Anne Landman's Collection
Project Down Under Conference Notes
Abstract
Information on Philip Morris' Operation Down Under was last posted in February of 2000, but it appears that since that time, sensitive portions of the document that were quoted then on Doc-Alert have been redacted (censored) from the version referenced. We have managed to find an unredacted version of Operation Down Under Conference Notes in the Bliley set of PM documents, however, and so are re-posting information from the document with the updated references to the unredacted version.
Operation Down Under appears to be Philip Morris'first major internal effort to determine a comprehensive strategy to combat science revealing that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) can be harmful to non-smokers. These extensive and concise notes were taken over the three days of the conference. They reveal much.
First, references in the document allude strongly to PM's awareness that ETS is not safe, that the mainstream scientific community won't support them in their views, and that they can't win this issue using logic. Some examples include the following quotes:
-- > 6. ETS [issue is] not solvable with deductive reasoning. Come up with something company can get behind with $. [2021502102]
--> 3. We cannot say ETS is "safe" and if we do, this is a "dangerous" statement... [2021502106]
--> "...[We're] not going to get sympathy on our science by general scientific community." [2021502113]
--> "If smokers get message that their smoke kills others, is this not something major?" [2021502109]
---> "We've got to get to people on the street, but we are constrained because we can't say it's safe." [2021502109]
The document establishes that PM is aware that there is no legal right to smoke:
--> "We won't be able to establish 'the _right_ to smoke.' No legal basis for this 'right.' " [2021502106]"
The document also contains a number of references to the fact that the secondhand smoke will decrease PM's cigarette sales/profits:
"In U.S., ETS issue will have devastating effect on sales. E.G., parties, planes, etc. [2021502109] and,
"1. Problem -- threatens number of smokers & number of cigarettes they smoke." [2021502110]
Moreover, parts of this document are extraordinarily threatening. One passage says there is currently no risk to politicians on ETS issues, so PM must create the risk. Another passage says:
Can you alter perception without touching on ETS? Yes. CHILL the rhetoric and bad science by SUING THEM," [2021502113]
...and yet another says:
"Sue the bastards!" [2021502117]
Possible courses of actions listed in their 116-item brainstormed "ideas list" reveal PM's tendency towards starkly controlling tactics. Some examples taken from the list:
33. Create science journal. 34. Create non-science journal. 49. Acquire major media vehicle. 50. Develop own radio programming. 62. Undermine [U.S. Surgeon General] Koop et al 66. Challenge tax exempt status of anti groups. 77. Help select next SG [Surgeon General]. 81. Organize "spontaneous" protests on our issues. 92. Repeal smoking restrictions in target states. 105. Attack anti groups where they hurt. 108. Acquire an insurance company. ...and yet, after all these ideas are listed, the admission still comes:
"We don't have anything to slam them with on health issue." [2021502118]
This also appears to be the moment when PM came up with its "accommodation" strategy. According to the document, the "accommodation strategy was to both antagonize and marginalize public health agencies while allowing PM to make itself appear to be "reasonable on the ETS issue.":
"PRESS CONFERENCE ANNOUNCING CHANGE IN POLICY...This begins major media campaign defining us as reasonable on ETS issue...Nonsmokers placated----Anti's go batshit, become shrill, isolated."
These somewhat disorganized notes provide a very frank look at the stark and aggressive tactics the industry uses to stave off public health measures on secondhand smoke.
User-Contributed Notes
Fields
- Notes
Unredacted version, 33 pages
- Company
- Philip Morris Cos., Inc.
- Named Organization
- PM
- TI
- PM Magazine
- NAS
- Center for Indoor Air Qual Research
- FTC
- Covington & Burling
- Coalition on Smoking or Health
- Detroit Free Press
- NY Times
- Miami Herald
- ACS
- RJR
- Philip Morris
- NRA
- W.H.O.
- CIAR
- T.I.
- TIRC
- EPA
- CBS
- UPS
- CIAR
- Omni
- Discover
- PM USA
- GF
- DOW
- Monsanto
- TI
- Operation/Project
- Operation Down Under
- Type
- Outline
- Named Person
- SG
- Hirayama
- Repace
- Lowrey
- Rupp, J.
- Mitchell, S.
- Schimk
- Robertson, G.
- Feinhandler
- Meyers, M.
- Koop
- Waxman
- Hatch
- Nader
- Regan
- F.E.R.
- Dodgey
- Valenti
- Iacocca
- Tower
- Connoley
- Muskie
- Kuralt
- Strauss, B.
- Spenser
- Field
- Albright, J.
- Schmertz, H.
- Graham, F.
- Burson
- Waylon, E.
- De Borchegrave
- Lee, P.
- Hirayama
Document Images
PROJECT DOWN UNDER CONFERENCE NOTES
Wednesday, June 24, 1987
8:30 A,M. Session
We are here to do something radical. To look at a problem.
To achieve a solution. Nothing should be withheld. Lots of
things have not been done.
The role of the facilitator is to get you to identify the
problem and to arrive at a solution as a group. Between now
and Friday, we will use the "interactive" process to focus
on the issue, what has been done, how we are going to solve
it.
Expectations of group members.
i. Some kind of discussion on passive smoking leading to PM
or industry to come to public and. change perception.
2. Come up with a way to deal with the social/legal
context.
3. No expectations on outcome. Will come up with a plan,
but can't predict its effectiveness.
4. Come away with consensus and a big picture plan.
5. Action program, somewhat different from what's been
done. MONDAY MORNING 9:00.
6. ETS not solvable with deductive reasoning. Some up
with something company can get behind with $.
7. Monday morning 9:00 solution. Fits into larger context.
8. Development of policy, not just following TI.
9. More aggressive approach.
10. Entirely new, dynamic way of looking at problem.
ii. Hope group will begin dialogue to understand problem,
realizing it is not a problem that can be solved at 9:00
Friday.
12. Get realistic appraisal to top management. We will get
temporary solutions, hope it is first step in longer way, we
can win on issue.
13. (i). Define message to public.
(2). Political approach.
(3). How to isolate "gurus" here and in other
countries.
-2-
We have to start, together, a long term process on complex
problem.
Problem in U.S. Industry is going down, ETS is contributing
to that.
-- 1972 SG first mentions ETS
-- 1981 Hirayama
-- 1985 Repace & Lowrey
-- SG's report ETS causes cancer
Research peaks in 1984, perhaps because scientific community
feels issue is resolved.
Increase in papers accompanied by increase in poor papers.
Post-Hirayama is original research.
Political, public opinion, mass media, science -- 4 areas of
examination.
1984 Increase in stories on ETS.
reportage.
Public perceptions on ETS
Scientific and political
1974-1984 83% of non-smokers and 62% of smokers now
say "Yes, ETS is harmful to non-smoker."
Are those 83% convinced?
Smokers?
Non-smokers -- yes.
Hazard? Yes.
Personally? No.
Common perception.
hurt non-smoker.
Smoking hurts smoker, therefore ETS must
Political 1970-87
Beginning -- elevators, now public places.
perceive anti-smoking as a popular position.
Legislators
Overlay of graphs.
steady growth.
Media rockets up. Public opinion shows
Survey -- 1985 Attitudes toward industry and smoking.
Issues well defined then and exacerbated now, e.g. Repace
N=5,000 figure.
Perceived threat to health & safety.
-- drunk driving 9+
-- hazardous wastes
-- street crime
-- drugs
-- smoking 7.6 (not #i issue)
Key subgroups: women much more likely to view ETS as
harmful. Age -- older = more harmful.
Same breaks on other perceived risks?
Yes. Women are more concerned on all environmental issues
than men.
Cigarette smoke pleasant? 1% yes.
Ask people to put it out?
DANGER V. ANNOYANCE
Far more intense feelings for annoyance than danger,
especially among non-smokers. Annoyance factor is driving
these numbers.
(Sampling via "geodemographics" produces 40 groups that
account for 90% of variance in attitudes.)
Most likely to be annoyed and view ETS as harmful:
-- pools & patios -- blue chip blues
-- gray power -- urban gold coast
-- Levittown -- single city blues
-- God'~s country
80% likelihood of voting
Least annoyed & least apt to view as harmful:
-- rank & file -- money & brains (not ideologi-
-- Hispanic mix cal)
-- Norma Rae-ville
-- shotguns -- old Yankees
-- back country
What about Black clusters?
Rank & file, Black enterprise.
more conservative.
Southern minorities
Cluster system developed via U.S. census data. Broke out
groups, reanalyzed data using groups on 250,000 "block
groups." (There are a number of block groups in one zip
-4-
code -- e.g., 9 clusters in one mid-Manhattan zip).
Smoker & smoker friendliness -- Old Yankee rows
-- Rank & file
Graphs don't show much hope for us.
Giving answer to survey and actinq on this belief are very
different.
What we did on receipt of this info:
PM MAGAZINE. more than 7 million circulation. Idea was to
create, maintain and educate a data base. Readership
consists of 80-90 % smokers.
Can identify geographically, politically, or by cluster.
Base exists in our Richmond computer.
Now time to survey readers to see if magazine changes
attitudes.
We can go to millions of people with low risk of making them
enflamed.
Annoyance -- people's noses haven't changed, perceived risk
has.
Disagree. Annoyance has changed in last 50 years. Content
of tobacco has changed in last 20 years. Cigars/pipes more
"annoying" than cigarettes.
Question -- not that they are annoyed, but are they
prepared to do something about it.
Atlanta airport example -- long distance annoyance.
Annoyance ---> chance to complain ---> more press coverage.
Wednesday, June 24, 1987
10:07 A.M. Session
John Rupp (Covington & Burling)
Where we are
In deep shit.
Before '86, growing % of pop. said ETS harmful to non-smoker
and jurisdictions considering, anti ETS legislation & Fortune
500 companies considering workplace restrictions.
Serious credibility problem.
ETS fixed on by do-gooders
1986 NAS report & SG"s report. WATERSHED SIGNIFICANCE.
SG has been clever & successful on this issue. SG has
tremendous credibility. Scientists not prepared to
challenge. SG going toward smoke-free society. 1986 SG
report central event we have to talk about. Can't stem the
tide without addressing this report.
Science of ETS.
i. Our position: ETS not shown to be health hazard to
non-smoker.
2. People should focus on whole of indoor air, if they are
concerned.
3. We cannot say ETS is "safe" and if we do, this is a
"dangerous" statement.
Legal perspective.
-- Most laws are invulnerable to challenge (NY is an
exception).
-- We won't be able to establish "the right to smoke." No
legal basis for this "right." There are rights to privacy,
union rights that do apply in limited fashion.
-- No constitutional right to be free of ETS either.
-- Common law (NJ Bell case) Schimp Mitchell somewhat of a
danger.
-- BASIC POINT: Courts not prepared to serve as arbitrators
for public workplace smoking disputes.
-- Covington & Burling get referrals on workplace cases.
Frustrating. Not much can be done except bluff threats.
-- Product liability. Only one case with workplace ETS at
core (woman in California is suing a tobacco company).
Statute of limitations defense.
Not a threat like primary issue, but ignoring ETS product
liability cases will be at our peril.
Swedish cases not relevant because laws are different.
If litigation was aimed at employer, would this have impact
on us?
Suit comes down to product.
non-smokers.
Against tobacco companies by
Washington State case is against employer.
We call actions against us product liability. Actions
against employers still have serious implications for us.
Schimk -- default judgment in NJ against NJ Bell.
Product liability should be kept in box separate from suits
against employers.
ETS OUTSIDE U.S.
Terrible trouble in Nordic countries. A. Cases & restrictions ("But sales are up!")
B. Problems will spill over here.
o
Canada A. Spillover ("But we already have restrictions."
B. Ad ban serious.
C. Sales are up, but projections not goo.
What is in pipeline.
-- Scientists on our side pretty good, we need more.
-- Gray Robertson Indoor air quality studies.
-- Written material used fairly effectively.
-- Center for Indoor Air Qual Research -- $1-2 mill in
2 years.
-- Studies now funded.
A. None a silver bullet.
B. Most useful -- briefcase air sampling.
-- Union support has been mobilized.
No one resource is sufficient.
of what we need.
Together, we're still short
Somebody has to say ETS is no risk. Has to cQme from
somewhere.
Research by Feinhandler corporate sociology (1986).
I. What causes companies to establish no-smoking
regulations?
2. What can we do?
Top down model
Management dedicated anti's
(Not much can be done)
Bottom up model
Smoking an employee
grievance -- easy to point
to "displacement." Small
group can cause major org.
chnges simply be being vocal.
"Cost" & "liability" may be
issues.
-7-
Smoking policies reduce controversy (suggests accommodation
strategy).
Section #6 Program for "real world."
In depth look at small number of companies. SG's report
broke down arrangements completely. Salvaged by doing
interviews off site. SG report galvanized situation.
Two kinds of activities at PM to take issues to people which
are now in place:
-- Plug-in guns -- magazine, data base, etc.
-- Issue-specific guns -- Essay contest on ad ban, etc.
Management reacts periodically to news stories. Therefore,
several months ago we were asked to create ads to "move
needle" toward our side.
Three types of ads.
i. "Designer" campaign. Artistic photo & copy. "I think
we can live together." "Faulty data." "I'm a responsible
guy," etc. Geared to smokers & non-smokers.
(noted here that copy has not been legally approved.)
2. "Rights" campaign. Subject standing outside restaurant,
exclusion compared to that of minorities, prohibition.
3. "Science of ETS" campaign.
Did focus groups. Groups liked #i best, liked #2 least.
Quantitative research revealed #3 liked best, #2 worst.
Therefore, we can't make a call yet, need more research to
determine ad strategy.
What constitutes "like" in above responses? Readability &
acceptability = like.
Can't use focus group to determine attitude shift.
Use of our name carries some baggage, but replacing with
long list of supporters is seen through immediately. On
tests of name recognition, order was RJR > PM > ... TI.
In Germany, if ad is aimed at smokers, you don't get
non-smoker complaints.
NYC issue testing. People accept tobacco company
communicating with customers.
Designer ads identified with by smokers, but confrontational
approach needs to be fixed. Science ads not read,
complicated jargon.
-8-
As we think through this, remember there are different ways
of getting information across to different people. E.g.,
some people would like science jargon.
Legal side. Discussion should remain open, there are legal
problems, someone needs to say it.
Matthew Meyers left FTC. Zealous anti-smoker. Big paper on
health issues to change labels. Meyers now with Coalition
on Smoking or Health. United to eliminate smoking, smart,
dedicated and aggressive, has Koop's ear and those of
Waxman, Hatch, etc. Knows ETS is anti's silver bullet.
We are not dealing with a passive body. We are in a battle
with other side which has been active for more than five
years. There is a REAL ADVERSARY out there.
Detroit Free Press, NY Times, Miami Herald all declared
non-smoking news rooms. These are people who are spreading
the news and their own attitudes have changed.
PM Mag and ads are a way we can respond to this on our own
ground.
Business Trends
-- 2% annual decline in sales in U.S.
-- World production (accounted for by China} up.
-- Japan down a bit.
-- Internationally, price drives sales.
-- Major company advertising up.
-- Decline in U.S. not explained by price increase.
-- Be careful of world stats. 40% is guess, e.g.
China.
-- In developed world, sales is a function of price.
-- 24 markets = 90% of sales. Internationally, market
is flat. Single great effect is big tax increase.
-- If smokers get message that their smoke kills
others, is this not something major?
In U.S., ETS issue will have devastating effect on sales.
E.G., parties, planes, etc.
Smoking opportunities 24 hour pie chart.
i. Sleep 1/3. 2. transportation. 3. workplace.
4. lunch. 5. work. 6. travel. 7. home. 8. dinner.
9. recreation.
Rate of decline will accelerate if tax and ETS are linked.
E.g., U.K. gov't increase.
We are just at be~inninq of impact of ETS issue.
U.K. a lab case. Decline largely a reaction to price.
U.S. political perception of NO RISK to politicians on ETS
issue. Therefore we have to hreate risk to politicians.
German case -- point out (messages) to smoker who he is.
Improve smoker's self image and isolate zealots. In U.S.,
everything becomes adversarial. Not so in Germany, Japan.
U.S. hasmost extreme form of adversarial culture.
Therefore, ads may not work.
But we don't know that because it has never been done on
scale of, say, introducing a new brand.
Wednesday, June 24, 1987
2':00' P.M. Session
A.M. Where things stand.
P.M. What is the problem?
i. Problem -- threatens number of smokers & number of
cigarettes they smoke.
2. How to alter public perception that ETS is damaging.
II
4. " "
"
5. Is there a different problem?
(Assume that #2 causes
6. Problem for smoking population -- nuisanGe/annoyance
and risk accusations. And there are scientists, etc., who
say it is a risk. How to do something for smokers. How to
respond to scientists and risk issue.
o
Big, complex problem.
A. Altering perception
B. Changing underlying fact from "not proven." to ETS
is not harmful to non-smoker.
C. What are we going to do at 9:00 A.M. Monday
morning? This is separate from above. Has to do
with making people feel good about Philip Morris.
D. How to make people (smokers and non-smokers) feel
good about smokers.
8. Problem is broader -- general decline in social
acceptability of smoking (includes ETS).
9. Problem is political. Our bullets are technical.
Bullets against us are lou.sy, but we don't have better
bullets. Need long term science. What created perceptions
is their science.
Is there any fruitful science underway?
Yes, in epidemiology and in monitoring, but next year to
year and a half of science will be negative.
10.. Worst case scenario. How to support current smokers in
face of overwhelming adverse information and publicity.
ii. Short of some dramatic proof, perception problem will
remain.
12. Basic problem -- There is an unbalanced perception that
ETS is damaging. This leads us to operate from premise that
ETS is not harmful. Questions become approach, how long,
what resources to get message across.
Bad public perception persists.
PERCEPTION IS EVERYTHING. IT DRIVES PUBLIC POLICY.
HOW TO ALTER PUBLIC
PERCEPTION THAT
ETS IS DAMAGING?
If perception were changed, would laws be repealed?
Yes, over time.
Why we have problems.
i. Lack of objective science.
2. Logic that if mainstream smoke is damaging, ETS must be
too.
( Also Annoyance factor. Also problem in defining ETS.
It
is variable).
3. Anti's can state case in two sentences. We need 20
minutes.
Our case: six claims, all rejected except respiratory
health in kids and lung cancer.
-- Kids: common sense response -- you don't hold
babies over a charcoal broiler and you don't blow smoke in
their faces.
-- Lung Cancer: based on 16 studies, only 2 of which
showed, statistically significant differences. If you remove
Hirayama from group, NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT STUDY.
-ii-
Devil's advocate case: 10 of 13 studies show effect in
direction of harm. Government has need to protect
non-smoker.
Scientific response: No chemical is entirely safe. Using
mass balance technique on ETS you find minute quantities
which imply even infinitely smaller risk.
The frequent communication of the above message will work.
Health oriented counter argument. Non smokers get nothing
from smoke and therefore should be subject to no risk.
Devil's Advocate #12. "You're killing my children."
Annoyance problem historically handled successfully. If
limited to this, we win.
Cigarettes are singled out because of no redeeming virtues
to non-smokers.
Irradiated food is not annoying, but debate is increasing.
PROBLEM: HOW TO REDUCE MILITANCY OF NON-SMOKERS?
Other problems fade if harm issue goes away. Nuisance
factor reinforced by visibility of ETS which can't be
completely avoided.
A scientific battle was lost with SG's '86 report. Is there
any way of showing SG is wrong?
Yes, by blowing Hirayama out of the water. Show it is
nonsense.
Also need counter and dramatic proof of our own.
Discussing. epidemiology leads nowhere. Low level ETS and
lower level risk is a convincing argument. Begin by
addressing risk.
But we've got to say it loud and long.
Why haven't we?
i. set of not paying attention and problem will go away.
2. Cost factor
3. Risk factor -- create criticism in response to our
campaign.
Here at PM, corporate stance is changing. If we come back
from this meeting saying we've got to talk about it (i.e.,
launch campaign), this will be received well by sr. mgmt.
Primary issue study.
had lovely lungs.
Control group although exposed to ETS
Can you make public understand relative risk?
Message has to be simple.
There is no risk. That's the message.
First question-- Why are studies showing no risk not being
published?
Answer
i.
2.
Peer pressure.
Telling people it's ok to smoke shunned by
scientists.
Researchers don't want this grief.
Not going to get sympathy on our science by general
scientific community.
Nuke industry analogy. They have lost battle, even though
science indicates nuke power is safer than, say, coal or
oil.
We do not know the impact of "telling them" because we have
never done it. From PR and political perspective, our
arguments make a credible case, given, that we carry some
baggage.
Is $100 million campaign worth an x increase in sales?
Yes, if prohibition is alternative.
PROBLEM: HOW DO WE ALTER PERCEPTION OF PUBLIC ACCEPTABILITY
OF SMOKING?
But this problem is a direct outgrowth of "harm, of ETS.
We've got to get to people on the street, but we are
constrained because we can't say it's safe.
What do we want to alter public perception to? A. Can't say it's good, safe, a tonic, etc.
B. Can say "It is not shown to be harmful."
Can you alter perception without touching on ETS?
Yes. CHILL the rhetoric and bad science by SUING THEM.
e.g., sue ACS for saying tobacco workers are murderers.
Chill does not equal win.
But this idea does fit with present situation of legislators
being risk free.
OUR CHARGE was to come away with plans that can begin to be
implemented 9:00 A.M. Monday morning. ETS must be included.
ETS is focus because it's driving public policy. It is the
LINK between smokers and non-smokers.
Wednesday, June 24, 1987
3:45 P.M,. Session
Summary of problem
How to alter public perception that ETS is harmful,
recognizing that smoking is in. disfavor in society
How to alter public perception of ETS in. terms of
perceived risk and annoyance.
Why problem exists
i. active smoking (logic that if active is bad, passive is
bad) ETS becomes tactic for anti-smoking groups.
2. smoke is annoying
3. lack of objective science
4. ETS is variable, difficult to measure
5. militancy of organized, active opposition
6. sin connotation ---> smoker guilt
7. The no risk myth and idea that no risk is only
acceptable level of risk.
8. New = bad news.
9. media bias against big business
10. American litigious nature; adversarial, confrontational
nature of American society.
Ii. Industry has not talked about issue (TI). (Banzhaf
airline example).
12. leads to assumption of guilt.
13. SG's reportand appearance of objectivity on their part
and not on ours.
14. Unpopular issue with scientists (subset of primary
issue). To come out on our side in U.S. and elsewhere is
professional suicide.
15. Presence of bad science, e.g., Hirayama
16. S~cial/peer bandwagon/pressure
17. Lack of grassroots constituency.
18. Product make-up is different (more annoying) today.
19. No political, social or legal risk to oppose ETS.
20. negatively perceived nomenclature of ETS
21. unchallenged rhetoric of opposition
The view of someone not associated with industry.
Your solution must be multifaceted: scientific, PR,
advertising, legal. There may be downside to PM as consumer
products company -- fear of rocking corporate boat, backlash
to any PM campaign. Risk would seem worth taking.
The analogy of smoker discrimination and racial
discrimination is hysterical, inaccurate and unfounded.
Discussion
If industry had begun longitudinal research in the 1950s,
we might have headed problem off at the pass. Did not and
are still fighting to recover lost ground.
Downsides to research and other activity.
-- Lausanne meeting -- research proposals were rejected
because fear that research might precipitate issue that did
not exist.
-- Research on filters, not ETS, back then. No one
took ETS seriously because measurements were minute plus
risk in doing research where you don't know were it will
lead.
-- Legislative risk in becoming more visible
-- Pervasive fear that if you fight too hard on ETS, it ~.
means conceding the primary issue.
~
It becomes a question
Don't have to make case
-- RJR ran a few ads and quit.
of who has the most stuff to throw.
exclusively on the health issue.
Wednesday, June 24, 1987
I0:00 P.M. Brainstorming Session
Solutions to problem
i. Develop products that reduce nuisance value.
2. Develop products that have beneficial value to non-
smokers.
3. Develop a free-standing menthol.
4. Expand number of people prepared to talk about ETS
objectively.
5. Create our own expert (like Iacocca).
6. More research -- prove ETS is safe.
7. Challenge publicly the scientific community.
8. Need authoritative spokesperson.
9. Look for costless areas of compromise.
I0. Talk with / challenge media leaders.
Ii. Create a bigger monster (AIDS)
12. Make it hurt (political risk) to take us on.
13. NRA type force for us.
14. Greater effort to accommodate desires of non-smoker.
15. Make non-smokers fearful of consequences of office
smoking bans (drug testing, etc.)
16. Communicate with core market.
17. Educate core market to respond.
18. Revisit primary issue.
19. Chill the rhetoric.
20. Courtesy campaign for smokers.
21. Re-examine ETS research to make case stronger.
22. Theatre of the absurd.
23. Segment public to look at perceptions and target..
messages.
24. Seriously look at TV, print, other media campaigns.
25. Re-examine what we are doing to address symptoms --
taxes, etc.
26. Idenfity natural allies
27. Change nomenclature for issue.
28. Develop public information network and network common
language.
29. Lie low
30. Moderation campaign like beer.
31. Endow chair for ETS research.
32. Make sure industry goes along with our options.
33. Create science journal.
34. Create non-science journal.
35. Create smokers' rights unit within law firm.
36. Encourage grassroots organization outside of industry.
37. Involve candy wholesalers, leaf, farmers.
38. Create greater pressure on politicians.
39. Infiltrate W.H.O.
40. Educate PM employees on issue.
41. Fix industry's irritating public face.
42. Directly involve brand advertising in our issues.
43. Mark packages "Please smoke courteously."
-16-
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
8.6.
Use carton inserts.
Support segregated public smoking/non-smoking areas.
Make preemptive gesture.
Support work demonstrating corrosive impact of nuisance
regulations.
Vastly expand data base.
Acquire major media vehicle.
Develop own radio programming.
Adopt end game strategy. Maximize cash flow.
Develop immediate TV/radio response mechanism in every
local community.
Promote better room ventilation. An A/C in every home.
Legislate clean air.
Work with unions to develop generic workplace policies
for bargaining.
$2-5 million funding for CIAR now. $25-30 million per
year later put into indoor air study.
Establish center or grant at university to study indoor
air.
Internally, study need for group to study ETS.
Introduce no/low sidestream smoke cigarette.
Sue the bastards!
Get more support from board members.
Undermine Koop et al.
More movies featuring cigarette brands.
Get best selling novel with subtle connection to evils
of anti industry.
Art philanthropy -- shift emphasis to literary arts.
Challenge tax exempt status of anti groups.
Someone outside industry to talk about integrity in
science.
Re-examine sports promotions.
Get Nader-like group to examine anti funding.
Establish a risk perspective on issue.
Fund major university media resources and training
center for science writers.
Program for journalism and law schools.
Support social research on positive aspects of smoking
to society.
Establish ties with libertarian and conservative
groups.
NRA strategy and say we did it.
Lobby for cabinet level industry spokesperson.
Help select next SG.
Re-examine structure and role of TI.
Abolish T.I.
Ad campaign.
Organize "spontaneous" protests on our issues.
Identify persuasive mediator between us and them.
Re-establish 20-years-ago network.
Re-establish seniority system in Congress.
New network at state level.
Involve friendly and neutral legislators in our policy-~'~
making work,
-17-
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
Provide lists to supportive legislators.
Internationalize our efforts.
Presidential primary initiative.
Look at referendum process in key states.
Enact legislation with smoking as protected activity.
Repeal smoking restrictions in target states.
Fund research that documents victims and costs of
smoking restrictions.
Look at law enforcement aspects.
Collect and use articles ridiculing antis.
Indoor air quality study on NY Times Building.
Involve non-smoker in mystique of smoking.
Refute argument that smokers incur greater medical/
social/efficiency costs.
Show smokers are more efficient.
100. Tell good news better.
I01. Make use of subsidiary goodwill and power.
102. Fund lung cancer research.
103. Test case town or workplace.
104. Defeat Waxman.
105. Attack anti groups where they hurt.
106. Fund women's unions (office workers) on general
discrimination research.
107. Discounts for smokers.
108. Acquire an insurance company.
109. Look at where separation of smokers/non-smokers occurs
and capitalize.
110. Do smokers have more fun?
iii. Create perception and fact of smokers as a voting,
political group.
112. Cement relationship with women smokers, e.g. child
care.
113. Create desirable restaurant for smokers.
114. Condoms in cigarette packages.
115. Increase frequency of PM Magazine.
116. Increase pay for PM Mag editorial staff.
Thursday, June 25, 1987
8:15 A.M. Session
Agree to agree on overall strategy. -- What do we want to accomplish.?
-- Develop constituency.
-- Old Testament approach (eye for eye)
e.g., cigarette pack: on the outside have a "be courteou.s"
message; on the inside, "but it goes both ways, join us"
message.
Examination of 116 ideas.
-- We don't have anything to slam. them with on health
issue.
-18-
-- Long term ideas are good, but we don't have the
MESSAGE for the short term.
If we stand up big enough with Rupp arguments and courtesy
as message, tell people reasonable/rational viewpoint, some
of them will believe
End game option is a controlled retreat.
situation accelerates into an abrupt end.
is therefore better. Need messages.
Usually the
Fighting back now
We face having our message from Hilton Head be "spend
money." This in the face of two outside speakers who said
"keep your heads down." Say what Rupp said in short term.
We have to divide public up, divide messages to fit.
First recommendation -- messages and justification.
Assume there is an alternative to doing nothing. Need
strategy to soften public while going hard on technical side
so that when information is produced, public will listen.
Assumption of conference is that we have good messages and
just aren't saying them.
Important to develop strategy in which messages will fit.
Let's agree on a few basic arguments.
Communications "case" is not "proved" as it is in law.
communications, perception = proof.
In
THE CASE (as finally agreed upon after extended discussion).
i. Science has not established any risk to non-smokers.
2. ETS can be a nuisance (an annoyance), but neither side
should be intransiqent.
3. Seek accommodation, respecting fundamental riqht of
Americans to freedom of choice.
4. No government intervention required.
THE CRITERIA
-- Credible/plausible
-- Cost effective
-- Can be achieved
-- Worth the risk
-- Effective
-- Fits time scale
-- Sustainable
-- Simplicity
THE PROBLEM SOLUTIONS APPLIED TO THE TARGET GROUPS
Smokers (comfortable, courteous and active)
-- NRA strategy
-- Tell good news better
-- create smokers as market segment to products other
than cigarettes.
Non-smokers (non issue)
-- accommodation (see discussion notes):
-- fear of consequences of bans (drug tests, etc.)
-- courtesy campaign for smokers.
Anti-smokers (isolated)
-- Chill the rhetoric
-- Theatre of the absurd
-- Sue the bastards
-- Challenge tax exempt status of antis
-- Get watchdog/3rd party group to investigate anti's
fund allocations.
Public officials and policy makers (feel heat and cool)
-- Costless areas of compromise
-- Create pan-strategic monsters (indoor air, employee
rights, polygraphs, slippery slope.
-- Make it hurt
-- Courtesy campaign for smokers.
-- "Improve'" Koop.
-- provide context for claimed risk of ETS.
-- Help select next SG.
-- Create industry Valenti.
-- Involve friendly and neutral legislators in our
policy work.
-- Provide lists to supportive legislators.
-- Seek repeal of restrictions.
-- Develop political targets.
Media (be objective and ideally pro us)
-- Expand advocates.
-- Create own Iacocca.
-- Publicly challenge scientists.
-- Talk to/challenge media leaders.
-- Consider acquiring major media vehicle.
-- Explore creating or buying pop. science mag.
-- Explore best selling book on relevant issues.
-- Examine economic/human costs of smoking
restrictions, including law enforcement.
-- Tell good news better.
-20-
Scientific community (be objective)
-- Expand advocates.
-- More research.
-- Publicly challenge scientists.
-- Endow chairs for indoor air research.
-- Create scientific journal (explore)
-- Adequately fund CIAR
-- Sociological research on positive aspects of
smoking.
-- Refute "social costs" argument (info goes to media
plan).
Family and allies (become active)
-- Seek out other allies/industries.
-- Seek industry cooperation and support.
-- Doublecheck union activities/relationships.
-- Make use of goodwill of PM subsidiaries.
-- Support women's labor unions.
-- Cement relationships with women smokers, e.g. child
care.
Non media ideas
-- #i, #2, #18 from long list.
-- Taskforce to revisit primary issue
-- Taskforce to re-examine ETS research
-- Taskforce to re-examine present programs including:
brand advertising and marketing, cigarettes in movies,
industry medial research/publicity, art philanthropy, sports
promotion, tobacco farmers/industry/government network,
lobbyists, presidential primary program, trademark/brand
extension to non-tobacco items (enhance mystique among
non-smokers).
-- Taskforce on Center, grants, chair studying indoor
air quality.
-- Taskforce on Koop (book or article, science fallacy.
Vehicles
-- TV/print/radio/media campaign (advertising included)
-- Change nomenclature for issue.
-- Create "'answer service" for public and media.
-- Packaging messages on courtesy.
-- Satellite response unit and regional offices
(incorporates training science writers.
DISCUSSION THAT WENT INTO DEFINING MESSAGES (THE"CASE")
Pros and cons of lying low strategy.
- Weakens market.
+ Worked in '64.
- Disaster to morale of "family."
+ Works in Finland.
+ If we "lie high" and lose, decline is accelerated.
- Prevents perception that we are just passive.
+ Primary issue will always crop up.
- Battle ground is not logical.
Gray Robertson and nuisance perception reduction are ways of
becoming active. Let's talk ETS to people disseminating
b.s., then go public.
Example -- Essen Conference began hostilely, ended "not
proven." The result was a very useable message presented at
other scientific meetings. Do this 50 times, then go
public.
Reagan hooks people on values, then issue can be won.
*** IN REPORT TO MANAGEMENT, NOT THAT LIE LOW OPTION WAS
DEBATED HEATEDLY AND ULTIMATELY REJECTED. ***
re: brand advertising. Carlton has good PR gimmick, but
sales are flat. File under Taskforce.
re: Supporting segregating smokers/non-smokers
Major policy change.
Good market strategy, but gives foot in door for antis.
Politically, case for restaurants is smoking or non-smoking
restaurants, not % of each. Letters to PM Magazine show
smokers cross over into non-smoking areas.
If they are fanatics and we are fanatics (i.e., we don't
budge on accommodation), we lose. If we succeed in changing
the way the game is played (i.e., come to table and be
driving the boat) we create public perception that we are
reasonable by saying we support accommodation as long as
smokers' rights are not abridged.
Restaurant Association example in Phoenix shows
accommodation strategy doesn't work "if the train has
already hit 80 MPH.
Advocate acco,~.~,odation, oppose leqislation, preserve free
market choice.
The smoker is the underdog and nobody cares. RJR has been
intransigent on accommodation issue. All Americans should
fear legislation.
Preemptive announcement of pro-accommodation while opposing
legislation -- to address annoyance issue.
Establish mediation service.
Thursday, June 25, 1987.
11:15 A.M Session.
Unrealistic to assume TI will do any of our suggested
programs effectively.
Is ideal way of achieving our goal better an "us" thing or
an industry thing. TI has poor connotation in surveys.
Central to many of our ideas ks a third party conduit.
Union working relationship is a good one with TI/industry.
Tobacco Industry Research Council is grandfather of TI.
Make strong effort to enlist support of other companies.
Milan strategy: Start out ourselves, say "come on board"
once we're rolling.
Canada scenario. Backbiting, disorganized, uncoordinated.
Let's develop our programs and present to other companies
(selectively).
TI satellite communications ou.tlet, via regional
communications office.
Thursday, June 25, 1987.
2:00 P.M Session
Big ideas -- Illusion policy.
-- NRA strategy.
-- Science activities.
-- Reject lie low/end game.
-- Discussed vehicles.
-- Discussed what we already do.
Let's prioritize and develop presentation. Working lunch
here tomorrow and run through sheets, discuss.
Need to establish expectations of senior management.
Looking for coherent theme tied to ETS, specific focus,
do-able.
Yesterday, progress on identifying issue, etc. Today has
been a waste of time. Fundamental decision is rejecting
lie-low strategy; rather, take positive action. The rest is
implementation, some good work, some needs more work.
Let's agree on approach for how to spend rest of time.
Chapter 1.
something.
Start with agreement that we should do
Present five bulleted points on why.
Chapter 2. Here is what we can say about ETS.
Chapter 3. Can't say same thing to everyone, therefore we
partitioned audience. Take one example, e.g. public
officials, and flesh out.
Chapter 4. We will do complete report in NY.
Must point out risk/annoyance elements.
Agree with opening, but not to clean up in five bullets what
is intrinsically complex.
Case discussion.
i. We're getting killed
2. Shouldn't be:
A. bad science.
B. We can point to better science.
C. Need to be conveyed to public.
D. Annoyance issue.
3. In addition to science, we are taking steps.
A. Indoor air quality work
4'. Industry has done a bad job in selling message.
Messages
I. Bad science is creating misunderstanding concerning risk
of ETS to health of non-smokers
2. Credible science points to minimal risk to non-smoker
health. (Better to say "Today not proven") (doesn't make
case against ETS).
3. Annoyance is underlying issue to ETS, not health.
4. Common sense/courtesy is answer to perceived problem =
accommodation.
5. Right to choose -- industry will stand up. Fundamental
value.
we should say it is a two focus thing -- annoyance/risk.
-24-
Driving factors
#i. Perceived risk -- ETS is dangerous to non-smoker
%2. Non-smokers annoyed by ETS
Message i. Science does not establish risk
Message 2. We believe ETS is safe
Message 3. We are doing something significant to
support/establish that ETS is safe.
(NB: Messages 4 and 5 not recorded in discussion)
Messages 1,2 and. 3 used in response to #1 above
Messages 4 and 5 used in response to #2 above
Messages i, 2 and 3 go to scientists and media
Message 5 goes to public officials/policy makers
Message 4 goes to non-smokers.
Industry message -- accommodation will solve problem.
Accommodation = 2-way street between smokers & non-smokers
and industry.
Fine point #127 Won't have proof in 3-5 years. Too many
complications.
Look at the data. There is no real case.
an annoyance factor.
We agree there is
If we keep saying bad science, we need to develop good
science.
We need many bullets -- many messages. Need multi-faceted
approach. Our arguments are intellectual side step -- hit
audience in different ways. What is do-able?
There is no cause for concern on health -- ETS
We want to have something new to say about ETS.
anything new to say.
Don't have
Not to ourselves, but we do to public and other groups.
Saying "no cause for concern" is going too far. Better:
Science has not established any risk to non-smokers.
I. Bad science or misinterpretations. There is work
out there that supports our side.
2. But ETS can be a nuisance. Neither side should be
intransigent.
3. Seek accommodation, respecting fundamental right of
Americans to freedom of choice.
-25-
Friday, June 26, 1987
8:00 A.M. Session
SMOKERS~ NON-SMOKERS~ ANTI-SMOKERS
Looked at goals. Put together overall strategy for smokers,
non-s, anti-s.
Four weeks of research.
Six to eight weeks. Letter from F.E.R. "We know you are
concerned..." Interactive communication.
Make case to smokers, elicit their specific concern. Tag
end, we as a company are considering revision of policy.
Message to reporters. Mail response comes back. PRESS
CONFERENCE ANNOUNCING CHANGE IN POLICY (as a result of
responses). This begins major media campaign defining us as
reasonable on ETS issue.
-- Smokers get second letter.
-- Non-smokers placated.
-- Anti's go batshit, become shrill, isolated.
"THE BIG CHILL!"
Discussion
Need to be careful about how we describe policy change.
Guided by case, describe ourselves to the world based on
world's perception of the problem.
What about letters back like "Is it safe for me to smoke
around kids?"
We can narrow questionnaire to handle this.
Employ reasonable answers -- don't hold kid over barbecue,
don't smoke around kids.
Be careful about press conference. Early fall, but perhaps
not at Great American Smokeout.
Is lead value worth critical editorials?
Letter will be reasonable. Two week gap between letter and
press conference.
Don't think we should think in terms of change in policy,
but raising noise level.
Do we want perception of change in policy?
Has to be newsworthy, but not look like we"re caving in.
Not a change in policy, change in implementation.
Direct mail -- $5 million
Ads ........... $i0 +-
Press Conf. ---$i0 +-
TOTAL ......... $20-30 million
This is not going to be accepted in change of policy and is
not change of policy.
There will be a perception of change.
Be prepared to defend $30 million budget. Will it work?
Positions company as good., responsible and accommodating.
Sue the bastards held in reserve.
PUBLIC OFFICIALS/POLICY MAKERS
Costless areas of compromise. We'll go for no-smoking bill
in elevators if you need to pass something.
Monster theory. Making problem, we become small part.
Make it Hurt. Let pols know down side of anti activity.
To do this, we take on vulnerable candidate, beat him/her,
let people know we did it.
Support opponents of anti-smoking reqs. through lists.
Get anecdotal information on nonsense laws and disseminate
it.
Koop -- move to science area. Dodgey to attack public hero.
Better to look at failures of his science.
Provide research on claimed risks of ETS in context of other
risks. Inconsistent.
Help select next SG? No. We have friends with. entree in
primaries. Koop was favored by us in last election.
Creating a Valenti = Iacocca. Research into nominating
person in company for role.
Involve friendly legislators. Will work well, if we have
them voice support as accommodation story breaks. TIMING!
Seek repeal of restrictions. Neuter concept, then get rid
of specific laws, e.g., San Francisco.
-27-
DISCUSSION
Putting risk notion in context means taking their claims as
given. E.g., Repace 5,000 figure. What you can say is that
EPA can't find 5,000 deaths for all chemical pollutants.
Sociological research will produce salable data that can
be used here.
Taking risk to legislator is sort of counter-productive.
Valenti figure -- is there someone visible, respected,
effective?
Yes, Tower, Connoley, Muskie, Kuralt, Bob Strauss, Spenser,
Field.
Need less a spokesperson, but with political clout.
Not clear what priorities are. What is overall goal and how
do these activities achieve objective. PRIORITIES?
Must deal with state legislators when and where
opportunities are available.
Target officials. Support public effort by communicating
message to legislature.
Valenti and NRA strategy are main elements.
Policy with. respect to legislation remains intact.
If climate is changed, then seek repeal of anti legislation.
This is a mix of goals and activities.
Messages are tar@eted toward legislators.
Think Valenti approach is dangerous and perhaps should be
dropped.
Goal is to make legislators buy on early.
We are talking a Yin-Yang dichotomous approach here.
Need important spokesperson = THE RAINMAKER.
-28-
Communicate through regional staff and sitdown talks,
followup. J. Albright program
MEDIA
PRIORITIES
I. Tell the good news better: mag., radio, mailings
2. Talk to/challenge media leaders (with TI). Need experts
to talk to Senior Editorial staff. Begin with Ed board at
NY Times then across country, i-i 1/2 years.
3. Creating Iacocca is not do-able. He was a phenomenon in
context of rustbelt, etc. He arose organically.
-- Can develop a Herb Schmertz (Mobil PBS $ infiltrated
upscale audience; advertorials; emerged from PR cadre).
-- Fred Graham, CBS (recognized by state legislators
and Congress)
-- National Science reporters "bad Science"
DISCUSSION BEGINS
What does communication program have to do with ETS? Can
tobacco company rep. carry credibility?
Yes, Schmertz has done this. Guru, presence, person becomes
presence. Media becomes message. Pre-Schmertz, oil
companies seen as exploitative.
Need to define message, look for qualities of this person
(credentials as civil libertarian? Science Writer?)
Schmertz did not have popular message, but did it well.
PRESENTATION CONTINUES
4. Publicly challenging science (long term proj,ect, down on
list).
5. Cost of anti-smoking regs. becomes part of good news
program. Make positive, not just Dr. X is false in his
data. 3-4 months.
How do we get '"bad science" into leadership consciousness?"
Start right away with six to eight very good writers.
Argument only as strong as weakest link.
Problem is data are "unproven" on both sides.
That's okay. We're talking good writers.
Need better term than "bad science." Weak, Pseudo,
uncritical.
7. Acquiring major media vehicle. UPS. Insight example.
De Borchegrave example. Long term, needs considerable
costing and study.
On point #12, Ed board of New York Times. Millions of people
don't look at Times. Better to look at State Capital
papers. Segment papers as you do public -- Frost Belt,
South, etc.
Yes, NY Times targeted for. internal reasons.
Need major Ed. Board tour as result of other activities
(press conference).
Need coordination of messages and vehicles -- Consistency of messages
-- Midcourse corrections
Australia and Hong Kong example. 1 1/2 day meeting of PM
people before tour. Set tone, rehearsed, refined dress,
language. Also valuable to bring along local person.
Must be greater information exchange between media staff and
science staff.
SCIENCE
Problem -- Inaccurate perception of public that ETS is
damaging, considered proven.
-- ETS is major cause of indoor air pollution.
This is from interpretation of data by scientists with axes
to grind. E.g., Greek study.
Increase objectivity.
industry scientific consultants have been used well.
D.C. group sponsored research.
Development of science spokesperson. Solution needs to be
fast and involve all PM parts and cooperation from industry.
1. Adequate funding for U.S. Center for Research on Indoor
Air Quality. Sound scientific studies.
2. Substantial funding in ETS via CIAR -- up to $5 million.
3 Increase number of consultant scientists up to 50 in
•
U.S. and also throughout world. Not simple. Start with one
or two as focal core and build.
-30-
4. Establish technical journal on indoor air research.
Example of need: Counterblast to Repace took 2 years to get
letter in same journal.
5. Acquisition/creation of popular science journal -- Omni.
or Discover, translates scientific language for lay reader.
6. Challenge bad ETS science.
spokesperson.
Industry/science
7. Research to refute claim that smokers cost society more.
8. Endowed chairs on indoor air research. And Center at
university for indoor air research (different from CIAR)
9. Training Center for Science writers.
10. Force disclosure of SG's 86 base data used in report.
Biased data.
Effort should be organized worldwide.
Finding fewer and fewer reputable scientists willing to
remain impartial because of threat to their careers.
Strategy.
i. Become more active.
2. Challenge other work.
3. Meetings worldwide.
4. Time is of the essence.
DISCUSSION
Not clear that we need to spend massive $ for science and
popular science journals when first obligation, is to make
sure good pieces appear elsewhere.
There is an absolute need for science journal.
Lee paper treated blatantly unfairly.
E.G. Peter
9:00 A.M. Monday place scientific articles and begin to
look at publication purchase. Scientific journal costs less
than $I00,000 to establish.
What is relation between science focus on ETS and other
media activity?
Media programs (shorter term) ---> Annoyance/ accommodation
Science programs (longer term) ---> Health problems.
Industry has held back. Time to put forth what we've got.
Publicly, openly saying in journals through ads "Be
objective."
-31-
Need vehicle to explore increasingly connected relationship
of science and politics. -- papers
-- symposia soft, thoughtful, subtle
Next Issues Forum"The Politics of Science" does this.
So does next essay competition.
Expand umbrella from ETS.
Increase in cheating because of pressure to publish.
Morality of scientists is appalling. Primary issue
inconsistent with coming down on ETS as harmless. Nicotine
addition: study at Harvard, crooked data.
Scientists do not want to do anything to encourage smoking.
Therefore they back off of ETS.
What is new with this program?
CIAR funding increase
Endowed chair
journal.
Of all plans, science program, has to be joint-industry
based.
Important to change nomenclature.
No, it's risky.
Friday, June 26, 1987
10:45 A.M. Session
FAMILY AND ALLIES
Fits into policy makers plan.
PM doing a good job.
-- Jacob Albright dinner on excise tax.
-- education and mobilization
Large family -- customers, leaf community, distributors,
vendors, etc.
Need more contact, education.
Other allies other industries need to do more.
Who?
-- Nuke power and waste. Have to deal with direct
effect and cost to society.
-- Hazardous waste
-32-
-- automobiles
-- liquor
-- coal power -- acid rain
-- chemical industry -- herbicides, etc.
Issues are similar. No one is going to jump in bed with us,
but we can educate them. Salt, sweeteners, beef, irradiated
food.
Communications
business to business, business leader to business leader.
Letters, one on one lobbying.
-- Double check union activities -- goes on other list.
-- Women/child care - useful to look at how to develop
better relationships with this customer constituency.
--Make use of goodwill of PM subsidiaries
*Not raising public profile with PM USA
*May provide entree to legislators, etc. we can't
contact.
*Geographical advantage using them. E.g., PM USA
plants vs. GF plant distribution.
-- Seek tobacco industry participation, offer opportunity,
but tell them we're going to, whatever they do.
Discussion
What do you do for employers being pressured to put in
workplace restrictions?
Burson is assessing TI's workplace plan. Suggest
entrepreneurial service. Consulting operation to (I) reach
out to large corporations and (2) provide huge volume of
information to managers and publicize it to get it in front
of right groups. Charge for the service.
Other side -- get them to help us.
Businesses can't be happy with outside demands to re-shuffle
seating arrangements, etc.
This should be fit into press conference, New, big program.
What's out there now is "90 days to no smoking" program.
Other industries have been using our issue to deflect heat
from their own problems. Elizabeth Waylen is very good at
this. For DOW, Monsanto, etc. She's hardball and tough.
Overtly political.
Nuke energy people held up relative risk of cigarettes to
nuke power.
We've used Gray Robertson, but message is tough on employers
and supply industry. Therefore is presented softer.
# #
