Tobacco Documents Online

l,~emo to Messrs. A. H. Gall~ay %',~II llam S. 9mlth Chas. B. %~ade, Jr. ~' There have been three continents filed with the Federal Trade C~,~.~.nlsslon concerning the pending consent orders. Ro~er Moref~e]d of B~r~in,.~ha:n, Alabama wrote that he is pleased that the cigarette co'a~,penles hnve agreed to include war~ings in their printed ads, but that he would prefer a stronBer wam~in.B and one ~n!ch refers to the recent evidence that cigarette sn:oklng causes prematurely wrinkled skln~. His proposed ~am~ing would cons~r,~e 37 words.~ Bruce Kilbourne of Denver, Colorado ~ote he approves wholeheartedly of "the proposed black-bordered warnings on future cigarette, ads", but that he is sorry the Su~'geon General's warnln,Bs "could not be more explicit .... " %:illlam ~4. Rogal, an attorney in ;,,~ashlngton, D. C., the Cot~nisslon on February 29 that the Inter-Assoclaticm Counc~1, which he described as a group of associations vltally interested | in advertlsin~, desired to file con~;ents but had been unable to fully ca~.,,plete and approve their sul~tsslon. He asked that

-2- the ti~e ~Ithin ~ich the orders re~aln on the public record for cc~-~ents be extended to March 3, 197P. The declined to hold open the record in respons~ to his request, buC stated that anythlnB received on or before ~arch 3 would receive con~ideratlon by the Ccr~ssion. I do not l:now yet v~hether or not he su~aItted anything. ~ne rer.~sinlng cc~.~nent received ~yas a letter dated February ~9 fron~ Warren Braren of New York City. You will recall that he was for~erly associated with the Code Authority of the Notlon~l As[~oci~t£on of Broadcasters. According to recollectlc~, l.~r. Braren left l~tB and has subsequently spoken out publlcly a~alnst cigarette advert£slng. He re, tilled before a cor~.~ttee of Con.~ress a few years ago contending that ci:~rette ~dvertis~.n~ was not adequately regul~ted. The opening sentc~nce of his eleven pnge dlntrlbe against the pending consent orders indicates the tenor o~ his comments: "There is no need in these cou-~ent~ to the Con~Iss~on to doc~r~ent th~ deception that r~ns fan,ant to this day in c~g~rette adver~ Is In~." ~le concludes that the pending orders are inadequate in

-3- that by their lack of "prominence and boldness" they fall to i~npress forcefully upon the public that cigarette ~n-,oklng is dangerous; they fall to render ineffective the representations that s[i~oking is a desirable practice; arid they fall to counter a~d negate "the deceptive , the~es and representations relating to relieving anz.leties, filters, quality of the smoke and the like." His sugBegtlons it~clude the proposal that the warning be in a type size "no less than 1/2 the height and equal boldnems of the tallest and boldest type used in the advertisement". In addition he states that cigarette advertisers "no doubt have been r;arket testing adm containing the hem] th warning". suggests that their research might reveal that the warning has little or no In-~pact, and he states that the C~..,~.,ission should obtain, by subpoena if necessary, all data pertatnlng to advertls~nB ca~palgns affected by the pendir~g orders. He also that the public has no access to the records of the negotiations which the staff of the C~~iss!on had with the cigarette manufacturers; he charges that if the public had even a an~unt of access to the negot~.at~ons a stronger order would have en;erged. He also con~]alns of the "tobacco lobby on the

-4- House Co~nlttee on Interstate and Foreign Co~nerce"~ but the details of his co~.,plalnt in th~s regard are not clear to Me because part of his letter i~ missing from the copy furnished Re. ~_ shall obtain the missing portion and advise you further if It is of interest. In the ~,,eant~e, if you wish to see ~t I can send you th~ porti~ of hi~ ~etter that I h~ve. I see no point in attemptinE to answer Hr. Braren's charges. H. C. R. 0