Smokers were already and for a long time aware of the risks. They choose to take them. What could they possibly claim? That a product known for causing lung cancer caused lung cancer?
That's a good point, I am not a lawyer so I can't really comment. But perhaps there is a material difference between saying you developed a disease that could have been caused by smoking (as lung cancer occurs in non-smokers), and saying you were definitely harmed by smoking.
Other avenues could be:
- Smoking is also associated with other cancers, such as esophageal cancer and bladder cancer. Generally the warnings don't mention this however. By examining the mutation patterns in an esophageal cancer, you could relate it more conclusively to smoking, and could therefore claim you were not warned about that specific risk.
- Tissue samples from lung cancers diagnosed 20 or 30 years ago are sitting in archival storage. You could sequence the whole genome or exome of these tumours for about $1000 - $2000. Statute of limitations aside, sequencing these tumours could reveal the tobacco signature as a basis for a claim from a time when it was less clear or less public what the risks were.
- Passive smokers could have a case if their cancer shows a tobacco signature.
I don't see how you can prove particular mutations are tobacco related. DNA can be damaged by viruses, solar radiation, various industrial chemicals, and naturally occurring replication errors. How would you prove this particular mutation was the result of smoking?
I don't see how this research changes anything from a legal perspective. We already knew smoking causes genetic mutations, but we also know people who've never been exposed to tobacco can develop lung cancer.
The aim is to prove that the pattern of mutations in the tumour (which typically contains several hundred mutations in coding regions, more in the whole genome) are caused by smoking.
Lung cancer is caused by smoking 85-90% of the time. Probably more if you add in secondhand smoke. I think it already meets any sort of "preponderance of evidence" sort of bar to just assume anyone with lung cancer got it from smoking.
Suppose that I live in an apartment with a wood stove, second-hand smoke from a room mate, and radon. If I get lung cancer, which one is to blame? How do you know?
They could easily claim that a product which would otherwise would not have these risks was made into a risky product by the use of certain carcinogens present in the pesticides. The choice of pesticide is made by the tobacco company, so it is their actions that introduce the carcinogen into the product.
Seems pretty standard to me, and I would have to guess that this is the kind of lawsuit that you would probably support if the product in question was, say, red meat instead of tobacco.
I think that in all other areas it's been on the manufacturer of products to make them safer over time (cars, children's toys, cosmetics etc.) so shouldn't the tobacco companies be trying to make their product safer?
Not all other areas. Some products are inherently unsafe, and that is precisely what the costumers want. Alcoholic beverages are unsafe, even lethal if you drink too much. They could be made safer by removing the alcohol, but that is not what most people want. The same applies to fast food and sugary drinks: could be made much safer, but people want a certain flavor at a certain price (and most know it's not healthy).
Inhaling the smoke of burning tobacco leaves can cause cancer. I am fairly certain nobody has as strong of an incentive to create cancer-free tobacco as tobacco companies do. That does not mean it is possible, right?
"Some products are inherently unsafe, and that is precisely what the costumers want."
Radioactive material in tobacco might be mutually exclusive from nicotine and MAOI content. My layperson guess is getting rid of the radioactivity would require prohibitively expensive hydroponic growing. It's the drug part that consumers want, and I'm pretty sure if given the knowledge and option they'd go for non-radioactive cigarettes.
Swedish snus is made to minimize tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), but seems to not address Polonium-210 on account of the radioactive stuff being "comparable to that from the natural background radiation sources or dental x-rays": https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1...
That excuse doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny. Who really wants to have 10-20 chest x-rays done per day? Are "dental" x-rays really as weak as "background" radiation?
Alcohol seems to be in a similar position - see the popularity of nice wine and beer over e.g. guzzling cheap spirits.
I think people want health AND pleasure, and are willing to do their own hedonic calculus.
My point is that reality limits how much safer you could make a product. Would it be nice for cigarette or alcoholic beverages to be safer? Yes. Is it possible? Apparently not.
Either tobacco becomes a controlled substance (I am deeply opposed to this given the catastrophic social consequences of prohibition in general), or adults behave like adults, understand the risks, decide for themselves and accept the consequences. Maybe it's because I'm European, but anything else sounds like insanity to me.
By the way, I am not being judgemental in any way. I am an ex-smoker and I drink socially. If people want to smoke (without polluting the environment of others who don't) it's their right, and I completely understand. I used to love it too.
What on earth are you talking about? Tobacco is already a controlled substance in more ways than nearly anything that you can buy at a store (including guns).
I meant prohibited, of course. I think that is fairly obvious from the context of my post. Sorry for the lack of rigor.
Where I live it is almost impossible to buy a gun. On the other hand, I can go downstairs and buy a pack of cigarettes with the same ease that I could buy bubble gum. No questions asked, no ID needed, no records.
It is possible to make them less carcinogenic. Carcinogens come from fertilizers and pesticides (which could be controlled/replaced), from the curing process (which could be replaced with anaerobic curing), and from additives (which could not be added). So a lot could be removed, but there is still inherent bad stuff in breathing smoke. That's enough to cause blowback from people who are afraid that advertising "safer cigarettes" would encourage more people to smoke. Lengthy expensive IP/patent lawsuits have also delayed development. And of course there's the issue of whether customers like it, whether it's profitable, and how much it cannibalizes the tobacco company's other business.
Possible to improve? Yes, perhaps significantly. Economically and politically feasible? Maybe not so much.
Other avenues could be:
- Smoking is also associated with other cancers, such as esophageal cancer and bladder cancer. Generally the warnings don't mention this however. By examining the mutation patterns in an esophageal cancer, you could relate it more conclusively to smoking, and could therefore claim you were not warned about that specific risk.
- Tissue samples from lung cancers diagnosed 20 or 30 years ago are sitting in archival storage. You could sequence the whole genome or exome of these tumours for about $1000 - $2000. Statute of limitations aside, sequencing these tumours could reveal the tobacco signature as a basis for a claim from a time when it was less clear or less public what the risks were.
- Passive smokers could have a case if their cancer shows a tobacco signature.