Tobacco Documents Online

STRICTLY PRI VATE AND CONFIDENTIAL !~ C!/? u., L (,J-.0 JULY 17, 196) tiv 1~ Jt E x>pPO I d: lr i C,,1, 1>~LlcAnoc~s oF ~~ ~ a 'iZ-IF f:R rFf•TiTFr Fii TFR rc1 lc a. "' The determination by Battelle of the'tranquiliring" function of nicotine, as roceivedby the human system ~~ in the deli'vered smoke of cigarettes, together with nicotine's possible effect on obesity, delivers to the ,~ , inditstry what well may be its first efPoctive instrument of propaganda counter to that of the Amencan Cancer Society, et al, danuning cigarettes as having a causal relationship to canccr of the lung. Tbe Battellc work is not in any dcgrcc n n,onsive to that indictmcstt nor to the report expected to be returned by the Surgeon Generat'a Committee on Smoidng and Hcslth. I would submit, however. that the Griffith filter offers the bridge over which the industry might pass from its present terrain of defense to a deld for effective counter attack using the Battelle study as the basic weapon. I will asswne for purpose of this note that the "GriiSth filter" is one which pertttits filtration to specitcation; it filters sclcctively. both qualitatively and quantitatively. It can deliver taste and nicotine (and nicotine in even more effective form) free of constituent ill to infinity. selectively. I grossly overstate and oversimplify Dr. Griffith's claims del ibuately. The problem is simple, if the answers are eomplex. Assumc the Surgeon f3encral'a Conunittce concludea (whatever the jargon of scientific analysis and to whatever degree specific) that there u rea1 ind compelling evidence of a ceusal - or even a strongly `predisposinE' relation between smoking and caacer.. Cardiovascular disorders will in all probability, also be found related to smoking. Upon tharevent, it would scem clettr to me the industry must do two things. I Whatever qualifications we may asacrt to minimize the impact of the Report, we mmw face the fact that a responsible and qualified group of previously non-commiued scientists and medical authorities have spoken. One would suppose we would not repeat Dr. l.ittle's ofl reiterated'not pcoven'. One would hope the industry would not ag'tratativcly and not merely react defensively. Wc must, I think recognize that in defense of the industry and in preservation of its prcsuu earnings position, we must either a) disprove the theory of causal relationship or b) discover the carcinogen or carcinogens, cacarcinogens, or whatever, And demonstrate our ability to remove or neutralize them. This means that we must embark - tn whatever form of organization - on massive and impressively financed research into the etiology of c:anctr as it relates to the use of tobacco; what constituents or combination of constituents in cigarette smoke cause or arc conducive to cancer of the lung, Certainly one would hope to prove there is no ctiological' factor in smoke but thc odds are greatly against suooess in the effort At the besl, the probabilities are that some combination by constituents of smoke will be found conducive to the onset of cancer or to crrats an environment in which cancer is more likely to ocxur. The TIRC cannot, in my opinion, provide the vehicle for such rrsearch. It was concciv+cd as a public rclations gesture and (however undefiled the Scicntific Advisory Board and its grants may be) it has functioned as a public 'rclations opetation`. Moreover its orraruxation. certainly in its presert t form. does not allow the breadth of ro.cearch - cancer, emphysema, cardiovasatlar disorders, etc. - essential to thc prot.cction of the tobacco industry. I suggest that for the new research effort we enlist the cooperation of the Surgeon General, the Public Health Service„ the American Cancer Socicty. the American I-Icart Association, Amrri= Medical Association and any and all other responsible health agencies or medical or scientific associatione concerned with the qucstion of tobacco and heah,h. The new effort t3wuld be conducted by a new organi7ation lavishly financed, autonomous, self pcrpentatine, and uaecorrolltd savc that its efforu be confined to the single problem oEtfie relation of tobacco to human hc.`attn- Thua to accept its responsibility would, I aggcst, frae the industry to take a much more aggressive posture to meet atiack. It would in particular free the industry to attadc the Surgeon General's Report itself by pointing out its gaps and omiaaions, its reliance on statistics, its lack of clinical evidettee, dc., etc. True we might worsen our situation in litigation, but that I would risk in contemplation of the greater bencfits 1 c1c Jut JYl1'.~ ci J

• • . ... ... I -- -J I I -.. ~• J~~Lru.~a i . c1 LJU I' J`t I i : i: J/J' to be derivadfrom going on the offensive. My record of advice in this area may well justify the charge of Wc+•ssteacy, but let me say that so long as the indtutry does not assume its research responsibility my tong-he[d position would remain unchanged and I would oppose either outright snacks on the Surgoon Generr,tl's Report or the giving of assurance to the smoking public not supportcd by research evidcncc. There is however the problem of what to do until the doctor comes and this leads me to the second of the two measures I would urge the industry to take: 2) Thc Surgeon General's Report wilt, of course, set off attacks all along the line. Our hanhcr critics - Senators Moss and Neuberger, the Amcriczr Cantxr Socieuy, ct al - will 'unnuodiaLdy press for all sorts of restrictive and repressive programs: a) Public education dii+ected particul.arly at the young. b) Much harshcr FTC rules in respect of cigarette advertisin'g, with restriction of the scopc and control of content thereof. One might anticipate rules seeking to prevent the use of 'gtamatr sittaations'% endorsements including those of athleks, prominent entertaiament 5gures, etc., and qoite lilcely an effort to bar tobacco advertising from television and radio. e) "Content" labeling or cautionary legends. d) FTC to be fine power of preGminary injunction in nerpect of cigarette ad'verti:ing c) Repr+css.ive taxanon. To meet these tlumats, which will arise not merely at the Federal but at the state level as well, the Tobacco Institute is available but it can be effcctive only if the industry ahandons its eiittorous approach to the Institnte as a functioning trade aswciation. It should be noted that current actmdes in the Institute indicate, indeed, that the attitude is beginning to change and it is to be hoped that our present dangers may ltuther that progress. Even to outline the possible defensive and offensive programs the Institute might engage in to meet the dangers I have prophcsied is far beyond the scope of this note. I must confess that I have heretodorc rather opposed the idea of attempting to make forward plans before the Surgeon General's Rcport is issued, but I am beginning to bclievc that perhaps a session of company przaidents to consider the possibilities of such pre-planning might be desirabk. To aceotnplish anything eQective, the Institute needs the leadership of a strong tobaeco fiaure_ e.g.. Albert Clay, Paul Hahn, etc., a highly expert trade assodation staff Including experienced and respected lobbyisu attd, lastty, such adornments af public 6gutzs as appearance and occasion warrant. The question unmodiatety arises: how would such aggressive posture effed litigation? With one exception (Green v. American Tobacco Co.), those actions which have gone to judgment wcre won by the defendants on the defease of assumption of risk. The iitsuance of the Surgeoa Genaal'a Report wiu, tn my opinlon, insure the aticasc of that defense as to causes of action arising in the fnnu+e if the induat:v can steel itself to issUiAg a warninit. I have no wish to be tarred and featherod, but I would wggs the industry might serve itxlf on several fronts if It voluntarily adupted a padcagc legend such as 'accessive use of this product may be injurious to health of sustxptible petsons' and would embody such a icgend in pica in its print adversising. This is so controversial a suggestion - indeed shocking - that I would rather not try to anticipate thc argumenis against it in this note but reacrvc my dcfrax. It is difficult to assess the effect of the Report of eatt,ses of action arising prior to its issuance. Logically, it would be argued the ReporCdoes no more than to collate pretxisting knowkdge, Itnowledge as svailabk to the buyer as the seller. But logic might in the minds of a jury - yidd to the enodonal rcact.ion that if

this kno'~ lodge was available to the sciler it was up to him, having the means o do so, to make thc produet aafa. A jury might, whether insuucted or nott operate on the theory of eomparative negFie.ence: 'Truc the bcryer was negiigcnt in smoking a product he knew was dangerous, but he was lulled by the seller and the scliees negligence as the greater in failing to make his product safe.- All onc can say is that the Report will in all probability greatly complicate the litigation problem. Now at long Last I come back to the Battcllc report and the (3riffith filter. If Dr. Griffitb is no more than on the trail of cffeeti've contr+alled filtration, we should conduct our planning on the assumption of ayoctsa. Iiattelle says: "i'he rea5ons for the `plcasttrc of smoking' must be found partly in the relicf of anxiety that dgarette smoking brings so constantly, and in such a very short time. "This aedauve - or soothing - effect of cigarette smoking and of niootine is how+cver very diQerent from the'tranquilizing' e.ffoct as it was defined by pharmacalogistt.ltet the discovery of the Raawolfia aihsloids. Traaqtsilizer are highly cffective in the management of orrractive psychotic patients an4 as stsch, arc largely used in psychiatry;, nicotine is certainly devoid of such eftxts. "Our investigation dcfinitely shows that both kinds of drugs (Rauwrotfia alkaloids and mcotinc) act quite differently, and that nicotine may baconsideud (its eardiovascular effeas not being contemplated here) as more 'bene8cial' - or less noxious - that ttu new tiwnquilizet, from some very important points of view. 'The so-rrlled bencficial' cftccts of nicotine are of tao lcinds' ' 1) Ensancing effect on the pituitary-adrenal response to stmss~ -2) Regulation of body weight. 'Thesc effects do not seem to bc shared'by rescrpine, whicb on the contrary shows nadesirable siM,actions that are not given by nicotine, ic., a nrarly complete blockade of gonadic and thyroid activities, reflecting most probably a gencral blockage of the hypoetulamo•piniitary system, which normally controls all the endocrine activities. Morcover, nicotine is addictive- We are, then, in the business of selling nicotine, an addictive drug eSective in the release of stres: mochanisms. But cigarettes - we will aasume ttu Surgeon aenual': Committee to say - despite the beneficent efTect of nicotine, have ecrtain unattrac.tive side effects: 1) They cause, or pnedispose to, lung cancer. 2) They contribute to certain cardiovascular disorders. 3) They may well bc truly causative in emptrysema, etc., etc. N ~ We chalknge those charge: sad we have assumeQ our obligation to detcrminc t2teir t:uth or falsity by creating the new Tobacco Research Foundation, ln the meantime (aro tay) htre is our triple, or quadruple or quiniuple 8lter, capable of removing whatever conatituettt of cmoice is currentlystupea while delivering full flavor - and incidentally - a nice jolt of niootittie. And if we arc the fX$ to be able to make and sustain that daim, what price Kdtt1

.,.4 zi-,n , arn,N;. l t l l?~' KrJtM(,..-• 1'112' tJU 7 54l l:9 5/ 5 . Dare we as a matter of policy make such clvtns? If they are true and if wc make no claim of frccdorn from danger - indcrd, if we cry caution - why should we not? t would submit that the fTC in the face of 1) the indusuy's research effort, 2) the truth of our claims, and 3) the 'public interest" in our hlter, cannot sucocssfully deny us the tight to inform thc public. As for litigation. it would be my opinion that we would not put ourselves in substantially wordcned poation and in any cyent a spcceufitl Avalon could be expected to satisfy a number of judge:aents for daauges. Hnvc we an obligation to make our knowledge available to our compctitors? If thc Griffith claims stand up and when we have perfected t3u Gcifftth filter and stocked, the ncctscary machinery, ett.. than I suggCSt therc fs strong mornl obligation on us a makc our knowledge public and free. And think of thc kudos. I will be vastly surpriscd if such disclosure markcCly adds to our campctitors' knowledp but that is beside the point. Tba point it: On thir, new tcrrain, permitting strong offensive actior>, we go therr fust with the IDoS=