Tobacco Documents Online

CONFIDENTIAL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION Anticipating FTC's first CO "scorecard" release, The institute staff prepare~ and cleared a statement (I) for the media urging cautious interpretation on the ground that any health implications of CO in cigarette smoke havenot been established. Two complications were foreseen: first, that the FTC scores might not coincide with those provided from The Institute's laboratory, and, second, that the FTC might call for including CO yield data in cigarette advertising. Both might require quick cOmsultation about media responses with member companies. In this instance, the latter complication did not develop, but the former did. Efforts to learn the FTC scores in advance were unsuccessful. At 8:10 a.m. on May 5, the editor of our Tobacco Observer was notified according to his previous request that the FTC release (2) was available for media pickup and immediate use. ~ At 9 a.m. our staff began to distribute our cleared state- ~ent and to compare the FTC and Institute CO yields, brand by & ~(-Srand, and quickly observed an apparently significant difference. ZOur laboratory director was called in promptly to provide ~professional scrutiny. By noon we had computer conf~rmatlon" " of average CO readings nearl II ercent higher b FTC than by TI In a conference call Y P Y -~ . . . to company chief counsel, during whmch we were able to reach four of the five who took part in clearing our original media statement, we proposed a supplemental statement further warning the public TIMN 0019322

CONFIDENTIAL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION -2- that the published data m~ght be misleading (3). We felt that individual brand yields as reported might be unfair to manufacturers and deceptive for smokers. None of those involved in the conversation, however, was able to advise us without further time to consider the matter and consult internally about it. So we wired the proposed statement to them. One of the attorneys called back that afternoon with his comments. Another called the next morning. A third called two days later. Two said they did not fa¥or the statement. One said "we kind of a~ree" with the others. ~e never heard from the rest.~ However, even if we had distributed the statement the and the appropriate moment of timing had passed. This incident demonstrates that, in spite of the experience of many years of working together on khe matter of clearance, especially in the face of breaking news, our staff still lacks the mechanism necessary for immediate response action. TIMN 0019323