Tobacco Documents Online

; 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Horace R /Kornegay .~ FROM: Fred Panzer SVBJECT: The Roper Proposal GENERAL COMMENTS , May 1, 1972 It is my strong belief that we now have an opportunity to take the initiative in the cigarette controversy,and start to turn it around. For nearly twenty years, this industry has employed ,a single strategy to defend itself on three major fronts -- litigation, politics, and public opinion. While ttie strategy was brilliantly conceived and executed over the years helping us wi n tn^^rta^t bat:r :, it is only fair to say that it is not - nor was it intended to be - a vehicle for victory. On the contrary, it has always been a holding strategy, consisting of -- creating doubt about the health charge without actually denying it -- advocating the public's right to smoke, without actually urging them to take up the practice - encouraging objective scientific research as the only way to resolve the question of health hazard C Pl.AltiTtFF'8 EXHlBtT llQS i OU"U;,39 Mr,~ M waR.R taft CTR HN 0~G'84671 On the litigation front for which the strategy was designed, it has been successful. While we have not lost a liability case, this is not because juries havo rejected the anti-smoking arguments. On the political front, the strategy has holped make possible an orderly retreat. But it is fair to say that it

, Page 2. ! 7,. IT 1; I has not stemmed the pressure for new legislation, despite the major concessions we have made. On the public opinion front, however, our situation has deteriorated and will continue to worsen. This erosion will have an adverse effect on the other fronts, because here is where the beliefs, attitudes and actions of judges, juries, elected officials and government employees are formed. THE STRATEGIC IMPASSE As an industry, therefore, we are committed to an ill- defined middle ground which is articulated by variations on the theme that, "the case is not proved." As the recent history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam demonstrated, it is impossible to hold the public on a middle course for any length of time. There seems to be no way that mass public opinion can engage in a controversy and choose an answer that goes beyond the range of either/or. In the cigarette controversy, the public -- especially those who are present and potential supporters (e.g. tobacco utatA conC*Pssmen ?!nd ?:ea•y smektrs) -- ...-ct crcaive, u„der- stand, and believe in evidence to sustain their opinions that smoking may not be the causal factor. • As things stand, we supply them with too little in the way of ready-made credible alternatives. THE ALTERlCATIVES Two such credible alternatives exist: 1) The Constitutional Hvoothesis i.e. people who smoke tend to differ importantly from people who do not, in their heredity, in constitutional makeup, patterns of life, and in pressure under which they in the live. 2) The Multi-factorial Hvoothesis i.e. as science advances„ more and more factors come under suspicion as contributing to the illnesses for which smoking is blamed -- air pollution, viruses, i CTR ~N 0284~~

i Fdoe j. ,_ -. !--1 % 1 food additives, occupational hazards and stresses. Our 1970 public opinion survey showed that a majority (52%) believed that cigarettes are only one of the manv causes of smokers having more illnesses. It also showed that half of the people who believed that smokers have more illness than non-smokers accepted the constitutional hypothesis as the explanation. Thus, there are millions of people who would be receptive to a new message, stating= Cigarette smoking may not be the health hazard that the anti-smoking people say it is because other alternatives are at least as probable to develop in a systematic or comprehensive way. The Roper Proposal would be a persuasive (if not strictly scientific) medium for this message , which we have done little Following ia my outline of the steps required to start a shift in public opinion if the Roper Proposal is accepted. A SCERARIO f'OR ACTION 1) Select a panel of experts to consult on the design of the study. Ideally they would be prestige figures who would initially have a solid contribution to make and who would also be willing to endorse the study publicly at a later stage. 2) Conduct the pilot study. 3) If favorable, present the results to carefully selected members of the following key groups: Senate House Cabinet White House , State Governors Medical School and University Presidents Scientific bodies CTR HN 028469

0 ~ ~, . ~ Page 4. The purpose is two-fold (a) to gain the support and participation of friends and (b) to neutralize any adverse ' action they may be brewing. For example: By seeing Secretary Butz at this time we might gain some degree of participation from the Agriculture Department. By seeing Secretary Richardson we might possibly forestall a PHS anti-smoking drive. 4) Conduct the full scale survey. 5) If the results are favorable, release them as a book in both hard cover and paper back version, hopefully published by a legitimate house. In effect, such a volume would be a counter - Surgeon General's Report. The principal authors would be Burns Roper and an eminent research scientist. The advisory panel-- hopefully broadened as a result of Step 3 -- would write the introduction. The industry's funding role would be fully acknowledged. ( 6) As a book the material would be marketed and promoted in all the many ways available: magazine condensation, TV and Radio talk shows, newspaper reviews and interviews, advertising, gift distribution, etc. etc. And best of all, it would only have to be seen -- not read -- to be believed...just like the Surgeon General's report. FP/kc cc: M. Kastenbaum W. Kloepfer, Jr. i" T 0021002 . l..r TR [ i N 028490