Advertisement
Research Article

Effect of the California Tobacco Control Program on Personal Health Care Expenditures

  • James M Lightwood,

    Affiliations: Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America, School of Pharmacy, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America

    X
  • Alexis Dinno,

    Affiliation: Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America

    X
  • Stanton A Glantz mail

    To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: glantz@medicine.ucsf.edu

    Affiliations: Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America, Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies and Department of Medicine (Cardiology), University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America

    X
  • Published: August 26, 2008
  • DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050178

Reader Comments (9)

Post a new comment on this article

Competing Interests of Glantz Must Be Declared

Posted by plosmedicine on 29 Apr 2009 at 13:42 GMT

Author of comment: Pam Parker, transamgranny@wideopenwest.com

This comment was sent by email to the PLoS Medicine staff.

Comment:

Within this article by Lightwood, Dinno and Glantz is the statement "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist." Furthermore, "No competing interests declared" is stated in two reader responses by Glantz even after earlier reader responses pointed out the fact that the authors should have declared their competing interests. Is it not PLoS Medicine's policy to disclose competing interests?

University of California, San Francisco has received at least $36,233,049 in grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). UCSF School of Medicine has received $15,299,103 of the 36 million dollars. Tobacco related grants total $12,019,701. Professor Glantz is listed as the contact person for grants totaling $1,577,819. Steven Schroeder, former President of RWJF (July 1990-December 2002) returned to UCSF, School of Medicine to head the new Leadership Center for Smoking Cessation funded with $10,000,000 in grants from RWJF(1). Grant #024783 in the amount of $280,517(2), was concluded by author Lisa A. Bero, Ph.D. that: "Source of Research Funding Influences Studies on Health Effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke". Professor Glantz was a 2000 recipient of a RWJF award "Innovators Combating Substance Abuse(3)" which is accompanied by a $300,000 grant(4). In addition, Glantz and UCSF have received $15,000,000 in combined gift, endowment and grant from the American Legacy Foundation (ALF) for the creation and continued funding of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education and the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library(5). In August 2007 the ALF also provided funding for Glantz's faculty position as the UCSF American Legacy Foundation Distinguished Professor of Tobacco Control(6). It is my opinion that Glantz and UCSF stand to gain vast amounts of future tobacco control grants from RWJF and ALF because articles like those he published in the AJPH and PLoS Medicine.

Public Health policies are being made as a result of these studies. State and Federal laws are created as a result. Worse yet, Public Health fails to protect those who depend on non-biased reporting. It does science a grave injustice. Further there should be, at the very least, journalistic ramifications for not disclosing competing interests, especially when these findings are used to validate laws and create policies. I believe grants, such as the ones listed above, are competing interests and that authors who fail to disclose their competing interests should be suspended from publishing in these journals. Because of the Internet, it is now possible to easily investigate, verify, and publish competing interests. Those journals that do not disclose the obvious competing interests of authors will soon lose credibility over the issue of competing interest disclosures.

(1) http://www.tobacco.org/re...
(2) http://www.rwjf.org/pr/pr...
(3) http://innovatorsawards.o...
(4) http://www.rwjf.org/files...
(5) http://www.scienceblog.co...
(6) http://today.ucsf.edu/sto...

---
Pam Parker has also provided the following file, entitled "RWJF grants made to UCSF": http://www.plosmedicine.o.... PLoS Medicine takes no responsibility for the accuracy of the contents of this file.


Competing interests declared: I am retired from the State of Ohio, Ohio Bureau of Workers Compensation, Division of Safety & Hygiene.
I am a Board Member of Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association (non paid/non compensated) and I am co-founder of Opponents of Ohio Bans (non paid/non compensated).

RE: Competing Interests of Glantz Must Be Declared

GinnyBarbour replied to plosmedicine on 07 May 2009 at 21:56 GMT

We are grateful to Pam Parker for raising the issue of whether funding as described here constitutes a competing interest. In our opinion, the receipt of research grants in one's area of expertise in order to continue research in that area does not necessarily imply that such grants constitute a competing interest.

Ginny Barbour



Dr Virginia Barbour
Chief Editor, PLoS Medicine



No competing interests declared.

RE: RE: Competing Interests of Glantz Must Be Declared - similar case with Bertrand Dautzenberg

Deloie replied to GinnyBarbour on 12 May 2009 at 20:12 GMT

I think the Editor of PLoS Medicine could have done with Professor Glantz like their colleagues of the journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy who have demanded to the authors of a recent study with a striking competing interest by one of the authors (Bertrand Dautzenberg)(1) to publish a “Correction” (2).

Researchers who don’t declare their interests in the USA, in France and many other countries are strangely multiplying. If not an ethical revolution, a clear and courageous position is needed to stop this plague.

With respect,
P. Deloie
France
(1) http://www.substanceabuse...

(2) http://www.substanceabuse...

No competing interests declared.

RE: RE: RE: Competing Interests of Glantz Must Be Declared - similar case with Bertrand Dautzenberg

binky replied to Deloie on 14 May 2009 at 11:46 GMT

Stanton Glantz is an interesting fella whom I believe was an airplane mechanic in Ohio. Wasn't he was also involved in this investigation;

Most disturbing was the public dissemination of the chapter
on cardiovascular disease. Glantz, one of the authors of that chapter,
appeared in Boston -- again with James Repace -- at the World Conference on
Lung Health in late May 1990 and gave both a presentation and news interviews
on that chapter. Dr. Glantz used the occasion to repeat and underscore the
unsupported claim that more than 30,000 nonsmoking Americans die of heart
disease each year as a result of exposure to ETS.

This activity made a mockery of EPA's procedures for ensuring
that its policy documents receive a full and fair review before they are
finalized. Glantz has a long record of public statements demonstrating his
commitment to that political agenda, notwithstanding the lack of scientific
support for his claims concerning ETS. While his training is in mechanical
engineering rather than medicine or some other relevant discipline, he has
pontificated on every conceivable smoking-related topic, such as advertising
and economic issues, about which he plainly can make no claim to professional
competence.

To cite one example, Dr. Glantz's organization stated in its
1983 annual report that "irrefutable medical and scientific evidence has
confirmed what millions of nonsmokers have intuitively known for a long time:
Tobacco smoke * * * poses a serious health risk for nonsmokers who breathe
secondhand smoke." Thus, Dr. Glantz's mind was closed on the
ETS/cardiovascular disease issue three years before the 1986 reports of the
Surgeon General and National Academy of Sciences both determined that there
was insufficient evidence to support the claim that exposure to ETS presents
any increased risk of heart disease.

At an April 1990 antismoking conference in Perth, Australia,
Glantz made a series of revealing comments. First, he noted that "it's very
nice to see that the same ideas that a few of us were advocating in 1983
which were viewed as so strange, radical and hopeless have now really become
very mainstream." A self-described "lunatic" on the issue, Dr. Glantz then
excoriated the American Cancer Society for its alleged decision to terminate
an employee for intemperate behavior in connection with a local smoking
ordinance. "He [the employee] may be a little impolitic which I of course
view as a plus. But you know activists need [to be] rewarded[.] * * * I had
no objection to all the people who were given awards on the first day [of the
conference], but I did notice that there was not a single lunatic among
them * * *." He further confessed that "[t]he main thing the science has
done on the issue of ETS, in addition to help people like me pay mortgages,
is it has legitimized the concerns that people have that they don't like
cigarette smoke. And that is a strong emotional force that needs to be
harnessed and used." Glantz concluded by stating that "we are all on a roll
and the bastards are on the run and I urge you to keep chasing them."

Link to document
http://www.pipes.org/Arti...

No competing interests declared.

RE: RE: Competing Interests of Glantz Must Be Declared

Pamela13 replied to GinnyBarbour on 27 May 2009 at 04:24 GMT

With all due respect, I read and re-read your opinion of my claims of competing interests of Stanton Glantz and I wish to make the following to further explain my reasoning for the request that he declare his competing interests.

For a moment, let me address this particular study. It cites:

Funding: This work was supported
in part by National Cancer Institute
(grants CA-61021 and CA-113710).
The funders had no role in study
design, data collection and analysis,
decision to publish, or preparation
of the manuscript.

If this study was supported "in part" by NCI, who funded the remainder of the study?

The NCI website lists 30 publications on tobacco. https://cissecure.nci.nih... Care to guess how many are NOT anti-tobacco? How is there not bias by funding being provided by the National Cancer Institute?

By not forcing people like Glantz to report competing interests, they've been given carte blanche legitimacy. Because of his legitimacy, he HAS done damage. Approximately 2/3 of the studies in the 2006 SG Report on the economic impact of smoking bans were authored or co-authored by Stanton Glantz. Because of his claims of businesses booming from smokefree policies, legislators and voters have been told of "proof" of no harm from smoking bans. You live in the UK. You know for a fact that the bans have closed pubs. In Ohio, we've (bar owners and licensed beverage associations) been working to get legislation to get exemptions from our ban. Our ban was effective January, 2007. After 2 years, our newspapers reported
"Ohioans are drinking more booze than ever before, and they’re drinking it more often at home and less often in bars and restaurants, according to sales figures released Thursday by the Ohio Division of Liquor " (January 15, 2009) " Wholesale sales of liquor — purchased by bars, restaurants, fraternal organizations and other permit holders — fell for the second straight year in both dollars and gallonage, while retail sales of booze in groceries and other liquor stores recorded robust increases. Overall, dollar sales reached $32.6 million in 2008, up 4.8 percent over 2007, while gallonage rose to 10.5 million gallons, up 2.6 percent." http://www.daytondailynew...

In fact, Glantz was quoted in the Toledo Blade:
"Stanton Glantz, director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco, expects to see Ohio's law make it through challenges.
"I promise you, a year from now, The Blade will run an article saying the law is in force and business is on the increase," the professor of medicine said." http://www.toledoblade.co... (December 9, 2006)

I would like Glantz to come to Ohio to explain how we're really NOT experiencing these losses.

What has more drinking at home done for domestic violence? What of DUIs? There's no one to keep the drinker from getting in the car at home.

Glantz got $1,077,819 in grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to create and maintain the TobaccoScam website, whose purpose it was to say that any claims that smoking bans hurt the hospitality industry are perpetrated by Big Tobacco. Those of us in the hospitality industry, particularly bar owners, know that it's not BT, it's the HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY (BARS) who are making the claims.

"Tobacco Scam" Campaign Counters Claims About the Adverse Effects of Clean Air Laws on Restaurants and Bars
From 2001 to 2007, project staff at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine ran an educational campaign called "Tobacco Scam" to c Funding
RWJF provided two grants totaling $1,077,819 for the campaign.
I remember reading the Enstrom & Kabat study that was blasted by rapid responses to the BMJ. Because the remaining small portion of their study was funded by some Clean Indoor Air group that turned out to be a tobacco company, they were accused of being tobacco shills and were professionally dragged through the mud.

How is Glantz receiving millions in grants from RWJF, who profits from the sales of their nicotine replacement therapy products, any different?

How is Glantz's salary being paid by American Legacy Foundation not a competing interest?
The American Legacy Foundation® is dedicated to building a world where young people reject tobacco and anyone can quit.
The Foundation develops programs that address the health effects of tobacco use. We want to help all young people reject tobacco, and give everyone access to tobacco prevention and cessation services.
Your opinion on Glantz's competing interests states: the receipt of research grants in one's area of expertise in order to continue research in that area does not necessarily imply that such grants constitute a competing interest
Question: Exactly what qualifies "expertise" in Tobacco "Control"? Precisely what does it take to "control" the use of tobacco?

Answer: It's the ability to get grants, funding and legitimacy to further the mission of those providing the funding and those "non" profit foundations who profit from the sale of their own forms of nicotine.

To quote Glantz from a 1990 address to the Seventh World Conference on Tobacco and Health in Perth, Australia:
The main thing the science has done on the issue of ETS [environmental tobacco smoke] in addition to help people like me pay my mortgage, is it has legitimized the concern that people have that they don’t like cigarette smoke. And that is a strong emotional force that needs to be harnessed and used. We’re on a roll, and the bastards are on the run.
(Holt and Pambianco 1994:5–6).

I believe Glantz said it best.

Please require Glantz to disclose his competing interests. The world deserves to know.

No competing interests declared.

RE: RE: RE: Competing Interests of Glantz Must Be Declared

Pamela13 replied to Pamela13 on 27 May 2009 at 04:25 GMT

Sorry-my affiliations are listed in my original post

Competing interests declared: Sorry-my affiliations are listed in my original post.

RE: RE: Competing Interests of Glantz Must Be Declared

WielM replied to GinnyBarbour on 07 Dec 2011 at 23:48 GMT

In the Rapid Responses on the Enstrom&Kabat study in the BMJ in 2003/2004, Glantz also never answered to severe accusations about competing interests:

http://www.bmj.com/rapid-...

The fact that this was published by BMJ after a long delay, shows that BMJ editors have checked these figures thoroughly.

Obviously there are double standards used by medical journals when accepting funding for research and requesting the mentioning of competing interests: when Big Pharma (BP) is involved, it's allowed. When only one cent of Big Tobacco (BT) is found, the TC crowd cries out loud (like in the RR reactions on Enstrom&Kabat).

I thought that PloS was an exception in the medical journals field, but obviously it's not.

Competing interests declared: President of Forces International (unpaid), Chairman of Forces Netherlands (unpaid), Board member of TICAP (unpaid), Advisor of Horecaclaim NL and BE (unpaid).

RE: Competing Interests of Glantz Must Be Declared

MichaelJMcFadden replied to plosmedicine on 13 May 2009 at 02:49 GMT

I believe Pam Parker has raised a very valid point (1) about the competing interest statements in the primary article. (2) While PLoS Editor Ginny Barbour responded to it I believe that her response needs to be clarified/expanded or even fully reconsidered. The concern about Stanton Glantz' failure to adequately declare his competing interests is not only valid, it has been raised before.


Several years ago a highly publicized study was published in the British Medical Journal detailing a remarkable drop in heart attacks in a small Montana town after the implementation of a smoking ban there. The study came under harsh criticism in the pages of the BMJ's Rapid Response section, with over a dozen strong criticisms and questions being raised by readers and virtually no response being given by the study's authors. (3)(4)


Stanton Glantz was one of those authors and his claim of "no competing interests" was strongly challenged, without answer, in four of those Rapid Responses. (5 ... 8)


The challenge is soundly based. Stanton Glantz' entire career has been based upon the consistent production of hundreds of studies, materials, and activities promoting the concept that the tobacco industry is evil and its products deadly to both smokers and nonsmokers, and that any and all indications that there are any negative aspects at all for society from smoking bans or from limiting the activity or portrayal of smoking in just about any form imaginable. In the course of that career he has received millions, perhaps tens of millions of dollars worth of awards and grants, and I believe he has never once conducted, sponsored, or participated in a single study that found tobacco innocent of anything.


If he suddenly began producing studies that determined, as the recent National Bureau of Economic Research study by RAND and Harvard researchers (9) or the earlier one by David Kuneman and myself (10) did, that smoking bans did not reduce heart attacks, or that, again like a study done by Dave and myself several years ago, that smoking bans were devastating to state economies (11), or that brief exposures to commonly encountered levels of environmental tobacco smoke were harmless, it is highly likely that his lucrative supply chain of grant money would dry up faster than a jellyfish in the Sahara.


While I have not specifically investigated the details in the process of writing this, I believe that if one obtained a list of Glantz' grants over the last ten years and examined the "statements of purpose" of the granting organizations one would find that many of them include phraseology indicating that they provide grants only and explicitly for purposes of promoting tobacco control and the reduction of smoking.


Obviously studies showing that bans hurt business, or that reasonably-ventilated exposure to secondary smoke was harmless, or that caffeine was more addictive than nicotine, or that money was being wasted when spent in tobacco control areas would quickly result in a major disruption or even outright destruction of Stanton Glantz' career and his position in the University and Tobacco Control community.


Thus his competing interest in designing and producing studies with clearly anticipated preordained outcomes is both very clear AND very compelling.


I believe strongly that a researcher who accepts a grant from a foundation that has a significant share of its assets invested in a corporation that profits from increased sales of Nicotine Replacement Therapy products pursuant to smoking bans and who clearly hopes to receive future grants from that source is acting under a clear, compelling, and potentially quite scientifically corrupting competing interest. Such a researcher should take particularly special care to note such competing interest publicly and to demonstrate through the design of his or her work that every possible effort has been made to correct for any bias that might be consciously or unconsciously introduced by that interest. This holds particularly true in the case of any researchers who have received and expect in the future to receive multiple grants from sources with a clear and dedicated interest in particular outcomes, whether that interest be economically or ideologically driven.


I believe Stanton Glantz has clearly failed to measure up to that standard and should be held accountable for that failure. I further believe that the medical journals that have allowed such behavior to continue, particularly in light of the clear and strong challenges to it that have been made, should also be held accountable.


By way of contrast, examine how simply being a soft-drink chemist over 20 years ago for a company bought in 1978 and sold in 1986 by Philip Morris was spun into a "competing interest" for my co-researcher, David Kuneman, by Glantz' own TobaccoScam organization. Please see the referenced blog entry and commentaries on Dr. Siegel's TobaccoAnalysis site for details. Further, see the TobaccoScam page itself, with the incriminating URL, "fake hospitality results," identifying Mr. Kuneman as "a retired research chemist who worked at Philip Morris." Further note the authors' clear statement at the end of the page copied by TobaccoScam that they, "used their own time and funds to research and prepare this article. Neither has any competing financial interest in this research or the outcome of this research." And finally, note that despite such clear statement, TobaccoScam, in the same panel as the reference to Philip Morris, declares "No Funding Source Indicated" next to a big red exclamation point. (12) (13) (14)


Targeted "Tobacco Control" grants totaling in all probability millions extending into the tens of millions of dollars from the 1980s to the present day and beyond declared as "no competing interest vs. a brief employment concerning soda flavorings at 7-Up over 20 years ago. Which one gets labeled "fake" ?


Of course Stanton Glantz (or TobaccoScam's behavior) does not stand absolutely alone in this regard, although the extent and intensity of Glantz's argued competing interests may be particularly egregious. I do not know if other tobacco control researchers have faced similar challenges in the pages of the British Medical Journal or elsewhere, but they have also uniformly declared such lack of interests with Journal-approval while clearly having interests in producing results that will be favorable toward procuring future funding from sources with a pronounced and fully public commitment to producing certain sorts of research.


If I regularly received research grants from Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds, and based my abilities to be able to continue my mortgage payments upon their continued pleasure with my study designs and results procuring future such grants would Dr. Barbour stand up to defend my "no competing interest" statement by saying, "the receipt of research grants in one's area of expertise in order to continue research in that area does not necessarily imply that such grants constitute a competing interest." ?

Peer review, the golden idol of modern scientific research, has been defiled and lies broken on the altar of competing interests by researchers openly dedicated to results favoring a social engineering goal: the reduction of smoking. No matter how worthy anyone might want to argue that goal to be, the cost is simply not worth it, and the damage it has done is incalculable.


Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"



(1) http://www.plosmedicine.o...
(2) http://www.plosmedicine.o...
(3) http://www.bmj.com/cgi/re...
(4) http://www.bmj.com/cgi/el...
(5) http://www.bmj.com/cgi/el...
(6) http://www.bmj.com/cgi/el...
(7) http://www.bmj.com/cgi/el...
(8) http://www.bmj.com/cgi/el...
(9) http://www.nber.org/paper...
(10) http://www.scribd.com/doc...
(11) http://kuneman.smokersclu...
(12) http://tobaccoanalysis.bl...
(13) http://www.tobaccoscam.uc...
(14) http://tobaccoscam.ucsf.e...

Competing interests declared:
Direct Competing Interests: Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains", uncompensated Mid-Atlantic Director of the Citizens Freedom Alliance, uncompensated Director of Pennsylvania Smokers Action Network, and uncompensated Associate Member of The International Coalition Against Prohibition.


Competing Interest History: Authorship. No grants or funding of any kind for work in this or related fields to date.

RE: RE: Competing Interests of Glantz Must Be Declared

MichaelJMcFadden replied to MichaelJMcFadden on 23 Aug 2010 at 23:54 GMT

I wrote above, "Peer review, the golden idol of modern scientific research, has been defiled and lies broken on the altar of competing interests by researchers openly dedicated to results favoring a social engineering goal: the reduction of smoking. No matter how worthy anyone might want to argue that goal to be, the cost is simply not worth it, and the damage it has done is incalculable."

The cost of refusing to bend one's research to fit politically desirable goals has grown since I wrote the above piece about Dr. Glantz. Dr. James Enstrom, a researcher who raised the ire of Antismokers everywhere when he and Dr. Kabat concluded that their research results in 2003 just didn't support the need for smoking bans, has now been punished for the error of his ways. UCLA has evidently decided that despite his 20+ years of exemplary work with them that his research is no longer producing results that "fit" with their "mission" and has fired him.

So much for "science" I guess.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Competing interests declared: My competing interests remain almost the same: Direct Competing Interests: Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains", uncompensated Mid-Atlantic Director of the Citizens Freedom Alliance, uncompensated Director of Pennsylvania Smokers Action Network, and uncompensated Director of TICAP, The International Coalition Against Prohibition.

RE: Competing Interests of Glantz Must Be Declared

Concerned_Citizen replied to plosmedicine on 14 May 2009 at 10:23 GMT

Concerning Mr. Glantz, I have been wondering how he managed to get into the position he is in and did research trying to figure it out.

His education is as follows and note what is NOT there. There is NO education as an MD, a RN or a scientist. It appears he went from a computer tech / engineer into suddenly being an expert. How?

1964-69 Univ. of Cincinnati 1969 BS high honors Aerospace Engineering
1969-70 Stanford University 1970 MS Applied Mechanics
1970-73 Stanford University 1973 PhD Applied Mechanics/Engineering-economic Systems
1973-75 Stanford University. Research Fellow, Cardiology
1975-77 Univ. of California, San Francisco Research Fellow, Cardiovascular Research
1980-94 Univ. of California, San Francisco Director, Cardiology/GCRC Computer Facility. He was working with computers in a cardiac department.

It strongly appears, per all I've read concerning him, that he went into the computer field, the maintenance and operational end, knowing how to write computer programs to FIT an agenda where he could receive grant funds from those who supply the funds for the smoking bans. His past work partner, Dr Siegel, is very interesting.

Of the many things I have found, I am listing quotes below to two things I found of interest.

(1) A Sacramento court issued a restraining order against Glantz for destroying documents in the above case [see link below] and required him to show why he should not be held in contempt of court. It also charged him with unauthorized use of University of California resources for political lobbying, electioneering and private political activities, and of using his time on the University payroll to do so.
http://www.geocities.com/...

(2) Stanton Glantz, a University of California researcher and cofounder of Californians for Nonsmokers’ Rights, is reported as saying, "The main thing the science has done on the issue of ETS [environmental tobacco smoke], in addition to help people like me pay mortgages, is it has legitimized the concern that people have that they don’t like cigarette smoke" (quoted by Sullum, p. 147). Wendell Gauthier, a lawyer involved in the 1994 class action on behalf of addicted smokers, declared to the New York Times, "Our biggest motivation is money" (p. 205).
http://www.pierrelemieux....

An added note: Note the word in #2 above ‘LIKE’. What about those who DO LIKE? Free choice, free enterprise and signs are a wonderful invention!

A fact most do not know is that tobacco is IN the same food group as potato, tomato, cauliflower, green pepper, chili’s, egg plant and other foods. They ALL contain nicotine and American ingenuity is far from dead. We serve those foods in every restaurant and school cafeteria. Are those the next ban, high price and high tax items?

No competing interests declared.

RE: RE: Competing Interests of Glantz Must Be Declared

binky replied to Concerned_Citizen on 14 May 2009 at 12:43 GMT

Any reasonable mind would assume that payment of $400,000 for anti smoking is competing interest and RWJF certainly expected something in return

Stanton Glantz's $400,000 funding from Nicoderm manufacturer Johnson & Johnson's private foundation RWJF


Active Grants
Tobacco Use & Exposure

Project:
Educational campaign for restaurant owners on smoke-free restaurants

Grant Detail:

$399,000, (awarded on Aug 11, 2005, starting Aug 15, 2005 ending Aug 14, 2007) ID# 052810

Grantee:
University of California, San Francisco,
School of Medicine513 Parnassus Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94143-0410
(415) 476-9000
Summary:

Efforts to adopt clean indoor air ordinances in states and communities are often derailed or substantially weakened by tobacco industry lobbying and media campaigns. The tobacco industry and its allies engage in disinformation strategies targeted to restaurant owners and associations about the effect of smoke-free policies on business. Lack of support among restaurateurs for strong smoke-free policies can present major barriers to their adoption at the state and/or local level. This grant provides renewal support for the continuation of the TobaccoScam restaurant educational campaign for two years. Funds will support the placement of 32 high-quality print advertisements in major restaurant trade publications. The renewal also funds targeted outreach to media and opinion leaders, with particular emphasis on restaurant industry leaders, and an enhanced Web site to promote smoke-free workplaces within the hospitality industry as the wave of the future, reframing the discussion from one of something to fear to something to emulate.

Contact Information:
Stanton A. Glantz Ph.D.
(Project Director)
glantz@medicine.ucsf.edu
Phone: (415) 476-3893
http://cleanairquality.bl...

No competing interests declared.