DOCSLIB.ORG

Tobacco Companies' Public Relations Efforts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tobacco Companies' Public Relations Efforts 6 Tobacco Companies’ Public Relations Efforts: Corporate Sponsorship and Advertising Tobacco industry advertising and promotional efforts often are aimed directly toward the sale of industry products. However, corporate public relations activities also can have an important impact on the public images of and attitudes toward individual tobacco companies. This chapter examines the nature and potential impact of such efforts, including n Corporate sponsorship of events and organizations, the latter of which often target key segments of the public in areas such as the arts, minority interests, or community relief n Corporate advocacy advertising in areas such as youth smoking, which has been shown to favorably influence public attitudes toward individual tobacco companies n Corporate image advertising, ranging from spotlighting charitable assistance to rebranding the image of a tobacco company and/or its parent corporation, which has also been shown to favorably influence public attitudes toward individual tobacco companies Further research is needed on the impact of these types of public relations efforts on antismoking efforts and public attitudes, as well as on how such activities affect global markets for tobacco products. 179 6 . To b a c c o C o m p a n i e s ’ P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s E f f o r t s Szczypka and colleagues,11 Philip Morris’s Introduction first campaign began in October 1999 with the slogan, “Working to make a This chapter describes the tobacco industry’s difference: The people of Philip Morris.” use of sponsorship, corporate advertising, It portrayed the company as providing and public relations advertising in the charitable contributions to community- United States, particularly when it is intended based organizations and preventing the to cultivate a favorable image of corporate sale of cigarettes to minors. Another social responsibility. It complements the campaign, with the slogan, “Things are discussion of the industry’s relationship with changing,” began in July 2000, one day the news media provided in chapter 9. after the punitive damages verdict in the Engle class-action trial in Miami, Florida.12 Since the 1988 Master Settlement In June 2003, a series of advertisements Agreement (MSA), corporate sponsorship focused on www.philipmorrisusa.com, and corporate advertising have become directing viewers to Philip Morris’s increasingly important for tobacco corporate Web site for information about companies. Tobacco companies, as with youth smoking prevention, quitting many companies, are interested in furthering smoking, and the health effects of smoking. their public images and interests, as well Corporate image advertising of Philip Morris as in building their corporate and product was considerably greater in 1998 and 1999 brand identities. Corporate image campaigns as compared with advertising of its leading have been on the rise among U.S. companies. brand, Marlboro.13 Examples of corporate Corporate social responsibility initiatives, image campaigns used by Philip Morris are such as corporate philanthropy, community discussed throughout this chapter. involvement, cause-related marketing, and support for minority programs,1–4 have The relative newness of the topic posed increased in particular. This trend is also certain limitations in preparing this chapter. described in Fortune magazine’s cover story First, corporate expenditure data are difficult in 2004 on “Corporate America’s Social to determine. A footnote to the Federal Conscience”5 and the billions spent annually Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) annual report by companies on social causes.6 The Web on cigarette advertising and promotion sites of more than 80% of Fortune 500 summarizes the tobacco industry’s companies were found, in 1998, to address expenditures on public entertainment corporate social responsibility issues,7 events that display corporate brand names and efforts have increased since then. but not cigarette brands or logos ($806,000 The perception among business leaders is in 2005).14 The FTC report also includes that corporate social responsibility is an sponsorship of sports teams and athletes economic necessity in today’s national and ($30.6 million in 2005)14 but does not international marketplace.8,9 Compared with distinguish dollars spent on events bearing product-based advertising (discussed in the name of a company (e.g., Philip Morris chapters 3, 4, and 5), these types of public Mixed Doubles bowling championship) from relations efforts generally focus on raising those bearing the name of a cigarette brand the visibility of and defining how the public (e.g., Virginia Slims Women’s Legend Tennis views the organization itself.10 Tour). As Cruz15 reports, sponsorship data for individual tobacco companies can be Although corporate advertising by tobacco obtained through commercial marketing companies has been around for many firms, but such data are expensive to decades, corporate image campaigns have customize and are frequently incomplete. become more integrated. As reviewed by Other sponsorship sources (e.g., newspaper 180 M o n o g r a p h 1 9 . T h e R o l e o f t h e M e d i a advertisements, corporate Web sites, and trustworthiness, social responsibility, and/or state tobacco control programs) do not attitudes concerning tobacco companies; reflect systematic monitoring of events.15 (2) whether enhancing these perceptions Another difficulty is separating corporate of tobacco companies increases sales of advertising from brand expenditure data. tobacco products or reduces the likelihood Although tobacco company names typically or urgency of quitting among smokers; differ from their cigarette brands, in and (3) whether corporate sponsorship and some cases the corporate entity and its corporate advertising have effects on jury products share the same name (e.g., Fortune perceptions and public or legislative support cigarettes, sold outside the United States, for tobacco control policies. This chapter are manufactured and sold by the Fortune also describes how some of the industry’s Tobacco Company). public relations messages are tailored and targeted to opinion leaders, ethnic In addition to accurately accessing minorities, and women. The perceptions expenditure data, the newness of the topic of these groups could improve tobacco of corporate image campaigns poses the companies’ success with the financial problem of limited academic research. Unlike community, in state legislatures, during many of the tobacco topics addressed in trials, and in the court of public opinion. other chapters of this monograph, answers This chapter examines these key questions to questions about the effectiveness of these in the context of two elements of corporate campaigns are often inconclusive. In fact, brand image and public relations that are only recently have companies (whether in becoming increasingly common among tobacco or other industries) shown increased U.S. companies and that represent two of interest in promoting their company images, the more visible approaches used by tobacco and most of the available academic research companies: corporate sponsorship and occurs outside the domain of tobacco corporate advertising. marketing. To provide additional insight into corporate public relations strategies for For this review, the literature in electronic which tobacco industry data are lacking, this databases such as PsycINFO and MEDLINE chapter includes a description of research was examined by using the search terms, findings on corporate social responsibility “tobacco industry attitudes,” variations of about companies other than those in the “tobacco corporate industry with image,” tobacco industry. A call for more research “public opinion sponsorship,” “social on the tobacco companies’ public image responsibility,” and “corporate advocacy.” campaigns is emphasized throughout this The same search terms were used in chapter as well as in chapter 15. tobacco industry documents until the term PM21 (“Philip Morris in the 21st Century,” Despite the limitations of reviewing research a public relations campaign) was obtained, on corporate public relations campaigns, and then that name was searched as well. this topic and its potential impact on Other source materials were forwarded tobacco product sales and on resistance to by knowledgeable reviewers. Advertising tobacco policy legislation warrant careful expenditure data came from Advertising Age attention. In addition to an analysis of and the annual FTC reports on cigarette expenditures by tobacco companies on marketing. To locate research outside of the public relations campaigns, key questions tobacco industry on corporate sponsorship, to be addressed in this chapter include corporate advertising, and corporate social (1) whether tobacco corporate image responsibility, the three primary journals campaigns are successful in improving in the marketing discipline (Journal of the public’s perceptions of the credibility, Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, 181 6 . To b a c c o C o m p a n i e s ’ P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s E f f o r t s and Journal of Consumer Research) were tobacco industry are Philip Morris USA searched for the 1995–2005 time period. (owned by Altria Group); R.J. Reynolds, The search was supplemented with a small which bought Brown & Williamson to number of additional papers referenced in form Reynolds American; the Lorillard selected marketing and advertising articles. Tobacco unit of Loews Corporation; and Liggett Group, owned by Vector Group. Few Americans
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The P53 Tumour Suppressor Gene and the Tobacco Industry
    Lancet Manuscript 03ART/3495 Revised 1 The p53 Tumor Suppressor Gene and the Tobacco Industry: Research, Debate, and Conflict of Interest Asaf Bitton, BA Mark D. Neuman, BA Joaquin Barnoya, MD MPH Stanton A. Glantz, PhD Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education University of California, San Francisco San Francisco, CA 94143 This work was supported by National Cancer Institute Grant CA-87472 and the American Legacy Foundation. Address for correspondence and Reprints: Stanton A. Glantz, PhD Professor of Medicine Box 1390 University of California San Francisco, CA 94143 415-476-3893 fax 415-514-9345 [email protected] Lancet Manuscript 03ART/3495 Revised 2 Summary Background: Mutations in the p53 tumor suppressor gene lead to uncontrolled cell division and are found in over 50% of all human tumors, including 60% of lung cancers. Research published in 1996 by Mikhail Denissenko et al. demonstrated patterned in vitro mutagenic effects on p53 of benzo[a]pyrene, a carcinogen present in tobacco smoke. We investigate the tobacco industry’s strategies in responding to p53 research linking smoking to cancer. Methods: We searched online tobacco document archives, including the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library and Tobacco Documents Online, and archives maintained by tobacco companies such as Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds. Documents were also obtained from the British American Tobacco Company depository near Guildford, England. Informal correspondence was carried out with scientists, lawyers, and tobacco control experts in the United States and Europe. Findings: Individuals at the highest levels of the tobacco industry anticipated and carefully monitored p53 research. Tobacco scientists conducted research intended to cast doubt on the link between smoking and p53 mutations.
    [Show full text]
  • A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers 1
    1 A FRANK STATEMENT TO CIGARETTE SMOKERS Recent reports on experiments with mice have given wide publicity to the theory that cigarette smoking is in some way linked with lung cancer in human beings. Although conducted by doctors of professional standing, these experiments are not regarded as conclusive in the field of cancer research. However, we do not believe that any serious medical research, even though its results are inconclusive, should be disregarded or lightly dismissed. At the same time, we feel it is in the public interest to call attention to the fact that eminent doctors and research scientists have publicly questioned the claimed significance of these experiments. Distinguished authorities point out: 1. That medical research of recent years indicates many possible causes of lung cancer. 2. That there is no agreement among the authorities regarding what the cause is. 3. That there is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes. 4. That statistics purporting to link cigarette smoking with the disease could apply with equal force to any one of many other aspects of modern life. Indeed, the validity of the statistics themselves is questioned by numerous scientists. We accept an interest in people’s health as a basic responsibility, paramount to every other consideration in our business. We believe the products we make are not injurious to health. We always have and always will cooperate closely with those whose task it is to safeguard the public health. For more than 300 years tobacco has given solace, relaxation and enjoyment to mankind. At one time or another during those years critics have held it responsible for practically every disease of the human body.
    [Show full text]
  • Tobacco Control
    TOBACCO CONTROL Playbook World Health Organization ABSTRACT Tobacco control is difficult and complex and obstructed by the tactics of the tobacco industry and its allies to oppose effective tobacco control measures. This document was developed by the WHO Regional Office for Europe by collecting numerous evidence-based arguments from different thematic areas, reflecting the challenges that tobacco control leaders have faced while implementing various articles of the WHO FCTC and highlighting arguments they have developed in order to counter and succeed against the tobacco industry. KEY WORDS TOBACCO CONTROL WHO FCTC HEALTH EFFECTS TOBACCO INDUSTRY ARGUMENTS © World Health Organization 2019 All rights reserved. The Regional Office for Europe of the World Health Organization welcomes requests for permission to reproduce or translate its publications, in part or in full. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters. All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization to verify the information contained in this publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Curiae Public Health Advocacy Institute in Support of Appellants
    COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS No. SJC-11641 ___________________________ STEVEN P. ABDOW, STEPHANIE C. CRIMMONS, JOSEPH A. CURATONE, GERI EDDINS, MARK A. GOTTLIEB, CELESTE B. MEYERS, KRISTIAN M. MINEAU, KATHLEEN CONLEY NORBUT, JOHN F. RIBEIRO, and SUSAN C. TUCKER, Plaintiffs/Appellants v. GEORGE DUCHARME, ET AL., DANIEL RIZZO, ET AL., and DOMENIC J. SARNO, ET AL., Interveners/Appellants, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL and SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH, Defendants/Appellees. ___________________________ BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE PUBLIC HEALTH ADVOCACY INSTITUTE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS ___________________________ Edward L. Sweda, Jr. BBO #489820 Public Health Advocacy Institute 360 Huntington Ave., 117 CU Boston, MA 02115 (617) 373-2026 Counsel for the Public Health Advocacy Institute TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................................ ii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT....................... 1 STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE............ 1 INTRODUCTION......................................... 2 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.................................. 4 ARGUMENT............................................. 6 CONCLUSION.......................................... 42 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH MASS. R. APP. P. 16(k) .................................................... 44 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Aspinall v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 2014 Mass. Super. LEXIS 26 (Mass. 2014) ....................................................... 15 Donovan v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.,
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins, Development, Effects, and Future of the WHO Framework
    Viewpoint The origins, development, eff ects, and future of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: a personal perspective Derek Yach Worldwide, more than 1 billion people use tobacco, resulting in about 6 million deaths per year. The tobacco Lancet 2014; 383: 1771–79 industry’s documented history of subverting control eff orts required innovative approaches by WHO—led by Published Online Gro Harlem Brundtland—including invocation of its constitutional authority to develop treaties. In 2003, WHO January 22, 2014 member states adopted the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC). In the decade since, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(13)62155-8 177 countries have ratifi ed and started to implement its full provisions. Success has been tempered by new challenges. The Vitality Institute, New York, Tobacco use has fallen in countries that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development NY, USA (D Yach MBChB) but increased in low-income and middle-income countries, a result in no small part of illicit trade and cheap products Correspondence to: from China and other unregulated state monopolies. This review of 50 years of policy development aimed at reducing Derek Yach, 3 Columbus Circle, the burden of disease attributable to tobacco reviews the origins and strategies used in forging the WHO FCTC, from Suite 1656, New York, NY 10019, the perspective of one who was there. USA [email protected] Introduction advertising of tobacco products beginning in 1971 and In 1954, the tobacco industry issued A Frank Statement to campaigns to protect non-smokers from exposure to Cigarette Smokers,1 claiming, “we believe the products we second-hand smoke.
    [Show full text]
  • A “Frank Statement” for the 21St Century?
    Editorial Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054080 on 24 October 2017. Downloaded from industry pig, but in a way it’s far worse A “Frank Statement” for the this time: by using a formerly high profile WHO leader as a spokesperson, PMI can 21st Century? also accelerate its longstanding ambition to splinter the tobacco control movement.5 Ruth E Malone,1 Simon Chapman,2 Prakash C Gupta,3 It’s also not true, as the video suggests, 4 5 6 7 that tobacco control efforts have Rima Nakkash, Tih Ntiabang, Eduardo Bianco, Yussuf Saloojee, “plateaued.” Cigarette consumption is 8 9 9 10 Prakit Vathesatogkit, Laurent Huber, Chris Bostic, Pascal Diethelm, declining and since 2003, more than Cynthia Callard,11 Neil Collishaw,11 Anna B Gilmore12 180 countries have become parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), committing The surprise announcement by the former from having any influence over how the themselves to implement effective policy head of the WHO’s Tobacco Free Initia- Foundation spends its funds or focuses its measures and building public support for 2 tive, Derek Yach, that he would head a activities.’ ending the epidemic. PMI knows this, newly-established organisation called the Except that is what a broad range of hence its ongoing, covert and overt efforts 1 ‘Foundation for a Smoke-free World’ to industry front groups, sometimes headed to stymie the FCTC.6 ‘accelerate the end of smoking’ was met by respected and even well-intentioned For example, at the last Conference of with gut-punched disappointment by leaders, have been saying since the ‘Frank the Parties, the meetings where implemen- 3 those who have worked for decades to Statement’ of 1954.
    [Show full text]
  • The Adverse Health Effects of Smoking and the Tobacco Industry’S Efforts to Limit Tobacco Control
    THE ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS OF SMOKING AND THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY’S EFFORTS TO LIMIT TOBACCO CONTROL Prepared by: Jonathan M. Samet, MD, MS Director, USC Institute for Global Health Distinguished Professor and Flora L. Thornton Chair, Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine of USC University of Southern California 2001 North Soto Street, Suite 330A Los Angeles, California 90089-9239, USA Phone: +1 323 865 0803 Fax: +1 323 865 0854 Email: [email protected] 1 Table of Contents Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Professional Qualifications ........................................................................................................................... 6 Approach ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 Introduction and Context ............................................................................................................................ 10 Scientific approaches to smoking and health ......................................................................................... 11 Epidemiological research ........................................................................................................................ 14 Identifying causes of disease................................................................................................................... 15 The
    [Show full text]
  • Failed Promises of the Cigarette Industry and Its Effect on Consumer Misperceptions About the Health Risks of Smoking K M Cummings, C P Morley, a Hyland
    i110 Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tc.11.suppl_1.i110 on 1 March 2002. Downloaded from Failed promises of the cigarette industry and its effect on consumer misperceptions about the health risks of smoking K M Cummings, C P Morley, A Hyland ............................................................................................................................. Tobacco Control 2002;11(Suppl I):i110–i117 Background: In January 1954, US tobacco manufacturers jointly sponsored an advocacy advertise- ment entitled “A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers” which appeared in 448 newspapers in 258 cities reaching an estimated 43 245 000 Americans. The advertisement questioned research findings implicating smoking as a cause of cancer, promised consumers that their cigarettes were safe, and pledged to support impartial research to investigate allegations that smoking was harmful to human health. Objective: To examine (1) the extent to which cigarette companies fulfilled the promises made to con- sumers in the 1954 “Frank Statement”, and (2) the effect of these promises on consumer knowledge, beliefs, and smoking practices. Methods: This study reviews statements made since 1954 by the tobacco companies individually and collectively through the Tobacco Institute and Tobacco Industry Research Committee/Council for Tobacco Research on the subject of smoking as a cause disease, and the industry’s pledge to support and disclose the results of impartial research on smoking and health. Many of the industry documents evaluated in this study were obtained from a collection consisting of 116 documents entitled the “State- ment of Defendants’ Misrepresentations” prepared by attorneys representing the state of Connecticut in the Medicaid litigation against the tobacco industry in 1998. In addition, we searched for corroborat- ing material from tobacco industry documents collected from the tobacco industry’s document websites.
    [Show full text]
  • A “Frank Statement” for the 21St Century? | Blog - Tobacco Control
    7/4/2019 A “Frank Statement” for the 21st Century? | Blog - Tobacco Control A “Frank Statement” for the 21st Century? Posted on September 19, 2017 by Marita Heer, News Editor Ruth E. Malone, Simon Chapman, Prakash C. Gupta, Rima Nakkash, Tih Ntiabang, Eduardo Bianco, Yussuf Saloojee, Prakit Vathesatogkit, Laurent Huber, Chris Bostic, Pascal Diethelm, Cynthia Callard, Neil Collishaw, Anna B. Gilmore The surprise announcement by the former head of the World Health Organization’s Tobacco Free Initiative, Derek Yach, that he would head a newly-established organization called the “Foundation for a Smoke-free World” to “accelerate the end of smoking” was met with gut-punched disappointment by those who have worked for decades to achieve that goal. Unmoved by a soft-focus video featuring Yach looking pensively off into the distance from a high-level balcony while smokers at ground level stubbed out Marlboros and discussed how hard it was to quit, leading tobacco control organizations were shocked to hear that the new organization was funded with a $1 billion, twelve-year commitment from tobacco company Philip Morris International (PMI). PMI, which has been working for decades to rebrand itself as a “socially responsible” company while continuing to promote sales of its top-branded Marlboro cigarettes and oppose policies that would genuinely reduce their use, clearly believes this investment will further its “harm reduction” agenda, led by its new heat-not-burn product, IQOS. But don’t worry, the Foundation assures everyone that “PMI and the tobacco industry are precluded from having any influence over how the Foundation spends its funds or focuses its activities.” Except that is what a broad range of industry front groups, sometimes headed by respected and even well- intentioned leaders, have been saying since the “Frank Statement” of 1954.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Indoor Health Network--Position Statement
    Global Indoor Health Network Common Toxins in Our Homes, Schools and Workplaces Global Indoor Health Network, Inc. PO Box 777308 Henderson, NV 89077-7308 [email protected] globalindoorhealthnetwork.com February 2012 Global Indoor Health Network (GIHN) “Working Together for Healthy Indoor Environments” PREFACE The Global Indoor Health Network (GIHN) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing education and awareness of the health effects of mold and other indoor contaminants. GIHN’s worldwide network of scientists, physicians, researchers, building engineers, indoor air quality experts, attorneys, teachers, injured workers, healthy indoor environment advocates and others are working together to promote healthy indoor environments in our homes, schools and businesses. GIHN has members throughout the United States and in seven other countries who have united to share our collective knowledge, expertise and life experiences to advance the understanding and awareness of this very important public health issue. Indoor air pollutants cause 50% of illnesses globally. Poor indoor air quality affects people from all walks of life. Affected persons include both genders, all ages, those unborn and soon-to-be born, homemakers, stay-at-home moms, teachers and school children, veterans, retirees, disabled individuals, workers of all levels and skills, farmers, professionals, owners of businesses large and small, and all degrees of affluence. In short, anyone who spends time indoors is at risk. This paper is dedicated to the individuals, families, teachers, employees and school children throughout the world who have been harmed by exposure to indoor contaminants...and to the countless advocates, doctors, scientists and others who have been working tirelessly for years to bring this very important public health issue to the forefront.
    [Show full text]
  • Third-Party Endorsement and the Resurrection of Heat-Not-Burn Tobacco Products Jesse Elias,1 Pamela M Ling1,2
    Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054433 on 6 June 2018. Downloaded from Research paper Invisible smoke: third-party endorsement and the resurrection of heat-not-burn tobacco products Jesse Elias,1 Pamela M Ling1,2 1Center for Tobacco Control ABStract internally hoped Premier would ‘address the Research and Education, Background Tobacco companies are introducing growing pressures cigarette smokers face on the University of California, San subjects of smoking and health, environmental Francisco, California, USA new ’heat-not-burn’ cigarettes in dozens of countries. 2UCSF Department of Medicine, Historically, these products failed commercially, and tobacco smoke, and other issues related to the social Division of General Internal independent researchers contested their health claims. acceptability of smoking’.5 In an internal memo Medicine, San Francisco, The most prominent early heat-not-burn cigarette was to employees, RJR’s President of Development California, USA RJ Reynolds’s (RJR’s) Premier, introduced in the USA in Richard Kempe described Premier as ‘one of the 1988. Curiously, The Lancet endorsed Premier as a ’near- most important projects any of us will be involved in Correspondence to during our professional lives…because the success Dr Pamela M Ling, Department perfect low tar cigarette’ in a 1991 editorial, 2 years of Medicine, University of after Premier had been removed from the market. We of this project could easily result in a tremendous California San Francisco School examined the context of this endorsement. long-term competitive advantage to RJR and would of Medicine, San Francisco, CA Methods To ascertain what RJR knew about this clearly have a substantial impact on the industry as 94143, USA; endorsement, we systematically searched and analysed we know it’.6 Smokers nonetheless widely rejected Pamela.
    [Show full text]
  • The Work of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, 1953-1964
    Co-operation and conflict in the management of a health scare: the work of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, 1953-1964 Sue Bowden, Martin Forster and Martin Walsh1 29th June, 2007 Centre for Historical Economics and Related Research at York2 Discussion paper no. 07/02 Abstract This paper examines the response of the American tobacco companies to the health scare surrounding tobacco harm between 1953 and 1964, through an analysis of the operations of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC). We consider the reasons for the TIRC’s establishment and subsequent conduct in the context of a series of external pressures which built up on the tobacco industry prior to, and during, the period in question. These include the increase in deaths from cancer which had occurred during the first half of the twentieth century, accumulating epidemiological evidence suggesting that tobacco use was harmful to health, progressively more grave statements that were being made by public health bodies and scientists to the same effect, falling sales of cigarettes and faltering stockholder confidence. We consider the TIRC’s contribution to restoring confidence in tobacco products, what motivated scientific advisors to sit on, and resign from, its Scientific Advisory Board and the legitimacy of the argument that the controversy surrounding tobacco harm continued until the mid-1960s. 1 Department of Economics and Related Studies and The Centre for Historical Economics and Related Research at York, The University of York. Corresponding author: Sue Bowden (e-mail: [email protected], tel.: +44 (0)1904 433792; fax +44 (0)1904 433759). 2 This research was supported by funding from the University of York’s Innovation and Research Priming Fund and the Research Application Support Grant of the Department of Economics and Related Studies.
    [Show full text]