Tobacco Documents Online

(; SMOKING AND YOUTH Philip Morris's position on this issue is that smoking is and should be an adult activity. And that selling cigarettes to minors is -- and should be -- illegal. None of our advertising is geared to inducing young people to smoke. All our ads and retail promotions use adult models who have to be -- and look -- over age 25. Within the past year, we created a program for the National Association of Convenience Stores to help stop the sale of cigarettes to kids. We launched an advertising campaign to remind manufacturers that Philip Morris would prosecute anyone using our trademarks on products made for children. We have taken action against dozens of marketers of toys, candies and other products used by children for unauthorized use of Philip Morris trademarks. Led by Philip Morris, the tobacco industry is tomorrow unveiling its most comprehensive and outspoken program yet to stop the illegal sale of cigarettes to minors. The industry has long held the view that smoking is an adult custom and cigarette manufacturers, for example: o do not advertise in publications directed primarily to persons under 21;

o do not use models in cigarette advertisements who are, or appear to be, under 25;; o do not distribute cigarette samples to persons under 21; and o do not distribute cigarette samples within two blocks of any centers of youth activity, such as playgrounds and schools. To supplement the steps listed above, the industry o not advertise cigarettes on billboards within 500 feet of schools and playgrounds; o not distribute cigarette product samples in or on public streets, sidewalks or parks, except in places that are open only to persons to whom cigarettes lawfully may be sold. Samples will be distributed in such places only to person 21 or older; o conduct no mail distribution of cigarette product samples without written, signed certification that the addressee is 21 or older, a smoker and wishes to receive a product sample;

o not distribute cigarettes in direct response to requests by telephone; o conduct no mail distribution of nontobacco items bearing cigarette brand names, logos, etc., without written, signed certification that the addressee is 21 or older, a smoker and wishes to receive the premium; o conduct no other distribution of nontobacco premium items bearing the cigarette brand names, logos, etc., except with the purchase of a package or carton of cigarettes or to persons 21 or older; o distribute clothing bearing cigarette brand names, logos, etc., in adult sizes only; o not engage in paid movie product or cigarette advertising placements. # # #

ADVERTISING AND TOBACCO CONSUMPTION Advertising does not induce young people to smoke. Even former Surgeon General Koop conceded that he could not find a connection. Research shows that people who start to smoke usually emulate the example of parents, peers and other people they know. # # #

INTERNATIONAL ISSUES First, the majority of our cigarette exports are to industrialized nations in Europe and Asia, where we compete against local and other international brands from Asia, Europe and the U.S. Second, contrary to what you might hear from anti-smoking sources, smoking is an established custom long standing in developing, or newly industrialized, of countries. And most cigarettes marketed by Philip Morris are equal to or lower in tar and nicotine content than locally made brands. In that connection, governments citing health effects as a reason for opposing the introduction and sale of Philip Morris and other U.S. brands may actually be protecting their own cigarette monopolies from foreign competition. Governments are in the cigarette business in Japan, Korea, China as well as in Italy, France and all the former Eastern Bloc countries. Owl

HEALTH: THE PRIMARY ISSUE We acknowledge statistical associations between cigarette smoking an some human diseases. Most scientists would agree that statistical association does not prove causation. We believe that the potential risks associated with smoking are well-publicized and understood everywhere, and that those who make an adult, mature decision to smoke accept the possibility of risk in the same way as they accept the potential risk associated with such diet and lifestyle choices as eating red meat, drinking alcoholic beverages, skiing or driving sports cars. We further believe that adults should be free to weigh the risks and benefits and make their own lifestyle choices. # # # N O N W N ~ CW 04 CO

HEALTH: ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE (ETS) This issue is now under review by the Environmental Protection Agency and they will make recommendations at the end of that review. #

SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES ON THE EPA AND ETS. The ETS issue revolves around the question of whether exposure to a smoker's tobacco smoke causes lung cancer in non-smokers. Two draft reports on ETS issued -- and widely publicized -- by the Environmental Protection Agency that there is a link between ETS and lung cancer in non-smokers. We believe otherwise. It is our opinion, and that of many reputable imply scientists, that causation has not been established... And that ETS epidemioligical studies are not capable of determining a causal relationship with any disease. Scientific evidence supports our view. First, EPA's draft reports rely almost exclusively on fundamentally flawed epidemiology. Every EPA study of ETS falls under the scientific category of "weak association." Second, the largest study on ETS and lung cancer ever done shows no statistically significant increased risk of disease in the workplace, in the home or in social settings. And third, of the 24 studies reviewed for EPA's draft reports, 19 show no statistically significant relationship. The remaining five studies were conducted outside the United States, and each contains serious methodological flaws. Last week headlines were made when a scientific panel purportedly endorsed a draft EPA risk assessment alleging a

~.i:i........_ ~......_..... __._.__... ._,.._ ..____.... ....... . .. link between ETS and an increased risk of disease among non-smokers. The panel - The Science Advisory Board - was specially constituted by the EPA to serve a peer review function and assess the draft risk assessment in light of public comments. The public comment process culminated in the two days of hearings, at the conclusion of which the Board was to have adjourned to allow its members the time to review the extensive volume of comments submitted. Instead, to our consternation - and that of other Board members - the committee chairman simply called a press conference and announced the Board endorsed the EPA's draft findings. That was an abuse of the process, an affront to peer review and a disservice to everyone who was legitimately interested in the whole Board's considered evaluation. # # #