Tobacco Documents Online

4 October 23, 1974 MEMORANDUM President Ford's letter to Jonathan Rhoads, October 18, 1974, is capable of being misunderstood. The UPI story the same day increased the chances, by portrayingg it as a Presidential initiative against the tobacco industry. (E.g., "President Ford today expressed interest in the possibility of regulating by law the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes. He asked the National Cancer Advisory Board to provide for him by Dec. 1 'scientific advice on this important matter of po.saible concern."') What was, in fact, a Presidential slap on the wrist to the NCAB for an unsubstantiated recommendation, is being perceived as a White House move against the tobacco industry. This was the reaction of the antismoking clique, and initially of the tobacco industry. The story was largely ignored by the press, however, but depressed Phillip Morris stock by $100 million. Further publicity of the "misreading" by the antismoking activists, could hurt Southern Republican candidates at the polls. And they have another shot. Here's how: Dr. Rhoads is planning to follow up with a quick meeting on Nov. 1. It will be open and we suspect that "friendly" press (Washington Post, New York Times) will be alerted to exploit what may be presented to them again as the NCAB response to "President Ford's initiative against the tobacco industry." Note the timing: Nov. 1 is a Friday, so press coverage will break the weekend before election day. Further, the group is stacked against tobacco. Rhoads and Dr. Phillipe Shubik will represent the Cancer Board, assisted by NCI staff members, Gio Gori and Marvin Schneiderman, and with E. Cuyler Hammond, Vice President of the American Cancer Society, as consultant. This "hanging jury" could easily manipulate the President into a box he would have to explain his way out of to his basic conservative, business and anti-regulatory constituency. CONFIDENTIAL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION TIMN 0141199 -

, Short-term effects: Republican candidates in close races in Southern states, especially Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia and Tennessee, where tobacco is grown, could be damaged. In a strong Democrats year, they can illd afford inadvertent White House fallout; it could be a camel-back-breaking straw leading to bitter recrimination. Long-term effect: The tobacco industry is becoming increasingly disturbed by industries which are using smoking as a cover-up for their problems in complying with the Clean Air Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Tobacco executives have noted efforts by the oil industry, the automobile industry and others to hide their pollution behind a tobacco smoke screen. Democrats, labor unions and environmental activists may also see this cover-up as a potential issue to be used against Republicans in 1976, labeling them as "protectors of the polluters." Adding to their suspicion is foot dragging of the National Cancer Advisory Board in acting on environmental and occupational cancer, which some scientists and environmental activists regard as ignored and "unindicted co-conspirators" in the case against cancer. The NCAB is much more vigorous in its almost single-minded persecution of smoking. Precedent effect: Yielding to pressure from the NCAB in regulating cigarettes will open a Pandora's Box. Will the White House want to deal with similar advisory board "scientific assessments" to provide the basis for the regulation of auto exhaust hydrocarbons, occupational fumes, sugar content of breakfast food, etc., etc. The membership of the NCAB and the President's Cancer Panel lends credibility_to the tobacco industry's fears. At the least there is ground for an appearance of possible conflict of interest. For example: --Benno Schmidt; Chairman of the President's Cancer Panel, is on the Board of Directors of four oil companies. --Jonathan Rhoads is a past president of the American Cancer Society, which GM tycoons Alfred P. Sloan and Charles Kettering set up and nurtured. In the early 1950's the ACS was looking at both cigarette smoking and air pollution as possible causes of lung cancer, but soon dropped air pollution as a target. Here is an example of how he has tried to whip other scientists into line on tar and nicotine control: "...every practical means /should/ be used to discourage smoking," he said, "regardless of the effects this may have on the tobacco industry or the economy, and regardless of how Congress may react. It is not a premature position to take for a responsible grou;- charged with advising the govt. on ways to reduce mortality from cancer." (See Attachment A). CONFIDENTIAL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION TIMN 0141200

! --Phillipe Shubik of the Eppley Institute, has viciously attacked the tobacco industry, saying that any scientist accepting industry funds is a "prostitute". Yet, Shubik has received grants from the American Petroleum Institute, and also the food industry, it is rumored. ("It is our belief that the elimination of stilbestrol as a cattle food additive in the United States was not warranted," he stated in August). (See Attachment B). --Lawrence Rockefeller's membership on NCAB could raise the question of undue oil industry influence; as well as possible involvement of his-brother's Vice Presidential nomination. --Elmer Bobst is very much against smoking. As an NCAB member, this aged drug tycoon could evoke memories of Nixon's past patronage by the very rich. --Mary Lasker is a member of the NCAB and sparkplug for the proposal to regulate the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes. Ironically, this major contributor to ultra liberal Congressional candidates is attempting to saddle a Republican presid'ent with her pet project. Her 1974 campaign contributions as of September 1 total $25,500 to Democrats, $300 to Republicans ($5000 Magnuson, $3000 Metzenbaum, $3000 Flood, $3000 Fred Richmond (N.Y.), $2000 Bayh, $1500 Culver, $1000 Brademas, $1000 Delaney, $2000 Hollings, $2000 Ow-ens, $2000 Patten (N.J.), $300 Javits.) --Marvin Schneiderman, Ph.D., a statistician with the NCI. He is also a member of the American Cancer Society Council for Analysis and Projection. He is consistently soft on air pollution and tough on smoking. "It is clear that cigarette smoking is a more important causal factor than urbanization or urban air pollution," he said. (Cancer 30/5, p. 1320, November 1972). --Gio Gori, staff man at NCI in charge of the Less Hazardous Cigarette Program, believes it "is reasonable to favor the establishment of legal maximum standards for tar and nicotine." (Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 48, #6, June 1972). --E. Cuyler Hammond, Vice President of the American Cancer Society, blazed the trail in the 50's with his study zeroing in on smoking as the cause of lung cancer. He hasn't stopped since. Regarding another possible cause, he said:. "There is no relationship whatsoever .between lung cancer and air pollution." He has said that the danger from asbestos is limited to only those workers who also smoke. Ironically, in this age of full disclosure, Hammond has never released his original data. CONFIDENTIAL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION TIMN 0141201 -