Table 1 Key events and players related to secondhand smoke in Germany.

Year	Scientific and public health	Tobacco industry	German government
1909	The term for sidestream smoke, “Nebenstrom,” is coined in Germany
1929	Fritz Lickint published the first formal statistical evidence linking tobacco and lung cancer
1948		Verband der Cigarettenindustrie formed by domestic German tobacco companies
1954		Verband expanded to include multinational tobacco companies
1968–1969	MAK‐commission recommends restricting smoking in the workplace in response to enquiry from Federal Minister of Occupation	German cigarette manufacturers correspond with Frank Colby of RJR regarding secondhand smoke and threat of nicotine's inclusion in list of toxic compounds
	Inclusion of nicotine into list of toxic compounds discussed
1971	Medical Action Group on Smoking or Health (NGO) (founded by Director of Research Center for Preventive Oncology in Mannheim, Ferdinand Schmidt); calls for statutory protection of non‐smokers
1973–1974	Medical Action Group on Smoking or Health organises the first German Nonsmokers Conference	Tobacco industry frames Schmidt's work as “peculiar” working through third parties and medical journals; attacks continued into the 1990s	First indication of high‐level political concern about secondhand smoke; identified protection of non‐smokers as urgent during debate about revision of German Food Law. The Bundestag passed a resolution to have the federal government prepare a comprehensive programme for the protection of non‐smokers, but did not follow through with meaningful action
1975		Verband published a SHS brochure (1.3 million copies) designed to “prove” that passive smoking did not damage health of non‐smoker	North Rhine‐Westphalia (federal state) issued decree to protect non‐smokers in public offices, but onus rested on non‐smoker to request tobacco‐free air
1976		Verband began distributing regular informational leaflets to the press promoting tobacco‐friendly information on smoking and health
1977–1978		The industry arranges for the heath effects of passive smoking to be debated at a Munich scientific conference, which concludes that SHS was not harmful and warranted no legislation	A programme for the (voluntary) protection of non‐smokers is released by German Health Minister. This programme replaced an actual law drafted in the mid 1970s based on the industry‐sponsored conference's SHS conclusions. The government stated that it did not deem legislative protection of non‐smokers necessary at this time
		Verband PR efforts reached over one billion copies and successfully reached the press, politicians and scientists	The federal state of Baden‐Württemberg approved a non‐smoker protection plan containing measures related to work, public transport and public institutions. This plan gave the non‐smoker some freedom to insist his or her employer take action to prevent detrimental health effects related to tobacco, but there was no active enforcement
		Industry's “Smoking and Health Report” on government and Verband activity showed success in defusing public debate surrounding the danger of smoking and secondhand smoke
1980	A MAK commission member suggested adding SHS to the MAK list; Chairman Henschler, recipient of RJR research funds in the late 1970s, did not support this request	RJR's Associate Director of Scientific Issues, Frank Colby, reported he had reasonably reliable, very confidential information that the German government was prepared to condemn implications of the White and Froeb study	When asked if passive smoking would cause lung cancer in non‐smokers, the Health Ministry's spokesman suggested epidemiological research did not support this assertion
	White and Froeb (in the USA) publish the first study showing that secondhand smoke adversely affected pulmonary function in healthy non‐smokers. This paper was the first evidence that SHS harmed adults
1981	Secondhand smoke linked to lung cancer by Hirayama	The German industry organises a scientific conference on public smoking because of the government's endorsement of White and Froeb's study	A report in drafting form available from one of the Divisions of the German Health Ministry endorsing White and Froeb study's findings on SHS and adverse health effects
		Verband published a full‐page advertisement in the Stern attacking Hirayama's findings on lung cancer
1982		Verband contracts with Karl Uberla's private research institute, GIS, to do a study on passive smoking and lung cancer
1983		At a National Manufacturing Organizations meeting held in Washington DC, Verband discusses importance of passive smoking to industry's PR	Federal Ministry of Health sets up a working group on smoking‐related cancer risks to advise the federal government; at least 5 of 24 invited members had worked for or received funds from the Verband
1985	The MAK‐commission concludes that a cancer risk should be assumed due to SHS's mixture of carcinogenic substances, but only recommended preventive measures in heavily contaminated workplaces; while SHS was included, it was not formally declared an occupational substance	Verband considers taking legal steps against the inclusion of SHS into the MAK‐list; instead works to classify SHS under a less conspicuous section	Working group on smoking‐related cancer risks supports the government's attitude that modification of the non‐smoker's protection programme was unnecessary based on lacking proof of the carcinogenic effects of smoking in the MAK list's outlined text
1986	US Surgeon General's Report, The Health Effects of Involuntary Smoking, released
1987–1990	Ferdinand Schmidt, chairman of the Medical Action Group on Smoking and Health, reproaches the federal government for failing to protect non‐smokers; he attributes this failure to tobacco industry opposition	Verband board meeting (1990) minutes show government action plan had deleted strong guidelines in earlier drafts, instead recognising industry's contribution to smoking reduction through product modification	Government paper summarising action plan for promotion of non‐smoking underway (1987) is watered down over several drafts and quietly released with weak recommendations and no mention of federal government (issued as a paper of the Federal Ministry of Health)
	SHS was considered a health hazard by a greater proportion of the West German population than the US population and 49% of the German population favoured government‐regulated smoking restrictions in public places	Verband plans a major PR offensive on secondhand smoke with political intervention since it realised SHS was widely understood as a risk
		German industry acknowledged its successful positioning through PR and political lobbying.
1991		American intolerance message believed to be working well as an argument against tobacco control in Europe
		Managing Director of the Verband suggests that Germany is the only scientific community that has held open the question of health hazards and smoking when the damage is doubtless, and this is thanks to Verband scientific directed Adlkofer and the collaboration of industry and science
1994			Forty one Bundestag members draft a bill for federal non‐smoker protection legislation. It receives mostly negative press and does not pass in spite of popular support
1998	After an industry‐influenced delay, the MAK‐commission places SHS in category A1, “Substances which are definitely carcinogenic to humans and which can be expected to contribute substantially to cancer risk.”	The Verband's submission of new data and Adlkofer's influence achieved a success for the tobacco industry through the postponement of a vote by the MAK‐commission on SHS's revised placement in the MAK‐list	The final vote on a federal non‐smoker law is defeated on 5 February 1998, before the MAK‐commission's vote regarding the revised placement of SHS in the MAK list, originally slated for January 29 before an industry‐influenced delay
	The German Nonsmokers Initiative reports in a press release that Burke AG, the survey institute which conducted a poll showing over three‐quarters of Germans did not want new legislation, had close links to the Institute of the Germany Industry which produced the economic study claiming the bill would hurt the economy. The Nonsmokers Initiative also suggested the poll results were in stark contrast with all other surveys carried out on the subject	Results were released in a major German newspaper less than a month before a final parliamentary vote from a study commissioned by the tobacco industry suggesting the cost to German businesses of a law to protect against smoking would be 33 billion (US $16 billion)
		A 1998 survey is published reporting that over three‐quarters of Germans did not want new legislation
2001–2002		At a Verband Science and Industry Policy Committee meeting, Verband representatives expressed pleasure over the fact that SHS was no longer a pressing topic in Germany	A weak ordinance nominally providing workplace protection was passed after failed attempts at comprehensive non‐smoker protection in two previous parliamentary sessions
2005		The law represents a victory for the tobacco industry, as the government can claim the issue of smoking has been addressed without requiring major changes in the status quo	No meaningful programme to promote implementation of the revised workplace law in existence

RJR, RJ Reynolds; SHS, secondhand smoke.