Abstract
This early (1968) memo from Helmut Wakeham (Philip Morris' Director of Research) to Clifford Goldsmith (PM USA Chief of Operations) stresses the need for the company to engage in internal biological research on its own products, saying "...we face a real need to obtain our own facts and data...to counteract conclusions drawn from these [public health] studies."
Perhaps most importantly, the document alludes to the "gentleman's agreement" wherein it is rumored that the major U.S. tobacco companies agreed not to compete on the basis of smoking and health, or engage in in-house biological research:
"We have reason to believe that in spite of previous arrangements within the tobacco industry at least some of the major companies have been increasing biological studies within their own facilities."
It mentions how the American Tobacco Company secretly moved their research facilities to an in-house (from a medical school):
"Further, the biomedical work supported by American Tobacco at the Medical College of Virginia...was relocated under conditions of extreme secrecy during this past summer from the college to their new research facilities at Bermuda Hundred."
Fields
- Notes
This document was used as a Trial Exhibit in Texas and Washington state.
- Quotes
Most Philip Morris products, both tobacco and non-tobacco, are directly related to the health field. Consumer meaht is a focal point of interest and concern to the general public and to the governmnet. This trend is a natural one which attends an affluent society. Tthere is every indication that technically, sociologically, and economically we will have to deal with an ever increasing concern for the health aspects of our products. Consequently, if R&D is to fultill its technical responsibilities, we will require significantly increased capabilities to investigate the health implications not only in tobacco but also in gum, confections and the medical products fields.
The issue of health in the tobacco field has advanced rapidly in the last year to the point where the opponents of smoking are effectively playing on the fears of the public. Their influence is based on a well organized campaign that could culminate in the restriction of television and radio advertising. We have seen institution by the government of comparative brand testing for [total particular matter] and nicotine. It is likely that other chemiclas may also be incriminated. We also see and anticipate as realilstic and as a next step the institution of a biological testing program on competitive brands for carcinogenic potentials and possibly publication of these figures...
While we have maintained to the best of our ability a technical intelligence system designed to be alert to any studies associated with tobacco smoke, these programs are cloasely guarded secrets and our knowledge usually comes after the fact in the form of publications. Most importantly it is our experience that Research Study funds provided by the Tobacco Industry through the offices of AMA as well as public funds are applied to studies oriented to seeking out and highlighting the negatives associated with tobacco smoke.
In this situation we face a real need to obtain our own facts and data in biological systems, to know what the true facts are in order to interpret propertly or to counteract conclusions drawn from these studies...
We have reason to believe that in spite of previous arrangements within the tobacco industry at least some of the major companies have been increasing biological studies within their own facilities...
- Company
- Philip Morris
- Author
- Wakeham, Helmut R. R., Ph.D. (PM R&D VP)
Vice President and Director of Research & Development, Philip Morris
- Recipient
- Goldsmith, Clifford Henry (B&H (1953), PM Chief of Operations ('65) Pres of PM, Inc. (')
1953 Benson & Hedges. 1965 Philip Morris USA Chief of Operations. 1969-73 President of Philip Morris, Inc. 1978 PM Chief Executive. Served on Tobacco Institute Executive Committee, 1979.
RegionUnited States
TypeMEMO, MEMORANDUM
LitigationStmn/Produced
Txag/Trial Exhibit 11928
Waag/Trial Exhibit 679
Named Person#28268 (Wynder, Graham)
Bock, Fred Garland, Ph.D. (Biochemist, Roswell Park, Anti-Tobacco Expert)
Boutwell, Roswell K., Ph.D. (CTR SAB, Oncologist, U. of Wisconsin, Madison)Studied Chemical Carcinogenesis and Benzpyrene.
Burke, A.
Kensler, Charles J., Ph.D. (Pharmacologist, Boston U, School of Med., Industry Expert)Defense
Saffiotti
Operation/ProjectBiological Research (Research on biological effects of tobacco smoke)
Named OrganizationA.D. Little, Inc. (Performed biological research & testing for Liggett & Myers)Performed biological research and testing for Liggett on XA (Palladium) cigarette
American Medical Association (physicians group)Professional trade group representing American physicians.
American Tobacco
Bermuda Hundred (American Tobacco Co.'s biological research facility)
Bw, Brown & Williamson
FDA, Food and Drug Administration
Iitri, Il Inst of Technology Research Inst
Karolinska Institutet
Life Sciences Division
LM, Liggett & Myers
Medical College of Virginia
PM, Philip Morris
Product Development Lab
RJR, R.J.Reynolds
Tobacco Industry
USDA, U.S. Dept of Agriculture
Subjectresearch activity
tobacco industry internal policy
industry activity
industry response
industry sponsored research
industry strategy
industry surveillance (Intelligence-gathering on public health forces)
Document Images
Page 1: eim99d00
_9
,
i
.. :FA ~i
: Mr. C. H. Goldsmith
nm :
8. Wakohaa
, . - ,.-
.
x.. .
`'.
' r ' 31fr i~3 y
,
' t
DATE: Noveaber 14, 1468
SUBJECT: Naad !or Diological Besearch By Philip Morri
Xasearch And Davalopm.nt
1rtA.t Vff4ltw tifk7,r4o
w.rwA..wti f.w~i. ~wf.~www- ~w.t www_Mwt.~www -
are directly re~atad to the health fiald. Consumar health is JF
a focal oint of intarest and concarn to the eneral blic and-
to the goveramsnt. This trend is a natural one rhiehpatta:ds
': an affluent society. Thara is every indication that tachnically,' '"_.:~'~ '
sociologically, and aconomically we will have to deal with an aver incraasing concarn for the health
aspects of our products.
~ Consequsntly, if RbD is to fulfill its technical rasponsibilities,
".: we Will require significantly increased capabilities to invasti-
in .~
ata the health S licatians not onl tobacco but also ia
~
c
y
ftid th
dt
onacons ane medical proucsas*
fild `^ ~
.
The issua of health ia the tobacco field has advanca `rapidly
in the last year to the point where the opponents of smoking are
t ~ effectively playing on the fears of the public. Their influence '. '...:
is based on a well organized campaign that could cul~minata in the
restriction of television and radio advertising. We have se.n in-
'stitutic~n by the government of comparative, brand tasting for T~M
' and oicc:;,n.. It is likell that other cheuicals may also be in- t' 2L°'criminated. We also s.a
and anticipate as realistie and as a next.
atep the institution of a biological testing program on competftivar !!~
=-: = brands for carcinogenie potentials and possibly publication of these;:
:figures. 'Tha techniqu es for doin,g such testing are availabla; irra-
spective of the validity of the findings which at this point. ara-'
,.: technically udgm.atal and questionable. These techniques have been established ~y Drs. Bock,
Boutwell, Saffiotti, Naasler, Wynder, and =A.{:=,
others and are in the literature. We have also received during the ::past year an inquiry from the
Department of Agriculture requesting ., A.1
our commants or recommandations for methodology in testing tobacco :>=
smoke for biological activity. ;'N,
a
-
tachni
While Me.hav: maintained to the bait of our ability
cal intalligenca system desipd to ba alert to any studies aaso- ,..:. ,-,;°-,.~
i t d.+itb tobacco ssnka tfiasa rograms ara closaly guardad sa- --' ~~
.'".' crets and our icnorledSe usually eommas after the fact in the form
of publications. More importantly it ia our axparianca that aa-
r.;.
search Study funds provided b tha Tobacco Industry t tha
offices of AMA as v.ll as public funds ars applied to studies ori-. $ _
v
ant.d to a..kiaa out and hiatiliahtins the negativas associated with
,.;~ ..
~ , ..
k
b
,
:
. to
acco amo
a.
.
Page 2: eim99d00
. ~~~ .
.;.r
r : . . .
. . ~ '.I.. 11. .+. a.
..~.~ ' ..
.. . .i ` . ..
.. e.l . . .... . .. . ..s ,
. ... . , ~ .
-2-
In this situation ve face a real need to obtain our own facts
and data in biological systeos, to know what the true facts are in
order to interpret prope rly or to counteract conclusions drawn from `
:~:.. these studies. In addition we need to knov as aariv am poaaible
the various biologicalimplications associated wftW tobacco :moke .
;~ as a guide to our various technical divisions in modifying or chang-
: ing our products where necess.ry or possible.
": If comparative brand biological testing by the government is
'ev.r realized, we need to be in a position of technical comp etence
in this area similar to that,r~e had developed in the Analytical
field. In order to achieve this competence we must have a facility :.. ~~=
of our own in which to develop , test, and subject our owri products
and other brands to biological studies so that we may have know-
ledge and competence ia thisfield. It is not unreasonable to assum.
that with the introduction of biological testing and publish#ng of
'`'`"`' data by the government, all tobacco c anies will find it necessary
` -' N" defensively to embark' on their own test g programs aither in-hottse
- M
or at available consulting biological laboratories. When this sit
uation arises, inadequate preparedness on our part may put us in an
r t4L ~'~ extremely difficult position. . In the first place, since biologicel
testing requires extended time not only to develop competence but
'to conduct the actual test, we may be too late to counteract com
petition oi other outside forces. Secondly, since o+stside biological ~=
testing facilities are limited in number and since Lsany are sup ported ~:
in great part by gwernment con cacts they may eitter already have r:~
! r~ ,: our competitors as clients or bc~ reluctant to take on studies for zt~~t:: ~,
~-fear of offending their govarnment sponsors. Politically and socially ;=
.-stigmatized in such a situation our own data from our own facilities
might cons titute our' only source of legal/technical defensa.
./. ` s . , .. . . , ,. . ~. . ~ .. , . ., .3: !.i
v .r `~
We ha' v: reason to b:lieve that i:i spite of previous arranga
~ments within the,tobacco industry at least some of the s& ~or compania Y
have been increasing biological studies within their own . acilities..~ ~'
: The American Tobacco Campany in its nex facilities at Bermuda Hundred .
~~~.~. . has included several animal.rooms, one for dogs and one for smaller
., ,. animals as well as an :autopay room. Further, the biomedical work
supported.by American Tobacco at the Medical College of Virgiaia
under the supervison of Dr.:Arthur. Burke (M.D.) vas relocated under'
conditions of' ektreme'secrecy during this past summar from the college
: to their ner research faeilities at Besmuda Hundred. Some studies -~-
,' are still being continu~ed a; the Medical College but the major portion =
is now within their oin house. In addition they have. a wl~, estab-
lished greenhouse in which radiochesical and other biological studies.s~
"; . on p lants are actively pursued.
x. J.Reynolds has'enpanded its research facilities at Whitaker
Park, Wins ton-Salem. Their nev Product Development Uboratory contains OD
!: in addition to their tobacco research program expanded pharmacological ~
... ~^f
_BtiooO2itOVV ' -W
.. . .. _ 1. ., . _ ., . .. . . . _. t ! _
r : n
'
1
~ _
t. . r!
`
~
..
v
~
` w:... . .
. . r . .. .. ! . ~.
+ .,r~ :r~ .
~ ~ . . . . ~ r`.11..;. ~~ . . .
~.,
Page 3: eim99d00
and toxicological laboratortes resently devoted to research
and development in the food field. However. these disciaZines
are equally applicable to biological studies in the tob.cco field - -
and represent a reservoir of biological capability ready at a - .
moments notice to be applied to the pharmacology and toxicity of _
f
k if nedd:t di b Bldfhi
smoeee Mw recenemonstratony.pnoa o ter ability to develoo on short notice a hishiv sonhi:ticated
amoke
inhalation machini confiYm» this ~resiioo.. They specifically
admitted six months of actual experience with animals with a :
'
:
prototype machin.. .
'
r
We haveecently obtained a very. close insightint the
o
tensive program which Liggett & Myers has carried on for the past.
15 years with the Life Sciences Division of Arthur D. Little,
~ Incorporated. In this work they have touched almost every facet
''.f of the smoking and health area, including chemical anslyses,
demiological studies, and bioassay tests. Clearly their background
:` and their biological commitment at Arthur D. Little is much more
extensive than ours, and provides them witti a strong reservoir of
life science capability which they can tap as the occasion demands.
~ s .. . .. . . .. . . .y_ , , -7N. : c:.
~
j
~:''Lorillard Corporation has to the best of our knowledge its activitfes to small contractst at the
Illinois Institute of.:.
e.a
:' Technology Research and the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm. so far as we knov, they have no
in-house program.
' r.. . "., .. ., .' . .r' .:, '~. ... . 7 ;. l'I .: .~..
... . . . ~ .;..t . ., ,. . .... ..... .. . ...i. . _ . .~--%: -. .
Brown and Williamson ~s in the unique osition as a part of
p ,'.. }s.
~' the British-American complex to be supported by the extens ive ,, K i.! ;,-
biological facilities of the parent company in England and Germany.
a /._::' I' . Sl:;i.. .° :. r..... ~, .. . . . .. ..; :. . . ... . .. ~. . . . .. +~
~, ..
; y.,. Y . .. ., . . ...:f. ... ' .» }~L7 .. .., 4r~' N .
While we have emphiaized our need for biological capabilities
....in support of our tobacco interest we have an equal if not greater
` need for biological capabilities to support the future of our di- 0;
,~: versified interests. Qur present plans and studies in the geim field
: encomcass oroducts desizned to orevent dental caries and reduce'
calculus from teeth. Wi are also aiming at other Quasi-pharmaceutical- ;=
gums containing active therapeutic ingredients. In all instances
are faced with establishing the toxicological safety of the various `~
k
. additives or ingredients in our products. Both mareting needs and
advancins technieolomt demand that products of the i®oed~iate and
~. later future must poaaess demonstrable efficacy. r.-
_.
t`.~-1 7....
Y.~.*Our interest in the food field presently focused on confections -t ~-
: ~: re quires the biological capability to show the safety of any food
additives or in redients re quired, and to support efficacy and safety ~
of anti-caries ~ngredients in confections as well as. the efficacy
rotein containing foods in rhich ve have a long range interest.
' of
p
7 1
. /
~' .
~ . ~'°a
Page 4: eim99d00
.. ~~w.~..
4-
Biolo ical capability to support the development of products -
in the field of'medical needs is obvioua. Essential to the develop-
=ent and introduction of any product are the biological studies
proving safety of the product as vell as efficacy to satisfy the
Food aod Drug Adminiatration requirementa. The very esature of our
hospital products requires technical comp etence in the field of '
microbiology.relative to the sterility of our products. Finally
n
~ ., strong competence in the biological t+sting field is extremely
valuable to support our marketing and product image in the hospital.'~
products field. Benefits such as these, although real, cannot be -
measured in terms of sales dollars.
?irbi~esT,- our ua:di- for spestise in life science areas are
i.
increasing rapidly, not only because of greater emphasis on the a;
~
s~: smokin and health controversy, but also because of our involvement ., -
in heat th sensitive non-tobicco product lines. Unfortunately these
needs cannot be ignored. We must find a way to mest these needs in .~
the most effective manner consistent vith the broad interests of our :
business.
