Tobacco Documents Online

tobacco A rE- T Q 1 -T ~E :R PASSPORT TO WAXfriAzU By Colleen Zimmerman Blackard was a little surprised that you agreed to see me," I opened. "Me, too," he responded, glancing quickly at the staffer who made the appointment. We're in his office on Capitol Hill. Henry Waxman, California Democrat, U.S. Congressman Henry Waxman. tobacco foe. The former chairman of a congressional subcommittee that, last year, conducted an aggressive interro- gation of the tobacco industry. The same legislator who, only months ago, railed Philip Morris on the floor of the House of Representatives- where he can say whatever he wants without legal consequence. I expected Henry Waxman, with fire in his eyes, to be rude to me. I expected him to be gunning for a debate. No such luck. Instead, Henry Waxman was calm. Collected. A consummate politician. And talking about smoking as an "adult choice." Don't misunderstand. He's still Henry Waxman. He still believes tobacco companies are out to hook kids. And he believes, fervently, that there's a cover-up out there. But he was polite. And so we sat side-by-side in matching chairs, a small, dark wood table between us, in his office in Rayburn House Office Building. I wanted his views. Following, excerpts from our conversation. TR: I think you'll agree that most people know you as an anti-tobacco crusader, as well as an elected repre- sentative. What fuels your passion about tobacco? Why choose tobacco as your issue? Waxman: I haven't chosen tobac- co as my issue; what I chose as my legislative specialization has been health care and health policy.

iL s ucnvious to anyone involved in health policy that a real problem is cigarette smol:ing in the United States. There are many diseases related to cigarette smoking; it's a major health care problem. Smoking is a leading cause of premature death and disease in this nation. A cancer risk. So it's my view that we need to do what we can to discourage people from smoking. But it is also my view that it is an individual adult decision whether to smoke or not. Prohibition of cigarette smoking is unrealistic; it would be counterproductive. And I don't know any responsible person who would support such policies. TR: That of course was one of my questions. Waxman: I do not believe in ban- ning cigarettes. But I do believe that we need to do something about the next generation of kids who may get started on cigarette smoking. Everyone seems to agree that we don't want kids to smoke. It's the law in every state in this nation that we shouldn't sell cigarettes to kids. But what's so disturbing is that the latest statistics indicate that although the whole population overall is decreasing smoking, smoking is actu- ally increasing among preteens and teenagers. That's an indication to me that the law and our policies are not working. We need the efforts of the Food & Drug Administration to really put some teeth into trying to keep kids from getting such easy access to ciga- rettes and put a stop to the seduction of kids into smoking by the heavy promotion and advertising directed at them. Kids get conned into thinking ciga- rette smoking is a cool thing to do, that it's aduitlike. Once they start, because of the nicotine addiction, many of them will not be able to stop. Most people don't start smoking when they're adults; they start smok- ing when they're kids. So from my point of view, if we can keep kids from making the decision to smoke until they're 18 or older, I don't think most people will decide to smoke. It's not a rational decision to take up a habit that's so harmful. But if at that point they do, it's their decision. TR: Let me ask you about your st:,•commit- te;~ hearings. What do you feel you accom- plished with those? lrt-I i I`1k t t A iv AcMG A??rQ©? 2IAr15LY Waxman: I think we accomplished a great deal. We learned more about the tobac- co industry in the course of that year AW wiTtAIN r-WE c.Aw. than we probably did in the previous 10 years. Despite the fact that all of the chief executive officers of the major American tobacco companies prorQst- ed that they think nicotine is riot addictive, the fact is that the tobacco companies have been doing extensive studies that led them to the conclu- sion that nicotine was in fact addic- tive. We learned that tobacco compa- nies manipulated the nicotine in ciga- rettes-and in my opinion, with the intent to keep nicotine at an addictive level. We learned that the tobacco com- panies themselves knew about the connection between cigarette smok- ing and cancer and other health prob- lems, all throughout the time that they were denying it. And I think we also learned that the tobacco industry has been interested in kids' smoking. TR: During your subcommittee hearings, did anything come to light from the tobacco industry itself and the executives you spoke to that actually said that they tar- geted children? Waxman: Many of the tobacco executives said they did not want kids to smoke. But if they're sincere about it, they ought to be working with the Clinton Administration and others in Congress to pass into law effective measures to keep kids from smoking. I would welcome it if they really wanted to work to accomplish that goal. But the fact that they are fight- ing so hard against any efforts to reduce teenage smoking makes me think that thev are not sincere about it. And of course the economics of the situation would make you think that perhaps they are not sincere. TR: There are many government agencies that do regulate tobacco, and I'm not sure that from the industry's point of view disapproval of FDA regulation involves the youth smoking issue. What the tobacco industry is saying is we don't want the door open to fur- ther, broader FDA regulation. Many of the tobacco companies have already instituted programs [to reduce youth smoking]-such as Philip Morris' Action Against Access. Waxman: The issue is the proposal by the FDA and by this Admin- istration to deal with underage smok- ing. If we have a common ground, we ought to be supportive of common- sense efforts to prevent the link between teenagers and smoking. I know that Philip Morris is under- taking some effort or campaigns to talk about this issue. I would think that if they really want to be effective, we ought to go beyond voluntary efforts, which may not last after the pressure is off. We ought to put into law requirements that prohibit adver- tisements directed to get kids to smoke, and we ought to do what is necessary to prevent kids from getting cigarettes. [Editor's Note: Philip Morris USA is doing more than talking about the issue. With its Action Against Access program, the company has already October 1995 TR 33

DiSPUZ"E r4-!E ment is not one of com- promise or working DOCUMEIVTw, AND wwE 07"-WE 2v 7"~IAT " A2.E M02E cOMQLErE, ~ fiVOULD 56 'PLEASED rO PUT' r4~E M 11~l Z",WE 2ECO2D. curtailed sampling and sending cigarettes through the mail. It supports legislative efforts to prevent minors access to vending machines. It has started putting labels on its cigarette packs and cartons stat- ing, "Underage Sale Prohibited." It will deny merchandising bene- fits and participation in its retail incentive program to stores that are fined or convicted of selling cigarettes to minors. Also, PM will place mini- mum age signs in more than 200,000 retail outlets around the U.S. and con- duct compliance seminars for retailers and law enforcement officials. It will work toward the enactment of reason- able legislation that would require: retailer licensing, enforcement mech- anisms and appropriate sanctions, .including fines and suspension or revocation of licenses; all cigarettes for sale at retail to be within the line of sight or under the direct control of a sales clerk; and, the posting of mini- mum age laws.] TR: Is it possible that the indus- try is concerned about broader regu- lation from FDA particularly in the wake of your subcommittee hear- ings? I've talked to smokers and nonsmokers alike who frankly thought you were coming across as a paternalistic zealot. Do you think early '80s that perhaps the environ- together based on the adversarial hearings? Waxman: All I can say is why I think this issue is important and to indicate to you as I have in public hear- ings that I am. cvill- ing to talk tc, the tobacco industry, as I have in the past on other legislation, to try to make sure that we adopt reason- able measures to keep kids from smok- ing. And I would be will- ing to talk to them and work out some of the issues that are on their minds...in a very pragmatic way. I offered legislation in the for stronger warning labels on tobacco products, not just on ciga- rettes but on smokeless tobacco, as well. I certainly came to this issue from an adversarial point of view, because I wasn't looking for them to accomplish the goals they wanted to accomplish. I wanted to accomplish a decrease in people using these prod- ucts. But I worked with the industry and we were able to work out our dif- ferences and pass a law, perhaps unan- imously, in Congress to have stronger warning labels. TR: The FDA has proposed mea- sures. Do you feel that the measures proposed will also affect adults? Waxman: No, I don't think so. I don't think that adults will in any way find that they won't have access to cigarettes. It's a legal product, you can buy them easily in many loca- tions. The fact that there may not be a vending machine in a place where kids may have access to cigarettes will not be a barrier to adults going to a place where a salesperson would pro- vide cigarettes for them for the amount of money that will be required to purchase them. TR: Do you feel that the FDA is perhaps overstepping its bound- aries, and that this is a job for Congress? Waxman: I think FDA is acting appropriately and within the law. And I think that Commissioner Kessler is on sound legal footing in asserting jurisdiction by the FDA and in proposing the regulations that he has. I h,:iieve, of course, that he may be s:!F~.i in court at some point. That may be a reason why we ought to see if we can legislate on the issue rather than have the FDA handle it administra- tively. But if the tobacco companies decide they want to stonewall the matter and fight it in court and try to stop these regulations from going into effect, I think they will not succeed. TR: A few months ago on the House floor you made a series of charges against Philip Morris based on alleged "secret documents" per- taining to Philip Morris research. For example, you said that Philip Morris doubled the nicotine levels of Benson & Hedges in the late '70s and early '80s; Philip Morris has said that actually the brand under- went a major redesign and that tar and nicotine deliveries were reduced by about 90 percent. I was wondering: did you just not have that information? Waxman: The information that I put into the Congressional Record speaks for itself. These were docu- ments from Philip Morris tobacco company; if they dispute the docu- ments, and have others that are more complete, I would be pleased to put them in the record. I think it's important for the American people to have all the infor- mation on the record as to what the tobacco companies have been doing, and to get a full picture as to what has been going on for decades within the industry. TR: A full picture-that apparent- ly is what Philip Morris is saying the public isn't getting. You made statements about children, a school district in Virginia, for example, and according to Philip Morris you selectively chose from that docu- ment. 00. n ~~ ~. ~~ .. ~.. .

z-~16Y cANr'r 2EFuSE ro coME Fo2wA2.D wtr~_l S(AY r.WAr r4WE INFOIZMArIaN Philip Morris had no intention of giving chil- wE ~(Arl wA5MIr dren cigarettes. But the implication from you was there. Do you feel like you unfairly represented that document? Waxman: I don't feel that I've been unfair at all in putting their doc- uments in the record. If they feel that what we put in didn't give the full picture, they ought to give us a full picture. They ought to give us the complete documents from which they feel we may have taken parts in a way they claim they misrepresented Philip Morris. The best way to correct the record is to give us their documents so that we can have it on the record. So far they've refused to submit any further documents to us in that regard. It seems to me that Philip Morris tobacco company should also give us the documents involved in the law- suit with ABC. Their documents were given to ABC's lawyers pursuant to discovery in the litigation. As part of the settlement, however, Philip Morris insisted that the documents be under seal, which meant that the public wouldn't have access to them. If Philip Morris so proudly claims that ABC's apology indicates they weren't doing the things that I and FDA claim they were doing, such as manipula- tion of nicotine, then I think they ought to make at least those docu- ments that we know about public, and have them on the record. They can't refuse to come forward ACCUKJA( G. with information and then :•:av that the information ~% had wasn't accurate. All we did was use their documents and put their documents on the record for the public to be able to read. [Editor's Notc: Philip Morris issued statements on the two recent occa- sions that Waxman, from the floor of Congress where he enjoys immunity from false statements, placed some Philip Morris documents into the Federal Register. These statements clearly show that Philip Morris' con- cern is that Congressman Waxman misrepresented the contents of those documents by selectively quoting excerpts from those documents while ignoring other portions that put those documents in the proper con- text.] TR: You characterized Philip Morris research interest in why people smoke, including the possi- ble role of nicotine, as "secret." But that Philip Morris research is public information; back in 1972 a Philip Morris researcher organized a scien- tific conference on the subject, papers were published in a book available in public libraries, and it's been cited more than 500 times in scientific literature. Why call this effort "secret" and give the American public an impression that Philip Morris is scheming in secret? Waxman: I don't think the documents we put in the Congressional Record had ever been made public before. They should have been made public, and that's why we put them on the record. I don't like the argument that I've heard from the tobacco company executives. They say, "Cigarette smoking is not harmful to your health." But if you suggest that there ought to be some further warn- ing about the dangers from cigarette smoking, they immediately say, "Everyone knows that there are dan- gers to your health from cigarette smoking so you don't need to make that information further underscored in any way." It seems to me inconsis- tent to argue that everyone knows about Philip Morris research, but then to cry foul when we put the documents and show what research they were doing out in the public tribune. [Editor's Note: The documents cited by Congressman Waxman from the floor of Congress were produced to the plaintiffs in the 1988 Cipollone case, which Philip Morris won in court. Moreover, Philip Morris has repeatedly said cigarette smoking is a risk factor for some diseases, includ- ing lung cancer.] TR: If cigarettes are indeed drugs, and smokers are "drug addicts," consequently does that perhaps mean that smokers would fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act? Is that a possibili- ty? Waxman: I haven't thought about it. But I would think that anybody who would say that a smoker shouldn't have access to a public place or a job might find themselves subject to litigation. That doesn't mean they ought to be able to smoke in a public place or in a job, because that can risk the health of others who choose not to smoke. I think that's an interesting theoretical issue, but not one that we will face in reality. TR