Tobacco Documents Online

YOUTH ACCESS Message Points Minors should not smoke. Choosing whether to smoke is an adult decision. We do not believe that minors possess the maturity to make that decision. There are certain products whose purchase and use are restricted to those of legal age whether that age is set by law, custom or practice. We believe cigarettes are one such product. The most effective and appropriate role we can play in the area of youth smoking is by initiating and participating in programs that limit youth access. • The diversity of our intemational operating environment means that no single program or approach can be implemented worldwide. While approaches may vary from country to country, the theme is clear and the purpose is uniform -- Philip Morris worldwide is committed to playing its part to restrict youth access to cigarettes.

MARKETING Message Points ADVERTISING AND INITIATION Advertising has no impact on cigarette consumption or smoking initiation. To argue otherwise overlooks the function of advertising in a mature product market and underestimates the sophistication of consumers. • Empirical evidence shows that there is no correlation. Study after study identifies peer pressure and family influences as predictor of smoking decisions and there is no credible evidence that advertising causes people to smoke. • We advertise brands, not smoking. WE ADVERTISE - • To increase awareness of our brands by communicating the attributes and availability of our brands to adult smokers. • To encourage adult smokers using competitors' products to switch to our brands. • To promote brand loyalty by encouraging those who are smoking our brands to stay with our brands. "YOUTH" • Philip Morris does not market to minors. We are committed to marketing our cigarettes responsibly. We have an intemal code of practice which govems our advertising. Violation of this code is subject to disciplinary action, including dismissal. We obey the laws of every country we do business in.

WOMEN AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES The claim that tobacco companies "target" women and people in developing countries assumes that they are incapable of making their own decisions and need to be "protected" by government censorship. Studies show that advertising restrictions have little, if any, effect on the level of cigarette consumption in developing countries. Urbanization, education and aging were found to be more relevant. • As women have entered the work.force around the world, traditional family structures and consumption patterns of consumer products have changed. SAMPLING Sampling is a time-honored method of introducing consumers to products. Through voluntary agreements and our internal code of marketing practice, we take steps to ensure that only adult smokers are approached by samplers. TRADEMARKS • Trademark diversification is a means of exploiting a trademark that has become known and, therefore, has value. • Trademark infringement is a problem for any company with well known logos. • Philip Morris takes vigorous action to prevent the unauthorized use of its trademarks.

SPONSORSHIP Message Points CORPORATE AND BRANDED SPONSORSHIP Tobacco companies are long-standing supporters of sports and arts. Corporate sponsorship is designed to generate corporate goodwill. • Branded sponsorship is designed to promote brand awareness. • Whether branded or corporate, sponsorship has no impact on smoking initiation or cigarette consumption. REPERCUSSIONS OF BANNING SPONSORSHIP • Sponsorship restrictions can have devastating financial effects on recipient organizations: - The loss of in-kind assistance, such as marketing experience, logistical and operational support, is often overlooked. - Bans may result in bureaucratic problems related to government funding. - Bans may jeopardize the future, the quality and the innovation of sports and cultural events. - Government intervention with sponsorship may lead to the politicization of arts and sports.

LABELING Message Points • Labeling should: - be balanced; neither exaggerating nor misstating the scientific facts; - not be open to conflicting or ambiguous interpretations; and, - be properly attributed to the appropriate government authority. • There is no reliable proof that increasing the label size will lead to greater awareness. • Research shows that the choice to smoke or quit smoking is an individual decision and has little relation to label or size. • There is no credible evidence that shows that increased label size will lead to lower consumption or initiation rates. Potential implications of onerous labeling requirements include: - Unfair competitive advantages for certain brands. - "Over waming"/reduced public confidence in governments. - Possible violation of international trade agreements such as the Paris Convention and TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights).

Media Training Agenda: One full day for outstanding issues and to create B-rolls, especially for state of the business message points 08:30 - 08:40 08:40 - 09:10 09:10 - 10:45 10:45 - 11:15 11:15 - 12:00 12:00 - 12:45 12:45 - 16:30 Introductions Communications Exercise A brief interview with the participant as an example to begin discussion of the interview process Presentation Trainers present interviewing theory, tips and techniques Message Discussion The process of message development and corporate messages on key issues will be discussed Interview Exercise Participant is interviewed in print format. Interview is videotaped for playback and discussion Lunch During lunch, message discussion will continue Interview Exercises The participants will be interviewed in a variety of formats, both print and television, and topics such as posture and eye contact will be discussed

ETS AND ACCOMMODATION Key Messages • Regardless of your views on smoking, being in a room with a smoker is not the same as smoking yourself. Tobacco smoke in a room is highly diluted. Exposure to ETS in the air is obviously different from puffing on a cigarette. A recent study to monitor non-smokers' exposure to ETS found it typically was so low that ETS was sometimes impossible to measure. Data from the same study suggests that a smoker would inhale more smoke from three or four cigarettes than a typical nonsmoker might be exposed to in an entire year. • The science does not show that ETS causes disease. The vast majority of research on ETS fails to make a valid statistical link between ETS and lung cancer, either in the home or at the workplace. Over 80% of the studies (31 out of 38) suggest living with a smoker does not increase the risk of lung cancer. 85% of the studies (12 out of 14) suggest that working with a smoker does not increase the risk of lung cancer. Of the few studies that do report a statistically significant link, the increase in risk is so small that it is hard to draw any conclusions. The methods used in the statistical research on ETS have provoked a lot of criticism. Subjects were asked whether they were married to a smoker or how much ETS they though they were exposed to over many years. There were no actual measurements of ETS exposure in these studies. Assessments of ETS obtained in this way are unreliable, as they are based on personal recollection which can't be verified. Therefore, they are entirely subjective. (Source: CECCM) 0 1

ETS AND ACCOMMODATION (con't) Many studies overlook important risk factors which could account for a reported increase in lung cancer such as diet, family medical history and occupation. • The science does not justify bans or severe restrictions on where you can smoke. ETS may annoy some people but such problems can be solved by accommodating the preferences of both smokers and non smokers through courtesy, tolerance and mutual respect. The fact that tobacco smoke is visible and easily recognized means that it is often blamed for indoor air quality problems which can actually be due to poor ventilation. Policies that accommodate the preference of both smokers and nonsmokers can be developed to suit different circumstances. Employers and employees are in the best position to decide how best to accommodate the needs of smokers and nonsmokers in the workplace.* Restaurant owners themselves are in the best position to decide how to accommodate the preferences of both their smoking and nonsmoking customers." * Cite local program(s) where applicable.

CLF~AP~D ETS Background Phrases often used to describe environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) -- "passive smoking" and "second-hand smoke" -- are misleading. These phrases suggest that non-smokers are exposed to the same thing as a smoker, which is not the case. ETS is hundreds of times more dilute than a smoker's smoke and it undergoes extensive chemical and physical changes before it reaches non-smokers. It is Philip Morris' opinion -- which is shared by many scientists -- that the world-wide data fail to prove that ETS causes cancer, heart disease or other chronic diseases sometimes attributed to it. Indeed, most of the available evidence supports the proposition that ETS is not even statistically associated with these diseases. Notwithstanding the evidence, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classified ETS as a "Group A carcinogen," a ruling that has been challenged in court by Philip Morris and others. Philip Morris acknowledges that some people may find ETS annoying, which is why we encourage smokers to smoke with courtesy and common sense. In any environment, both smokers and non-smokers should be and can be accommodated with each respecting the rights and feelings of the other. The "case" against ETS is based mainly on "population studies" which attempt to statistically associate ETS with, for example, lung cancer. However, recent population studies have reported that each of the following "exposures" has a higher statistical association with lung cancer than that reported for ETS: keeping pet birds, being divorced and high dietary saturated fat. Of course, we do not argue that divorce or birds cause cancer -- only that statistics do not themselves prove cause and effect. In reaching its "Group A" conclusion, the EPA manipulated and "cherry-picked" scientific data, ignored recent studies that contradicted its conclusions, and used scientific assumptions and methodologies not generally accepted by the scientific community, or even by the agency itself in other risk assessments it had conducted in the past. The EPA conducted no research of its own. Instead, it reviewed 30 previously published studies and selected only 11 U.S. studies as the basis for its decision. None of these studies individually supported EPA's conclusion, so it reanalyzed them and lowered the statistical standard to calculate its "risk estimate." Only then could EPA reach its "Group A" conclusion. (Source: Shook, Hardy, 8/25/95)

ADDICTION Key Messages Just because some people say it is difficult to stop doing something does not make that behavior an addiction. The claim that cigarette smoking is addictive contradicts the conclusion of the 1964 U.S. Surgeon General's Report that cigarette smoking is a habit. The def'mition of addiction in the 1964 Surgeon General's Report used objective criteria such as intoxication, physical dependence and tolerance. Everyone knows people who have quit smoking. Based on the available literature, there is no secret to successfully stopping smoking, other than the personal desire to do so. The individual must want to stop smoking and make an~effort to stop. Even the 1988 U.S. Surgeon General's Report said that over 40 million people have quit smoking, the vast majority without any formal treatment. Similarly, the 1989 Surgeon General's Report observed that nearly half of all living adults in the United States who ever smoked have quit. Nicotine gum and nicotine patches are not a substitute for smoking. Although they are used to promote smoking cessation, they are of questionable effectiveness unless the personal motivations for smoking are addressed. The most important factor in quitting smoking is personal motivation to do so and then just stopping. The definition of "addiction" has been "watered down" over the years. It is common place to refer to cigarettes, coffee, chocolate, exercising and so on as "addictive" or "additions". Even the Surgeon General has called video games an addiction. Such word pollution robs the term of any legitimate scientific meaning. The defmition of addiction introduced in the 1988 U.S. Surgeon General's Report seriously "watered down" the term. The new definition simply dropped the standard criteria for addiction replacing them with vague, easily satisfied criteria. The Surgeon General's "new" definition of addiction could be used to classify the caffeine in coffee, cola and chocolate as addictive. Even the relaxing substances found naturally in a nightly glass of warm milk could be called addictive under this definition. (Source: Product Integrity Module, 8/28/95)