DOCSLIB.ORG

Egilman Tobacco Report.Pdf 462.89KB 2018-09-28 16:31:23

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Egilman Tobacco Report.Pdf 462.89KB 2018-09-28 16:31:23 The Medical State of the Art: Tobacco and Asbestos. A Comparison of Industry and Public Knowledge and Responses to Knowledge with Respect to the Health Effects of Tobacco Smoke and Asbestos............... 5 1. Demonstrative Exhibits that may be used include: ......................................................................................... 6 2. Background and Qualifications .......................................................................................................................... 7 3. Introduction............................................................................................................................................................ 8 4. Methodology........................................................................................................................................................ 10 A. Review of medical literature........................................................................................................................ 10 B. Review of corporate documents.................................................................................................................. 10 C. Review of depositions................................................................................................................................... 10 D. Principles of general causation.................................................................................................................... 10 E. Probabilistic causal analysis......................................................................................................................... 10 F. Importance of clinical experience ............................................................................................................... 11 G. Examples from medical practice ................................................................................................................. 12 1. Injuries........................................................................................................................................................ 12 2. Diseases...................................................................................................................................................... 12 3. Proposed Treatments................................................................................................................................ 13 4. Examples from medical literature .......................................................................................................... 13 5. Hill’s Criteria for determining causality............................................................................................... 16 5. Medical Knowledge of Health Risks ............................................................................................................... 19 A. Tobacco........................................................................................................................................................... 19 1. Lung Cancer .............................................................................................................................................. 19 a) Pathologic Studies............................................................................................................................... 19 b) Epidemiological Studies .................................................................................................................... 20 c) Animal Studies .................................................................................................................................... 21 d) Identification of Carcinogens............................................................................................................ 23 2. Other Tobacco-Related Diseases........................................................................................................... 26 3. German Literature .................................................................................................................................... 27 B. Asbestos........................................................................................................................................................... 29 1. Asbestos Company’s Knowledge and Conduct.................................................................................. 29 C. Comparison of Asbestos Company and Tobacco Company Conduct.................................................. 31 1. Education of users:................................................................................................................................... 31 2. Government influence:............................................................................................................................ 31 3. Product usefulness:................................................................................................................................... 32 4. Marketing and Design: ............................................................................................................................ 32 5. Addiction:.................................................................................................................................................. 33 6. Public Health Obligations: The tobacco industry’s public health obligations to safeguard the health of consumers and the public ............................................................................................................................................. 34 A. Public Health Obligations ............................................................................................................................ 34 1. The strength of the association between the product and certain health effects............................ 34 2. The severity of the health effects........................................................................................................... 34 3. The importance of the product or ingredient to commerce. .............................................................. 34 4. Use by children ......................................................................................................................................... 34 5. Effects on bystanders especially children and the unborn................................................................. 35 B. Historical recognition of manufacturer’s public health obligations to test their products and take appropriate public health actions........................................................................................................................... 35 C. Contemporaneous corporate view of their public health responsibilities ............................................ 36 D. Health education through sales people....................................................................................................... 37 E. Obligations and Promises: In Their Own Words ..................................................................................... 38 F. Additional obligations incumbent upon manufacturers due to the nature of the product, children’s use, and previous misleading health representations.......................................................................................... 39 1. Marketing to children. ............................................................................................................................. 39 a) Tobacco Companies’ Marketing to Children: In Their Own Words.......................................... 41 2. The addictive nature of the product....................................................................................................... 43 3. Misleading Statements............................................................................................................................. 46 (a) Semantic arguments............................................................................................................................ 46 i. Associations, Risk Factors and causes....................................................................................... 46 ii. Necessary and sufficient causes .................................................................................................. 46 iii. Habituation versus Addiction...................................................................................................... 47 4. Design issues ............................................................................................................................................. 49 a) Intentional Control of Nicotine Levels ............................................................................................ 49 b) Toxic constituents of Tobacco Smoke ............................................................................................. 50 i. Particulates ...................................................................................................................................... 50 ii. Asbestos in Cigarettes................................................................................................................... 50 c) Toxic constituents of Tobacco Smoke that Mask Its Warning Properties Blocking the Smoker’s Natural Senses.............................................................................................................................. 51 i. Additives ......................................................................................................................................... 51 a) Sweets........................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Menthol Cigarettes and Smoking Cessation Behaviour: a Review of Tobacco Industry Documents Stacey J Anderson1,2
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by PubMed Central Research paper Menthol cigarettes and smoking cessation behaviour: a review of tobacco industry documents Stacey J Anderson1,2 1Department of Social and ABSTRACT The concentration of menthol in tobacco prod- Behavioral Sciences, University Objective To determine what the tobacco industry knew ucts varies according to the product and the flavour of California, San Francisco about menthol’s relation to smoking cessation behaviour. desired, but is present in 90% of all tobacco prod- (UCSF), San Francisco, ‘ ’ ‘ ’ 2 3 California, USA Methods A snowball sampling design was used to ucts, mentholated and non-mentholated . 2Center for Tobacco Control systematically search the Legacy Tobacco Documents Studies in the peer-reviewed academic literature of Research and Education, Library (LTDL) (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu) between 15 the association of menthol smoking and cessation University of California, San May to 1 August 2010. Of the approximately 11 million have yielded conflicting findings. One reason for Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California, USA documents available in the LTDL, the iterative searches inconsistencies is differences in study design (eg, returned tens of thousands of results. A final collection of clinical treatment studies, population-based Correspondence to 509 documents relevant to 1 or more of the research studies), and another is differences in cessation Stacey J Anderson, Department questions were qualitatively analysed, as follows: (1) outcomes (eg, length of time abstinent, length of of Social and Behavioral perceived sensory and taste rewards of menthol and time to relapse, number of quit attempts) across Sciences, Box 0612, University fi of California, San Francisco potential relation to quitting; and (2) motivation to quit studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendices to Final Mem & Order\Appendix a Part 1.Wpd
    APPENDIX A Excerpts from United States v. Philip Morris USA. Inc., et al. — F. Supp. 2d —, No. 99-2496 (GK), 2006 WL 2380622, 2006 WL 2380648, 2006 WL 2380632, 2006 WL 2381449, 2006 WL 2380650, and 2006 WL 2380681 (D.D.C. Aug. 17, 2006). [The Table of Contents from the opinion itself follows. Italicized headings appear in whole or in part in this appendix. Note that the page numbers in this table of contents do not correspond to the pages in this appendix. Footnotes have been omitted or moved to the text in brackets.] TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................1 A. Overview ........................................................1 B. Preliminary Guidance for the Reader..................................5 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY...............................................10 III. CREATION, NATURE, AND OPERATION OF THE ENTERPRISE.....................................................15 A. Pre-1953 Overview–The Rise in American Smoking and the Status of Scientific Research on Smoking and Health ..............16 B. Creation of the Enterprise ..........................................18 C. TIRC/CTR -- Tobacco Industry Research Committee/Council for Tobacco Research-USA .........................................26 1. Selection and Approval of TIRC’s Scientific Advisory Board Members and Scientific Director .........................37 2. Research Activities of TIRC/CTR ..............................43 3. Public Relations Activities of TIRC/CTR ........................50 4. Publications and Public Statements
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court for the District of Columbia
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 99-CV-2496 (GK) ) PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. (f/k/a ) PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED), et al., ) ) Defendants. ) UNITED STATES’ WRITTEN DIRECT EXAMINATION OF ALLAN M. BRANDT, Ph.D. SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO ORDER #471 1 Q: Can you please state your name for the record? 2 A: Allan M. Brandt. 3 Q: Dr. Brandt, what is your current professional position? 4 A: I am the Amalie Moses Kass Professor of the History of Medicine at Harvard 5 Medical School and Professor of the History of Science at Harvard University, where I 6 am currently the chair of the Department of the History of Science. 7 Q: Have you been retained to testify as an expert witness in this case? 8 A: Yes, I have. 9 Q: Before we address the substance of your expert opinion, let us ask you a bit 10 about your educational and professional background. First, where did you receive 11 your professional education? 12 A: Following my graduation from Brandeis University in 1974, I began doctoral 13 work in history at Columbia University. 14 Q: For what reason, if any, did you choose to pursue your Ph.D. at Columbia? 15 A: I selected Columbia because it had a particularly distinguished faculty, especially 16 in the area of American social and political history during the twentieth century. 17 Q: Did you study with anyone in particular at Columbia? 18 A: I did. My principal advisor and mentor throughout my graduate education was 19 William E.
    [Show full text]
  • Tobacco Industry in Transition the Tobacco Industry in Transition
    •i_r, _ : #w .1o nt. Md' rYrM$ ! i 1ip1 ' _f awret ysrswldsw ° . :' ! • '; : a 1 : I The Tobacco Industry in Transition The Tobacco Industry in Transition Policies for the 1980s Edited by William R. Finger North Carolina Center for Public Policy Research, Inc. LexingtonBooks D.C. Heath and Company Lexington, Massachusetts Toronto Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: The Tobacco industry in transition. 1. Tobacco manufacture and trade-Government policy-United States. 2. Tobacco manufacture and trade-United States. I. Finger, William R. II. North Carolina Center for Public Policy Research. HD9136.T6 338.1'7371'0973 81-47064 ISBN 0-669-04552-7 AACR2 Copyright © 1981 by North Carolina Center for Public Policy Research, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmit- ted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Published simultaneously in Canada Printed in the United States of America International Standard Book Number: 0-669-04552-7 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 81-47064 Contents Acknowledgments ix Introduction William R. Finger Xi Part I The Tobacco Program and the Farmer 1 Chapter 1 Early Efforts to Control the Market-And Why They Failed Anthony J. Badger 3 Chapter 2 The Federal Tobacco Program: How It Works and Alternatives for Change Charles Pugh 13 Chapter 3 Landmarks in the Tobacco Program Charles Pugh 31 Chapter
    [Show full text]
  • The Dark Side of Marketing Seemingly “Light” Cigarettes: Successful Images and Failed Fact R W Pollay, T Dewhirst
    i18 Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tc.11.suppl_1.i18 on 1 March 2002. Downloaded from The dark side of marketing seemingly “Light” cigarettes: successful images and failed fact R W Pollay, T Dewhirst ............................................................................................................................. Tobacco Control 2002;11(Suppl I):i18–i31 Objective: To understand the development, intent, and consequences of US tobacco industry advertis- ing for low machine yield cigarettes. Methods: Analysis of trade sources and internal US tobacco company documents now available on various web sites created by corporations, litigation, or public health bodies. Results: When introducing low yield products, cigarette manufacturers were concerned about maintaining products with acceptable taste/flavour and feared consumers might become weaned from See end of article for smoking. Several tactics were employed by cigarette manufacturers, leading consumers to perceive fil- authors’ affiliations tered and low machine yield brands as safer relative to other brands. Tactics include using cosmetic ....................... (that is, ineffective) filters, loosening filters over time, using medicinal menthol, using high tech imagery, using virtuous brand names and descriptors, adding a virtuous variant to a brand’s product line, and Correspondence to: Richard W Pollay, Faculty generating misleading data on tar and nicotine yields. of Commerce and Business Conclusions: Advertisements of filtered and low tar cigarettes were intended
    [Show full text]
  • A Smoking Gun:
    Why are tobacco companies allowed to spend $11/2 billion dollars per year to pro­ mote deadly products-with many of their messages intended for children? How can this situation be tolerated? How did it arise? What can we do about it? Can pro­ tection be achieved in a manner compati­ ble with free enterprise and individual freedom? How should the rights of smokers and nonsmokers be balanced? Must nonsmokers subsidize the cost of treating cigarette-induced disease? How much protection should nonsmokers have from drifting cigarette smoke? How can smokers escape from the grip of nicotine addiction and psychological dependence on smoking? Dr. Elizabeth Whelan addresses these and other important questions as she examines how the tobacco industry de­ veloped and thrived during the 20th century, creating an unprecedented chain of economic and physical dependence. She discusses the early launching of the Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan is Executive Di­ cigarette, its initial rejection by those ac­ rector of the American Council on Science customed to the more "manly" pipe and and Health. She holds advanced degrees in cigar, and finally, its stellar success, result­ epidemiology and public health education ing in large part from an unparalleled from the Yale School of Medicine and the advertising blitz. Harvard School of Public Health, and has In many ways, the cigarette represents written extensively on a variety of topics just plain bad li.ick. By the time that the relating to the environment and public data on cigarette smoking and disease be­ health. Dr. Whelan resides in New York came conclusive in the 1950s, a substan­ City with her husband and daughter.
    [Show full text]
  • Selling Death: Cigarette Advertising and Public Health
    67 66 enough to bl' c;irried ;iway? She woulil "\Ve were up ;1t Grandma's. She A R.E.,POR.TE,R. AT LAR.GE., first d;ites. Although they Wl'Jlt there told Ma I should he h:-ipti7.cd." return from tlw Adagio whik he was A CLOUD OF SMOKE often, he co11ld nL'\'t:r get accustomed to "\ Vlwt di,l Ivla sad" the n:1me. Affettuoso; why not the Af­ skqiing, and in the morning they would "She told Graml111i1to take mc down­ IIEN a manu­ an extensive review nf fcttuoso? At times wh,:n, for one reason look at 1:ach other :iet:1tsingl}' acros, the t11wn antl gct me baptized if it made hrr fact11red product thl' subject. It rn ncludcd 11r;innth1:r, he hat! failed to make love to 1IL·hrisof the breakfast tahk The fin: hadn't gone nut. It was hanked, banked hnppy. Em ily's saving her allnwanCL· to W that most con­ ,, t hat "cignrette smoking is his wife wlll'n she exp1:cted him to, shc buy a Bible . I think we shoultl all go tn sumi:rs accept as usd11l or ' ( t he: most likely causo: of would g1:t up, dn:ss, and go down to against soll1l' long, unexpected, and im­ • J church eHr}' Sunday and confess." pleasurnble coml's 11ndcr tht: world wide· incr ease in the Acbgio. It had prect'ded him. It w;is prohabl1· winter. "\\That's sill' doing there he asked, "Confrss?" said Fidding. strong suspicion of heing ' cl<:aths from lung cancer," her homt: hasc:.
    [Show full text]
  • The African Americanization of Menthol Cigarette Use in the United States
    Nicotine & Tobacco Research Volume 6, Supplement 1 (February 2004) S55–S65 The African Americanization of menthol cigarette use in the United States Phillip S. Gardiner [Received 23 December 2002; accepted 30 June 2003] Today, over 70% of African American smokers prefer menthol cigarettes, compared with 30% of White smokers. This unique social phenomenon was principally occasioned by the tobacco industry’s masterful manipulation of the burgeoning Black, urban, segregated, consumer market in the 1960s. Through the use of television and other advertising media, coupled with culturally tailored images and messages, the tobacco industry ‘‘African Americanized’’ menthol cigarettes. The tobacco industry successfully positioned mentholated products, especially Kool, as young, hip, new, and healthy. During the time that menthols were gaining a large market share in the African American community, the tobacco industry donated funds to African American organizations hoping to blunt the attack on their products. Many of the findings in this article are drawn from the tobacco industry documents disclosed following the Master Settlement Agreement in 1998. After a short review of the origins and growth of menthols, this article examines some key social factors that, when considered together, led to disproportionate use of mentholated cigarettes by African Americans compared with other Americans. Unfortunately, the long-term impact of the industry’s practice in this community may be partly responsible for the disproportionately high tobacco-related disease and mortality among African Americans generally and African American males particularly. Introduction menthol cigarettes and the adoption of these products by over 70% of African American smokers, as Mentholated cigarettes have been a ubiquitous part compared with 30% of White smokers (U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The FTC Cigarette Test Method for Determining Tar, Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide Yields Ofu.S
    MONOGRAPH The FTC CigaretteO Test Method for Determining Tar, Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide Yields of US. Cigarettes Report of the NCI Expert Committee NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH National Cancer Institute 1 TheFTC CigaretteO Test Method tor Determining Tar, Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide Yields of US. Cigarettes i ! Report of the NCI Expert Committee Mis. I I j bldg 10, 10 CENTER ; I BETH ( ESDA, MD U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEAlTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service National Institutes of Health dr r 1 Foreword In response to the emerging scientific evidence that cigarette smoking posed a significant health risk to the user, in the early 1950's the major cigarette manufacturers began widespread promotion of filtered cigarettes to reassure smokers that, regardless of whatever unhealthy constituents were in cigarette smoke, filters were a "scientific" breakthrough. Advertisements for Viceroy's "health guard filter" stated, "DENTISTS ADVISE—Smoke VICEROYS—^The Nicotine and Tars Trapped by The Viceroy Filter CAN NEVER STAIN YOUR TEETH!" and "Leading N.Y. Doctor Tells His Patients What to Smoke—Filtered Cigarette Smoke Is Better For Health. The Nicotine and Tars Trapped . Cannot Reach Mouth, Throat Or Lungs." Chesterfield was "Best for you—low in nicotine, highest in quality," while L&M's were "Just What the Doctor Ordered." Lorillard Tobacco Company stressed its science-based Kent micronite filter (the original micronite filter was made of asbestos) and claimed it removed seven times more tar and nicotine than any other cigarette, which "put Kent in a class all by itself where health protection is concerned." Of course, we know today that not only were these claims patently false, but the cigarette companies knew it.
    [Show full text]
  • Cigarette Testing and the Federal Trade Commission: a Historical Overview’ C
    Chapter 1 Cigarette Testing and the Federal Trade Commission: A Historical Overview’ C. Lee Peeler Cigarette manufacturers began advertising their products’ tar and nicotine content before there was a standardized procedure for testing cigarette output. In 1955, after a series of cases challenging a variety of claims made for cigarettes (including tar and nicotine claims),’ the Federal Trade Commission (Commission or FTC) published cigarette advertising guides. Among other things, the guides prohibited claims that a particular brand of cigarettes was low in tar and nicotine or lower than other brands “when it has not been established by competent scientific proof. that the claim is true, and if true, that such difference or differences are significant” (Federal Trade Commission, 1988a). However, cigarette manufacturers continued to advertise tar numbers. In the absence of a standardized testing methodology, their claims resulted in what is often referred to as the “tar derby”-a multitude of inconsistent, noncomparable claims that did not give consumers a meaningful opportunity to assess the relative tar delivery of competing brands. The tar derby ended in 1960, when discussions with the Commission culminated in an agreement by the industry to refrain from tar and nicotine advertising (Federal Trade Commission, 1988b). In 1964 the first Surgeon General’s report on the health risks of smoking concluded that cigarette smoking was a cause of lung cancer in men (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1964). In 1966 the Public Health Service stated that “The preponderance of scientific evidence strongly suggests that the lower the tar and nicotine content of cigarette smoke, the less harmful would be the effect” (U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony of Alan Blum, MD Director, the University of Alabama Center
    Submission of Alan Blum, MD Testimony of Alan Blum, MD Director, The University of Alabama Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society Regarding the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act February 27, 2007 1 Submission of Alan Blum, MD Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, The public trusts the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to safeguard the medicines and food products that contribute to good health and well-being. Having served as a member of an FDA advisory panel, I have great respect for this agency’s work in assuring the safety of medications and medical devices used in the diagnosis and treatment of disease. As we have known for decades, cigarettes are the nation’s leading cause of cancers, heart disease, and emphysema. Placing our most lethal consumer product under the control of the Food and Drug Administration makes no sense. Asking this agency to promulgate “product safety standards” for this death-dealing device is an oxymoron and will perpetuate the myth that cigarettes can be made safer. Safer than what, one might ask, fresh air? The championing of this bill by Philip Morris USA, America’s top cigarette manufacturer with 50% of the market, should prompt skepticism about the measure and its alleged public health benefits. Reading the fine print bears this out. Consider these three points: 2 Submission of Alan Blum, MD First, the bill would stringently regulate new and potentially less hazardous tobacco products but would not apply these same standards to the most harmful form of tobacco, namely Marlboro and other existing cigarettes which cause the deaths of nearly half a million Americans each year.
    [Show full text]
  • Low Tar Harm Reduction Programme the Australian Tar Derby: the Origins
    Downloaded from tc.bmj.com on 13 November 2006 The Australian tar derby: the origins and fate of a low tar harm reduction programme W King, S M Carter, R Borland, S Chapman and N Gray Tob. Control 2003;12;61-70 doi:10.1136/tc.12.suppl_3.iii61 Updated information and services can be found at: http://tc.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/12/suppl_3/iii61 These include: References This article cites 11 articles, 4 of which can be accessed free at: http://tc.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/12/suppl_3/iii61#BIBL 4 online articles that cite this article can be accessed at: http://tc.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/12/suppl_3/iii61#otherarticles Rapid responses You can respond to this article at: http://tc.bmj.com/cgi/eletter-submit/12/suppl_3/iii61 Email alerting Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article - sign up in the box at the service top right corner of the article Topic collections Articles on similar topics can be found in the following collections Tobacco use (180 articles) Notes To order reprints of this article go to: http://www.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprintform To subscribe to Tobacco Control go to: http://www.bmjjournals.com/subscriptions/ Downloaded from tc.bmj.com on 13 November 2006 iii61 RESEARCH PAPER The Australian tar derby: the origins and fate of a low tar harm reduction programme W King, S M Carter, R Borland, S Chapman, N Gray ............................................................................................................................... Tobacco Control 2003;12(Suppl III):iii61–iii70 Objective: To document the development of the low tar harm reduction programme in Australia, including tobacco industry responses.
    [Show full text]