Tobacco Documents Online

C C ADVERTISING AGE May 28, 1962 CJgreI arForces Build Fire Under U.S. Rule Makers Government Inertia, Medical Caution Seen Periling Smokers' Health WASHINGTON, May 24-There hass been~ intensive behind-the-scenes pressure for the government to: make some new moves in the con- troversy over cigaret smoking, and President Kennedy today nearly found himself squarely in the mid- dle. Some of the pressure originates from leading manufacturers of fil- ter tip cigarets, who feel exist- ing Federal Trade Commission ad- vertising regulations are unfair to them and harmfull to the smokingpublie. Other pressure comes from researchers and scientists, who fear that any change in the exist- ing government policies will lead to al resumption of, high pressure advertising for filters. The controversy picked upi mo« mentum a few weeks ago, after the Royal' College of, Surgeons is, sued a report! in Great Britain which reemphasized the health haz- ards which result from smoking. At the same time, however, the British report recommended that since smokers aren't likely to stop, they should be encouraged to smoke filter cigarets (AA, March 12).  Shortly after the British report appeared, the Federali Trade Com- mission staff' was confronted with appeals from some of the manufac- turers of filter tip cigarets for mod- ification of the provisions of the commission's advertising standards, which bar any ad' claim dealing with the effectiveness of filters. As a result of this: FTC policy, the companies said, the filter tips have been prevented from telling the public that filters result in Ipss tar and nicotine. One result, they say, has been a trend back to non- filter cigarets, which-they argue -is hardly a good thing for the public if there is any basis to thecontroversy over smoking hazards: The filter cigaret manufacturers feel they have been bullied! into a situation where they are prevent- ed from telling the public the truth about their products in their ads. So,far, however, no company has indicated a determination to test the commission's position, pos- sibly because the tobacco~ compa- nies are by no means eager t'o get int'o a public argument which would focus more publicity on~ the health hazard issue.  The President was drawn, un- expectedly intoithe controversy to- day by a press conference ques- tion which asked if he felt our government is doing all it should in the controversy over smoking. Caught off, guard, he sidestepped the question by declaring, "The matter is sensitive enough, an& the stock market is in sufficient dif- ficulty" without his attempting to give an answer not based on com- plete information. He said he would" be glad to respond in more detaili next week. W'hen the President looks into the situation, he will find' that! negotiations currently are undt'r way between, FTC and the U. S. Public Health Service to determine whether the government's official policy statement on eigaret smok- ing needs to be revised. Utlder a statement issued by the surgeon general in late 11959, the government takes the position that smoking represents a dt'finite haz- ard. FTC's ban on claims for fil- ters is based'. on a portion of the statement which implied' that there is no proof that the use of filters represents an effective safeguard against smoking hazards.  FTC's attitude, spellpd' out in ann industrywide agreement negotiated by the commission early in 1960, is based on the assumption that any claim for a filter is 3ut'oruati- cally a promise that the use of ±he filter provides a degree of health protection. In the current discus- sions with cigarPt manufacturers, FTC's st'aff has been taking thc position that this policy cannot be modified until the public health service prov.ides assurance that there really is some benefit to be achieved from~ smoking ffllters. The negotiations are tangled in a host of intramural snares peculiar to~ t'he scientific and bureaucratic worlds. Some government scientists are unwilling to be a party to any change in the attitude toward fil- ters, because they aren't sure there is any substantial health advantage involved.. One theory, which filter manu- facturers are trying to combat, holds that smokers burn up, larger ..:FJy.r~; .. ... numbers of the milder filter cig- arets;, so ~ that'~ their net' intake of tars and nicotines, may be at least as great as if they used non-filter cig- arets.  Some scientists also refuse to be a party to a policy statement which would result in ads emphasizing only the reduction in tars and nico- tine. They say other smoke ele- ments may also be harmful-such as phenol, which is eurrently com- ing under particular suspicion, and that an official policy which en- couraged the use of inadequate filters would not be justified. The Federal Trade Commission staff, however, is sensitive to the charge that the commission's ex- isting policy may be depriving fil- t'er makers of making truthful claims which could be of some value to smokers. Representatives of the commission have been ex- ploring the current attitude of the top scientists at the public health service to determine whether the 1959 statement should be modified. Recently, for example, Dr. IVti- chael Shitnkin, who is regarded as one of the leading experts at the public health service in the drafting ofa policy on tobacco,, was quoted, by Reader's Digest as supporting a proposal requiring a disclosure on cigaret labels of the amount of~ tar and nicotine in the smoke. #