Tobacco.org

SMOKIN'! How The American Tobacco Industry Employs PR Scum To Continue Its Murderous Assault On Human Lives 

Brill's analysis inspired Bernays to stage a legendary publicity event that is still taught as a model in PR schools. To sell cigarettes as a symbol of women's liberation, he hired beautiful women to march in New York's prominent Easter parade, each waving a lit cigarette and wearing a banner proclaiming it a "torch of liberty." Bernays made sure publicity photos of his smoking models appeared world-wide.

Decades of saturation cigarette advertising and promotion continued into the 1950s via billboards, magazines, movies, TV and radio. Thanks to Bernays and other early pioneers of public relations, cigarettes built a marketing juggernaut upon an unshakable identification with sex, youth, vitality and freedom. The work for the tobacco industry, in turn, earned PR widespread credibility and launched the rise of today's multi-billion dollar public relations industry.

The Truth Hurts

IN 1952, READER'S Digest ran an influential article titled "Cancer by the Carton." A 1953 report by Dr. Ernst L. Wynder heralded to the scientific community a definitive link between cigarette smoking and cancer. Over the next two years, dozens of articles appeared in The New York Times and other major public publications: Good Housekeeping, the New Yorker, Look, Woman's Home Companion. Sales of cigarettes went into an unusual, sudden decline.

The tobacco czars were in a panic. . . .

AT HILL'S SUGGESTION, the industry created a group called the Tobacco Institute Research Committee (TIRC), and ran a full-page ad, titled "A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers," in more than 400 newspapers. The ad acknowledged tobacco companies had a "special responsibility" to the public, and promised to sponsor "independent research" aimed at "learning the facts about smoking and health."

This pretense of honest concern from a respected figure worked its expected magic. Opinion research by Hill & Knowlton showed only 9 percent of the newspapers expressing opinions on the TIRC were unfavorable, whereas 65 percent were favorable without reservation. . . .

After all, as PR pro Kirk Hallahan recently observed, new technology has already made you superfluous. "Today, with many more options available, PR professionals are much less dependent upon mass media for publicity," Hallahan stated in the Summer 1994 Public Relations Quarterly. "In the decade ahead, the largest American corporations could underwrite entire, sponsored channels. Organizations such as Procter & Gamble might circumvent public media altogether and subsidize programming that combines promotional and otherwise conducive messages--news, Talk Shows, infomercials, or sponsored entertainment or sports.... Channel sponsors will be able reach coveted super-heavy users...with a highly tailored message over which they exert complete control."

Jump to full article »

My Smokers Rights 

TAKE ACTION

--Have you wanted to contact your elected officials but didn't know how to go about it?

--Are you interested in protecting your hard-earned money from additional smoker taxes?

--Do you want to hear about smoking issues in your area?

--Are you tired of fighting the fight alone?

Well, step inside! Click Here to register on mysmokersright.com, and you'll have access to your own personalized page, with contact information for your state and federal representatives.

And we'll keep you informed of issues affecting smokers in your area.

Jump to full article »

What to Expect from the Tobacco Industry  

This document is intended to provide you, the smokefree advocate, with a realistic overview of the strategies, tactics, and messages that are frequently used by the tobacco industry and its allies to oppose smokefree indoor air laws. This should provide you with more questions than answers, as there are more in-depth resources available from ANR and other organizations relating to the various topics covered herein.

By educating yourself and others about what to expect from the tobacco industry, you can more effectively anticipate and counter the misinformation and noise that will surface in your campaign for smokefree air. Inoculating policymakers, media, coalition members, and the public about what to expect will help them take Big Tobacco misinformation with a healthy grain of salt. . . .

Front groups are generally business coalitions or associations funded by the tobacco industry, which appear in opposition shortly after a proposed law becomes public knowledge. These groups approach the local business community, predicting dire consequences from enactment of the law, such as by citing undocumented figures of loss of business in cities that have already passed laws.

The groups often hold meetings with local businesses, encouraging them to organize against the proposed law and providing assistance, such as posting flyers, circulating petitions, and sponsoring mail-in postcard campaigns. Representatives may testify at public hearings, but more often will attend without speaking, avoiding lawmakers' questions about their local membership, length of existence, and funding sources.

These groups have names like "Committee to Preserve Property Rights" (in Montrose, CO); "Valley Business Owners Inc." (in Mesa, AZ); and "Citizens Against Government Interference" (in Texas). Search the ANR Foundation's Tobacco Industry Tracking Database(c) at www.tidatabase.org for possible relationships between the tobacco industry and a new front group in your community.

Advocates should carefully study local campaign laws and seek to shine the light on the funding of these groups and their connections to the tobacco industry.

Jump to full article »

• Tobacco Industry Efforts to Undermine Policy-Relevant Research  

The tobacco industry, working through third parties to prevent policy-relevant research that adversely affected it between 1988 and 1998, used coordinated, well-funded strategies in repeated attempts to silence tobacco researcher Stanton A. Glantz. Tactics included advertising, litigation, and attempts to have the US Congress cut off the researcher's National Cancer Institute funding. Efforts like these can influence the policymaking process by silencing opposing voices and discouraging other scientists from doing work that may expose them to tobacco industry attacks. The support of highly credible public health organizations and of researchers' employers is crucial to the continued advancement of public health.

Jump to full article »

Leading tobacco company accused of undermining China's anti-smoking efforts  

A group of anti-smoking researchers found in formerly secret corporate documents that a leading tobacco company had attempted to divert public attention from the dangers of secondhand smoke, hoping to re-focus China's health policy.

Monique Muggli, a researcher at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota in the United States, and her colleagues published a research article based on her finding on documents from British American Tobacco (BAT). . . .

The Ministry of Health estimated in 2007 that 540 million Chinese were exposed to secondhand smoke, resulting in over 100,000 deaths annually.

"As highly regulated markets continue to result in decreasing profits for transnational tobacco companies, they will look to less regulated markets in low to middle income countries," Dr. Kelley Lee at the London-based Center on Global Change and Health, co-author of the thesis, told Xinhua Friday via an email.

"Other research has demonstrated that the industry has supported a wide range of charitable activities with the purpose of furthering its own interests," Dr. Lee said. "China is the largest cigarette market with more than 350 million smokers, .. (and) transnational tobacco companies are keen to take a larger market share in the future."

BAT was found to have provided funding for a Beijing-based charitable foundation to distract attention away from smoking to non-tobacco-induced liver diseases, among which hepatitis is a major health concern in China. BAT China tried to influence policy-makers to put priority on the No. 1 infectious disease, or hepatitis, in China, the thesis said.

Jump to full article »

• Tobacco minds spur into action against move 

The brightening up of the possibility of withdrawal of the controversial statutory regulatory order (SRO) that provided legal cover to designated smoking areas (DSAs) at public places in Pakistan has propelled the tobacco minds to implement a one-of-its-kind strategy to counter the outbreak of media reports that have put both the Ministry of Health as well as an Islamabad-based tobacco industry under pressure.

A seemingly endless chain of well-timed 'Letters to the Editor' have started appearing in various sections of the press as the Ministry of Health takes it time to review the SRO and eventually determine whether it stays or not. These letters highlight the 'rights of smokers' and 'the need for designated smoking areas.' Ironically, the letters have been attributed to geographical that have no circulation of the newspaper editions that are highlighting the issue!

Leading anti-tobacco activist and chair of the National Alliance for Tobacco Control Prof. Dr. Javed Khan of the Agha Khan University has termed these letters "100% fake" and "influenced." . . . .

"Isn't it amazing that in Peshawar, where people have sleepless nights with the fear of a projectile hitting their rooftops or worrying days with the fear of their kids being kidnapped for ransom, someone who is so concerned about the rights of smokers and smoking areas that he is forced to write a letter to the editor," an anti-tobacco activist pointed out.

The issue of smoking lounges came to the fore when, despite the 2006 World No Tobacco Day theme that spoke openly about the hazards of smoking lounges and why they must be discouraged, an Islamabad-based tobacco industry inaugurated two cozy smoking lounges inside the Parliament House with the blessings of a leading member of the Parliament.

Jump to full article »

Blagojevich Case Used by Republican-Allied Foes of Labor Bill  

The 30-second television spot opens with a picture of Chicago’s skyline and a mug shot of an allegedly corrupt governor. . . .

The aim isn’t mere union bashing. The larger goal behind the ad campaign is to derail controversial legislation that would make it easier for workers to unionize, the so-called card-check proposal.

“We will keep hammering on this,” said lobbyist Richard Berman, referring to the Blagojevich scandal. He heads Center for Union Facts, a Washington-based group that ran a full-page ad in the New York Times last week that sought to discredit the card- check measure by connecting the Illinois governor and SEIU. . . .

Berman primarily donates to Republican candidates and has run similar types of campaigns to defend his lobbying clients in the food, tobacco, beverage and restaurant industries.

Jump to full article »

• “A Good Personal Scientific Relationship”: Philip Morris Scientists and the Chulabhorn Research Institute, Bangkok 

Methods and Findings

This paper analyses previously confidential tobacco industry documents that were made publicly available following litigation in the United States. PM documents reveal that ostensibly independent overseas scientists, now identified as industry consultants, were able to gain access to the Thai scientific community. Most significantly, PM scientist Roger Walk has established close connections with the CRI. Documents indicate that Walk was able to use such links to influence the study and teaching of environmental toxicology in the institute and to develop relations with key officials and local scientists so as to advance the interests of PM within Thailand and across Asia. While sensitivities surrounding royal patronage of the CRI make public criticism extremely difficult, indications of ongoing involvement by tobacco industry consultants suggest the need for detailed scrutiny of such relationships.

Conclusions

The establishment of close links with the CRI advances industry strategies to influence scientific research and debate around tobacco and health, particularly regarding secondhand smoke, to link with academic institutions, and to build relationships with national elites. Such strategies assume particular significance in the national and regional contexts presented here amid the globalisation of the tobacco pandemic. From an international perspective, particular concern is raised by the CRI's recently awarded status as a WHO Collaborating Centre. Since the network of WHO Collaborating Centres rests on the principle of “using national institutions for international purposes,” the documents presented below suggest that more rigorous safeguards are required to ensure that such use advances public health goals rather than the objectives of transnational corporations.

Jump to full article »

• “Efforts to Reprioritise the Agenda” in China: British American Tobacco's Efforts to Influence Public Policy on Secondhand Smoke in China 

Methods and Findings

To understand company activities in China related to SHS, we analyzed British American Tobacco's (BAT's) internal corporate documents produced in response to litigation against the major cigarette manufacturers to understand company activities in China related to SHS. BAT has carried out an extensive strategy to undermine the health policy agenda on SHS in China by attempting to divert public attention from SHS issues towards liver disease prevention, pushing the so-called "resocialisation of smoking" accommodation principles, and providing "training" for industry, public officials, and the media based on BAT's corporate agenda that SHS is an insignificant contributor to the larger issue of air pollution.

Conclusions

The public health community in China should be aware of the tactics previously used by TTCs, including efforts by the tobacco industry to co-opt prominent Chinese benevolent organizations, when seeking to enact stronger restrictions on smoking in public places.

Jump to full article »

FISHER: Virginia GOP's Tobacco Love Affair  

There are indeed Republicans who see the current economic crisis as a moment to put reflexive and parochial political positions aside and seek consensus. Former state Sen. John Chichester from the Fredericksburg area laid out that vision in a recent speech that has many in his party wondering how they can effectively stand up for their principles while cooperating with the governor and other Democrats.

But McDonnell, House Speaker William Howell and other GOP leaders are instead clinging to their tobacco gravy train for dear life.

Why would they do such a thing when public opinion appears to be squarely on the side of cranking up the tobacco tax?

Let's look at the numbers: Altria, the silly name that the Philip Morris corporation has adopted to try to distance itself from its cigarette business, has given McDonnell the largest gift of any it has given any Virginia politician, $15,000 already in this young gubernatorial campaign. (Two of the three Democratic candidates, Brian Moran and Sen. Creigh Deeds, have each received $5,000 from Altria this year.) The cigarette maker has given $93,000 to Republican candidates this year and $65,000 to Democrats. . . .

Republicans argue that picking on the tobacco industry could upset those companies and cause them to pick up and leave the state, leaving hundreds of Virginians jobless. It's a ludicrous argument, especially considering that Altria just got here, having moved its headquarters from New York City to Richmond just last year.

Even the tobacco industry doesn't make that argument, choosing instead to oppose a tax increase as an unfair focus on one industry.

Virginia's tobacco tax is one of the lowest in the nation. Maryland charges $2 a pack and the District's tax is $1 a pack; only deep South states and Missouri are down with Virginia in the sub-50-cents per pack tax range.

Virginia will make severe and very noticeable budget cuts next month; of that, there can be no doubt. And there's little appetite for general tax increases in any political party. But states are searching for relatively harmless ways to bring in at least a little new revenue. Hitting those whose addiction saddles taxpayers with huge medical bills is a helpful way to try to take some of the edge off the service cuts to come.

Jump to full article »

Congressman smokin' over proposed tax hike  

Congressman Eric Cantor, R-Richmond, slammed Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine's recent proposal to increase the cigarette tax, calling it "an assault on jobs in Virginia, plain and simple -- and an attack on our economy."

But the governor says further taxing cigarettes only helps to pay for the extra health costs associated with the habit and could actually encourage smokers to quit.

In a statement Tuesday, Cantor tied the governor's proposed 30 cent per pack hike to the potential for lost jobs in Virginia's tobacco industry.

"At a time like this, when families all over Virginia are struggling to make ends meet, the last thing Virginians need is more job losses and more tax increases," he said. . . .

He went on to list the impact the tobacco industry, specially Philip Morris, has on the Virginia economy, saying Altria employs more than 10,500 people, including 5,500 in-state.

In addition, the company gave more than $11 million this year to various Virginia nonprofits.

Jump to full article »

• Pete Earley - Va. Legislators Indebted to Tobacco 

Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's call for increasing the state tax on cigarettes from 30 cents a pack to 60 cents was long overdue. . . .

On its Web site, Altria identifies the recipients of the nearly $7 million doled out by its political action committee in 2008. (That figure does not include contributions by individual corporate officials.) The tobacco giant contributed cash to 28 of Virginia's 40 senators and 85 of its 100 House of Delegates members.

A look at who pocketed the contributions helps explain why Kaine's modest proposal could be doomed. Both the chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, Lacey E. Putney (I-Bedford) and its vice chairman, Phillip A. Hamilton (R-Newport News), received tobacco funds. But they were hardly alone. Overall, 20 members of the committee took in Altria contributions -- and only four did not.

Altria has also been extremely generous with the House Finance Committee . . .

Altria donated to the campaigns of 18 of the 22 members of the House Health, Welfare and Institutions Committee, including Chairman Hamilton and Vice Chairman Samuel A. Nixon Jr. (R-Chesterfield).

Put bluntly, tobacco contributions helped elect the chairman and vice chairman of all three of these important committees. Only nine of the 67 elected representatives serving on these committees did not get funds from Altria's PAC.

Altria also opened its wallet for Virginia senators, especially members of the Senate Finance Committee. The company's contribution list identifies 11 of 16 committee members as getting funds, including Chairman Charles J. Colgan (D-Prince William), who also is the Senate president pro tempore. . . .

If a higher cigarette tax is supported by residents and would help protect children, save lives and generate needed funds to pay for vital state services, then voting for it would appear to be a no-brainer -- except, it seems, to the 113 Virginia politicians whose hands are stuck deep in tobacco's pockets.

Jump to full article »

• Spousal Ties to Lobbying Test a Vow From Obama 

Linda Hall Daschle is one of the most important aviation lobbyists in town. Ms. Daschle is also the wife of Tom Daschle, whom President-elect Barack Obama has chosen to be the next secretary of health and human services. . . .

Ms. Daschle has been a lobbyist since 1997. Some early clients had an interest in health policy, like the drug maker Amgen and the tobacco giant Philip Morris.

Jump to full article »

• MPs fall foul of 'dirty' tricks by tobacco giants  

Over the summer, MPs were inundated with postcards bearing the Save Our Shop campaign logo, urging them not to back the government's proposals, outlined last week by the Department of Health. The cards stated: 'As my local MP, I hope you will protect our independent local shops by opposing this proposal.' . . .

But it has now emerged many MPs were unaware the campaign was the brainchild of the Tobacco Retailers' Association (TRA), an offshoot of the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association, which represents the interests of three tobacco companies: BAT, Gallaher and Imperial Tobacco.

The Save Our Shop campaign did little to make its links with the tobacco lobby apparent and its postcards bore no reference to the connection between it and the cigarette manufacturers. . . .

Yesterday MPs expressed dismay that the campaign had been orchestrated and funded by the tobacco companies. 'The early-day motion very carefully avoids any kind of hint of their support,' said Frank Cook, Labour MP for Stockton North, who signed up to it. 'It's a pretty dirty, surreptitious quest they're on. I felt a bit pissed off about it. As a result of what I now know, I've withdrawn my name from the motion.' Cook said withdrawing his name from the motion was not a signal he was turning his back on small retailers.

'People will say Frank Cook no longer supports the independent newsagent or grocer,' he said. 'Well, that's a load of bollocks, but I've got to make the gesture. I've been conned by these people and I'm not going to put up with it.'

Jump to full article »

LETTER: SWEDA: Seeing through smoke  

Your editorial ("Burn these regs," Dec. 9) states: "San Francisco's pharmacy ban is being challenged in court; expect Boston to have to spend a fortune to defend itself against a similar legal action."

To follow that line of reasoning would effectively give special interests veto power over the Boston Public Health Commission's ability to carry out its mission. What your editorial neglected to mention is that attempts by Philip Morris and Walgreens to get an injunction to block the October implementation of San Francisco's ordinance failed. Furthermore, if Boston is sued over this policy, the city's attorneys should seek a court order assessing legal fees as a sanction against any company that files frivolous litigation against the city.

Edward L. Sweda Jr.

Jump to full article »