A question of standards
一個(gè)關(guān)乎標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的問題
Feb 9th 2006
From The Economist Global Agenda
More suggestions of bad behaviour by tobacco companies. Maybe
也許，煙草公司對那些不良行為應(yīng)多提點(diǎn)建議
ANOTHER round has just been fought in the battle between tobacco companies and those who regard them as spawn of the devil. In a paper just published in the Lancet, with the provocative title “Secret science: tobacco industry research on smoking behaviour and cigarette toxicity”, David Hammond, of *Waterloo University[1] in Canada and Neil Collishaw and Cynthia Callard, two members of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, a lobby group, criticise the behaviour of British American Tobacco (BAT). They say the firm considered manipulating some of its products in order to （1）make them low-tar in the eyes of officialdom while they actually delivered high tar and nicotine levels to smokers.
煙草公司與那些視其為“魔鬼之子”的人之間剛剛又進(jìn)行了新一輪的交鋒。新近出版的《柳葉刀》刊登了一篇題目頗具煽動(dòng)性的論文《秘密科研——煙草業(yè)開展對吸煙行為和香煙毒性的研究》，作者是加拿大沃特魯大學(xué)的戴維·哈蒙德以及加拿大一個(gè)名為“無煙加拿大醫(yī)師”游說團(tuán)的兩名成員尼爾·科里肖和辛西婭·加拉德。他們對英美煙草公司的行為提出了批評，稱該公司擬對某些煙草產(chǎn)品進(jìn)行處理，企圖讓監(jiān)督部門誤以為其焦油含量低，而實(shí)際上這些產(chǎn)品仍會(huì)使得煙民吸收高濃度的焦油和尼古丁。
It was and is no secret, as BAT points out, that people smoke low-tar cigarettes differently from high-tar ones. The reason is that they want a decent dose of the nicotine which tobacco smoke contains. They therefore *pull[2] a larger volume of air through the cigarette when they *draw on[3] a low-tar rather than a high-tar variety. （2）The extra volume makes up for the lower concentration of the drug.
正如英美煙草公司所指出，人們吸低焦油含量香煙的感覺不同于高焦油含量香煙，這在過去和現(xiàn)在都不是什么秘密。這是因?yàn)樗麄冃枰獰煵葜泻羞m量尼古丁，抽低焦油品種的香煙時(shí)所吸入的空氣含量也因此比抽高焦油品種的香煙時(shí)高，（譯者注：也就是說，尼古丁含量過高，煙就很難吸，不容易抽得動(dòng)。）而這高出來的空氣含量也彌補(bǔ)了癮性物質(zhì)（尼古丁）的不足。
But a burning cigarette is a complex thing, and that extra volume has some unexpected consequences. In particular, a bigger draw is generally a faster draw. （3）That pulls a higher proportion of the air inhaled through the burning tobacco, rather than through the paper sides of the cigarette. This, in turn, means more smoke per unit volume, and thus more tar and nicotine. The nature of the nicotine may change, too, with more of it being in a form that is easy for the body to absorb.
不過，一支點(diǎn)燃的卷煙可是一個(gè)復(fù)雜的玩意兒，并且空氣量增加也會(huì)帶來意想不到的結(jié)果，特別是當(dāng)我們大口吸煙時(shí)往往會(huì)很快抽完一支煙，此時(shí)所吸入的空氣更多來自于燃燒的煙草而非卷煙紙側(cè)。因而，這就意味著每多吸一口空氣，就會(huì)多吸一口焦油和尼古丁。多數(shù)尼古丁都以一種易被人體吸收的形式存在，因此尼古丁的性質(zhì)也可能發(fā)生改變。
According to Dr Hammond and his colleagues, a series of studies conducted by BAT's researchers between 1972 and 1994 quantified much of this. The standardised way of analysing cigarette smoke, as *laid down[4] by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), which regulates everything from computer code to greenhouse gases, uses a machine to make 35-millilitre puffs, drawn for two seconds once a minute. The firm's researchers, by contrast, found that real smokers draw 50-70ml per puff, and do so twice a minute. （4）Dr Hammonds's conclusion is drawn from the huge body of documents disgorged by the tobacco industry as part of various legal settlements that have taken place in the past few years, mainly as a result of disputes with the authorities in the United States.
據(jù)哈蒙德醫(yī)生及其同事們稱，英美煙草公司的研究員已于1972年到1994年間通過一系列研究對上述大部分問題進(jìn)行了定量檢測。卷煙煙塵分析的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)方法，是由國際標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化組織（ISO，該組織可對包括計(jì)算機(jī)代碼和溫室氣體在內(nèi)的所有問題作出規(guī)定）制定的，此法利用一臺機(jī)器噴發(fā)出35毫升的煙霧，受試者每分鐘吸一次、每次持續(xù)2秒即可吸完。以此為對照，英美公司研究員發(fā)現(xiàn)，真正的煙民每分鐘2次即可吸完50至70毫升煙霧。哈蒙德醫(yī)生是從煙草業(yè)提供的大量文獻(xiàn)中得出這一結(jié)論的。過去幾年煙草業(yè)與美國當(dāng)局一直僵持不下，遂簽署了各類法律協(xié)議。作為其中的一項(xiàng)內(nèi)容，煙草業(yè)被迫拱手交出這些文獻(xiàn)。
Dr Hammond suggests, however, the firm went beyond merely investigating how people smoked. A series of internal documents from the late 1970s and early 1980s shows that BAT at least thought about applying this knowledge to cigarette design. A research report from 1979 puts it thus: “There are three major design features which can be used either individually or in combination to manipulate delivery levels; filtration, paper permeability, and filter-tip ventilation.” A conference paper from 1983 says, “The challenge would be to reduce the mainstream nicotine determined by standard smoking-machine measurement while increasing the amount that would actually be absorbed by the smoker”. Another conference paper, from 1984, says: “（5）We should strive to achieve this effect without appearing to have a cigarette that cheats the league table. Ideally it should appear to be no different from a normal cigarette...It should also be capable of delivering up to 100% more than its machine delivery.”
不過哈蒙德醫(yī)生表示，英美公司所調(diào)查的不僅僅人們的吸煙方式。英美公司上世紀(jì)70年代末、80年代初的一系列內(nèi)部文獻(xiàn)表明，該公司至少曾考慮過將這一知識用于卷煙設(shè)計(jì)。1979年的一份研究報(bào)告上這樣說道：“可分別或聯(lián)合應(yīng)用與設(shè)計(jì)有關(guān)的三個(gè)要素，即過濾、煙卷包裝紙的通透性以及過濾嘴的通氣效果，來控制焦油和尼古丁的釋放水平。”1983年一份會(huì)議論文也提到，“關(guān)鍵在于，要在提高吸煙者尼古丁實(shí)際吸收量的同時(shí)，減少可被標(biāo)準(zhǔn)檢測方法測定到的含量。”1984年另一份會(huì)議論文說：“我們應(yīng)當(dāng)努力達(dá)到這一效果并能在檢測中蒙混過關(guān)。理想化的結(jié)果是，這種香煙看上去應(yīng)與一般香煙無任何差異…… 并且釋放的尼古丁及焦油量要比機(jī)器釋放的高出100%。”
None of the documents discovered by the three researchers shows that BAT actually did redesign its cigarettes in this way, and the firm denies that it did. However, BAT's own data show that some of its cigarettes delivered far more nicotine and tar to machines which had the characteristics of real smokers than to those which ran on ISO standards. In the most extreme example, in a test carried out in 1987, the “real smoking” machine drew 86% more nicotine and 114% more tar from Player's Extra Light than the ISO machine detected, although smoke intake was only 27% higher.
三名研究人員發(fā)現(xiàn)的文獻(xiàn)中沒有一篇表明英美公司確曾采用這種方法對其生產(chǎn)的卷煙進(jìn)行了改良，而且該公司也矢口否認(rèn)這么干過。英美公司內(nèi)部資料顯示，其生產(chǎn)的某些卷煙向機(jī)器（具有實(shí)際吸煙者特征）釋放的尼古丁和焦油量遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超出ISO標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。最為極端的例子是，在1987年進(jìn)行的一項(xiàng)實(shí)驗(yàn)中，“真吸煙”機(jī)器從Player's Extra Light牌卷煙中吸收的尼古丁和焦油量比ISO儀器實(shí)際檢測到的量分別高出86%和114%，而煙霧攝入量僅高27%。
（6）Regardless of how this [b][color=#0000FF]*came about[5], the irony is that low-tar brands may have ended up causing more health problems than high-tar ones.[/color][/b] As one of BAT's medical consultants put it as early as 1978, “Perhaps the most important determinant of the risk to health or to a particular aspect of health is the extent to which smoke is inhaled by smokers. If so, then deeply inhaled smoke from low-tar-delivery cigarettes might be more harmful than uninhaled smoke from high-tar cigarettes.” The firm, meanwhile, points out that the ISO test has been regarded as unreliable since 1967, and says its scientists have been part of a panel that is working on a new ISO standard.
不管事實(shí)真相是怎樣的，具有諷刺意味的是，低焦油卷煙竟然比高焦油卷煙可能更有損于健康。正如一名英美公司醫(yī)學(xué)顧問1978年所言，“也許，吸煙者吸煙時(shí)的深淺度是危及健康或者健康某一特定方面的最重要決定性因素。若果真如此，從低焦油卷煙中深深吸入的煙對人的危害可能比高焦油卷煙中未被吸入的煙更大。”與此同時(shí)，英美公司指出，自1967年以來，ISO的試驗(yàn)一直都被認(rèn)為是不可靠的。并且言稱其公司的科學(xué)家們已加入某評估委員會(huì)，正在研究制定新的ISO標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。
注釋：
[1]Waterloo：在比利時(shí)中部靠近布魯塞爾的城鎮(zhèn)，為拿破侖
[2]pull: 深吸; 對煙或飲料大口的吸或喝
[3]draw on: 吸收
[4]lay down: 規(guī)定，制定
[5]come about: 發(fā)生
拋磚引玉——請對文中劃線短句給出您的譯法（對應(yīng)序號）：
（1） make them low-tar in the eyes of officialdom
（2） The extra volume makes up for the lower concentration of the drug.
（3） That pulls a higher proportion of the air inhaled through the burning tobacco, rather than through the paper sides of the cigarette.
（4） Dr Hammonds's conclusion is drawn from the huge body of documents disgorged by the tobacco industry as part of various legal settlements that have taken place in the past few years, mainly as a result of disputes with the authorities in the United States.
（5） We should strive to achieve this effect without appearing to have a cigarette that cheats the league table.
