NYSA TI Multipage 2
_LEMOR_DUM To: D. Milway From: F, Duhaime
Abstract
Status of TI Defensive Strategies Toward the Coalition on Smokin~ OR Health's Blueprint for Action
Fields
- NYSA numbers
- 0097 B1793 03A
- Named Organization
- American Cancer Society
- American Heart Association (Voluntary health organization that focuses on cardiac health)
Voluntary health organization that focuses on cardiac health and stroke. AHA occasionally teams with tobacco retailers to engage in promotions/fund-raisers (see http://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247136.html and http://www.rawbw.com/~jpk/stand/Pictures.html).- Coalition on Smoking OR Health (public action arm of the National Interagency Council on Smo)
- Council for Tobacco Research - USA (CTR) (Formerly Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC))
Originally organized as the Tobacco Industry Research Committe(TIRC) in 1954, and renamed Council for Tobacco Research - USA, Inc. (CTR) in 1964.- *Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
- Harvard Medical School
- Harvard School of Public Health
- Information Center
- National Interagency Council on Smoking and Health
- Office on Smoking and Health
Responsible for creating reports on the health effects of smoking. Created by the Public Health Service.- Ohio State University
- Ted Bates & Company (Advertising agency for BW)
Advertising agency for Brown & Williamson and other tobacco companies.- Tobacco Institute (Industry Trade Association)
The purpose of the Institute was to defeat legislation unfavorable to the industry, put a positive spin on the tobacco industry, bolster the industry's credibility with legislators and the public, and help maintain the controversy over "the primary issue" (the health issue).- University of Arizona
- University of Denver
- Washington University in St. Louis
- American Heart Association (Voluntary health organization that focuses on cardiac health)
- Named Person
- Blackwell, Roger D., Ph.D. (Marketing Professor; U of Penn, Industry Expert)Mr. Blackwell is an Expert on Marketing and Communications. He gave a deposition in the Cipollone v. Liggett, et al case that was 256 pgs on 10/20/87. (PMI's Revised Initial Disclosure, June 27, 1996)
- Garfinkel, Lawrence (Epidemiology & Statistics VP, ACS, Plaintiff's Expert)
Lawrence Garfinkel was an American Cancer Society official. He did a study which disputed a "Japanese Study" of early 1980s that concluded nonsmoking wives of smokers had a higher cancer rate than the smoking husbands (E. Whelan 1984). In an early 1980s ad, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company quoted Garfinkle, out of context, to attempt to prove that passive smoking is not an important health-policy issue. Garfinkle protested by letter to the N.Y. Times (L. White, Merchants 1988).- Goldbeck, Willis
- Judge, Curtis H. (RJR Bd of Direct. '67-69, VP Mrkting '68; CEO of Lorillard)
Curtis H. Judge served on the RJR Board of Directors from 1967-1969, Vice President of Marketing in 1968, and on the Advertising Committee. (Source: RJR Who's Who NMLRP)Also, CTR director, President of Lorrillard during 1970s-1980s.- Lee, Philip R.
- Light, Larry, Ph.D. (Ted Bates & Co. Executive VP)
- Mendelsohn, Harold
- Warner, Kenneth E., Ph.D (Plaintiff's expert, health care costs)
Plaintiff- Waxman, Henry A. (U.S. Representative)
(D-CA) Was chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Health and the Environment in 1994.- Weis, William L. (Seattle University School of Business)
Expressed the idea that smoking employees cost employers more than nonsmokers - Garfinkel, Lawrence (Epidemiology & Statistics VP, ACS, Plaintiff's Expert)
- Date Loaded
- 27 Jan 2005
- Box
- 5619. Miscellaneous Issue Material
- Taxes - Economic Impact Studies
- Folder
- Smoking or Health Defensive Strategies: Status, 10/83
- Division
- State Activities
Document Images
~LEMOR~DUM
October 6, 1983
To: D. Milway
From: F, Duhaime
Re:
Status of TI Defensive Strategies Toward the Coalition
on Smokin~ OR Health's Blueprint for Action
Plans for Institute/industry attention were developed in August
1982 in response to the Coalition on Smoking OR Health's
Blueprint for Action against the tobacco industry. Three plans
developed by Information Services for overview and monitoring
actions addressed the questions of:
o corporate smoking control policies
o non-smoker insurance discounts
o smoking and organized religion.
Action steps proposed by Information Services were implemented on
each of these issuesJ In addition, the SDI system directed by
the Information Center.serves as a continuing means of.monitoring
these topics for issues management personnel,
In the year since the original plans were drafted, the National
Conference has altered the focus of its anti-tobacco efforts
somewhat. Consequently, in July of this year, a request was made
of Information Services to develop brief "talking papers~' on the
ten group topics discussed at the 1981 conference. Six of the
ten topics were not addressed by Information Services because the
subject matter was best handled by persons working regularly in
scientific/medical issues or the issue is one in which The
Institute does not generally become involved (e.g., "Prevention
of Smoking Through Comprehensive School Health.") Those topics
which required particular scientific expertise are being reviewed
by Scientific Affairs for development of an appropriate response.
The "talking papers" developed on the remaining four topics are
included here as Attachment A.
In recent months, The Institute has also developed a wide-ranging
program to address the problem of workplace smoking
restrictions. The~~hree.monitoring ~plans on corporate smoking
policies, insurance, and smoking and.religion have thus, to a
large-degree, evolved~as a part'-of--the ~orkp~ace-program.
T109191358
Smoking and Organized Religion -- Continuing monitoring of
published material has uncovered no denominational or individual
pronouncements against the use of tobacco in the United States.
More significantly, the Coalition did not include mention of
actions or alliances ~ith any organized religious body in its
revised Blueprint. An interdenominational conference which would
address the topic of religion and smoking has been tentatively
scheduled for November in North Carolina. There is a possibility
that this event will be cancelled; however, in the event that it
does take place, plans have been made to cover it.
Non-Smoker Insurance Discounts -- A surve~ ~as conducted of all
state departments of insurance in order to determine the dimension
of the practice of offering lower premium rates to non-smokers.
Responses received from all states indicated that state
departments overseeing insurance do not keep track of such
policies. A search was conducted which resulted in development of
a list of companies which offer such policies, This list was
included in the Sept. 3, 1982 package, C &~=,~.~ ~-~,~
Because of its obvious ~i~_~.to employer decision-making, this
As part of this effort, on Sept. I, 1983, Public Relations
received a study proposal from IMSINC, a research organization
with extensive industry experience,.to conduct a study on
non-smoker insurance discounts. The proposal (Attachment B)
outlines a plan to conduct research on companies involved, pricing
policies and marketing practices.
Corporate Smoking Control .Policies --.The~purpose of this plan ~as.
to.provide a basis from which to develop an industry.program on
the~.issue. It included a collection of policies from field staff~
on-line and manual searchs, and development of a bibliography on
the topic . This package was developed and distributed to the
Executive Committee. as part of the rationale for developing an
overall strategy on workplace smoking control policies. This
topic has thus also become a component of the workplace program.
As with the other targeted issues, monitoring of electronic and
print media outlets is continuing to detect changes in focus or
emphasis on all of these topics.
Attachments
D. Albinson
K. Becker
A. Duffin
T109191359
~roup 4: Smokin~ Control in ~he Workplace
The objective of ~his group was "to develop strategies to
substantially increase the number of employers carrying out smoking
reduction con~ro! activities in the workplace." To achieve this
objective, the following courses of action were recommended:
!. Create a model corporate policy for smoking con=ro!.
II.
Develop financial incentive s~rategies and information for
the involvement and commitment of organizational leaders in
smoking control activities.
llI. Increase and improve resources available for worksite
programs.
IV.
Develop incentives for employees to quit smoking as a
positive life-style change.
Employee smoking control policies need to be supported by a
varied program provided within the context of a broad
approach to smoking control and wellness.Encourage
government at all levels to facilitate worksite policies
and programs.
Vll. Increase the awareness of passive smoking as a potential
worksite health issue.
DISCUSSION
The recommendations made by the group on workplace smoking are
supposedly supported by a companion paper, "Smoking: A Challenge to
Worksite Health Management." The paper was authored by Anne
Kiefhaber and Willis Goldbeck, employees of the Washington Business
Group on Health. This organization, headed'by Goldbeck, has been
criticized for taking positions that are at odds with those of. other
business groups and its corporate members. In fact, Goldbeck has
said, "'We try to be a little bit ahead an~ still listen to our
members. Bu~ I would prefer to err [on the side of] pushing too
hard.'"*
Clearly, on the issue of smoking in ~he workplace, Goldbeck -
and the work group - is erring on the side of "pushing too hard." In
the Kiefhaber/Goldbeck paper, ~here are inaccuracies and incomplete
~ Demkovich, "On Health Issues, This Business Group Is a Leader, But
Is Anyone Following?," National Journal, p. 1278 (June 18, 1983).
T109191360
discussions of key aspects of the issue, obfuscating rather zhan
clarifying the examination of workplace smoking. The following
examples demonstrate the obvious weaknesses:
"Fact: It is acceptable to ban any employee behavior that
is known to be unsafe to either that worker or fellow
workers. Smoking is clearly such an activity." (p. 131)*
While the authors may believe such a ban on smoking is
acceptable, at least two courts have held that where
an employer unilaterally imposes a smoking ban, the
collective bargaining agreement was breached.
Further, there is no conclusive evidence that
cigarette smoking causes disease in smokers or
nonsmokers. These are facts that must be considered
when examining workp-'~ce smoking. The issue is not as
simple and clearcut, as Kiefhaber and Goldbeck would
have the reader believe.
[C]oncern for liability if nonsmoking policies are
interpreted as an infringement on employees righhs is an
excuse for delaying or rejecting such policies." (p. 132)
Smoking control policies of the nature advocated by
this group are an infringement on employees rights.
Workplace smoking restrictions, in addition to being a
form. of-corporate paternalism, unfairly discriminate
against the smoking employee. It is simplistic and
incorrect to argue that businesses which seek to avoid
such paternalism and discrimination by not imposing
smoking controls are making "excuses".
"[O]ne unmistakeable conclusion: reducing, much less
stopping, smoking is virtually guaranteed to. produce a very
welcome return on investment." (p..133)
In support of this dubious contention are offered,
among ochers, the claims of William Weis, the Seattle
professor who states chat each smoker costs an
employer $4,611 per year. Weis' work has been
~ Page references are made to "National Conference on Smoking OR
Health - Developing a Blueprint for Action," New York, N.Y., (Nov.
18-20, 1981).
2
TI09191361
criticized strongly by Dr. Lewis So!mon, dean of the
UCLA'Graduate School. Solmon identified a major flaw
in~4~m~Weis' so-called "research": the assumption
that his cost categories (e.g., increased
absenteeism, decreased pro~d~ivity) are affected
primarily or solely by employee smoking. In addition
to its faulty survey methods (e.g., Weis surveyed
only employers who had smoking control policies), a-Ne--
Weis' work is of questionable validity because of
inaccurate statistical analysis and selective use of
statistics.
"The National Interagency Council on Smoking and Health
surveyed 3,000 companies of varying sizes and locations
Ion the issue of workplace smok~ngJ." (p. 136)
This statement is factually incorrect. The NICSH
mailed 3,000 questionnaires. Only 856 - not 3,000 -
usable responses were received for use in the
survey. It is blatantly misleading and inaccurate to
state that 3,000 companies were "surveyed."
Kiefhaber and Goldbeck cite =he Speedcall Corporation as a
successful example of a corporate smoking cessation
program. (pp. 138-139) The use of Speedcall as a model
is ironic. According to research from the Harvard School
of Public Health ("Kicking the Cigarett6 Habit: A Company
Benefit", April 1982), the program did not demonstrate "a
significant reduction in absenteeism among employees since
the program began,.."
"The recent studies on the health effects of involuntary
smoking or breathing air contaminated with exhaled smoke
have put increased pressure on employers to establish
smoking restrictions or bans." (p. 143)
The studies to which the authors allude are those
conducted by Hirayama and Whi~e/Froeb - "public"
smoking studies which have been discredited in the
scientific community. Hirayama's claim that wives of
heavy smokers had a higher risk of dying from lung
cancer has been described by one group of scientists
as "not...very well founded." Lawrence Garfinkel of
the American Cancer Society reported findings from a
larger American study which contradicted Hirayama's
conclusion.
T109191362
The %,[hite/Froeb study, which stated that people
exposed to smoke in the workplace over long periods
of time have reduced small ai~,,ays function in the
lungs, has been heavily criticized by scientists and
health prac~ioners, For example, Dr. Michael D.
Lebowi=z, Professor of Internal Medicine, University
of Arizona, observed, "The results of this study
cannot be used to demonstrate an effect of passive
smoking on forced expiratory flows in adults exposed
in the workplace." Lebowitz, commenting further,
said the study was "improperly designed" and that
"there are problems with the whole data set and with
the conclusions."
4
T109191363
Group 5: High Priority. Federal Goverrnmental Initiatives
This group had as its objective the elimination of
smoking-related disability and death. To attain this objective,
the work group, led by Philip R. Lee, ~,~., made three specific
recommendations:
Enactment by the U.S. Congress of an increased federal
excise tax on cigarettes of three to four times its
current level (eight cents at the time of the
recommendation).
Passage by Congress of the "Comprehensive Smoking
Prevention Act" (H.R. 1824) proposed by Rep. Henry Waxman
which would require:
a)
b)
c)
maintenance of the Office on Smoking and Health,.
rotating warning labels on cigarette packages and
in cigarette advertising, and
disclosure of all chemical additives used in
cigarettes.
Expansion and strengthening of federal smoking preven$1on
and information programs, specifically, adequate funding
for the Office on Smoking and Health, school health
education programs, and other education initiatives such
as production of a postage stamp detailing the alleged
hazards of smoking.
Federal Excise Tax
Kenneth E. Warner, PhD., argues in "The Federal Excise Tax"
that federal cigarette excise taxation is "a fair and effective
prevention measure" that will discourage individuals from starting
to smoke or from enjoying smoking. According to him, use of the
tax is "an effective policy tool for delivering themessage that
smoking has costs, for both the individual and society." If it is
accompanied by a broad education program on the hazards of
smoking, a three- to four-fold increase in the federal cigarette
excise tax rate can "work to assist smokers to reduce their
smoking, and to deter non-smokers from developing the habit."
Although cigarette taxation, compared with that on other
products, is already InequitaOly high, opponents of smoking
continue to urge the government to increase it as a method of
reducing cigarette use. This raises the question of whether it is
proper for government to interfere with the private lives of
citizens by inequitably taxing a legal product, thereby limiting
consumer purchases of that product.
T109191364
A government that unwisely uses it taxation policy may find
that it has created for i~self an economically embarrassing
situation. Excessive cigarette taxation could bring about a
decline in cigarette use, resulting in a reduction of tobacco
industry income, which has always been a fruitful source of
government revenue. Since the doubling of the federal excise tax
on cigarettes January 1 of this year, taxable removals from bonded
premises have dropped 6.1% for the first half of calendar year
1983. Results for all of 198B are expected to show a decrease of
approximately 5% from 1982 levels. This decrease has an impact on
the tobacco companies, wholesalers and retailers, and also on the
federal and state governments which made budgetary decisions based
on their tax revenue projections.
Some points for consideration about the Federal Excise Tax:
o
Governments should resist the temptation to use taxation
for any reasons other than to raise the tax revenues
Justified by pure economic requirements.
o
High cigarette taxes wrongly discriminate against smokers
with low incomes who must pay the same tax rate per pack
as smokers with high incomes.
o
Very high levels of cigarette taxation run the risk of
providing an incentive to smuggle cigarettes into the
country concerned, particularly in ~hose countries which
have long, easily penetrable borders. Successful
smuggling inevitably results in a loss of government
revenue and damage to the domestic tobacco industry.
o
Neutral observers consider it possible that, if cigarette
taxation is high enough to reduce the number of cigarettes
which consumers smoke (as desired by the opponents of
smoking), this could change how they smoke or what they
smoke in a manner which would not be approved by those who
contend that smoking is injurious to health.
o
Tax authorities should consider the consequences of
improperly using their authority to change personal
behavior.
Comprehensive Smokin5 Prevention Act
Public understanding of the alleged health hazards of
smoking, the effectiveness of existing warning labels on cigarette
packages, and recommended roles of informing the public about the
claimed health consequences of smoking were challenged by work
group member and health consultant Jane E. Fullarton, in "Federal
Initiatives with a High Potential for Success."
2
T109191365
Surveys show that a majority of people, including a majority
of smokers, say they are aware of claims that smoking is a health
hazard. Nevertheless, says Fullarton, "even this majority is
inadequately informed about the magnitude and nature of the risk."
Further progress in this area, she claims, is blocked "not from
deficiencies in knowledge, but rather from deficiencies in
national will." Although the existing label was "a reasonable
attempt to inform the public and to remedy the pro-cigarette
advertising of the tobacco industry," new research, combined with
"the decade of exposure to the same warning, have led to the
belief that a new informational strategy, including a new warning
system, is necessary." Passage of the "Comprehensive Smoking
Prevention Act" should therefore be a federal priority, according
to Fullarton.
An important component of the proposed Act is the required
disclosure of additives used in the production of cigarettes.
Fullarton and the work group support the contention that "while
flavorings used are usually selected from substances generally
considered safe to humans, such standards do not guarantee that
the flavorings are safe when burned." Because most of the
products and processes are considered proprietary information, she
argues, "it is not now possible to assess this aspect of the
safety of cigarettes." Fullarton concludes, passage of the Act is
necessary to compel cigarette companies to disclose the additives
they use in the production of cigarettes.
The industry argues that H.R. 1824 and its Companion bill
S.772 are premised on the contention that adult consumers of
tobacco products are not aware of the allegations concerning
smoking and health. The evidence proves the contrary. The
warning on cigarette packs, extended by consent of the tobacco
industry to appear in all advertisements, has been published more
than 525 billion times on the packs alone. National opinion polls
have shown a virtual universal awareness among Americans of the
claimed risks of smoking.
Curtis H. Judge, president of Lorillard and chairman of The
Tobacco Institute executive committee, emphasized in his testimony
in opposition to H.R. 1824 that the real issue at stake "is
whether this country will have a national policy of choice or of
compulsion, of public information or of public conformity."
"In view of its sponsors, the measure of effectiveness of
H.R. 1824 will not be the degree to which the public is aware of
with them." The bill's sponsors will only consider She p~-bllc ~o
be "informed" of the claims that smoking is harmful if they
conform to the official goverm~en$ llne and sSop smoking.
T109191366
F~rCher, the work group's recommendation and the provision of
the legislation that would require annual disclosure of
ingredients to Congress completely ignore the existing disclosure
agreement worked out last year in good faith between the cigarette
manufacturers and the Department of Health and Human Services.
That agreement, unlike the proposed legislation, maintains the
confidentiality of trade secrets. In accordance wi~h that
agreement, the manufacturers have made available to HHS a list of
their commonly used ingredients and those ingredients used in
large quantities by any single manufacturer.
Some points for consideration about the proposed
Comprehensive Smoking Prevention Act:
Dr. Harold Mendelsohn, a researcher in mass communications
at the University of Denver, told a House subcommittee
that current rates of cigarette smoking would change
little "even if every man, woman and child in the country
could score I00 percent on any test of information
regarding the possible hazards."
Adoption of the rotating system of more specific health
notices on cigarette packs which would "apply primarily to
older people and pregnant women," would have as its
probable effect "to reduce drastically the impact of the
warning statement on young people," according to Dr. Roger
Blackwell, a consumer behavior expert at Ohio State
University.
Dr. Larry Light, executive vice president of Ted Bates
Advertising, said that 90 percent public awareness of the
Surgeon General's warning can be considered deficient only
if backers of the bill seek perfect awareness. "Such a
standard is totally unattainable," he said. "It is
conceptually unreachable. It is impossible."
Sponsors of the legislation seem to follow the belief that
if consumers do not behave as you behave, then they must
be uninformed. If they do not choose as you choose, then
they must be tgnorant. If they do not believe as you
believe, then they must be unaware.
4
T109191367
