Tobacco Documents Online

c THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE, iN c. 1776 K STREET, N(JRTHWESTi I'WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 1XXXX2=XX OUR NEW GENERAL OFFICE NUMBER IS 202/457-4800 i October 5, 1978 Arthur J. Stevens, Esq. Vice President & General Counsel Lorillard, A Division of Loews Theatres, Inc. 666 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10019 Dear Art: WILLIAM KLOEPFER, JR. Senior Vice President 202/457-4861 You threw me quite a curve! The Yankees could use you. I'm referring to Curt's letter from Solomon Garb. The easy part is that we do not know of the letterhead organization. The letterhead says Sidney Farber was a cofounder, but Farber's obit makes no reference to it. Garb is not shy. He is a cancer politician. Congressional committees seek his testimony and counsel. He is an avid defender of the National Cancer Institute. He believes that we do indeed live in a "sea of carcinogens." He compliments NCI for having identified many. He faults other agencies for not regulating properly in light of NCI's information. And he believes the largest wave in the "sea" is tobacco. _His accusations in the letter to Curt are in part correct, but in part for the wrong reasons. In dealing not only with free- lance reporters, but full-time reporters, Members of Congress .and literally anyone else who might listen we have never faulted either NCI or the American Cancer Society for the research they have done. We have, however, been outspoken in criticism of ACS'for diverting its funds into propaganda, having collected them fr=research-minded contributors; and we have criticized certain research results which have been sponsored by both organizations, e.gg smoking dogs" in the case of the ACS'. We also believe, and have so stated, that ACS has in its ~ propaganda efforts overemphasized tobacco and underemphasized ~' other potential environmental problems. ~ CJT ~

Arthur J. Stevens, Esq. October 5, 1978 Page 2 Any moral or ethical questions which may be involved in the above require, in my opinion, no apology. As to the long term commercial counterproductivity imagined by Garb, the first doesn't count at all. There is no question that we would support greater emphasis by NCI or ACS on research into cancer treatment. Thus we are not motivating those who have an emotional commitment to the conquest of cancer to demand abolition of tobacco. , A "boomerang" in the "sea of carcinogens" concept is not possible either. The very current report to OSHA from the government's cancer establishment, given to you, I believe, at the most recent meeting of the Committee of Counsel, is a remarkable demonstration that the "sea" concept subtracts rather than adds to the indictment of or conventional wisdom about tobacco. The suggestion about corporate diversification into other "carcinogen" industries is almost a joke, and at least shows some ignorance on Garb's part. While the asbestos industry does indeed accuse us of causing their problem, we have yet to accuse them of causing ours! As to his recommendations, I do not foresee that we will cease our attacks on baseless propaganda or poor research, whatever their auspices. These are quite different;`. however, from "attacks on the cancer program." Possibly we could urge Congressional friends to support researchfor more effective and less toxic anti-cancer drugs. Given the cynicism and emotion surrounding tobacco, however, I suspect that would easily pave the way for the rebuttal that we are self-serving by wanting public moneys spent on cures so that we can still sell a carcinogent So much for the kettle. Now for the pot. Garb has on occasion criticized lack of expert supervision of NCI grants -- slick grantsmen take advantage of the system unproductively. Benno Schmidt got after him for that at a hearing last year. He also criticizes National Institutes of Health for procedures which he says force NCI and other institutes to provide too much overhead money to grantees. Though he sees NCI as the victim here, certainly this is a criticism of the "cancer program." A final point: Though it is not necessarily Curt's responsi-,.., bility to do so, I think Garb should be answered. Too often W Q iV 00

I , Arthur J. Stevens, Esq. October 5, 1978 Page 3 ~. failure to deny is seen and said to be admission of guilt. It would not do for Garb to furnish his letter at his next appearance in Congress without a rebuttal. William Kloepfer, Jr. WKj,r:mss

:r c r r Sv,