Skip to main content
eScholarship
Open Access Publications from the University of California

The Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education provides a focal point for work designed to reduce the 5 million deaths a year tobacco and the tobacco industry cause each year. The work of the Center spans policy and historical research, economics, and science. The work is designed to inform and improve the effectiveness of public health interventions to reduce tobacco use. It works closely with the UCSF Library's efforts to collect and preserve previously secret tobacco industry documents, such as those available at the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu).

The Director is:
Stanton A. Glantz, PhD
Professor of Medicine
Suite 366 Library
530 Parnassus
University of California
San Francisco, CA 94143-1390
phone: (415) 476-3893
fax: (415) 514-9345
email: glantz@medicine.ucsf.edu

Books

Cover page of The New York Profile: A review of New York's tobacco prevention and control program

The New York Profile: A review of New York's tobacco prevention and control program

(2003)

Strong policy changes, respectable funding, and new direction at the Department of Health Tobacco Control Program (DOH TCP) have contributed to the next phase of New York’s tobacco control efforts. New York has been able to pass strong legislation in the areas of product placement, penalties for sales to minors, an excise tax increase, and a fire safe cigarettes law, despite somewhat unsupportive state policymakers. An improving tobacco control network and the work of local tobacco control champions helped push local clean indoor air policies, which led to a strong statewide clean indoor air law. These positive changes should lead to more progress by tobacco control advocates in New York provided funding can be maintained in the face of a large budget deficit.

Program Strengths & Challenges

Partners identified the following strengths and challenges of New York’s tobacco control program:

• The experience and leadership of the DOH TCP Director was a major strength of the program.

• Clean indoor air efforts throughout the state were also a strength.

• Partners were concerned about the security of funding due to the large state and city budget deficits.

• The highly politicized DOH environment and slow grant process were viewed as barriers to the program.

• Little support from state policymakers and the influence of the tobacco industry made implementing a comprehensive program challenging.

Cover page of The New York Profile: A review of New York's tobacco prevention and control program

The New York Profile: A review of New York's tobacco prevention and control program

(2002)

Partners identified the following strengths and challenges of New York’s tobacco control program:

• The experience and leadership of the DOH; TCP Director was a major strength of the program.

• Clean indoor air efforts throughout the state were also a strength.

• Partners were concerned about the security of funding due to the large state and city budget deficits.

• The highly politicized DOH environment and slow grant process were viewed as barriers to the program.

• Little support from state policymakers and the influence of the tobacco industry made implementing a comprehensive program challenging.

Cover page of The Tobacco Industry and Scientific Groups  ILSI: A Case Study

The Tobacco Industry and Scientific Groups ILSI: A Case Study

(2000)

A July 2000 report of an independent committee of experts outlined a number of ways in which the tobacco industry had attempted to undermine WHO tobacco control efforts in recent decades. One such method of subverting tobacco control involved the industry’s funding of and involvement in seemingly unbiased scientific groups to manipulate political and scientific debate concerning tobacco and health. This paper presents a brief chronology of the industry’s relations with one such group, the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), between 1983 and 1998. Findings indicate that ILSI was used by certain tobacco companies to thwart tobacco control policies. Senior office bearers in ILSI were directly involved in these actions.

Cover page of Can Ventilation Control Secondhand Smoke in the Hospitality Industry?

Can Ventilation Control Secondhand Smoke in the Hospitality Industry?

(2000)

A panel of ventilation experts assembled by OSHA and ACGIH concluded that dilution ventilation, used in virtually all mechanically ventilated buildings, will not control secondhand smoke in the hospitality industry (e.g., restaurants, bars, casinos). The panelists asserted that a new and unproved technology, displacement ventilation, offered the potential for up to 90% reductions in ETS levels relative to dilution technology. However, this assertion was not substantiated by any supporting data. Air cleaning was judged to be somewhere between dilution and displacement ventilation in efficacy, depending on the level of maintenance. The panel also failed to quantify the ETS exposure or risk for workers or patrons either before or after the application of the new technology. Panelists observed that building ventilation codes are not routinely enforced. They also noted the lack of recognized standards for acceptable ETS exposure as well as the lack of information on typical exposure levels. However, indoor air quality standards for ETS have been proposed in the scientific literature, and reliable mathematical models exist for predicting pollutant concentrations from indoor smoking. These proposed standards and models permit application of an indoor air quality procedure for determining ventilation rates as set forth in ASHRAE Standard 62. Using this procedure, it is clear that dilution ventilation, air cleaning, or displacement ventilation technology even under moderate smoking conditions cannot control ETS risk to de minimis levels for workers or patrons in hospitality venues without massively impractical increases in ventilation. Although there is a scientific consensus that ETS is a known cause of cancers, cardiovascular diseases, and respiratory diseases, although ETS contains 5 regulated hazardous air pollutants, 47 regulated hazardous wastes, 60 known or suspected carcinogens, and more than 100 chemical poisons, the tobacco industry denies the risks of exposure, opposes smoking bans, promotes ventilation as a panacea for ETS control, and works for a return to laissez-faire concerning smoking in the hospitality industry. Smoking bans remain the only viable control measure to ensure that workers and patrons of the hospitality industry are protected from exposure to the toxic wastes from tobacco combustion.