242 Control 2000;9:242–247

INDUSTRY WATCH

Shameful science: four decades of the German tobacco industry’s hidden research on smoking and health

The following presents the “best of the best” of smoking caused disease—they knew early on it annotations of over 600 tobacco industry did—but they were obsessed by the evidence documents that tell a nearly 40 year story of the that tobacco poisons released into the air could smoking and health research programme aVect the health of non-smokers; and they did sponsored by the members of the Association everything they could to deny, suppress, and of Industries of Germany (the finally ignore the overwhelming evidence. “Verband”). Its members include the German and Austrian cigarette manufacturers as well as the transnational firms of Philip Morris (PM), The documents RJ Reynolds (RJR), and British American The Verband der Cigarettenindustrie (VdC) is Tobacco (BAT). the German trade association of cigarette The documents are part of some 33 million manufacturers whose members include the pages released as a result of legal agreements in German and Austrian tobacco companies the USA between state attorney generals and (Reemstma, Brinkmann, H van Landwyck, Austria Tabak, and three smaller companies), the American based tobacco companies. Virtu- as well as the German branches of three ally all are available on Internet websites. While transnational firms (PM, RJR, and BAT). It nearly all the annotated documents come from comprises five departments: industrial activi- PM and RJR and are in English, a large cache ties, trade issues, marketing, public aVairs, and of BAT documents on the Verband are held at the scientific department. It is mainly the the BAT depository in Guildford, UK, includ- activities of the latter that are displayed in the ing a group of German language documents. industry documents. These are yet to be reviewed. Nonetheless, The transnational firms felt it was necessary what is presented adequately highlights the to support research in Germany, both through astonishing story of corrupted science in the the Verband as well as through private grants to service of a deeply flawed product. The German scientists. A 23 July 1992 memo from selected quotations will astonish even those one PM lawyer to another explains: “The rela- who have become inured to what has already tionship between the industry and the German been discovered. government seems to be a good deal better Beyond the petty squabbles and unpleasant than the relationship between the industry and characters, the story can be boiled down to a the government in this country. As I few essential themes. understand it, there are regular consultations The company scientists had to struggle with between government and industry scientists, as the accumulating and on-rushing evidence that well as constructive discussions regarding theirs was one of the foulest products (in the smoking related laws and regulations. The environmental sense) sold to be taken into industry in Germany appears to be more influ- human bodies. That struggle was seldom ential with the government than the industry in openly or honestly fought. the US and, for that reason, the industry feels it Even as some of the scientists hoped, in vain, is important to maintain a substantial research to create the “safer cigarette”, company presence. Although I do not believe litigation is lawyers were focused entirely on avoiding imminent in Germany, should it occur, the fact litigation, and avoiding loss when sued. An that we are sponsoring research—whether army of public relations experts, front through the Verband, or individually—could organisations, and corrupted consultants be of substantial help, in convincing a court served the lawyers, not the truth—the that we are fulfilling our duty to conduct companies, not the public. research. Nor do I think we should downplay German tobacco scientists, led by Professor the importance of having scientific contacts in Franz X Adlkofer, managed to integrate and as important a country as Germany.”1 ingratiate themselves with leading researchers, It was also the case that “Throughout the academics and government oYcials, even with domestic industry, two gentlemen’s agree- some who were strongly anti-tobacco. This ments operative in the early days” indicated gave the German industry the prestige and that “any company discovering an innovation time to carry out research, and the ability to permitting the fabrication of an essentially safe influence policy in Germany and throughout cigarette would share the discovery with others Europe and other continents, even today. in the industry”, and that “no domestic German scientists knew from the start that company would use intact animals in-house in the true battleground was, and still is, passive biomedical research”. This alone would have smoking. Their worry was not so much whether prompted the major transnational firms to look Industry watch 243

to the VdC to sponsor such research in American companies’ research eVort from the Germany.2 1950s on was driven by concern over law suits, An example of a “gentleman’s agreement” is and was therefore controlled by the company provided in this 1963 draft contract between lawyers and law firms. Edwin Jacob of the law the British tobacco industry and the Verband’s firm Jacob, Medinger was quite emphatic in a research arm to share results pointing to a 1978 meeting with the leaders of the Verband cigarette less likely to cause cancer, thus research programme, Harold Koenig and implicitly acknowledging the danger. “The Franz Adlkofer, as reported in a secret RJR Tobacco Research Council [UK] and the Wis- memo: “Mr Jacob then proceeded to explain senschaftliche Forschungsstelle agree by this the dangers of research from the point contract to submit to each other without delay of view of the Industry, with special reference the following informations which have to to the threat of the American Industry being include all technological details of manufac- placed under the jurisdiction of the Food and ture. These are: (1) Information about modifi- Drug Administration ...Wethen somewhat cations to or other tobacco products forcibly and—deliberately—overbearingly ex- which have been shown to be beneficial to tracted from them an unequivocal promise that human health. (2) Information about before any eVort which was made to modifications to cigarettes or other tobacco commence or in any other way start a specific products the smoke or smoke condensate of research project, RJR—like the other member which have been shown to produce less Companies of the Verband—would have a biological activity to an extent that was statisti- minimum of three months to evaluate each cally significant, (a) in a test (or tests) of a type proposal . . .Almost all of the meeting in Lon- that was relevant for or other don dealt with the legal perils and related human diseases . . . Both the Tobacco Research aspects of the concepts on nicotine oriented Council and the Wissenschaftliche Forsc- research of the Verband.”5 hungsstelle respectively will endeavour to con- The legal perils, as the transnational firms clude equal contracts with AUSTRIA saw it, also extended to any research that might TABAKWERKE, Vienna . . . ADMINIS- even remotely suggest that cigarettes were TRAZIONE DEI MONOPOLI DI STATO, harmful. For instance, Franz Adlkofer was Rome . . . SERVICE D’EXPLOITATION INDUSTRIELLE DES TABACS ET DES adamant over the decades that the Verband ALLUMETTES, Paris . . . SVENSKA research be directed towards creating a “safer TOBAKS AKTIBOLAGET, Stockholm . . . cigarette,” and this led to continuous conflict, VEREIGNIGTE TABAKFABRIKEN AG, even up to the mid 1990s. “RJR has always Neuchatel.”3 rejected the idea of developing a “safe” But as this visit report (to industry laborato- cigarette being based on an unfounded ries in England, Sweden, Germany, France) assumption, to wit, current cigarettes are describes, the rationale behind “smoking and unsafe. Instead, RJR’s position has always health” research done by the Verband been, and still is, that cigarettes have not been companies seemed as much for political scientifically established as disease producing 6 advantage as for preventing disease. “[The in human smokers . . .” Germans] have apparently convinced their However, Adlkofer’s notion of “safer” had a Minister of Health that they know more about rather grim aspect: “Talking about ‘the less smoking and health than anyone else, that they harmful cigarette’, [Adlkofer] said . . . this are taking responsible actions, and he would most likely prolong the latency period apparently turns to them for advice. The Ger- for cancer by another 5–10 years, and thus man companies seem to be working closely would make it a no-issue for the cigarette together, and have decided that no one can industry.”7 aVord the luxury of a temporary competitive And in another account, an attorney from advantage in the smoking and health area. Jacob, Medinger, preparing a White Paper to BAT, for example, has company supported instruct the Verband, contrasted RJR’s position research which shows that “KRONE”, their with Adlkofer’s: “[He] believes that smoking is newest brand, has 50% of the biological activ- killing a couple of hundred thousand people a ity of other brands (based on mouse skin year and that his job is to cut that figure down painting). They will not advertise this under to only 50,000 or so ...[but]because of RJR any circumstance and presumably will make Germany’s share of market it did not have the processes used available to others when enough clout to remedy this situation ...The they are certain there is a health significance. paper was drawn largely from materials which They do not consider that they are in a vulner- we and the US industry had used before in able position because they are conducting Congress and court.”8 mouse skin painting tests, but rather consider The transnationals had another reason to that this was essential in establishing their keep supporting research in Germany: the position with their Minister of Health. I desire to recruit expert “witnesses” who could consider the German industry to be in a better be relied on to spread the tobacco industry position than the industry of any other views. One method was to invite scientists to a country, and hope that the US industry can conference whose sponsorship would remain move in that direction.”4 secret lest it “would preclude the ability to The relationship between the transnationals, attract the participants desired”. One such PM and RJR in particular, and the Verband conference was a symposium on passive smok- was fractious from the start because the ing “intended to establish witnesses, interna- 244 Industry watch

tional sociologists, lawyers and scientists that would have a greater ratio of nicotine to ), it the industry could count on in other areas”.9 was crucial to show that nicotine was not In public, the Verband followed the tobacco metabolised in the body to the cancer causing industry line, denying the overwhelming substances called nitrosamines (which, of evidence that tobacco caused disease and course, ignored the substantial contribution of death: “The Dusseldorf branch of the nitrosamines from the other components of semi-oYcial German Health Insurance, which tobacco). When it appeared that of 10 smokers insures about 70% of all West Germans, made none showed excretion of the toxin when the following false allegations: 1. ‘There is a injected with radioactive nicotine, a presenta- cause and eVect relationship between cigarette tion at an international conference in Hawaii smoking and various diseases.’ 2. ‘Tobacco was prepared. When more careful analysis was advertising induces children and young people done, four of the 10 showed positive results, to smoke.’ 3. ‘Smokers are insuYciently and the responsible Verband researcher informed regarding the eVect of smoking on (Anthony Tricker) was forbidden to go to health.’ The Verband has replied over the Hawaii. PM’s Walter Fink worried that “The signature of Mr von Specht regarding point 1. situation ...iscomparable with the situation That ‘risk factors’ are not synonymous with under Dontenwill. Will the consequences be causation, and that relationships between the same?” The Verband’s science policy com- smoking and health are a matter of mittee decided to present the original negative controversy . . . Regarding point 2, the Verband results and “project work terminated”.13 stated that not a single study backs up the The decision to withdraw the poster on nit- insurance’s claim . . . Regarding point 3, it was rosation of nicotine at the nitrosamine meeting pointed out that all press, radio and TV polls in Hawaii, when four persons dosed with have come to contrary conclusions.”10 radioactive nicotine were found to have But in private it was another matter: Colby nitrosamine in the urine “was subsequently quotes Adlkofer in a secret document as saying reversed after repetition of the experiments had that “risk factors were more or less shown that endogenous nitrosation of nicotine synonymous with causation”. Colby relates can certainly be ruled out”.14 further, “In the sum he believes that smoking In 1993 Stephen Hecht of Ernst Wynder’s ‘causes’ lung cancer, heart disease....”.11 American Health Foundation showed that The Verband took it far beyond simply non-smokers exposed to heavy passive putting on a good face for the public. It actively smoking absorbed nitrosamines in about the suppressed its own research that demonstrated same ratio compared to smokers as the the damage cigarette smoke can do. The most incidence of lung cancer between the two egregious example came in 1975 with the total groups. Understandably, perhaps, the transna- dismantling of the German Industry Research tional firms were especially skittish about any Institute, then headed by Professor Walter further attempts to replicate the Hecht study. Dontenwill. Dontenwill created a cause celebre When Gerhard Scherer of the Verband’s labo- when he demonstrated that hamsters inhaling ratory proposed an elaborate protocol to test cigarette smoke came down with tumours of passive smoking again, the Verband decision the larynx, some of them malignant, and was firmly negative: “Unnecessary; not to be cardiovascular disease; his paper was published done!”15 RJR chemist David Doolittle advised in 1973 in the prestigious Journal of the Verband and RJR to do nothing about the National Cancer Institute. He had the further Hecht study. After a vigorous attack on temerity to hold a press conference Adlkofer’s scientific ability and claims that Ver- announcing the results. As told by the 1980 band had never shown hazardous eVect of BBC Panorama programme, a secret Verband environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) on meeting pensioned oV Professor Dontenwill, humans (“... none of these studies (as far as I age 50, with DM1.6 million, the equivalent of know) have ever been accepted for publication 10 years salary. The Research Institute was in peer reviewed journals, and are virtually replaced by an “independent” research unknown in the scientific world”), Doolittle funding agency, supported by the German and argued against doing any “real life” study (ETS transnational cigarette industry, and used to exposure equivalent to what would be found in approve research proposals coming from a cocktail lounge): “I think this study would various scientists and institutions. As the chair- not only be unhelpful, but would probably be man of the Verband, Dieter van Specht (BAT/ uninterpretable and leave the door open for Germany) blandly explained: “The main prohibitionists to interpret in a malicious man- motive reportedly was the fact that in matters ner. Therefore, I feel strongly that this study of smoking and health, the Institute was the should not be done. There are only two possi- only ‘porte-parole’ of the Industry. Professor ble outcomes from the NNAL and Dontenwill’s uncooperative and authoritarian NNAL-glucuronide measurements—either manner made it impossible for the VdC (and you will find it, or you won’t find it. If you do the Industry) to expose their views in these find it, all it does is confirm the American matters.”12 Verband did not re-establish a sepa- Health Foundation thesis that non-smokers are rate laboratory for nearly a decade. exposed to biologically relevant doses of NNK. New research coming out of that laboratory We would not be able to put this into perspec- in Munich was also susceptible to suppression tive in any way, nor be able to argue with any if it showed results unfavourable to the eVectiveness that this level of exposure is industry. In Adlkofer’s and Verband’s desire to biologically insignificant, since we have no absolve nicotine generally (a “safer” cigarette data to support this position [emphasis Industry watch 245

added]. On the other hand, if we do not find try statistician] Lee and Hirayama are correct the metabolites in the urine; there are only two and Mantel and TI [Tobacco Institute] are possible interpretations. The first interpreta- wrong. They believe Hirayama is a good scien- tion is the NNK has been metabolised by the tist and that his non-smoking wives publication non-smoker to active metabolites and is now was correct . . . Adlkofer [said] that the TI bound to the individuals’ DNA, RNA and pro- knew it and that TI published its statement tein. This obviously is an undesirable interpre- about Hirayama knowing the work was tation of the data. The other interpretation correct.”18 would be that the method is simply too insen- The threat was considered so serious that for sitive to detect the metabolites at a low dose the next two decades the tobacco industry level.” recruited expert consultants, set up or Doolittle went on to describe the kind of subsidised front groups, and staged confer- study he would favour, one with predeter- ences to cast doubt that passive smoke was mined outcomes: “In summary, in my mind anything more than a nuisance. Only since the ideal would be to develop a data set which industry documents have become public do we shows the following: First, people are exposed know that the consultants and conferences to very, very low levels of NNK in ETS. These were being secretly supported by the tobacco data will likely be developed by other individu- companies through their law firms and public als, so the industry needs (at most) to only relations companies. The Verband was enlisted confirm these numbers with limited studies. in this global eVort. Whatever was said in Second, the small amount of NNK absorbed private meetings, Verband played a loyal role by individuals exposed to ETS is biologically vis a vis the entire industry in its public insignificant for the following reasons: (1) it is relations campaigns, whether on taxation, eVectively detoxified and excreted by the body; health warnings, harassment of anti-smoking (2) the biological activity of NNK is inhibited groups, cultivating journalists and government by nicotine and cotinine which will always be oYcials, impugning the work and character of present in gross excess relative to NNK, both researchers finding harm in cigarettes, and cre- in atmospheres and in the body; (3) the level of ating citizen front groups from industry nitrosamines received by an individual employees: “Therefore, the Verband jointly following ETS exposure is insignificant with the Tobacco Workers’ Union holds compared to nitrosamine exposures from other regular smoking and health lessons where sources, such as food.”16 employees of the diVerent member companies Nonetheless, somehow, the experiment was are taught the basic issues and how to defend done by the Verband, and the results were vir- industry’s positions ...TodaytheVerband dis- tually the same as Hecht’s: “Some time ago, poses of a network of more than 200 employees the Munich Laboratory of the Verband all over the Federal Republic. They keep us conducted a study to investigate the uptake of informed about their local media scenery and NNK by smokers and non-smokers. Regarding they write letters to the editor, if necessary. It is non-smokers exposed to ETS, the analytical planned to organise and structure this PR force data indicated that they were exposed to about in a way comparable to the American Tobacco 1% of a smoker’s average NNK dose. No steps Institute’s TAN [Tobacco Action Network] were taken at that time to communicate with similar tasks and responsibilities.”19 these results externally or to publish It was precisely in the public relations eVorts them.”17 [emphasis added] This study indeed that Verband was so valuable to the has yet to appear in any peer reviewed journal transnationals. As PM attorney Charles Wall as of January 2000. wrote to PM attorney Murray Bring, “The The Verband recognised long before the industry in Germany appears to be more influ- transnationals that the real battleground would ential with the government than the industry in be over passive smoking. The industry always the US”.20 argues that smoking is an individual choice and One egregious example suYces to demon- smokers know the risks. If it could be shown strate that influence. Professor K Ueberla was that non-smokers are involuntarily at risk, then president of the Federal Health OYce in Berlin smoking becomes a more unacceptable behav- and thus in an influential position to determine iour, regulation increases, and sales go down. policies on tobacco, both in Germany and In 1980, Hirayama in Japan and Trichopoulos within Europe. In September 1982, Ueberla in Greece showed that non-smoking wives with was given a Verband grant to do a field study lung cancer were more likely to have lived with on passive smoking, for as Adlkofer remarked, smoking husbands, with the correlation he “was totally convinced that the attitude of stronger the longer and more intense the expo- Professor Ueberla was positive towards passive sure. The tobacco industry went on the attack smoking”.21 A year later, as Adlkofer told an almost immediately, one which has not let up audience of the National Manufacturers Asso- until today even though the best designed ciation in Washington DC, the dangerous find- studies continue to demonstrate the same ings of Hirayama and Trichopolous were neu- eVect (not to mention the proven ill eVects in tralised: “So industry by its research branch children and other susceptible persons). In pri- engaged itself in a research programme on pas- vate, however, Adlkofer and his colleagues sive smoking done by the highest health concluded that Hirayama was right, and it was authority in Germany, which is the Federal up to the Verband to find a “threshold” limit of Health OYce in Berlin. This cooperation, still safe exposure: “Dr Adlkofer ...has though rather new, is bearing already some committed himself to the position that [indus- fruit. In a recent statement on passive smoking 246 Industry watch

in the Hessian Parliament the Hessian State and Restaurants). The DEHOGA is against Government cited from a letter of the Federal divisions in restaurants for specific non- Health OYce to the Federal Health Ministry. It smoking sections. The VDC is preparing a said that inspite [sic] of the findings of brochure at the present to send to the restau- HIRAYAMA and TRICHOPOULOS there is rant owners . . . One smokers rights group in not suYcient evidence to support the assump- Germany is quite promissing [sic] at the tion that passive smoking causes lung cancer in moment. The “Raucher wehrt Euch” non-smokers.”22 (smokers defend yourselves) RAWE who fight The Verband maintained good relations for smokers rights. VDC assists this even with the pioneer smoking and health association which is having its first successfull researcher, the late Ernst Wynder, in particular [sic] publications also successfull press and because Wynder honestly believed that passive television appearances . . .”25 smoking did not cause lung cancer (his own hospital based case control study was Envoi negative). Franz Adlkofer’s budget projection This report, highlighting the “best of the best” for VdC and the Forschungsrat research for documents, may serve as a baseline mark to 1982-85 contained this item: “Cooperation measure what the German cigarette industry with Professor Wynder. Adlkofer recom- and its collaborators will do in this new millen- mended continuous cooperation and stressed nium, with respect to research, revelation, and Wynder’s pro-industry attitude vis-a-vis public honest dealings with the community of smoking. Because of his expertise Wynder shall Europe. In the latest documents to be be paid US$100 000 for another year as VdC uncovered we read the following: consultant.”23 “The exhaustive publication of all types Professor Ueberla was helpful in another of VdC documents on the Internet by matter as well. The cigarette flavouring US tobacco companies created a violation of additive, coumarin, had been shown to cause personal rights of some of the academic liver damage and cancer in animals, yet the researchers sponsored by the VdC. A task Verband was seeking to not have it banned in force within the VdC is preparing a German cigarettes. Adlkofer admitted that “It complete report on the types of Internet could not be excluded that the majority of ani- documents, their importance, and their mals had cholangiofibroses, only, but a small interrelation to each other. In order to avoid number of animals had cholangiocarcinoma”. similar actions in the future, several options Nonetheless, President Ueberla of the Federal for the internal VdC correspondence and Department of Health said he would postpone information of member companies will be a final decision on coumarin until all the data tested.” were in, and “would not consider cholangiofi- In a subsequent meeting, the activities of the broses a major obstacle for an oYcial permit to VdC in the analysis of GM [genetically use coumarin as additive for tobacco modified] tobacco were discussed.26 24 products.” NORBERT HIRSCHHORN The Verband continued to demonstrate its Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA commitment to the global industry. In 1989, [email protected] PM International launched its “Boca Raton Support was provided by the Tobacco Free Initiative of the Action Plan” (so-named for the city in Florida World Health Organization where PMI’s top executives met), initiating a wide ranging series of strategies to counter the 1 “Philip Morris Research”. PM 2022850392-0402, at www- anti-smoking movement, and targeting the .tobaccodocuments.org 2 1983 memo by RJR senior scientist Alan Rodgman and World Health Organization in particular. The Associate Director Frank Colby, “Smoking and health “Plan” generated much activity around the related research conducted by Philip Morris,” displayed on 17 December 1997, deposition of Frank G Colby “In The world, and not only by PM aYliates. A Matter of State of Minnesota, et al. V.Philip Morris, et al,” PM/Germany employee reported back to his pages 54–5. 3 1 April 1963, “Draft International Agreement on Exchange superiors on what the Verband was doing to of Information . . .[between] the Tobacco Research Coun- hold up its end of the work in Germany. “The cil on behalf of its member companies, and the Wissenschaftliche Forschungsstelle im Verband der VDC sends scientists to the various scientific Cigaretten-Industrie on behalf of its member companies,” conferences amongst others recently the BAT (File no. B4908) 10536891-8919 (located in the Minnesota Tobacco Depository). “Therapie Woche” (therapy week) in 4 19 July 1966, trip report, RB GriYth (Brown and William- Karlsruhe for German specialists in internal son researcher) to A Yeaman (B&W in-house counsel), RJR 680204107-4114, at www.tobaccodocuments.org medicine. One topic at the Therapie Woche 5 15 October 1978, Frank Colby, “Discussions with the Ver- was ‘Passive smoking and its eVects on health’. band on their suggested nicotine research concepts.” RJR 503247193, 503247196, 503247198, 503247200-7210, at The conclusion of the discussion was that the www.tobaccodocuments.org majority of scientists agreed that passive 6 Mid-1970s report by Frank Colby, RJR 500924982-5003, at www.tobaccodocuments.org. smoking cannot be classified as a health 7 1 July 1982, Bernd Pelz, RJR/Germany, “Meeting with Dr. risk . . .The German airline Lufthansa has Adlkofer...todiscuss the Verband research philosophy, and other issues that have caused friction between the Ver- introduced a test smoking ban on two short band and RJR on matters of smoking and health-related circuit flights (40 to 50 minutes flying time) research,” RJR 500534225-4228, at www.tobaccodocu- ments.org national flights. The VDC has an actionplan 8 12 March 1983, T Finnegan, RJR 505745870, at www.to- [sic] to counter this Lufthansa activity ...At baccodocuments.org 9 28 November 1979, Richard Marcotullio, “ICOSI Interna- the present there are only about 1000 tional Public Smoking Symposium”. RJR 502122792- restaurants in Germany which have non- 2797, at www.tobaccodocuments.org 10 14 January 1980, Frank Colby, “False allegations made by smoking areas . . . The VDC works with the German semi-oYcial Health Insurance.” RJR 502856873, DEHOGA (German Association of Hotels at www.tobaccodocuments.org Industry watch 247

11 6 March 1980, Colby, “ Re: Meeting with Dr Adlkofer, 19 9 October 1981, report from Verband, “Confidential March 6, 1980 in Houston, TX.” RJR 511468214-8215, PR-Status Report 1981 Smoking Issues in Germany,” at www.tobaccodocuments.org BAT 109869093-9112, from the BAT Guildford, England 12 2 June 1976, Max Hausermann (PM/Germany), “Ger- Depository, at www.cctc.ca/ncth/guildford many: VdC meeting on the Research Council,” PM 20 23 July 1992, “Philip Morris Research,” PM 2022850392- 1000122983-2985. 0402, at www.tobaccodocuments.org 13 1 October 1991, Robert Pages, “WPA meeting of Septem- ber 26, 1991,” PM 2023222878-2880, at www.tobacco- 21 RJR 501014852-4855, at www.tobaccodocuments.org documents.org 22 20 September 1983, Professor Adlkofer’s speech, “Passive 14 30 January 1992, minutes, Walter Fink to Manuel Bourlas smoking, presentation by the Verband der Cigaretteindus- (Director R&D, PM/Neuchatel), “VdC WPA”, PM trie,” PM 2501021630-1639. 2050803525-3528. 23 15 July 1982, meeting notes, VdC TFA, Oscar Stuhl (RJR/ 15 17 March 1994, PM 2028361491. Germany) to Wilfried Dembach (RJR/Germany attorney), 16 8 March 1994, trip report, David Doolittle, “Report on RJR 501545528-5533, at www.tobaccodocuments.org BESSE (biological eVects of sidestream smoke exposure) 24 18 August 1982, meeting notes VdC TFA, Stuhl to Dembach, meeting,” RJR 508812179-2183. RJR 501014963-4967, at www.tobaccodocuments.org 17 14 October 1997, memo, Lutz Mueller, “NNK metabolites in non-smokers,” RJR 517623502-3503. 25 10 October 1989, Ferdi Breidbach, “Boca Raton Progress 18 24 July 1981, JK Wells (Brown and Williamson counsel) Report,” PM 2500019912-9913. “Interesting developments on the Hirayama matter,” BW 26 24 September 1998, “Meeting of the Scientific Commission 0000642292 and RJR 521028583, at www.tobaccodocu- (WPA) of the German Cigarette Association (VDC).” PM ments.org 2063664420.

The material presented in this article is drawn from documents found on industry websites and in the Minnesota Tobacco Docu- ment Depository (unless otherwise noted), and represents in narrative form a selection from over 600 annotated documents posted to the restricted email list Globalink in September 1999 and April 2000. The article has been published on the web previously.