Tobacco Documents Online

PH I LJ P N1ORR I S I MICORPORATED INTE.R-OFFIiCE 00RRESP0NDE'N6E Seligman Surgeon Genera'1''s Report - Response Iin a recent memo, Mr. IIi. Culiman called for RI CHMONID, V IiR'61 N I A ~ ~ IiSOM1. & CONFIR171 II1L PE . Those Listed -: Date: February 12, 1981 and intramural activities. strategies'. These approaches divide into exttr'amural Research Center generated the fol!lowing plans and report. To th'at end, the technical management of the __ action plans to respond to the recent Surgeon General's EXTRAMURAL assertions arising, out of smoking and' healthistudi;es . Despite the fact that there are potential legal risks inidirectly supporting and publishing,studie's to expose these ill-foundedassertions,.it is felt that we must enter this arena. In fact, it may be too late al"ready to reverse the ground swell of'public opinion which has emerged as a result of'antismoking activity. The Tobacc Institute has made a valiant attempt to change public opinion, but they.have very little published informationlupon which to rely to support their efforts. Thus, proposedantismoking ordinances have been attacked on the basis of'peripheral issues rather than by confronting the basic scientific meritss of the smoking and healthiassertions underlying these proposed regulations. It would seem that the extant approach is a delaying,tactic at best; - it is not a strong advocate position. - The tobacco industry constantly is placed on the defensive and is forcedito take a relativelypassive stance in responding to que'stionable (or unfounde4) -

t . February 12',, 1981 . Frequently, and with increasing'regularity, major opinion that Philip Morris (or the-tobacco industry) take considered approachi-to blunt these attacks. It is our ' antismoking campaigns are mounted -based on insufficient. data. It is, therefore, vital that we take.a carefully which refutes specific assertions by the antismoking forces. a more ag,gressive posture to counterattack the antismoking movement. We"re suggesting funding studies.(primarily ~ outside the United States) with the intent to publish data Assuming this is an acceptable precept, we can contemplate various levels of involvement: _ ` 1)' Company Level --Controlled' a,nd' sponsoredby Philip Morris Incorporated. . Studies" would.be conducted to deal with domestic ' and international problems affecting thd ^ Corporation andits products. In all probability, the studies would deal with relatively short-term problems. A lower level of funding is anticipated compared to the other scenarios. Little pro bono inidustry work would be done but strategy.would be dictated by intelligent corporate self-interest and priorities. Z) Industry Level.- Confined to the domestic ' industry"s problems but recognizing,the affect ofadverse publications worldnvide. At present, attempts to fulfill this function rests with the Council for Tobacco Research and the Tobacco.Irnstitute but results have had relatively:lit'tle impact. These extant systems seem to lack a mechanism for establishing pertinent priorities and rapid response times..

Our proposed program would establish a deoision.-making body to'circumvent these deficiencies. Also, many of the s studlies would be directed to overseas laboratories. International Industry Level - Attempts .in individual .countries,.e.g., CTR, TAC,, and the Verband unfortunately have tended to respond to issues nationally rather -than internationally. This becomes increasingly ineffective when many of the attacks now are coming from inter- national bodies like WHO,, etc. Response must be global in concept becaus adverse reports from any ~ .country immediately have worldwide impact (viz. ;, - Hirayama, Froeb/White,- etc.). .Thus,, a major requirement would be to establisha an international order or priorities because of the aforementioned synergistic anidinter-. active affect of' today's rapid' communications. ., This level of involvement would be the most difficult to implement due to the diverse aims of' the large mainufacturers who would have to lead this endeavor. This is the most expensive alternate in which one could envision establishing a laboratory to deal with supranational problems. Some specific research suggestions follow. Implementation would vary depending on the authority level noted above. l) Studies on human beings (see addendum for details).

The affect of sidestream smoke on experimental animals on a long-term. basis. (See addendum for details.) Repeat suspect or incomplete studies, e.g., Froeb and White. Also, develop experimental approaches for such studies in animals. Explore the positive effects off smoking. In the United States, establish aa dialogue with the Surgeon General .to determine a reasoned approach to the question of additives. This may be of particular importance in the far distant future when we may contemplate the use of'other nicotinoids or no,n-nicotinoids as flavorants, etc. INTRAMURAL There are a number of programs which are in progress at the Research Center which address issues mentioned'by the Surgeon General.* These are delineated below along with several new, proposals: 1) Continue developing products which are of low biological potential. Lowering tar levels for all existing brands and producing, new brands in the ultra low_ tar category. Complete major CO-reduction programs for all existing brands, plus research into CO control via chemical, thermal, and microbial manipulation of the tobacco.

Those IListed J -5- February 12, 1981 Continued research to control .gas phase smoke (i.e., denitrification of` tobacco to control NO in mainstream 'smoke x Initiate sidestream smoke investigations to id'entify and control components. This is particularly germane because of'the general public's antagonism toward smoking caused!by the nonsmoker issue. '' Room aroma/odor are part of'f these investigations. 2) Develop a product with low ignition propensity aind' develop methodology to evaluate suchiproducts. Explore and define the action of nicotine in the humani, and if possible, optimize products utilizing,this knowledge. . Develop an effective screening system for all new additives and prepare documentation to support this. Conduct selective experiments on specific problems and be willing to publish these results in order to counter adverse external research. (Atmospheric monitoring, of gases, wYiichison-going, is an exampleofthis .). In conclusion, let us say that we are mindful of the potential risks inherent in conducting the proposed extramural studies. Perhaps, as scientists, our view of risk/benefit has been distorted by trying to do battle without armament. We feel, however, that tbe thrust of our antagonists' position has been refocused to the non- smoker. Perhaps we should reassess our own rislt/reward posture in this light. - D 0

February 12, 1981 Mr. W. W. McDowell Mr. S. P. Pollack Dr. H. Wa,kebam Mr. A. Holtzmann cc : Dr. W. A. 'Farone Dr. W. F. Gannon Mr. L. 'F. Meyer Dr. T. S. Osdene Mr. R. N. Thomson