Les anglonautes

About | Search | Vocapedia | Learning | Podcasts | Videos | History | Culture | Science | Translate

 Previous Home Up


Vocapedia > Health > Lifestyle > Smoking > Cigarettes






























































We're quitting smoking,

so why is big tobacco booming?

G    12 September 2019





We're quitting smoking, so why is big tobacco booming?

Video        The Guardian        12 September 2019

Smoking rates are falling in the UK, US and much of Europe.


Forty-five per cent of Brits smoked in the 60s and 70s,

compared with just 15% today.


You would think this was bad news for cigarette profits,

but tobacco companies are making more money than ever.


They claim they no longer market traditional cigarettes,

but behind-the scenes tactics suggest otherwise.


Leah Green explains

how the most successful business enterprise in history

has weathered its fall from grace


















The tobacco industry's march on Africa

G    12 July 2017





The tobacco industry's march on Africa

Video        Guardian Explainers        The Guardian        12 July 2017



















Rob Rogers

political cartoon

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette



16 November 2010















smoking and tobacco        USA










Big Tobacco        UK









watch?v=riIQ4KtKGtU - G - 12 September 2019




















Tobacco: a deadly business        UK










Big Tobacco        USA













































Big Tobacco's lobbyists        UK










tobacoo giant        USA










tobacco industry giants        USA










tobacco industry        UK

















watch?v=JuaDCqVsEcI - 12 July 2017



















tobacco: a deadly business        UK










tobacco industry        USA












tobacco industry > child labour        UK


















tobacco industry > child labour > work on tobacco farms / fields        USA












tobacco industry lobbying        UK










tobacco company / firm        UK






















USA > Reynolds American Inc.        UK / USA






















USA > Lorillard        USA










tobacco fields > Malawi        UK


in-pictures - Guardian pictures








tobacco fields > child labor in the United States        USA










tobacco firms        UK












British American Tobacco    BAT        UK


































UK > Imperial Brands plc,/ Imperial Brands plc, / Imperial Tobacco UK



















USA > Marlboro manufacturer Philip Morris International        UK / USA























special-report/pmi-who-fctc/  - July 13, 2017


































menthol cigarettes / smokes        USA


According to the FDA proposal,

the menthol enhances nicotine's addictiveness.


And the flavor makes the cigarettes

"easier" to use.

















cigarette / tobacco lobby        UK






















The lawyer Susan Rosenblatt in 1997.


She and her husband and law partner, Stanley Rosenblatt,

went after the tobacco industry in a headline-making case

that resulted in a record $144.8 billion jury award.


Photograph: Miami Herald


Susan Rosenblatt, Who Took On Big Tobacco, Dies at 70

She was the quieter half of a law partnership with her husband

that pursued a suit against cigarette companies

on behalf of Florida smokers.


Dec. 3, 2021

















Susan Goldman    USA    1951-2021


Susan Rosenblatt,


with her husband and law partner,

Stanley Rosenblatt,

took on Big Tobacco in a Florida case

that seemed an absurd mismatch for their small firm,

but that resulted in a record $144.8 billion jury award

in favor of people sickened by cigarettes,










Merrell Williams Jr.    USA    1941-2013


former paralegal

who leaked mountains

of internal documents

of the Brown & Williamson

Tobacco Company in 1994,

fueling lawsuits that resulted

in an industry payout

of billions of dollars

to pay smokers’ medical bills












Corpus of news articles


Health > Lifestyle > Smoking >


Tobacco, cigarettes > Big Tobacco




Jury Awards $23.6 Billion

in Florida Smoking Case


JULY 19, 2014

The New York Times



MIAMI — A jury in northwestern Florida awarded a staggering $23 billion judgment late Friday against the country’s second-largest tobacco company for causing the death of a chain smoker who died of lung cancer at the age of 36.

The company, the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, promised a prompt appeal.

Michael Johnson Sr. died in 1996 after smoking for more than 20 years. In 2006, his widow, Cynthia Robinson, of Pensacola, sued R. J. Reynolds the maker of the Kool brand cigarettes her husband had smoked, arguing that the company had deliberately concealed the health hazards its product caused.

The four-week trial ended Wednesday. The jury deliberated for 18 hours over two days, first awarding $17 million in compensatory damages and then emerging at 10 p.m. Friday with a $23.6 billion punitive judgment.

“When they first read the verdict, I know I heard ‘million,’ and I got so excited,” Ms. Robinson said in a phone interview Saturday. “Then the attorney informed me that was a ‘B’ — billion. It was just unbelievable.”

She said Mr. Johnson, a longshoreman and hotel shuttle bus driver to whom she was married from 1990 until his death six years later, began smoking around age 13. He often lit a fresh cigarette with the butt end of another.

“He really did smoke a lot,” she said.

He had two children, who are now 23 and 29.

“The damages awarded in this case are grossly excessive and impermissible under state and constitutional law,” J. Jeffery Raborn, vice president and assistant general counsel for R. J. Reynolds, said Saturday in a statement. “This verdict goes far beyond the realm of reasonableness and fairness and is completely inconsistent with the evidence presented. We plan to file post-trial motions with the trial court promptly and are confident that the court will follow the law and not allow this runaway verdict to stand.”

Such efforts by the industry are often successful. In October 2002, a Los Angeles jury awarded $28 billion in punitive damages against Philip Morris USA. In August 2011, an appeals court reduced the punitive damages to $28 million.

The Florida case was among the thousands of the so-called “Engle progeny” cases that stemmed from a 2006 court decision ruling that smokers could not file class-action suits but were free to do so individually.

That decision reversed a $145 billion verdict in a class action awarded in 2000 on behalf of a Miami Beach pediatrician, Howard A. Engle. An appeals court voided the award, saying it was excessive and the cases of individual smokers were too disparate to be considered as a class.

The plaintiffs petitioned the Florida Supreme Court, which upheld the decertification of the class but permitted individuals to sue, which set the stage for Ms. Robinson’s lawsuit.

Friday’s verdict was the highest granted to an Engle progeny case.

Ms. Robinson was represented by Christopher M. Chestnut, based in Georgia, and Willie E. Gary and Howard M. Acosta, both based in Florida.

“The jury just got it,” Mr. Chestnut said. “The jury was outraged with the concealment and the conspiracy to conceal that smoking was not only addictive but that there were deadly chemicals in cigarettes.”

He said the jury seemed most persuaded by 1994 C-Span footage of tobacco industry executives claiming smoking did not cause cancer and was not addictive, and by 60-year-old internal documents showing the company knew otherwise.

Scott P. Schlesinger, a Fort Lauderdale, Fla., lawyer who has sued big tobacco but was not involved in the Robinson case, said a verdict this large is not typical.

“There have not been multibillion-dollar punishments in the Engle cases for one reason: We are afraid to ask for them. We are afraid of what will happen in the appellate process,” he said. “This verdict is important because it goes back to an ongoing saga that goes back to 1990. People have been filing suit one by one, and we have been winning about 70 percent of them.”


Correction: July 19, 2014

An earlier version of this article

misstated the location of Willie E. Gary,

a lawyer for Cynthia Robinson.


He is based in Florida, not Georgia.


A version of this article appears in print

on July 20, 2014, on page A17

of the New York edition with the headline:

ury Awards $23.6 Billion in Florida Smoking Case.

Jury Awards $23.6 Billion in Florida Smoking Case,






Representative Charlie Rose,

Tobacco’s Friend in the House,

Dies at 73


September 4, 2012
The New York Times


Charlie Rose, a former United States representative from rural North Carolina who fought to protect the tobacco industry and its farmers when political and regulatory pressure on the industry were on the rise and smoking in steady decline, died on Monday in Albertville, Ala. He was 73.

The cause was complications of Parkinson’s disease, said his wife, Stacye Hefner.

Mr. Rose, a Democrat some called Mr. Tobacco, was first elected to the House in 1972. His southeastern North Carolina district was covered with tobacco farms, but the crop’s economic and geographic footprint shrank over the next two decades of his tenure.

Mr. Rose (no relation to the television interviewer of the same name) worked to ease the transition and successfully fought to preserve government price supports for tobacco even as the government was warning of its potentially lethal health effects.

“There’s no way you could represent that district and not be in support of tobacco farmers,” said Merle Black, a professor of politics at Emory University.

In the 1990s, the Clinton administration considered a significant increase in the federal tobacco tax to help pay for the ambitious health care overhaul proposed by the first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Mr. Rose, the chairman of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Peanuts and Tobacco, led the opposition.

“In the past, the Reagan and Bush administrations were pretty reasonable about taxing tobacco,” Mr. Rose said in an interview in 1995. “But I think all of us who represent tobacco states knew that the growing concern about smoking and health was going to someday lead to this type of attitude and reaction in the White House. This talk of $2 a pack is scaring us to death, and that’s putting it mildly.”

The health care plan did not pass, and the federal tobacco tax has yet to reach $2 per pack — it is now $1.01 — but Mr. Rose was correct that change was coming. He retired from Congress in 1996, two years after Republicans took control.

Charles Grandison Rose III was born Aug. 10, 1939, in Fayetteville, N.C. He graduated from Davidson College and received his law degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He worked as a chief district court prosecutor before he was elected to the House.

Ms. Hefner, whom he married in 1995, is the daughter of former Representative Bill Hefner of North Carolina. The couple moved to Albertville several years ago to be close to Ms. Hefner’s family.

Besides Ms. Hefner, Mr. Rose is survived by a sister, Irene Owen; a brother, Fred Rose; four children, Charles, Louise, Kelly and Parker; and a stepson, Joseph Hawk. Two previous marriages ended in divorce.

Mr. Rose was more liberal than many other Southern Democrats of his era, on issues including civil rights, and he was well regarded by other members of Congress for helping modernize the House by installing computers in offices and television cameras in the House chamber.

But he also faced ethics charges. In 1988, the House ethics committee issued him a “letter of reproof” for failing to disclose that he had converted campaign money for his personal use. In 1994, Mr. Rose agreed to pay $12,500 to settle a civil action brought by the Justice Department related to the same issue.

Mr. Rose and Ms. Hefner started a lobbying firm after he left office and represented a range of clients, including oncologists and R. J. Reynolds, the tobacco company, with which the firm still has a contract.



This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:


Correction: September 4, 2012

A previous version of this obituary

misstated a school from which Mr. Rose graduated.

It was Davidson College, not Davidson University.

Representative Charlie Rose, Tobacco’s Friend in the House, Dies at 73,
    NYT, 4.9.2012,






The Tobacco Horror Show


November 14, 2011
9:00 pm
The New York Times


I’m sure you’ve noticed those TV ads for pharmaceutical products that include an incredibly long list of side effects and possible hazards recited by a cheerful voice as men and women are shown living the happy lives made possible by a drug that can inflict on them everything from bloating and joint pain to death. This combination of positive and negative communications is mandated by the government requirement that drug manufacturers must disclose all the risk factors attending the product they are hawking.

The result is what one might call the “battle of information.” The drug companies are providing information about the benefits of their product, and under duress (it would not be their choice to do this) they are also providing information about the dangers of that same product. It is their hope that the positive message will have more impact than the negative one, and that hope is supported by the fact that they get to tell their happy story in images (look what this drug can do for you), while the other, distressing story (hear what this drug can do to you) is conveyed by words. The companies are counting on the fact that not all information-delivery systems are equal and, as the old proverb goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.

The same dynamics are on display in a case decided on Nov. 7 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, but the positions are reversed: it is the government that is deploying images and the drug companies — in this case tobacco companies — that are standing up for words.
FDA, via/European Pressphoto AgencyAn example of an ad campaign warning people about smoking.

The case — R. J. Reynolds et al v. United States Food and Drug Administration — concerns the F.D.A.’s plan to augment the textual warnings on cigarette packages with graphic color images, including diseased lungs, a cadaver on an autopsy table and a man blowing smoke from a hole in his throat. The tobacco companies requested an injunction on the implementation of the plan until certain constitutional matters could be resolved in the courts. They argued that the “mandatory graphic images unconstitutionally compel speech”; for were they in place every cigarette package would be a “mobile billboard” for a message the companies did not choose to proclaim, but one they were required to display and, in effect, pay for. (This of course would not be materially different from the list of risk factors drug manufacturers are required to insert in ads they pay for.)

The companies also claim that “the purpose and effect of the warnings is to drown out Plaintiff’s own constitutionally protected speech and replace it with the Government’s emotionally-charged anti-smoking message.” “Emotionally-charged” is the key phrase here. The companies do not object to particular images, but to the use of images at all because they speak to the emotions and, in this instance, are “designed to shock, disgust and frighten” rather than “provide purely factual and uncontroversial information.”

But is the producing of an effect, even of an effect that is visceral, unrelated to the communication of information? Maybe yes if we’re talking about a horror movie where the eliciting of shock, disgust and fear is the entire point. That’s what people go to horror movies for — to experience an emotional rollercoaster that is unattached to any cognitive message.

In the case of the tobacco warnings, however, the emotions intentionally produced by the graphic images bring a cognitive message home. It is in fact a horror-message — if you smoke, all kinds of horrible things are likely to happen to you — and it is the government’s judgment, expressed in its brief, that the print warnings we are now accustomed to have become “stale” and no longer “convey [the] relevant information in an effective way,” no longer, that is, convey the message.

Of course, the tobacco industry has lived with print warnings for a long time and is fully aware of how humdrum they have become. What alarms them is the specter (another kind of horror show) of warnings that might really convey the relevant information effectively. What alarms them is not that the proposed images distort the truth, but that they tell it. “Ultimately,” the government’s brief concludes, “plaintiff’s objection to the pictorial health warnings is not that they are false, but that they are true.”

Given that the conveying of true information about the risks of a legal product has been held constitutional even when the government burdens a manufacturer’s delivery of its message, one would have expected the government to prevail. But is does not. Judge Richard J. Leon issued the injunction sought by the tobacco companies and gave as a reason the illegitimacy of images as conveyers of information: “[T]he government’s emphasis on the images’ ability to provoke emotion strongly suggests that the government’s actual purpose is not to inform, but rather to advocate a change in consumer behavior.” And again, “the graphic warnings cross the line from information to advocacy.”

This is wrong in both directions. Images can inform and the bare recital of information can advocate by appealing to the emotions. The line Leon wants to draw is, at best, a blurry one, as is his contrast (borrowed from the plaintiff’s brief) between images “calculated to provoke the viewer to quit” and “disseminating purely factual and uncontroversial information.” It takes only a second’s thought to undermine the contrast. Is the factual and uncontroversial assertion that “ smoking can kill you” (one of the new print warnings) without persuasive intent or effect? “Oh, I just thought I’d tell you that smoking kills and can harm your children. Nothing hortatory on my mind, just sayin’.” And just as the information that smoking kills is offered with the intention to “provoke” the informee to quit, so is the image of a cadaver on a slab offered with the intention of conveying a piece of factual and uncontroversial information — smoking kills.

Leon regards that image as non-factual and therefore controversial because, he says, the government does not offer “a single shred of evidence to support the proposition that smoking causes autopsies.” But the proposition is not that smoking causes autopsies, it’s that smoking causes death, and there’s plenty of evidence of that. In order to draw from the image the conclusion he wants to reach, Leon must read it in an obtusely literal way as claiming that every time a cadaver lies on an autopsy table it has been brought there by smoking.

The claim, however, is at once narrower in scope and less controversial, in fact not controversial at all: if you continue smoking, one of the things likely to happen is that you’ll end up on a slab. The image of the cadaver stands in for death, for the proposition that smoking kills. It is an example of metonymy, a figure of speech in which a thing or concept — in this case death — is not presented directly but by reference to something — the condition of being in a morgue — with which it is closely associated. As a figure of speech, metonymy operates at a remove from the object it points us to; it requires an inference. But the inference, once made (and it is no trick at all to make it), puts us in direct and forceful contact with an uncontroversial fact.

If Leon’s objection to the image were taken seriously, if assertions of fact could be made only in the absence of figures of speech — no metonymies, allusions, metaphors, comparisons, similes, patterned repetitions and a thousand other deviations from an impossible literalism — the account of even a single fact would fill 300 pages. As John McEnroe is fond of saying, “you cannot be serious.”

But apparently Judge Leon is serious and one can only wonder why. The answer given on some left-wing blogs is that he is in the pocket of the tobacco industry. But a more generous and analytic answer might point to a very old philosophical/theological tradition in which he enrolls himself, perhaps unwittingly. That tradition is marked by two related oppositions. The first opposes the verbal to the visual and stigmatizes the latter as the medium of deception and false appearances. Aristotle’s distrust of spectacle (opsis) founds an anti-theatrical prejudice that finds a high (or low) watermark in Stephen Gosson’s “School of Abuse” (1579) and Ben Jonson’s invectives against the set designer Inigo Jones. The theological counterpart to this prejudice is derived from the second commandment (“thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image”) and 1 John 2:16: “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life is not from the Father, but is from the world.” The fruits of these texts can be seen in the periodic eruption of iconoclastic frenzy.

The second opposition in the tradition is located within the realm of the verbal itself. The literal, identified with pure observation and description, is opposed to the rhetorical, identified (again) with deception and with a surrender to the lure of surfaces and to base emotional appeals.

Either singly or in combination, the two binaries — words vs. images and literal, information-bearing words vs. words aiming to persuade — have led to a search for what Thomas Kuhn has called a “neutral observation language,” a super-literal language uninflected and uninfected by the distortions of any human, or as Leon terms it, “subjective” perspective. Although there have been innumerable attempts to come up with such a language — from the efforts to recover the language of Eden, to the linguistic reforms (no figures of speech) proposed by England’s Royal Society in the 17th century, to the 20th century logical positivists, to the construction of artificial languages with universalist ambitions like Esperanto — it has never been found and never will be found. One could say, then, that Judge Leon’s reasoning and the decision it leads to are based on a linguistic mirage, a will o’ the wisp, although the damage the decision might allow to be done, if it is upheld, is no mirage at all.

The Tobacco Horror Show, NYT, 14.11.2011,






Court Blocks Graphic Labels

on Cigarette Packs


November 7, 2011
The New York Times


A federal judge on Monday blocked a Food and Drug Administration requirement that tobacco companies put big new graphic warning labels on cigarette packages by next September.

In a preliminary injunction, Judge Richard J. Leon of United States District Court in Washington ruled that cigarette makers were likely to win a free speech challenge against the proposed labels, which include staged photos of a corpse and of a man breathing smoke out of a tracheotomy hole in his neck.

The judge ruled that the labels were not factual and required the companies to use cigarette packages as billboards for what he described as the government’s “obvious anti-smoking agenda!”

The 29-page ruling was a setback for Congressional and F.D.A. efforts to bolster the warnings on tobacco packages. The agency has said they are the most significant change to health warnings in 25 years.

The Justice Department is reviewing the ruling, a spokesman, Charles S. Miller, said. The F.D.A. declined to comment, a spokeswoman said.

If the ruling is appealed — as both sides expect — it would join a different federal judge’s ruling on similar issues on appeal and raise the possibility that the issue will be decided by the United States Supreme Court.

Floyd Abrams, a New York lawyer and First Amendment specialist who argued the case for Lorillard Tobacco of Greensboro, N.C., praised the ruling. He said the companies had just objected to “grotesque” images, but not to new words of warning.

“It’s basically rooted in the notion that compelled speech by the government is presumptively unconstitutional,” Mr. Abrams said. “The only exception that could fit here is the one which says that the government can require warnings to be placed on products including tobacco products, but that the warnings must be factual and uncontroversial in nature.”

Five tobacco companies had challenged the selection of nine specific graphic warnings as an unconstitutional intrusion on commercial free speech. The judge agreed with them on almost every point, saying the companies would suffer irreparable harm if the provision were enforced before it was fully decided in courts, a process that is likely to take years.

“It is abundantly clear from viewing these images that the emotional response they were crafted to induce is calculated to provoke the viewer to quit, or never to start, smoking: an objective wholly apart from disseminating purely factual and uncontroversial information,” Judge Leon wrote.

“At first blush, they appear to be more about shocking and repelling than warning,” Judge Leon added in a footnote.

Antismoking activists called on the Justice Department to appeal immediately.

“This ruling presents a direct and immediate threat to public health,” Charles D. Connor, president and chief executive of the American Lung Association, said in a statement. “The tobacco industry’s efforts to halt the replacement of cigarette warning labels that are 25 years old, ineffective and hidden on the side of packages, will result in more lives lost to tobacco.”

Matthew L. Myers, a lawyer and president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a Washington advocacy group, said Judge Leon had sympathized with tobacco companies during oral arguments.

“The government has been expecting this decision and will appeal,” Mr. Myers said. “In addition, many of the same issues are now pending before a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit because a federal judge in Kentucky reached a decision different than Judge Leon’s decision today.”

In that case, Judge Joseph H. McKinley Jr. ruled the cigarette makers could be forced to put graphic images and warnings on the top half of their packages, as Congress required. But Judge Leon noted that Judge McKinley had not seen the actual proposed images.

Judge Leon was appointed to the bench in 2002 by President George W. Bush. Last year, Judge Leon also ruled against the F.D.A. over e-cigarettes, an electronic device that looks like a cigarette and delivers nicotine, saying they should be regulated as tobacco products rather than under the stricter regimen as drug delivery devices. The government has not appealed that case.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 gave the F.D.A. authority for the first time to regulate tobacco products. It included a provision directing the F.D.A. to require larger, graphic warning labels covering the top half of the front and back of cigarette packs by Sept. 22, 2012, as well as 20 percent of print advertising.

The F.D.A. had studied 36 images and narrowed them down to nine after surveys of effectiveness. The photos are similar to some included with cigarettes in Canada. But the tobacco companies argued, and the judge agreed, that the F.D.A. could not prove the images would make a statistically significant difference in smoking rates in the United States.

“We are pleased with the judge’s ruling and look forward to the court’s final resolution of this case,” Bryan D. Hatchell, a spokesman for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco of Winston-Salem, N.C., makers of Camel cigarettes, said after the ruling.

Other plaintiffs in the suit are Commonwealth Brands, the Liggett Group, and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco. The Altria Group, parent company of Philip Morris, makers of the dominant brand of Marlboro cigarettes, did not join the lawsuit. Altria was also the only major cigarette maker to support the new legislation.

Court Blocks Graphic Labels on Cigarette Packs, NYT, 7.11.2011,






February 20 1954


Cancer and smoking:

the American story


From The Guardian Archive


February 20 1954

The Guardian


For thirty years or more the scandal sheets have printed articles on "The Tobacco Habit" as a mild variation on their standard treatment of such shockers as prostitution, political graft, and the traffic in dope. The tobacco companies paid only sidelong heed, with bold hints that, on the contrary, a cigarette was a relaxant, a soothing syrup and a social grace.

Their long golden age — twenty years of soaring sales — exploded in a bombshell prepared by Dr. Ernest Wynder of New York and Dr. Evarts Graham of St Louis. They reported they had produced skin cancer in 44 per cent of the mice painted with tobacco tar condensed from cigarette smoke.

This study was hardly as comprehensive as the British study of fifteen hundred human lung-cancer patients, but it was piquant. The newspapers sat up when the Institute of Industrial Medicine examined all the tumours reported in the Wynder-Graham study and declared them to be malignant.

Papers [reported] speeches made by Dr. Wynder and Dr. Ochner, Chief of Surgery at Tulane University. Dr. Wynder quoted thirteen American and foreign studies to conclude that "the prolonged and heavy use of cigarettes increases up to twenty times the risk of developing cancer of the lung."

Dr. Ochner foresaw that the male population of the United States might be decimated within fifty years by this type of cancer if cigarette-smoking increases at its present rate. Within an hour of the opening of the Stock Exchange that day big blocks of tobacco stocks were up for sale.

By the first of this year the horrid truth was out that the sale of cigarettes in the first ten months of 1953 was off 2.1 per cent. It seems a negligible fraction. But nothing gets to feel so normal as unrelieved luxury, and a desperate tobacco executive reflected that if every American smoker used "one cigarette less a day, our sales would drop by 5 per cent," which is to say three million packs a day, or an annual loss of $255.5 millions.

The makers of filter-tip cigarettes came out celebrating the providential insight that had led them to manufacture a cigarette that "filtered out" all those by implication cancerous tars and fumes. Filtered cigarettes sold as many in 1953 as they had sold in the preceding seven years.

The Institute of Industrial Medicine means to break down tobacco tars in an attempt to discover which fraction caused the skin cancer in mice. This ambition is evidently so beset with chemical and biological problems that it has taken almost a year to build and set up the necessary equipment.

Alistair Cooke

From The Guardian Archive > February 20 1954 > Cancer and smoking:
the American story, G, Republished 20.2.2007, p. 32,










Explore more on these topics

Anglonautes > Vocapedia


smoking > vaping > e-cigarettes



smoking > tobacco, cigarettes



smoking > tobacco industry



smoking, allergy, respiratory diseases



respiratory diseases > asthma



respiratory diseases

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (C.O.P.D.)



lifestyle / health > exercise,

smoking / tobacco, vaping,

drinking / alcohol,

diet, obesity




health, medicine, drugs,

viruses, bacteria,

diseases / illnesses,

hygiene, sanitation,

health care / insurance



health > cells, DNA, genes, genetics, cancer




contraception, abortion,

pregnancy, birth, life,

life expectancy,

getting older / aging,




UK, USA > drugs > pot / marijuana






Related > Anglonautes > Arts > TV


USA > Mad Men




home Up