Tobacco Documents Online

---

PHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL MEDIA TRAINING for REGIONAL PRESIDENTS Walter Thoma President Philip Morris - EU Andreas Gembler President Philip Morris - EEMA September 11 - 12, 1995

PtN_/P MORRIS INTERNATIONAL MEDIA TRAINING for REGIONAl, PRESIDENTS Contents Smoking and Health Tab 1. ETS and Accommodation Tab 2. Addiction Marketing Tab 3. Youth Access and Advertising Product Integrity Tab 4. Tab 5. Litigation Taxation Flavoring Ingredients Nicotine Spiking/Manipulation Accusations Business Issues Tab 6. Tab 7. State of the Business Exports Background Active Smoking Tobacco Smoke Constituents Genetic Engineering Maximum Constituent Levels Monitoring of "Tar" and Nicotine Levels Tobacco Processing and Cigarette Design Crop Protection Agents

Media Training for Regional Presidents 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 dischssion 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

Smoking and Health Tab 1: ETS and Accommodation Tab 2: Addiction

WilsogJones.~ Qu~ckRe/erence/nde,~S~stem 1991 Wilson Jones Company

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) 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.

CLEARED 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)

WilsonJones® QuickReferencelndexSystem ,~, ]991 Wilson Jones Company