Tobacco Documents Online

THE NEW YORI( TIMES NATIONAL T;IIJRSI.)A Y, J U_NF._.I6=. l...~J._4 .. Cifarette Makers Debated the Rishs They Denied . " By PHILIP J. HILTS WASHINGTON, June I$ -- For more than 40 :years, American ~ executives fo]]ow~ u tw~track approach to ~e ~ultb dange~ eli•relies, ~yin~ In ~bilc Ihat ~ere • Embattled Tobacco One Maker's Struggle Fir~orthr~e~rfi¢isr,. ~{ being heard by a Kentucky court. Because the selection can be as. was no proven r/sk, while privately I aumed to reflect a possible bias on the debating how to deal with the I . I~rt of t~ a~lecmr. Brown & WIi. mk they we~ deny~E. ~ I li~mson w~ asked to dls~ss ~e That is the plctt~re that emerges from more than 4,000 pages of docu- ments from the archives of the: Bre~n & Williamson Tobacc~ Corpo- ration, obtained by The New York Times. T~e documents tnc]ude mem- orandums, indexes, chronologies and minules at research meetings attend. ed by company executives end re. sea rchers. They show a tobacco company pro. occupied with the Issues thai re scorch on the health consequences of smoking was disclosing. Company ex. ecutives and researchere were strug- gling to find a way Io deal with merit- cal and moral l~sues, as well u with public relations problems and, even. tually, legal ramifications. During 1950's and l~60's, the research panment, while privately acknowl. edging Ore ha.rds of cigarettes, be. lieved It could eventually control them with lechnology like Iilters, ad- ditives and nicotine.delivery devices. By the 1970's, however, tt had be- come clear that such n.ew products would not eliminate the disease-~aus- Inl potential of cigarettes and would quick}y run afoul of Sovernment reg- ulatory agencies. Even if they did work. executives said, they might not pleese c~stomers, The company closed its reteeroh laboratories in the mld-I~;70's and by the end of the dec-" ade It had also halted safe.cigarette projects. The documents show that sought to rid its archives of the evi- dence Its scientists had accumulated. The documema were given to The New YO~ "l'tmea by a university pro-. lessor who hal been active tn anti- smoking work. He had obtained them from a confidential source. The com- pany says these documents, like a smaller, much less inclusive set seined by The Times a month ago, were stolen by Merroll Williams, one of the par•leg•Is who had ctassified them, Mr. Williams was a cigarette smok- er ~'ho favored Koo|s, a Brown t • 'iillsmson brand, during most of his 29 years of smokin& When he dave|. aped heart disease In 1993, for which he received I quintuple by-pass, he blamed Brnw,, ,¢ wm~.,,,,,,- ~-- history of its research programs and other subjects, to help provide a more complete picture of company policy over those decades, It declined to comment, except to say that the docu- ments are stolen property. After being contacted this morninr. Tom Fltzserald, s spokesman for Brown & Wi111amson in Louisville, said, "It Is impossible for us to re- spend in a Jew hours to questions about 30.year-old documents that we have not seen or been given the chance to review." Asked if the company would answer specific questions, he said no, not "given the time frame." Representative Henry A. Waxman el Ca)i- ~ornla, chairman of the Commerce Subcom- mlttee on Heal~ and the Environment, has scheduled hearings to begin early next week that will be based on some of the Brown & WIIllamson documents, in April, Mr, Wax. man's office requested the chairman of the company, Thomas Sandefur Jr.. to appear End answer questions about the documents. Early Research .:Many Hints Of Dangers . Although many smokers have Ions ~us. pocted that cigarettes were not good for their health ("cancer sticks" and "coffin nails" are age.old terms), the scientific documen- tation was slower to arrive, in the immediate postwar years, In fact, doctors often recom- mended smoking to relieve stress and ten- alan. Throush the l|50'a and into the 60's, as the documents show, the health news both from Independent researchers as well as from the company's owfl laboratories was tncreestnS- ly dlscouragtn& One of the first expressions of concern abouL the health consequences of cigarettes, • 1988 company chronoloiw of research discloses, is a refereo'ce to ftndinSs made by •Bridsh researcher. ~r. Richard Doi..__LI In ]952, linkins am~okthg and c~,ncer. The chronology refers to epidamlologlcel ltudles that had recently been done, one of which would have been Dr. Doll's, notinS thal they offer *'frightening testimony from epl- demlology studle~." *'A ¢arclnosenlc hydro. carbon, beats is) pyrene, is partially isolal. ed from leaf and smoke," It said. Only a Link Established • Nevertheless, company officials pointed o~t that an epidemloloslcal study estabtished search in Manhattan came out with a study • chat demonstrated s direct cause and elfect : relationship between tobacco smoke and tu- • mars. Paintlns the backs of mice with tobac. :co tars taken from ¢lptrette smoke. Dr. : Wynder induced malignant akin cancers in 44 ..percent of the animals. '" The industry reacted to this news with the ,'formation of the Tobacco industry Research Committee -- For the purpose of offering "aid .and easistance to the r~search effort," tt )~tated in m advertisement that ran in 400 newspapers and magazines in January 1954. Among the sponsors was Brown & William. .son's president, Timothy Hartnett. In fact the committee was also conceived as a public- relations arm of the Industry, as the docu- ments show. lleal[h Worries In Britain In Britain, the possible health hazards of smokin8 were also an Issue. The British Medical Research Council, a g0vernmenl re- search body, had said that studies showed that smoking was a possible cause of cancer, end i~ritish ciKarette manufacturers had pledged to donate 2~0,000 pounds' Io ~he coon. oil for a seven-year research project on smoking and health. The Oecls~on to support government.span. sated research would later allow British manufacturers some latitude in developing less hazardous cigarettes, as the dncumenls show, because of the implicit admission of health consequences tha~ they had made, But even the British manufacturers pre- ferred not to use the word cancer at first. Brown & Wllliamson's sister company, Brit- ish-American Tobacco (Batco), carried out most of the more sensitive research for both companies. Much of the work was done at a cooperative British tobacco Industry. labora- lory called Harrogate. An internal report produced on March l, 1957, by Batco re[erred to cancer by a code name: ~ephyr. • "AS a result of several statistical surveys, the ides has arisen that there is a causal relation between zephyr and tobacco smok- ing. particularly c]&a retie smoking." the per said. I! went on to report the re~uhs of tests by Batco on the cancer-causing effects of chemicals in smoke. The paper reported that other researchers had found the aromat. IC chemical benzopyrene "to be 20 times as active" as arsenic, another clgerelte europa- rent, in causinJl disease. But, It added, "This work still requires confirmation." Three months later, In July, the United States Surgeon General issued the first Fed- oral Government statement saying that the weight of the evidence indicated a causative ~|attonsh~p between "exces.~ive" smoking and lung cancer. By 195R, Ratco resesrrhers had devised • method to estimate the quantity of benzopy- rene in ci~nr-..ttes. "Rosulfs show that ciga- rette smoke contains nbou! ~ micrograms of 3,4 benzo(a)pyrene per 500 ~rnms of ciga- rette, and that 90 percent of ~,4 benzo~a)pyr- one was formed during combustion." Company researrhers began working on me,hods of reduc/ng th,s compound during smoking,

"~erna~ Debate The 'Emotional' And the Skeptical Every year, Brown • Wllllamson execu- tives and r~searchers met with Batco and ~e two ~mpsnies' ~ndon ~sed par~t ~mpa- ny, Eri~ish.~meH~n Tobacco PLC. st sn lend. ~monK the d~uments a~ det:U~ m~. utes of the meeting. G~een. vice pFestdent of Batco ~sea:c~ ~ Dr. Robe~ B. G~ffl~, director of lot B~o~ & WiHiamson. Leading the discu~ ~sea~cher. D~.. Ellis o~ ~e die.salon with o~e~at~on ~at doctors "had reached emotional ~nclus~ in which ¢hey passionately and sincerely." He was skepfl. c8] of the scientific wo~ of ~e (~d~Js, he told tho~ present, but "emotional siena cannot be dfs~garde~.'. "~ey me7 not ~ Hgh~," he said, they ~ not necessarily wron~ Emotional us to consider what a~ ~e ¢omponems this emotio~" 'We Have 10 lrlvestlgate' - Dr. Ellis no, ed that a number of research- ers, including Dr. Wynder, had a]r~dy thow~ ~hat smoke cn~see tumor, and that 8 different com~nent of smoke had ~own ~o cause ~he death or Inuctl~ of ~e cflJa in the lung, So that mucus tr~s~rt IS ~ts~ted -- perhaps, he suiiested, the be. 8inning 0f disease. "We, ts an Indust~, Just have to investigate the venous ~sslbllRles of the ¢aus~ of ]un~ Cancer a~d. ts s tm~rtant possible factoF, ~e effects of Cil~" ~tte smoke," he ~e p~cedins M~y, ~H]lard had taken me Indust~ by surprise with l[s announce- ment ~at henco~or~ lu Kent brand ~me wt~ a ~ew fll~r, ~ ~t do~ ~ ~nler~ In ~ ~a~er ~t H.~ O. ~e~ ~ Bat~ p~sented to ~e I~P, he noted ~at ~ ~arch had ~own ~at cigarette filters ~uld ~t do~ on the amo~t of "phenols" -- the composer of smoke t~t Dr. W~der had found ca~lnose~c. "'C~ld we have fo~s~n ~hat ~s KoinK to hap~n?" 8sk~ ~r. Anderson, ~fer~n8 to the phenol work and the Kent filter. • ou8ht we had 8t least 8 year," he iamentint that Bro~ & Wtllia~on had not done mo~, fu~er, ~d come up with its o~ filters first, Mr. Anderson quot~ f=om a lette~ by Addison T. Yeoman, general counsel of Brown & Wlgiam~n. who w~s apparently ~t t[ the meeting: "~e~; In this StZte O( knowl~le is It ne8Blence on the part of t~ cJl~rette manufacturer e~r (8) to fMI to remove phenols, or. (b) to fail to w8~ con- sumers of the pr~u~ of Its ~l~[lal dan. "i~ouaht8 on Safer Cigarette *'Now what should we have done?" Mr. Anderson asked. "On the whole I am Inclined lO think thai two years ale we ought to have had a more positive approoch to this whole p~'oblern of producing 'safe' cigarettes." He |ddcd: "'Thll would, however, hive needed a change In o~IIook and policy which ! think now we are only Just beginning, My own opinion Is that we should have got little sympathy and encouragement for such Ideas two years ale." Noting that "smoking is a h|bit of eddic. tion" as well as a possible health hazard, Dr. ;Ellis endorsed that sentiment. The company must commit Itself to conduct research on cancer, ha'said, and it must share any signtfi. • cant scientific discoveries with other compa- nies "end not seek to obtain competitive commercial advantage." While the qusstton remained open about whether cigarettes contained enough toxic substances to be harmful to humans, he said, "the central fact In this subject is that in sufficient doses tobacco condensate acts as a carcinogen when painted on the backs of mice, or when Injected subcutaneously into rats." He proposed a lar8e study with mice to find out. Dr. J.G. Burgsn of Bated told the group ttmt a new set of dangerous compounds had Just been identified by 8 German researches': '"]'hey are several hundred times more po- tent as carcinogens than things like benzoa- pyrene; he's 8eating tumor yields of 100 ~.rcent and he has the feeling that there may some of these compounds In cigarette smoke." The compounds he was referring to were nitrosarnines, which later turned out to be one of the most carcinogenic components of clSnreite smoke. '53 Experiment Found Cancer Link In ig52, Dr, Richard Doll published a • "groundbreaking study on the health risks of smoking. The study linked the risk of devel. opine lung cancer to the number of cigarettes smoked, with the risk rising in direct proper- • "Uon to the number, One of the findings deal; • with benzopyrene, en aromatic hydrocarbo.~ • that is found In cigarette smoke end Is now widely considered to be one of tobacco's chief ¢sncer-caus ing substances. • Although an exa~ relationship between dose end biological response, like that found by Dr. Doll, is a strong indic~tlon that a sub. • stance |s a cause of disease, such studies do I~Ot conclusively dernonotrate thai cla~tretle smoktng con induce mallgnani tumors in Ilv- tng animals; nor do [hey pinpoint the carcl- ,ogenlc components or cip reties. Among ihe first proofs to do so came in 19~3. with s paper published tn the December • Issue of the journal Cancer Research by Dr. • Ernst Wynder and his colleagues a[ Ihe glean Kctterlng Instltule. Dr. Wynder's group suc- ceeded tn experimentally prodtJclnli cancers on lhe skin of mice by painilng their backs wtLh toblc¢o ta rl taken from clga retie smoke. Many $tmilar l:xperlments had failed, Sir Richard Doll at Oxford, 1979. possibly because they had been too brJe{. But Dr. Wynder's study offered exl~rtrnental proof that the con{en~ of cigarette smo~o could induce cancers in skin: 44 percent of [he animals ~,velolx.d mallgnam

AFt 1St ' " an aternent 3. Tirol I~ R ~o Froor Iha! clpret~e smold~ is one of' A Tobacco CoUncil Of War at the Plaz a On Dec. 15,1~3, top tobacco company ecutlves gathered for an unussl meeting tn New York, prompted ~ part by e recently published paper by E~st Wynder Iinktn8 smoking an~ caner. ~e meetln~ It the Plm hotul, ~ refaced to In ~wn ~ Wllllam~n d~ments, but the most tellin~ detell~ come ~rom mlnut~ o~ the meettn~ ma~e by the public ~latlon~ firm Hill & Knowlt~ called tn to consult on the public relations ch~llen~e the W~der ~sed. ~e Hill ~ gnowRon papers were re. leased last mon~ ~ Rep~sentatlve Henry ~p0nent el to~cco. Among those p~sent ~ Timothy V. He.neat, president of B~wn • Willl~m~, and officers from Philip Morris, R. J. Aeyn- aids, P. Lorllltrd, Untt~ Stale~ To~cco ~nd American Tobacco. Hill ~ Knowlton that the urgency of the meetlnl was slen~led by the lact that this was the flr~l time Ihe company chlets had met since i Responding to questlortl and suggestions from John W, Hill. founder and p~eslden[ Hill & Knowiton, the tobac~ executives l~ed thal "the lndust~ ahould not encase in a merel~ dare.lye ~mptlg~" acco~lnA to tha minutes. "~e~ f~l ~e~ should span- sor ~ public relatlo~ ~mpstsn ~hJch tire In nature and entirely 'p~lsarett~.'" Mr. Hill ~ested that they add research m ~e public relationa effo~, according to the m~utes. ~us the Tobacco lndust ~arch Committee was ~m, an orffanl~tlon that exists today ~ the Council for Tobacco ReseatS. Hill & ~owlton was hired as pub- lic relations ~nsuRsnt to the companies. A month after the m~tinB, the commltt~ ran an advertisement that speared in more • an 4~ ncwspe~rs and other ~bllcattons, Hesdlln~ "h Frank Statement to Smokers," It e~ressed concern about stud- tea linklnz smoktnS to lung cancer in humans and promised that the indust~ would exam- lne them. It also said. "Although conducted by docto~ of professional st and lag, these ex- T_he Stra te.jz Countering The Threat The ~roup moved on to a discussion eompeny's public position on smoklni srds. The Industry'a .~osltion -- that entKic work showing thal cigarettes cancer was "o~ly statistical" m wou continue unchallenged, said Leo C. Brown & Wlillamson executive. "You have a hard-headed doctor opl'~Stte would say thai your argument had noah do w/it) it, their Ihe Statistics Indies connection," he said, "and would ask you intended to do about it? or whethe were Just gotnk to sit and wait for yes see If anything happened?" Dr. Grtffi~h, of the American said there was one aspect of the probl¢ which he was convinced even be/or moved from the University of Kentuck~ Industry: 'qn ~e United States ~e has adopted e negative approach to health question, tending to deny any cot tion, end this was a very bad public rela~ value. We would prefer to see a pea approach," A researcher from Batco's Australia! filters, William W. Reid. petaled out that industr.v's policy of denial; while underst able, had put it In an Impossible posRIon described the situation this way: "No induslry was going tO accept the product was toxic, or even bel~eve tt to and naturally when the health question - firs! raised we .had to start by denying the P.R. level. By continuing tha~ polic~ had Aot ourselves ~nm a corne~ and left r~m to maneuver, in other word~, if we ~et a breakthrough and were able to impr our pr~uct, we should have m a~ut.h end this was pracHeally tm~$siblc P.R, level. If we could ease the approac~ bit, then when we did make ~sitive contrl alerts we ¢~ld ,t least say so without hay to crawl ~htnd the door," Better Off In Britain The chairman of Batco, Anthony D. McC mick, noted that the British companies, making a large donation to the Medical i search Council, were In a mare ¢omfortal posttlon, because they had lndicatsd that '" thought there mlAhl be something in ttJ': Nevertheless, he laid: "It was very dlt cult when you were asked, as chairman as tobacco compa,y, to discuss the health qu( tlnn on te~vision. You had not only ),our o~ business tO consider but the employs throughout the Industry, retetllers, consul era, farmers growlng,lhe leaf, and so on, al you were in a much too responsible posith to Set up and say'. '1 Iccept that the produ which we and all our competitors are puttir on the market S|ves yot,t lung cancer,' wha ever you mtghl think privately." 'Sound Program of Investigation' Dr, Ellis said: "'We must admit thal th threat to our Industry is ~rlous and ver real. and It Is of little help to us that tt Is base, on an emotinnll &uess and not on reasons. believe we ~re now starting on a soun. program of investigation thai in a few year wl]] make I~ ~ssible [o sop lhP ~itua]tun nn, jud~o the future ran,',, ~t.~-~., '.

• The Brown & Willlamson Tobacco Corporation k1|TORY FoUl'~ad in 1~06, with headquarters in L~i~lie. Ky,, Br~ & ~l~ia~n was acquired by • e Briti~erican Tobacco Company (r~N B.A.T. Industries P.L.C.) in 1927 and Incorporated as ~e ~rov~ & ~lllsmson Tobacco ~8tlon. B.Aff. said In ~rll ~at ~ ~d ~ore~d Io bw ~ ~edc~n Tobacco ~mpaw fr~ ~ Brads i~ $1 bi111on In c~. "~RK~ Br~ & cigarette c~a~, with In es~mated 11 to 12 percent of the market, American Tobacco ~s abo~ 7 percent. IR~N~I Preml~ include K~I, Capri, Raleigh, Belair an~ BarcJay: ~isc~n[ brsn~s include GPC. Viceroy. RCh[and and Belair. American Tobacco brands incluOe Lucky Strike, Pail Mall, Carlton a, nd Tareyton, SALTS AND pllorr~l Last year Brown & W~liamson total doenestlc sales of $2.4 bi(lio~. B,A.T. cloes not break ou~ operating profit informa- lion for its United States operations: worldwide, Brown & Willlamson had a trading profit of $385 mi{lion ~ast year. PARENT COMPANY BAT. fnduslries P.L.C. is a London- based inlernatlonal manage. meat company with interests i~ toba, cco and financial ser- vices. It reporte¢11993 sales of $33,42 billion, its 1993 pre- tax ~rofit was $2.7 billion P, ALEIGH i preach, as the minutes show: *'He thought we should adopt the altitude that the causal link between lmoktnl and tung cancer was prey. an. because then at least we could not be any worse off." That, said BatCO'S ~aiTm~n, ~r. ~cCor- sick, would raise a problem. If the company m~kes safer brlnd~, he asked, "how to fy eontlnulng ~e ~le of o~er brands?" 'Dlffl~ll ~bllc Relations' He said: "It ~uld ~ ~dmlttinl that ~omo of Its pr~uct$ tlRcdy on the mirket ~ harmful. ~i~ w~ld ¢~ate.¢ YeW d~f~ult ~bH¢ relati~s situation" letted ~e ~mpany "~id I( le~¢[ nd~ the attitude ~ it ~ we~ ~b~t~n~ In smoke which we felt miiht ~aalbl~ ~ c=] Io health, IL w~ld ~. a I~d remo~ them, ~nd although the~e ~u]d ~ no p~of thlt we had Ichteved In.bin8 f~m the ~alth angle we ~uld be ma~nl a positive approach ~nd, If ~thlni else, ~ the quailly ol the p~uct." But what w~ld ~ch • ctimRtte taste lt~e, Mr. ~cCormlck said, How did t~y p~ose to sell ~ ~ p~uct. "~vini ~ken evew- thing ~t that could ~ Rot out?'* ~e discussion ~ moved ~ ~o thrOne- tits of nicotine as a "~arkable, beneficent d~l that ~th helps the ~dy to resist exter• nat stress and llso can as a ~sult show a pronnunced Iranqu~]}zin~ effect." Is Dr. put it, *'NicOtine is not only a YeW fine druB, but ~he techniques Of 8dmlntsLration hy Smnkini has ¢~sider~blo psycholoslcai td- In the tg70's, the documents show, th(~uv.h company executives were skeptical, their researchers pursued the goal of making a safer cigarette. In addition, because the re." searchers had [ound nicotine reduced atress, they were convinced that they could show that nicotine was beneficial, ~lthough addle. t~ve. ~ey were aJso optimistic thaL they' could eliminate the ha~rdous compon~lS of smoking. In ~o 19~'e and ~970's they would create" ~ ~w ~bstnn¢el to ~se ~s filters, new chemi. cals to ~ add~ to cIBa~ttes to e~nc~l the effe~s of others, t~d even • whole ne~ kind of cigaRt~e ~8t ~s~d mostly nl~tlne and lir with Just ~ ~ch 0f tobacco. ~ey ~- lt~ thl¢ t~y ~uid defer[ the ~81th prob- kms of tobacco. And it they war right, (he lucces~ of r~ea~h w~ld mesa ~at they ~ld never ~ed to speak publicly of the years when the hazards -- bu~ not the solu. tl~s -- had ~en ~ apparenL NEXT: Looking for a sorer way to smulze.