"Operation Berkshire": the international tobacco companies' conspiracy
Open accessAbstract
Advocates of tobacco control worldwide have long suspected collusion among major international tobacco companies over their refusal to acknowledge that smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and other serious diseases. Tobacco industry documents now available on the internet disclose the establishment of a conspiracy between Philip Morris, R J Reynolds, British-American Tobacco, Rothmans, Reemtsma, and UK tobacco companies Gallaher and Imperial, dating from 1977. The documents also disclose the objects of the conspiracy: basically, to protect the industry's commercial interests both by promoting controversy over smoking and disease and through strategies directed at reassuring smokers. The documents also disclose the means of implementing the conspiracy by utilising national manufacturers' associations coordinated through the International Committee on Smoking Issues, later to become the International Tobacco Information Centre. We expose the formation of the conspiracy and its objectives and means of implementation over the ensuing decades. #### Summary points For decades international tobacco companies have denied or disputed that smoking causes serious diseases, and advocates of tobacco control worldwide have long suspected collusion over this issue Internal documents from the tobacco industry now available on the internet disclose that in 1977 seven of the world's major tobacco companies conspired to promote “controversy” over smoking and disease, in an exe…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The block approach increased the influence of smaller countries, particularly the Pacific Islands and English-speaking Caribbean countries, in the FCTC negotiations.
“an FCA interviewee from North America noted that the block approach increased the influence of smaller countries, particularly the Pacific Islands and English-speaking Caribbean countries, in the FCTC negotiations14.”
From Civil society and the negotiation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (2009) · cites this paper as [14]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Civil society and the negotiation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
Mamudu, H. M., & Glantz, S. A. (2009) · Global Public Health · doi:10.1080/17441690802095355 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
- Authors
- Francey, N.
- Corresponding author
- Francey, N.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2000-08-05
- Volume
- 321
- Issue
- 7257
- Pages
- 371-374
- ISSN
- 0959-8138 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC1118337
- OpenAlex
- W2036808527
- Cited by
- 81
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 9.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- europepmc.org
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
- Keywords
- tobacco industry, Philip Morris, British American Tobacco, tobacco control, tobacco industry documents, smoking and disease
- MeSH terms
- Smoking Prevention, Advertising, United Kingdom, Humans, International Cooperation, Truth Disclosure, United States, Tobacco Industry
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review