Document mbDNdrDJ02NwBN2wmxVr9p6Nd

FILE NAME: New York State & NY Times (NY) DATE: 1954 Jan 10 DOC#: NY084 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: NYT Article - Tobacco Industry Acts to Determine Whether Cigarettes and Lung Cancer are Related SCIEN CE IN R E V IE W By ROBERT K. PLUMB New York Times (1857-Current file); Jan 10, 1954; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 200 Pg- E9 ' SCIENCE IN REVIEW _______________ Tobacco Industry Acts to Determine WhettfflH Cigarettes and Lung Cancer Are Related By ROBERT E . PLUMB | Leaders of the tobacco industry this week announced that the major cigarette companies had established; a tobacco Industry Research Com Imittee to study "all phases of tobacco Iuse and health." The formation of Ithe committee was prompted by new medical evidence that there may be a connection between heavy smoking over a long period and the develop ment of lung cancer. Two sets of statistics puzzle public health men. One set shows that the consumption of cigarettes increased fourfold in the twenty years between 1933 and 1953. The other shows that the annual number of deaths from lung cancer has likewise'increased-- from 3,400 in 1933 to 22,000 in 1953. Is there any connection? The parallel between lung cancer1 and increased cigarette smoking proves nothing in itself. Tuberculosis deaths, for instance, have dropped just as fast as cigarette smoking has risen. So one could argue that smok ing prevents tuberculosis. Other parallels could be drawn in a simi larly rough fashion and they would prove nothing. The accumulated evi dence now available is not so crude, however. . Smokers Classified First, consider smoking. Exact figures on who smokes what and how often are lacking. Studies have been made, but most are marketing studies made for advertising purposes. For an elaborate analysis of the problem,' the American Cancer Society has set up four arbitrary definitions of ciga rette smoking rate. These are: (1) Light smokers smoke less than half a pack a day. (2) Moderate smokers smoke a pack or less a day. (3) Heavy smokers between one and two packs a day. (4) Very heavy smokers consume more than two packs a day. It should be pointed out that these classifications are not rigorous. That is, a "light smoker" who used less than half a pack a day for many years might, for statistical purposes, become a heavier smoker. A twopack man, who has just started smoking, is still classed as a light smoker. How do these figures compare with actual cigarette consumption? No one knows exactly how many smokers there are and how often they smoke. But the cancer society has found that three-fourths of all contemporary males between 50 and 09 are or have been regular smokers (light to very heavy classification) and that only 18 per cent have never smoked--ex cept for a few experimental puffs behind the bam. In 1953, the population of the na tion was about 160,000,000 men, wo men and children. That year, about 420,000,000,000 cigarettes were sold. Estimates of the number of smokers range upward from 50,000,000. If it is assumed that half the total popu lation smokes, then `about threefourths of a pack a day were used by each of the 80,000,000 presumed smokers in the nation. The estimate of 80,000,000 smokers seems high, however; it appears more likely that the average consumption is more than three-fourths of one pack a day. For comparison, 100,000,000,000 cigarettes were smoked in 1933. Then the population was about 125,000,000. If half these men, women and chil dren were smokers, the average con sumption was only about one-fourth a pack a day. Certainly the number of smokers has increased in twenty years. Probably the average daily consumption per smoker has risen also. An American Study The American Cancer Society traces back into the scientific litera ture to 1923 for the first studies link ing tobacco and cancer. Early studies were by German, Japanese, Scandi navian and French investigators. All sought for a possible inhalant factor in lung cancer; atmospheric gases, dust, metallic powders, other factors were considered. The carbon monox ide, nicotine and tars of tobacco smoke were separated out and tested for their cancer-causing abilities. In 1928, an American study was published in the Journal of the Amer ican Medical Association (91:150-151, July 21, 1928). Tars from pipe to bacco failed to produce cancer in mice, this report said. Meanwhile, German experimenters reported they had eliminated nicotine and carbon monoxide as possible cancer causes. The German research ers added that tobacco tars had a mild cancer-causing ability and th a t it could be effective only in an in dividual with a special disposition to ward cancer. Shortly before the war Hie Germans believed they had iso lated the cancer cause among the combustion products of tobacco. The substance they named (benzpyrene) has not subsequently been found in tobacco smoke by American research ers. Many Causes After World War H, when the death rate from lung cancer began to alert public health authorities to a new health hazard, studies tho world over established that many sub stances can cause cancer in humans. Among them are ultra-violet light, emanations from radioactive mate rials, compounds of arsenic, chro mium, nickel and beryllium: also.' asbestos, tar, pitch, crude oils and greases from petroleum and benzol derivitives. In sonie instances other factors are important. Among these are diet, medicinal materials, cos metics, habits, customs, climate and various contaminants of air, water, soil and foodstuffs. So far, studies on lung cancer and cigarettes have linked the two by a means not approved by most statisti cians. (It was, however, the only method available.) That is, cases of lung cancer have been reviewed. Tho smoking habits of these victims have been compared with the smoking habits of healthy individuals. Thesis studies do suggest that smoking ciga rettes and lung cancer are related. Further, other tests establish th at a material (unknown) from cigarette smoke will cause cancer in animals used in experiments. For some researchers this evidence alone is enough to condemn ciga rettes. For others, the present evi dence is not enough. There seems te be a division among independent sci entists. Some hold that it is essen tial to alert the public to the dangers even though they are not proved; others believe their duty is to answer "yes" or "no" to the big question be fore they frighten smokers by warn ing of possibilities. The American Cancer Society may be able to provide a conclusive "yes" or "no" answer in about eighteen months. Two years ago this spring, the society used 22,000 of its volun teer workers to get the health records of 204,000 white males between the ages of 50 and 69. This group of sub jects wilt die at the rate of thirteen each day, according to the actuarial tables. At the time, of death, a death certificate is obtained to reveal the cause in each instance. Some of the men will die of lung cancer, most will not. From the study, the society ex pects to find out whether cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. If it does, the amount of smoking (light to very heavy) and the length of time which this rate of smoking involved will also be known. Lengthy Study Other industries have been study ing for many years the possibility that cancer may sometimes be caused by common industrial products or processes. The petroleum, industry, the chemical industry and some of the metals industries are examples. It is fair to ask why it has taken the cigarette industry so long to initiate its own research. Sbientific reports linking lung cancer and smoking, par ticularly cigarette smoking, have ap peared in the journals for thirty years and in the public press for tea years. The evidence linking smoking and cancer is not conclusive. Many scien tists hold, on the contrary, that them is no connection between the two. In public health, however, it is com mon sense to assume that a suspected' health menace is guilty until It is proved innocent, whatever may be the practice in other fields. I t is unfortunate that the establish ment of the industry committee has called attention of those who smoke to the scientific discussion now when no conclusive information can be' given. Research on human subjects takes a long time; cancer may de velop slowly. Smokers want to know the hazards, if any, in their habit, and no one can give a decision now. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.