Short Review
A Canadian-European collaboration, this documentary film presents a history of the tobacco industry’s lies and scams, from 1953 to the present day, portrayed in a lucid, undaunted manner.
A gripping investigation covering three continents, Nadia Collot’s film exposes the vast conspiracy of a criminally negligent industry whose economic power, in spite of many prevention campaigns, has been expanding for five decades at the expense of public health.
Using proof from tobacco company records, The Tobacco Conspiracy exposes a number of the tobacco industry’s tactics, from buying of scientists and manipulation of scientific evidence in order to cast doubt over the health issues related to smoking, to political corruption and working with organised crime. As well as documenting decades of misinformation in the industry’s attempts to win court battles related to the connections between smoking, cancer and public health.
The Tobacco Conspiracy illustrates the tobacco industry’s worldwide efforts to continue marketing their products in the face of public health facts and public opposition, through determined obfuscation of scientific data and outright international criminal enterprise.
To confront the tobacco cartel, anti-smoking groups are organising and scoring points, but the fight remains fierce. Enlightening and engrossing, this documentary is a hard-hitting critique of an industry gone mad.
Film Synopsis
In 1953 a Reader’s Digest article announced that there had been tests conducted on mice, in which substances from cigarette smoke had been rubbed on the mice, and they had developed cancer. And this was the link that people had been worried about for so long, that cigarettes cause cancer.
In December of 1953, the cigarette companies, now faced with the loss of a substantial amount of business due to growing concern from the public and the medical profession, met to form a common front. They decided, yes, we are competitors on an economic front, but we have to work co-operatively on the political front. The main issue facing the companies, back then, and today, has been serious regulation by governments that would put an end to their industry, as they know it. That meeting lead directly to hundreds of millions of deaths and the tragic impact of that meeting is still being felt today.
Although the cigarette companies knew, at that time already, that smoking causes 94% of lung cancer deaths, in a nationwide advertising campaign they issued “The Frank Statement”, in which they denied that smoking causes cancer. They stated that for the cigarette industry public health was paramount. It is described as the biggest public relations campaign in history. They promised that, if cigarettes proved dangerous, they would be pulled off the market. While a clear lie, there was no political opposition until the 1990s.
And so cigarette manufacturers went about their business relatively unopposed until the big American trials of the 1990s, when 46 American states took joint action against the cigarette industry, suing for damages against public health. The resolution was that they would pay $201 billion to avoid a verdict. They were also forbidden to market to children, in the United States, and they were obliged to make their internal documents available to the public. No documents could be destroyed until 2008. Some 40 million pages reveal the truth and allow us to compare what was written within the industry with what was said in public. And the gap is astounding.
With as much as 70% taxation on cigarettes, governments are in a difficult position. Ministries of Finance find themselves in a conflict with Ministries of Health. In France in the 1960s, it was determined that a cigarette company had no duty to inform about the dangers of smoking because that would have lowered the revenues to the Public Treasury. Government hypocrisy about the dangers of smoking is still in the news. In 2003 the right to silence overrode the duty to inform again, when the French court ruled that the health of a 14-year-old French citizen, with cancer, was less important than the health of the Treasury.
Garfield Mahood, of the Non-smokers Rights Association of Canada claims, “The industry has been protected at every turn by the proximity of tobacco executives to government policy makers and legislators. We have had to drag governments kicking and screaming across the finish line. They never arrive there willingly, happily, showing leadership on their own. We have had public enquiries into virtually every industry including the potato industry, but we have never had a public enquiry into an industry that kills 47 000 Canadians every year. If Canada is a little bit ahead, in my view it is because the community got together and forced their legislators to take these steps.”
In the film Dr. William Farone, former director of research for Phillip Morris, states that he initially joined the company to search for ways to reduce the risks of cigarettes. After hundreds of millions of dollars were spent they succeeded in finding many different ways to make them safer, but none were ever implemented. The reason given was that a safer cigarette is going to be different and whenever it is different a smoker might quit smoking, rather than use that safer product. The decision was made that they are in the cigarette business, and they don’t want to lose business, and safer products are probably going to mean less business for the company.
The film goes on to showcase an unprecedented scientific fraud, which was carried out by a Professor Rylander in Geneva, Switzerland. It all began in Germany at INBIFO, a former scientific laboratory run by Philip Morris. INBIFO ran animal experiments, in particular, on second-hand smoke inhalation. Researchers at Phillip Morris were not to have any direct contact with INBIFO because they did not want any of the documents to be traced directly back to the company. Professor Rylander was the intermediate between Phillip Morris and INBIFO. Rylander received 300 reports from INBIFO in which INBIFO clearly states that second-hand smoke is 4 to 5 or, in some cases, 20 times more toxic than the smoke inhaled by smokers. This is due to tobacco specific nitrosamines, one of the most toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke, which in a room where there a lot of people smoking gets larger and larger and larger, even after they stop smoking. Nevertheless, Rylander officially says in his symposiums that second hand smoke is not dangerous. A mother can safely smoke around her children. Two major symposiums organised by Professor Rylander were often cited by the tobacco industry as proving that the scientific community did not believe passive smoking to be dangerous.
It was also found that the scientists participating in his symposiums were sifted and chosen not only by Rylander, but also by Philip Morris lawyers. Results of the symposium were known beforehand and the conclusions, prior to publication, were scrutinised by Philip Morris top executives and lawyers – this is no longer a scientific symposium, it is a scam. It is a major breach of professional research ethics. The issue is that he Rylander presented himself as a university researcher, with all the intellectual independence that entails, while being secretly employed by the tobacco industry and operating according to the strategic goals of that industry. He conducted research in order to maintain controversy, thus delaying public health legislation, and that he committed an unprecedented scientific fraud, not only by his choice of research subjects, but also by abiding Philip Morris strategies.
A cigarette company marketing-executive agreed, under anonymity, to talk about the internal workings of the industry. It is revealed that companies constantly operate on the edge of the legal framework, and sometimes beyond. Rival cigarette companies will share information and consult with each other to determine just how far they can go. Companies used to more or less respect the law, but today they are prepared to take huge risks. Whenever they consider undertaking possible illegal activity, they will meet to discuss it together. At the meeting, a lawyer will explain the law and the potential risks. They decide together whether to go ahead or not. The lawyer knows about the case even before it is brought to court. They are all fully informed of the ramifications before a decision is made. And to avoid being held to account the industry does its best to leave no paper trails. They have a policy of destroying all sensitive documents.
The main challenge for the cigarette manufacturer is to capture a smoker as young as possible, at about 14 years of age, and studies reveal that the most effective tools to initiate children to the world of smoking are film and television. Collot shows how despite the restriction on tobacco advertising, the companies have managed to infiltrate their way into movies and television. Following a montage of famous movie scenes, which feature smoking, the film states that smoking in movies actually declined over the decades. However, since the 1990s, smoking in movies has increased to the point where it is worse now than 50 years ago. Sylvester Stallone was paid $500,000 to show smoking in five of his films. Joe Eszterhas, Hollywood writer and producer, states that what a Hollywood film with big smoking does is aims a revolver at a 13-year-old child and when that child is in his 50s that gun goes off.
Successes in the battle against the tobacco industry are celebrated in the film. Canada was the first country to print graphic warnings covering half the cigarette pack, since 2001 Australia, Brazil and some European countries have followed suit. Increasing the cost of cigarettes, limiting advertising, and making youth access more difficult have all had an impact in reducing smoking in young people. Anti-smoking commercials have become common. Some of these ads are featured in the film.
Tobacco and its health implications concern every country in the world. Accordingly, the World Health Organisation (WHO) was asked to give a worldwide response to this pandemic. In Geneva in May 2003, the 192 countries that make up the WHO signed a treaty, a Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. It contains all the essential measures: advertising bans, non-smokers rights, forbidding deceptive designations such as light and mild, a ban on cigarette sales to young people, price increases and fighting against cigarette smuggling. While this may be a victory, the effectiveness can only be determined by the political will of each government to apply concrete measures in their respective countries. Collot claims that at this point the industry is not on the ropes; it is winning.
This is a hard-hitting film. The information provided is documented, expert opinion is provided, and while the bias is clear, denying the message would be a challenge.