Tobacco Documents Online

New Project Parents for Priorities Create a network of parental organizations that would force elected officials and anti-smoking organizations to focus on important public/ community issues such as crime and education. These organizations could generate a credible media response to challenges posed by government agencies (Surgeon General) and anti-smoking activists. For example, when Joe Cherner offered a million dollars to the city of New York for anti-smoking advertisements, the parental group could challenge him to redirect these funds for more important community issues such as buying guns off the streets. These efforts would put smoking in perspective with essential community needs. In an effort to redirect the priorities of elected officials, these groups could sponsor local opinion surveys for the community on priorities. The results of the polls would be used to redirect the activities of politicians. Funding These groups could be supported via existing 501(c)(3) organizations.

National Tournalisrn Center/Consumer's Research Magazine Current Activities National Journalism Center is planning a health care policy symposium/ forum on Capitol Hill. The forum is going to highlight the numerous problems of the administration's plan including funding (FET) to con- gressional staff and the media. Additional Activities Generate additional publicity on the symposia by issuing a special edition of Consumer's Research magazine on health care. The magazine could serve as credible lobbying material and be distributed to grassroots organizations opposed to the administration's plan. The magazine would be a means to document the highlights of the conference for those who were unable to attend the forum. Funding Consumer's Research could be supported from food and beer product advertising in the magazine or by the purchase of copies of the magazine.

National Empowerment Television National Empowerment Television (NET) is a conservative TV network that broadcasts via satellites and some cable stations throughout the country. Current Activities NET's programming has provided favorable coverage of recent issues including the Surgeon General's Report, the Food and Drug Admini- stration and the industry march on Washington. NET is going to produce a series on health care that will highlight the deficiencies of the Administration's plan. Future Action Generate additional publicity by having NET dedicate a news crew and programming to the health care issue as well as other challenges to the industry. Regarding health care, the crew could cover the town hall meeting sponsored by Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) and broad- cast the highlights nationally. With respect to other issues, NET could produce their own version of a 60 Minutes show demonstrating the industry's side of controversial issues such as FDA/nicotine and the EPA's risk assessment on ETS. Finally, NET could sponsor public opinion surveys in key congressional districts on the health care issue and broadcast the results. Philip Morris could increase the impact of NET's coverage by assisting the network in getting additional cable companies to carry their broadcasts. Funding Since NET is a TV network, we could fund these activities via product advertisements from the food and beer business.

Conservative Network Current Activity Provide background information/briefings on various issues to our existing network of journalists. Future Action Seek additional coverage in magazines/newspapers by providing funds that would allow the publications to dedicate staff and resources solely to the health care issue. The following is a list of media outlets (newspapers, magazines and TV) that could possibly be mobilized. The Washington Times American Spectator National Review Consumer's Research Texas Republic National Empowerment Television (NET) Funding Support could be directed to 501(c)(3) organizations of the publications and/or food product advertising.

While the ETS budget was originally set-up to address only that issue, part of the funds went to establish groups (IRP) and resources (EPA Watch) that have a broader impact for PM. Now that part of ETS may be coming to a close, it makes sense for the "assets" to be continued by corporate for the benefit of the entire company. As a result, we need to determine which activities should be continued and who will manage and fund them. All of these consultants have been very effective in addressing the ETS issue for PM and could assist PM in other regulatory matters. With respect to our new environmental policy area, we need the efforts of Hines to get the message out on our environmental issues (solid waste, etc.) and Barrera for networking with EPA bureaucrats. The other consultants, Tozzi/Auchter, have excellent government contacts which makes them a valuable resource for the Washington office. The two main questions are: 1. What time commitment does Steve need from me to do ETS in 1993? The amount of time I spend on ETS will determine the type of skills required to fill the one available headcount in our department. Specifically, how much will I be involved in: a) Media interviews domestically and internationally b) Designing, executing and supporting Washington lobbying efforts with EPA, Congressional Staff and OSHA. I met the ETS objectives in 1992 via coordination with the Washington office and by the use of various consultants (see attached). 2. How much money does Steve have allocated for the ETS consultants in 1993? These consultants were primarily used for impacting the EPA but they could also address the OSHA rule- making on ETS as well as other regulatory issues affecting PM. The consultants are Tozzi/Auchter, Barrera and Hines.

Back rg ound 1. Tozzi was the primary contact on the EPA/ETS risk assessment during the second half of 1992. I estimate his 1992 billings to be about 300k. Tozzi's efforts should also be used with OSHA and OMB in 1993. Tozzi has been invaluable in executing our Washington efforts including generating technical briefing papers, numerous letters to agencies and media interviews. Tozzi could also be helpful in other regulatory matters (food and environmental) affecting PM. 2. Hines has been responsible for generating news articles, editorials and commentaries on the EPA/ETS issue. He has supported the establishment of EPA Watch as a primary source of news items about the EPA. Hines' bills were about 200K for 1992. While these activities should be continued in 1993 for ETS, his efforts could be expanded to address food and environmental issues. Because of the broad nature of Hines' future role, it would make sense to share part of his cost with Steve. However, because of budget limitations, we may have to scale down our issues directed media effort through Hines. 3. Auchter - Last year, PM contributed 880k (600k from Steve, 280k from Craig) to establish the Institute for Regulatory Policy (IRP) as a vehicle for the executive order on risk assessment. Although the executive order did not make it, IRP is now a viable organization that can address various regulatory issues. IRP has established a coalition representing the interests of a broad array of industries and trade associations. Additionally, IRP has established a relationship with many state and local governments throughout the U.S. The coalition could address a number of regulatory issues of interest to PM in 1993. Since we have already made a sizable investment in establishing IRP, it would make sense to keep it going (at some level) for future issues. 4. Barrera - Barrera Associates have been effective in dealing with EPA bureaucrats with the ETS risk assessment. Last year their billings were about 200k. If the EPA/ETS risk assessment is released early in 1993, their activity for Steve would no longer be needed. However, Barrera could help us with corporate environmental issues and the EPA.

1. Can you clarify what you mean by "junk science"? In my view there are two main criteria for the characterization of research to be considered "junk science". First, the underlying scientific studies would be of poor quality. Studies that use questionable or flawed methodology to support its conclusions. Second, the flawed studies would be publicized in order to influence public opinion and government regulators. Our society tends to react to any claim made by the results of a scientific study without regard to the quality of the study or the possible motivations of the group(s) publicizing the study. If we were all a little more skeptical of research results or advocacy groups publicizing research results, I think much of the hysteria we are seeing today could be avoided. 2. Is the scientific information on smoking another example of "junk science"? The science on active smoking leads us to believe that smoking is a risk factor for some diseases such as lung cancer and heart disease. While many questions remain on active smoking, the scientific basis of these studies, in our view, do not fall into the category of junk science. 3. Was the EPA classification of ETS based on junk science? The EPA risk assessment on ETS could be classified as "junk science". The underlying studies on ETS and lung cancer are considered to be of poor quality. Only after ignoring the data from a major study and by lowering its statistical standards was the EPA able to classify ETS as a carcinogen.

Dioxin • Is an example that regulatory decisions can be wrong. It's not a good example of "junk science". The dioxin example is inconsistent with the way we define junk science on page 19. • The science at the time suggested that dioxin was one of the most toxic chemicals known to man. The information was based primarily on animal studies. • The science was peer-reviewed and the consensus of the scientific community was that dioxin posed a health threat. How much of a threat at low levels was unknown. • Recent studies have suggested that dioxin is not as toxic as originally thought.

Q. Do you expect liability suits because of secondhand smoke? A. While there are a few lawsuits, the prospect for a plaintiff to be successful remains extremely remote because the scientific evidence does not support their claims. Q. Will smoking restrictions adversely affect sales? A. There are already smoking restrictions in a vast majority of states and the increase in smoking restrictions over the past few years has not accelerated the rate of decline in cigarette sales. Q. As a nonsmoker sitting in the audience, am I at risk because of the cigarette smoke in this room? A. No, you are not at risk because the scientific evidence does not support a causal link between ETS exposure and disease.