

Here’s a quick look at some of the code-named RJR projects to develop processes for turning trash into cigarettes.

The RJR G-Series Codes

Internal Identification Codes for G-Processed Tobaccos follow this pattern:

G__-nnL = base for item id.

G = is a number for the process

Nn i= a number for a specific version

L = a letter for a modification

The G-Code Family

G7, G16, and G17 series codes refer to reconstituted tobacco processes while G13, G14 and G18 refer to expanded tobacco processes. G15 series refers to pectin release cast sheets.

G-Code Examples:

G7-A Ammoniated tobacco sheet developed in response to Marlboro (RJR, 1991b).

G7AE Ammonia applied to the G7 extract prior to making the reconstituted sheet (Gignac et al, 1988).

G7-10B 1.2% DAP Treated G7-1 Sheet

G7-DAP Evaluate DAP for improving the taste of G7A (RJR, 1989b).

G13-23 Freon Expanded Cut Filler

G14-1 Expanded Cut Roll Stems

G15-2 Pectin release Cast Sheet (100% Dust Recipe)

G16-2 Lowest Nicotine Tobacco Sheet

G17-1 Reconstituted Tobacco Strands (RTS)

G18-1 Propane Expanded Process (PEP)

To access the full Tobacco company manufacturing code base go to:

https://bat.library.ucsf.edu/harvard_monograph.pdf

RJR’s “Toxic Waste Into Cigarettes” Court Case – The Smoking Gun

The “Toxic Waste Into Cigarettes” case number is no. COA01-74 in the North Carolina Court of Appeals filed: 19 February 2002. The full text of the case and the court’s ruling is available at

https://cases.justia.com/north-carolina/court-of-appeals/01-74-5.pdf

The basic idea is that since RJ Reynolds is disposing of millions of pounds of waste every year by making it into cigarettes and selling them to American smokers rather than dumping all that waste in a landfill, the company therefore deserves a tax break for being good environmental stewards. The testimony or RJR and others recorded in this lawsuit reveals information about how RJ Reynolds manufactures its products that ought to give any cigarette smoker, and any regulator, and any jury, cause to realize the extent of the knowingly deceptive and harmful practices of this cigarette giant.

The only reason all this doesn’t set off alarm bells is that the so-called “tobacco” industry has spent (quite literally) billions of dollars on social conditioning so that your reaction on reading anything negative about cigarettes is very likely “So what – I know all that. I’m tired of hearing about it. It’s old news.” 

If you think those ideas are your own, think again. They are implanted.

But really consider the evidence, so cleverly hidden in plain sight, and it becomes compelling and conclusive even in partial outline. Sooner or later the cigarette industry is going to have to answer for this hidden but discernible criminal conspiracy against humanity, which is of a magnitude and horror that makes it virtually incomprehensible even to thoughtful minds. And that, of course, is exactly the idea.

The Evidence

Here are a few of the details directly from the court papers from COA01-74 North Carolina:

  1. In manufacturing tobacco products, Reynolds does buy tobacco leaves at auction. The tobacco is sent to a stemmery, where the stems (hard, woody part of the leaf) are separated from the lamina portion of the leaf (material in between the stems). The separation process also generates small scraps of tobacco (scraps) and very fine scraps of tobacco (dust). The usable tobacco lamina material is sent to the manufacturing operation where it is blended and becomes part of what winds up as a cigarette.

  2. The stems, scraps and dust are packed into containers and sent to a storage facility until they are either processed into reconstituted sheet tobacco, through related treatments known as the G-Series processes, or are discarded. The reconstituted sheet tobacco is shredded and blended with the processed lamina strips and made into filler for cigarettes. The reconstituted tobacco filler is part of most brands of cigarettes made by Reynolds, and enables cigarettes to be made with lower tar and nicotine content which according to Reynolds has been “demanded by smoking consumers”.

  3. Reynolds uses approximately seventy million pounds of tobacco stems, scrap and dust each year in making reconstituted sheet tobacco for its own use, and many millions more for other manufacturers. Reynolds also disposes of between five and seven million pounds of tobacco waste materials in landfills each year. This material is of a lower quality than the stems, scrap and dust used in the G-Series processes; much of it is generated by the manufacturing process, rather than the stemmery, though some tobacco waste generated by the stemmery is also disposed of.

  4. In order to keep up with its production requirements for reconstituted tobacco, Reynolds imports tobacco stems purchased overseas. For example, in 2006 (the latest year for which US Government data is available), the US imported 136.8 Million pounds of Tobacco stems. In other words, there weren’t nearly enough stems being produced from US tobacco for the manufacturers to use in making their products. These manufacturers, on the other hand, would probably say “Well, Tobacco stems are still real Tobacco, so what’s the big deal?” The big deal of course is that many of the most dangerous pesticides used on tobacco overseas (like slug and snail control chemicals) are taken up from soil application into the roots and stems, and others translocate from the leaf where they are sprayed into the stems and stalks.

  5. Reynolds sells reconstituted tobacco to other manufacturers of tobacco products, and manufactures reconstituted sheet tobacco for other tobacco manufacturers, using stems, scraps and dust supplied by them. As you can read in the case file, one of Reynolds’ witnesses testified that even if there were no tax incentives for recycling and resource recovery of or from solid waste, “Reynolds would still operate the G-7 process because of its cost-effectiveness.”

  6. While it’s bad enough that this corporation wants tax breaks for selling waste to its customers, what isn’t revealed here is that this “tobacco” waste is highly contaminated with toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic and endocrine-disrupting agricultural chemicals and pesticides. That single sentence “In order to keep up with its production requirements for reconstituted tobacco, Reynolds imports tobacco stems purchased overseas” holds the clue. When you look at where RJ Reynolds buys its tons of waste overseas you find that it is coming from countries that have absolutely no regulations on pesticide and other toxic chemical use on tobacco crops. This means that the waste that RJ Reynolds is putting in its cigarettes, and that Reynolds is selling to other cigarette manufacturers as reconstituted “sheet” contains high levels of pesticides that are totally banned for use on any crop in the US.

  7. Many of these chemicals are known carcinogens, they are known to destroy nervous systems, they are known to produce deformed babies, and they are known to produce a range of debilitating and fatal diseases in humans. Furthermore, carefully-done research studies show that many of these pesticides, especially the more recent chemicals that attack DNA and other genetic materials in insects, are far more dangerous to children, young women, and the unborn in every population, and to people with Latin, Native American, Asian or African biological ancestry, than they are to adult Caucasian males. That explains why pesticide residues in cigarettes “aren’t a problem” for the white guys running the so-called “tobacco” industry.

  8. RJ Reynolds and all the others could choose to manufacture their cigarette brands from pure tobacco leaf grown in the US or even other countries under strict pesticide regulations. The reason they choose to pack their products with toxic waste instead is because it is so profitable to do so, and because nobody has called any of them on the practice.

RJR Lost That One

As it happened, not so fast smart guys. The North Carolina judge actually ruled that time even the mighty RJR legal department had gone too far. The judge said no, the Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources is right, and you can’t claim a tax credit for disposing of your toxic waste by getting your customers to smoke it. Boo Hoo. RJR lost that one – or did they?

They didn’t get a tax credit for making people smoke their waste instead of polluting the landfill with it, but I’m betting that what the engineer says in the court testimony remains true – “it’s so profitable that even if they don’t get a tax break they’ll still use G-7”.

I can’t tell whether or not RJR is still using any of its patented “G-Series” processes in 2018 for disposing of toxic waste by making it into cigarettes and telling smokers they’re getting “true tobacco taste” or “natural tobacco”, or something equally deceptive. However, RJR is the biggest supplier of tobacco “sheet” to other manufacturers, and appears to be the biggest importer of tobacco waste for that purpose, so my guess is that the “G-Series” is not only alive and well (unlike smokers) but flourishing (also unlike smokers).

So just to see what’s happening these days I’ve just filed a FOIA request for the USDA records that cover the $2 Billion worth of tobacco stems and trash imported in 2017. These records will show every US company that imported this toxic waste, the waste’s country of origin, and the importer’s certification for each shipment that it isn’t contaminated with residues of any banned pesticide like dioxin or DDT.

Update (10/30/18) – no need to file a FOIA request – all the data on tobacco waste imports by American ‘tobacco’ companies that make that waste into cigarettes is right here.

It turns out that RJR is NOT the biggest importer of tobacco waste for cigarette manufacturing – that honor goes to Philip Morris as you can see if you click here.

Now if you would like to see a short video by Philip Morris that explains how they turn waste into cigarettes, click here. Just keep in mind that they slip the Big Lie in at about 2:11 into the video.

That’s all they have to do to import those millions of pounds of toxic waste they’re going to make into cigarettes. They just sign and go, and nobody ever checks again. That may change.

A little donation would go a long way toward supporting my efforts here. 

Thanks.

I’ll share the results of this FOIA inquiry in another blog post.