Anne Landman's Collection
Report on Public Smoking Issue Executive Committee 19850410 William Kloepfer, Jr. [Cbs Tape]
Abstract
William Kloepfer (President of the Tobacco Institute) gives a combative portrayal of the industry's fight against public health. Kloepfer portrays public health advocates as "the invaders." States "Some of our retaliation is working" against workplace restrictions. States desire to "clone" Lew Solmon, who argued on the industry's behalf against the social costs theory of smoking. Describes efforts to "offset the onslaught of research we expect in the next 18-24 months from the antis." States "our objective is to contain and redefine the environmental smoke issue in order to decrease the pressure for safety measures. States, "we need to be candid with ourselves in recognizing that it will never be established that there are no effects" of secondhand tobacco smoke.
Fields
- Quotes
The nonsmoker battle for smoke-free air -- more complicated than fire safety, more damaging than ad restrictions and ultimately a greater bottom-line threat than excises. A battle in a society that has conquered man's environment and in which, paradoxically, our fear of it is growing. The logical appeal of smoke-free air is irresistable to politicians, commentators, even some smokers. It is the most effective way to reduce smoking.
We are defending on two fronts--political regulation and private rulemaking. We are fighting legislation, we are confronting research by regulatory agencies...Indoor air quality is a buzz phrase in a dozen other agencies which we must monitor. Workplace restrictions grind on in their course. The focus is dangerously narrow: ambient smoke. Some of our retaliation is working. Some is in the pipeline. We have only begun, however, to take the decisions, make the commitments and exploit the opportunities that can win this battle over the basic social acceptability of smoking.
The invaders employ an offshore battery of scientific research findings and an air cover of socio-economic incentives. We seem to be trying to protect a population without a popular will to join the resistance.
On the other hand, the roadblocks we've thrown up and the skirmishes we've won are not without significance. Nearly two years ago, we laid out a plan to blunt the socio-economic attacks and we are solidifying that defense. If you were the owners or managers of some other business, it is likely...that smoking restrictions would seem to be a good idea for the reasons repeatedly put forth by the anti-smokers.
First, they argue, restrictions save money...To that we have developed effective rejoinders...
An immediate task for us is to tune up Lew Solmon's volume--indeed to clone him--following the excellent job he has done in countering Weis, in journals, in the public media, in meetings with business officials and in two legislative hearings...
...The anti-smokers' second argument is the right to breathe smoke-free air. A number of our initiatives have helped to neutralize its effect...
...We've helped labor find legal problems with smoking restriction edicts...
...The trend is toward restrictions. The bandwagon in not yet rolling down tobacco road. But at least we're slowing it down with these implementations of our plan. That is not yet the case with the other half of the issue: health. The anti-smokers have just one argument: cigarette smoke is dangerous. It's a physical assault. We say no one knows if cigarette smoke is dangerous to the smoker, much less to the nonsmoker. But, consider the popular perception. The Repaces and Lowreys, Whites and Froebs, Hirayamas, Trichopoulos's and countless other anti-smoker scientists have kept refueling the public's paradoxical fear of its environment, to the extent that seventy percent of nonsmokers and a majority of smokers now believe that ambient smoke is probably more hazardous and a no-smoking sign will restore health to the indoor air.
More reinforcements are on the way...
...If we still lack a star-wars capacity to explode the missiles before they hit, we are at least making some progress in defusing.
- Company
- Tobacco Institute
- Author
- Kloepfer, William J., Jr. (TI Public Affairs VP, c. 1988)Senior Vice President of Public Affairs Relations for the Tobacco Institute
- Recipient
- Tobacco Institute Executive Committee
Senior Vice President of Public Affairs Relations for the Tobacco Institute
Involved in state and local level lobbying for the tobacco industry. Was a Vice President at TI, in the State Activities Division in the 1970's & 1980's, later went to RJR. Roger L. Mozingo was Vice President of State Government Relations for RJR in 1994. (Source: R. J. Reynolds Summary - RJR Liability Notebook)
Expressed the idea that smoking employees cost employers more than nonsmokers
Co-Author of a 1980 journal article, Small airways and dysfunction in nonsmokers exposed chronically to tobacco smoke. N Engl J Med 1980;302:720–723., that concluded that secondhand smoke causes small-airways dysfunction in nonsmokers
Produced a major study that linked secondhand smoke to an increased risk of lung cancer
Donald Hoel was an attorney with Philip Morris' law firm Shook Hardy and Bacon (SHB). He served as a member of the CTR Industry Research Committee in 1978?. Hoel assisted in screening "apppropriate" projects to received CTR funding.
Studies dynamics of secondhand tobacco smoke in public places
The industry employed Solmon to publicly criticize claims that smokers cost employers more in absenteeism, cleaning, breaks, insurance, etc. than nonsmokers.
Co-author with Herman Froeb of a 1980 New England Journal of Medicine article saying secondhand smoke exposure causes small airway dysfunction in nonsmokers. (Small airways and dysfunction in nonsmokers exposed chronically to tobacco smoke. N Engl J Med 1980;302:720–723.)
former US Surgeon General (1981-1989)
research chemist in the Laboratory for the Structure of Matter at the Naval Research Laboratory.
Sorell L. Schwartz, Ph.D. is a managing principal of the International Center for Toxicology and Medicine. He is a pharmacologist and toxicologist. , Dr. Schwartz was a full time member of the Georgetown University School of Medicine faculty from 1968 until 1998, where he served as Professor of Pharmacology and Director, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacokinetics program. Schwartz testified in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) lawsuit against tobacco companies that he was pressured by the [[Tobacco Institute]] (TI) to "take a more advocative position" with regards to the industry's concerns of the health hazards of secondhand smoke exposure. Schwartz stated that he testified as an expert witness for the tobacco industry for three years, but quit in 1987, and that his consulting company, Center for Environmental Health and Human Toxicology, did research into secondhand smoke for the industry. Schwartz characterized his research on behalf of the industry as "first rate." [Heavey, S.; "US professor says pressured to be tobacco advocate," Reuters, October 26, 2004]
best known for his seminal research linking passive or "second-hand" smoking to lung cancer
Worked on combatting legislated and voluntary workplace smoking restrictions, a Tobacco Institute program to attack the insurance industry and undermine non-smoker discounts on insurance premiums, and and a program to form a coalition to publicly portray public health adovcates as intolerant, anti-social and in need of help.
Annotations
- 1. DiNardi, Salvatore R. Named Person
- Affiliation:
Univ Ma
- Affiliation:
Document Images
FOURTH DRAFT
REPORT ON PUBLIC SMOKING ISSUE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
APRIL 10, 1985
WILLIAM KLOEPFER, JR.
(CBS tape)
The nonsmoker battle for smoke-free air -- more complicated
than fire safety, more damaging thanArestrictions and^a greater
bottom-line threat than excises. A battle in a society that has
conquered man's environment and in which, paradoxically, our fear
of it is growing. The logical appeal of smoke-free air is
irresistable to politicians, commentators, even some smokers. It
is the most effective way to reduce smoking.
We are defending two fronts -- political regulation and
private rulemaking. We are fighting legislation, we are
confronting research by regulatory agencies such as FAA and EPA.
Indoor air quality is a buzz phrase in a dozen other agencies
which we must monitor. Workplace restrictions grind on in their
course. The focus is dangerously narrow: ambient smoke. Some of
our retaliation is working. Some is in the pipeline. We have
only begun, however, to take the decisions, make the commitments
and exploit the opportunities that can win this battle over the
basic social acceptability of smoking.
The invaders employ an offshore battery of scientific
research findings and an air cover of socio-economic incentives.
We seem to be trying to protect a population without a popular
will to join the resistance.
T10482-0990
On the other hand, the roadblocks we've thrown up and the
skirmishes we've won are not without significance. Nearly two
years ago, we laid out a plan to blunt the socio-economic attacks
and we are solidifying that defense. If you were the owners or
managers of some other business, it is likely you would be
confronted on one side by anti-smokers and on the other by
employees and customers who smoke. It is likely that smoking
restrictions would seem to be a good idea for reasons put forth
repeatedly by the anti-smokers.
First, they argue, restrictions save money. Weis, Kristein
and others teach you that employees who smoke cost more in
insurance and productivity.
To that we have developed effective rejoinders, proven
commodities on line.
o An immediate task for us is to tune up Lew Solmon's volume --
indeed to clone him -- following the excellent job he has
done countering Weis, in journals, in the public media, in
meetings with business officials and in two legislative
hearings where he has been placed by the State Activities
staff. We've already begun to prep the 40-plus economists we
originally lined up on the excise issue to make expert
pitches on this one.
o Imminent publication in "Management World," which we
engineered, of our Response Analysis Corporation survey, will
give us a new round of reprint circulation. That's the
- 2 -
y
T10482-0991
research that demonstrates that managers and shop stewards in
six different industries and in public agencies believe that
smoking has little if any effect on productivity. We've
already shared the report with 60 business and professional
publications, and widely distributed it to business, labor
and public officials.
o We've mapped out our first hits for our Environetics study
which shows that professional planners see no way to promote
productivity by restricting workplace smoking; Major trade
journals like Facilities Management and Real Estate and
Corporate Design. Presentations and a video.display at
planning conventions and seminars such as NEOCON~ the major
trade show for planners, architects and designers at'~the
Merchandise Mart.
o Every new study showing the negative effects of smoking
restrictions on local economies will be exploited at
lobbyist direction. Those we've done in New York City,
Montgomery County, Maryland, Philadelphia and elsewhere,
have been presented this way to public officials and
discussed with the media in each instance.
o We're ready to try to replicate occasional independent
studies that support our point of view. The one from the
University of Minnesota last year got national publicity and
helps us refute the claim that smokers are less productive.
Our lobbyists and other consultants keep flashing it. It's
ideal for a repeat in Washington state, Mr. Weis' home turf.
- 3 -
T10482-0992
The anti-smokers' second argument is the right to breathe
smoke-free air. A number of our initiatives have helped to
neutralize its effect.
o In litigation, we gave the anti-smokers a public relations
and legal beating when they tried to force a19-vear employee
of the Wisconsin Department of Revenue to stop smoking a pipe
or face termination.
o Early on a Federal judge assured us there is nothing in the
Constitution that promises a smoke-free environment. But the Q~
.
American Association of Affirmative Action Officers believes
that smoking restrictions can be used to deny minorities
constitutional rights to employment and promotions. We are
working with that group to raise that important point. An
American Civil Liberties Union committee will study smoker
employment discrimination. With help from Philip Morris
we`ve opened the door to our input. ACLU has assured us it
will be welcome.
o The same issue has led us to potential allies in black, ~
hispanic, veterans and women's groups. Hispanic lobbyists
are experienced in successful attacks on height limitations
in public safety employment on behalf of their constituents
who don't meet minimums. We've sensitized the hispanics to
smoker discrimination and Pete Sparber is in California today
negotiating resolutions from them opposing it. We're not as
far along with other minorities but we're determined to get
there.
- 4 -
T10482-0993
o We've helped labor find legal problems with smoking
restriction edicts. The American Federation of Government
Employees, various fire fighters locals and state labor
federations are opposed to unilateral impositions. As a
follow-up to our labor-management committee seminar in
February, eight states are targeted for field staff-
non-tobacco union collaboration in lobbying -- New York,
Massachusetts, Florida, Washington, Minnesota, Michigan,
Texas and California.
o The law enforcement community has expressed concern that ';
frivolous Legislation makes a mockery of the law, diverts
resources and hurts police morale. The International Union
of Police Associations helped us with S.B. 80 in Wisconsin
and right now is finishing a position paper which will enable
them to supply witnesses where Roger Mozingo needs them. The
prestigious Police Executive Research Forum is not a lobby,
but their forthcoming policy recommendations are going to
carry great weight in broadening our police support.
o The voluntary workplace policy you okayed at Palm Beach is L4.
now going through a committee approval process at the
American Society of Personnel Administrators-for their
imprimatur, not ours. The American Federation of Government
Employees is in negotiation with it at the Social Security
office in Tampa. Two other places are looking at it -- one
of them specifically to earn exemption from a pending
ordinance.
- 5 -
T10482-0994
0 Regarding our voluntary restaurant policy, we're drafting for
clearance a third-party policy statement. The "smokers
welcome" tent cards have been requested, according to field
staff, by two restaurant associations in our suburbs and
another in Massachusetts.
The final, socio-economic argument the anti-smokers make is
the bandwagon technique: Telling them "everyone is doing it."
We now know their numbers are dead wrong, but as far back as
1979 the National Interagency Council on Smoking and Health
started saying and they're still saying a majority of Fortune 500
companies restrict smoking.
o Lew Solmon's research has just told us that among the 1,100
Largest or fastest-growing companies, just over 30 percent
say they have some restriction. That number includes places
that simply restrict smoking on elevators, in food processing
operations or near gasoline pumps, and facilities required to
restrict smoking by law. Of the 30 percent, less than
three percent say_ they prohibit smoking altogether, and less
than 13 percent maintain separate sections in the workplace.
.o About 25 percent say they have considered and rejected
restrictions because they prefer to let their employees work
things out for themselves.
0 99.1 percent do not prohibit hiring of smokers. More than 85
percent have never considered doing that.
- 6 -
T10482-0995
Our present schedule is to have Solmon's full report in time
for a mid-May news conference disclosure. Yet, despite what it
shows, these businesses are under pressure. The trend is towards
restrictions. The bandwagon is not yet rolling down tobacco road.
But at least we are slowing it down with these
implementations of our plan. That is not yet the case with the
other half of the issue: health.
The anti-smokers have just one argument: cigarette smoke is
dangerous. It's a physical assault.
We say no one knows if cigarette smoke is dangerous to the
smoker, much less to the nonsmoker.
But, consider the popular perception.
The Repaces and Lowreys, Whites and Froebs, Hirayamas,
Trichopoulos's and countless other anti-smoker scientists have
kept refueling the public's paradoxical fear of its environment,
to the extent that seventy percent of nonsmokers and a majority of
smokers now believe that ambient smoke is probably hazardous and a
no-smoking sign will restore health to the indoor air.
More reenforcements are on the way.
o Environment International has scheduled publication of
Repace's nonsmoker death estimate for late May. We expect
he'll make a new news story out of it. But he may not .know
that we'll beat him to the media in a series of documented,
one-on-one briefings. Repace may not know the journal
editor's own skepticism, the editor's warm reception of
- 7 -
T10482-0996
Sorrel Schwartz' critique, and the editor's eagerness to get
and publish the critical scientific responses we're
stimulating. We know other scientific hits are going to be
needed here.
o EPA has given the National Academy of Sciences $75,000 to do ~
a "preliminary investigation on the hazards of exposure of
nonsmokers to tobacco smoke." We expect the study to be
completed, and publicized, at the end of this month. Beyond
that, EPA has $2 million this year to investigate indoor air
quality from various angles, but there is no sign yet of
funding for next year. At the moment, we can only stay on
watch here.
o The National Academy of Sciences has a contract to do a ~
Congressionally mandated $500,000 study of aircraft cabin air
quality for the Federal Aviation Administration. A report is
required about a year from now and is likely to include
regulatory or legislative recommendations. We have a plan
for this one, and I'll come back to it in a minute.
o The Interagency Committee on Indoor Air Quality has a grand ~.
plan for government research pending at 0MB for clearance.
The Consumer Federation of America and others are promoting
more government funding. As soon as the 0MB releases the
agenda, we will put it under our microscopes.
o The 1985 Surgeon General's report, expected in November, will
address workplace smoking and, more specifically, what Dr.
Koop will assess as the synergistic effects of cigarette
- 8 -
T10482-0997
smoke and such substances as asbestos, radon and cotton
dust. We believe there will be 14 chapters demonstrating
that the synergistic whole is greater than the sum of its
parts. We've identified some of the authors, we're pulling
together their published treatments of thesesubiects, trying
to visualize what the report will look like, so we can begin
drafting our response.
o The Office on Smoking and Health has begun work on its own _
$500,000 literature review which, bolstered by independent
studies, probably will be the meat of the 1986 Surgeon
General's report on passive smoking. Actually, we hope the
review will help us in our own tracking.
o The National Cancer Institute has $500,000 to spend on
passive smoking research and development of exposure models.
That one is relevant to an industry support project now
forming, and I will come back to it.
o The American Cancer Society is expanding its data base in its ~
repeat of the million-person survey. It has asked women to
state the number of hours per day they are exposed to smoke
at home, at work and elsewhere. I'll describe our own
questionnaire project in a moment.
o We know of at least 16 relevant major research efforts ~4
under way in private institutions -- none of which can be
expected to help us much.
They range from work at the Harvard School of Public Health
on "Constituents of Sidestream and Mainstream Tobacco Smoke
- 9 -
T10482-0998
and Markers to Quantify Exposure" to a study at the
University of North Carolina Department of Pediatrics on the
"Significance of Childhood Respiratory Infections." These
just add to the scientific pressure which we have barely
begun to meet.
There have been innumerable scientific meetings and symposia
including focuses on ambient smoke. We have supported only one --
at Geneva two years ago -- and its effect was diminished because
The Institute had to be its publicity agent.
Many others are in prospect. A sampling:
o A Conference on Smoking and the Workplace, American Lung
Association, Washington, right now.
o The Air Pollution Control Association, Detroit, June.
o An InternationaL Conference on Indoor Air Quality, Ottawa,
this month.
o The American Chemical Society, Miami, this month.
o A Symposium on Health Risk Assessment, Columbia, Maryland,
next month.
There is little chance the outcome and publicity on these
projects and meetings will be sympathetic. There is every chance
they will contribute to the adversary offensive.
If we stiL1 lack a star-wars capacity to explode the missiles
before they hit, we are at least making some progress in
defusing.
We now have several scientist consultants capable and willing
to critique the anti-smokers' research.
T10482-0999
