Review of Samet’s Cross-Exam on Low Yield Cigarettes
October 1, 2004 5:05 pm by Gene BorioOn Wednesday and Thursday, Defense tried to establish grounds for the idea that low tar cigarettes may have health benefits–benefits that actually helped slow the rise in lung cancer death rates, even though epidemiological studies have not found lower rates of lung cancer tied the advent of low-tar/low nicotine cigarettes. This may be, his presentation averred, because the effect has been hidden by differences in smoking patterns — especially the more-hazardous early-life smoking by older men in the Cancer Prevention Study I, as opposed to the middle-aged men in the Cancer Prevention Study II cohorts. (CPS I ran from 1959-98); CPS II was begun in 1982 and is ongoing. Both tracked data from massive numbers of subjects. )
Defense lawyer Michael B. Minton (Lorillard) cited studies and scientists to support various aspects of this hypothesis, including Larry Garfinkel, Michael Thun, Monograph 13 and a letter (!) by Richard Peto.
By the time all the materials were presented, it was unclear what exactly the end result was, and Judge Kessler asked for a kind of summation. Samet chose to answer. He said that in studies which show a rise in lung cancer rates since the 50s, it is _possible_ that the benefits of lower-yield cigarettes were outweighed by the extra risks of early-life smoking among men who took up smoking pre-1950. This hypothesis was possible, Samet said, IF the trend indicated by studies on filter vs. non-filter cigarettes continues.
Samet’s answers seemed to be based on filter/non-filter studies, whereas it seemed Minton was angling to prove — prove possible, anyway — that “light” cigarettes were a factor which, unnoticed and unheralded, have lessened the rise in lung cancer rates.