One Remedy from US v Phillip Morris

Handsel Art

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

2 December 2012

contact J.R. Few

handselart@gmail.com

or 870-427-1365

Tobacco Companies to Issue Corrective Statements

On November 27, 2012 Judge Gladys Kessler clarified remedies of her 2006 ruling  in U.S. v Phillip Morris that found the tobacco industry guilty of racketeering and fraud.  Tobacco companies must publish corrective statements that they lied about the dangers of smoking and manipulation of nicotine addiction,  the hazards of secondhand smoke, and the misconception of allegedly safer “light” and “low tar” cigarettes.   This remedy promises to be the most significant action the government has taken against the tobacco industry in nearly 45 years. 

In 1999 the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed suit under RICO statutes for a decades long conspiracy by the tobacco industry to deceive the American people.  In 2005 a D.C. appellate court denied the original remedies proposed to disgorge $280 billion from tobacco companies as illegal profit. This prompted the DOJ to  reassess remedies and highlight a 25 year $130 billion national tobacco cessation program.  This was a significant setback, though not the last in the DOJ’s case.  

Begun during the Clinton Administration, many involved were surprised when the Bush administration continued the suit.  Yet just days before going to the judge, a Bush political appointee, Robert McCallum, ordered lead counsel and DOJ career lawyer, Sharon Eubanks, to reduce requested remedies for the cessation program to just $10 billion.  McCallum was subsequently rewarded for his work in the DOJ with an ambassadorship to Australia.  (The litany of political interference in this case has been well documented by Ms. Eubanks in her book, Bad Acts.) Judge Kessler’s final order in favor of the DOJ involved 4 major remedies including: disjunctive remedies designed to prevent future RICO violations, eliminating deceptive “light” and “low tar” brand descriptors, disclosure of documents and marketing data, and corrective statements financed by the industry. 

The 2007 Best Practices for Tobacco Control, Health Communications Interventions notes that, “Aggressive state and national counter-marketing campaigns that have more directly confronted the tobacco industry’s marketing tactics have also demonstrated effectiveness but have often become targets for budget cuts.”  Requiring tobacco companies to admit criminal deceit, on their own dime, takes prevention to another and hopefully more effective level.  

The  tobacco industry has a history of manipulating public policy and serious oversight should be given.  But these statements have a timely potential.  An unfortunate aspect of tobacco prevention seeks a solution in making addicts quit and preventing youth initiation while ignoring the industry. The FDA’s recent introduction of 8 Tips for Talking with Youth about Tobacco and the DHHS’  new site BeTobaccoFree.gov  are packed with information about the health effects of tobacco use and nicotine addiction.  But both sites behave as if tobacco use were simply an accident of nature and completely omit the culpability of the tobacco industry in promoting a deadly product.  This promotion, not coincidentally, resulted in a criminal conviction for which these corrective statements hope to begin to remedy.  The terrible pandemic of tobacco related disease will not be resolved on the backs of the victims but on the rogue capitalists who profit from tobacco. This remedy from U.S. v Phillip Morris is a constructive step in that direction.

###

SOS launches another youth activity, yawn.

A major aspect the tobacco industry uses to justify marketing and promotion of a deadly addictive drug is that consumers make a responsible adult choice.  In litigation, when victims have sued, almost invariably the argument industry takes is that you can’t be sure tobacco killed you and even if it did you knew better and chose to smoke.  I mean we’ve had this warning on the pack since 1965.  What were you thinking?

Phillip Morris funds ostensible tobacco prevention programs to keep kids from starting to smoke with the message that smoking is a choice only an adult should make.  Can you think of a better way to get kids to smoke?  It’s an adult choice.  So what if most smokers make that choice a few years early?  The tremendous capacity for nicotine to addict is fairly much a neglected aspect of the product.  It’s all about choosing.

And along comes the latest Stamp Out Smoking essay contest.  The theme this year is My Reason to Write.  Students are encouraged to write a letter thanking someone for their smoke free example or encouraging someone to quit.  Notice anything?  It’s all about choosing. In fact, the heading of the page says “We can all say NO to tobacco.” 

Undoubtedly we’ll see the same tired pleadings to addicted family members and blustering pledges to never start so they can make the team.  In fact one of the suggestions is to organize a pledge drive.  (I would welcome any legitimate research able to show that no smoking pledges are worth any more than the paper they are printed on.)  In the first case the focus is on a role model in their lives.  They may be an addict but they are still role models so something must be OK about nicotine.  In the second instance, the industry line about choice being the significant aspect of smoking is parroted.  Success with youth focused tobacco control programs are often frustratingly short term.  With efforts like this it is no wonder.

I am fond of saying that tobacco has not been a benign weed by the side of the road for 400 years.  But this is what is depicted when young people are told that the individual's choice to be tobacco free will make the difference.  In the tips for parents and teachers on how to talk to kids about tobacco nowhere is the tobacco industry mentioned.  Nowhere does it say that tobacco marketing, promotion, and public use are the result of multi-national corporations’ demand for profit. Instead these talking points would have us believe that being tobacco free was like choosing one cereal over the other for breakfast.  Characterizing the issue like this makes it seem that smoking is a normal part of their day, they shouldn’t do it, but it's normal.  When the very opposite should be our message.

In 1996 Dr. Stanton Glantz wrote in the American Journal of Public Health, 

“Finally, the public health community should realize that the best way to keep kids from smoking is to reduce tobacco consumption among every one.  The message should not be “we don’t want kids to smoke”; it should be “we want a smoke-free society.”  As the tobacco industry knows well kids want to be like adults, and reducing smoking sends a strong message to kids about social norms.”

That was 16 years ago.  Dr. Glantz spoke at the CTFA conference just last week.  Was anybody  responsible for this campaign there?  Have they ever been?  It is bad enough to have Burson Marsteller’s only U.S. based affiliate paid to run campaigns like this. The revolving door of personnel without actual tobacco control experience in the TPCP program makes ineffective messaging like this even more unfortunate.

Renowned Speakers to Address CTFA Conference

Handsel Art

19 August 2012

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

contact J.R. Few

handselart@gmail.com

or 870-427-1365

Renowned Speakers to Address CTFA Conference

In 2003, when the Coalition for a Tobacco Free Arkansas (CTFA) held the first Striking Out Tobacco in Arkansas conference, it was for many of the statewide group of advocates their first opportunity for tobacco prevention education.  While the conference is only a facet of the advocacy CTFA offers, the 2012 event, September 13th at the Wyndham Riverfront in North Little Rock, will include a collection of some of the most respected tobacco control advocates ever gathered in Arkansas.  Featured speakers include two of the most influential tobacco free advocates in the world, Dr. Stanton Glantz and Dr. Gregory Connolly.

Glantz, Director of the Center for Tobacco Control and Research at the University  of California at San Francisco, has been involved in tobacco control since 1978.  A founding member for the advocacy group, Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, he has been a leader in helping establish the most effective means to challenge the industry at all levels of policy. His research covers a wide range of issues including the effects of secondhand smoke on the cardiovascular system and the public health benefits of smoke free legislation.  Additionally, Glantz has been instrumental in establishing the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library making 50 million pages of previously secret industry documents available to the public. 

Dr. Connolly is the Director of the Center for Global Tobacco Control at the Harvard School of Public Health.  Originally trained as a dentist, Connolly is an appointee to the World Health Organization’s panel on Smoking and Health and led the highly successful Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program for nearly 2 decades  His work in tobacco control is internationally recognized and has included research on tobacco product design, reduced risk products, tobacco interventions and prevention of tobacco related disease.

These speakers alone would be significant for any conference.  However, CTFA has also secured Dr. Bruce Christiansen from the University of Wisconsin, an authority on treating tobacco dependence,  National Director of the National Latino Tobacco Control Network,  Dr. Jeanette Noltenius,  and Linda Cullers, Senior Director of Health Promotions, American Lung Association for the Plains-Gulf Region. 

Katherine Donald, Executive Director for CTFA says, “Tobacco free advocates know that education is one of our greatest assets.  This promises to be a tremendous opportunity for public health advocates, activists, teachers, parents, policy makers, or anyone concerned with tobacco prevention in Arkansas.”

Tobacco continues to be the leading cause of death in Arkansas, and secondhand smoke, the third leading preventable cause, kills over 500 of our neighbors annually. Unfortunately, prevention funding is at a 10 year low while the tobacco industry spends $129.5 million marketing each year in Arkansas alone.

Registration is $50 per person. Forms and information are available at www.arfreshair.com .  As a special incentive, registration fees will be waved for any policy maker or candidate for public office.  This is one event you do not want to miss.

###

Dr. Stanton Glantz, the American Legacy Foundation Distinguished Professor of Tobacco Control at the University of California, San Francisco will be one of several prestigious speakers at the Coalition for a Tobacco Free Arkansas’ Striking out Tobacco in Arkansas conference at the Wyndham Riverfront in North Little Rock September 13.

FDA Given Opportunity to ban Menthol

Handsel Art

20 March 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

contact J.R. Few

handselart@gmail.com

or 870-427-1365

Panel Releases Report on Menthol

On March 19 the FDA’s Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Panel (TPSAP) released a draft of its report on menthol in cigarettes. Advocates had feared that the narrow scientific restrictions of the investigation would find that the menthol in cigarettes was relatively benign. But the panel, while failing to actually make the recommendation that menthol in cigarettes be eliminated, found for the larger concept of menthol’s harm in cigarettes. The panel found that menthol’s cooling effect made addicting youth easier and quitting more difficult. Virtually all tobacco products contain some menthol.

The report states, “The availability of menthol cigarettes in the marketplace could adversely affect public health through two consequences: (1) increasing the risk for the diseases caused by smoking cigarettes; and (2) increasing the number of people who smoke.” It goes on to conclude, “Removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace would benefit public health in the United States.” Unfortunately, the TPSAP did not make any specific suggestions on how to limit the harm to the public health.

The 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, giving limited authority over tobacco to the FDA, banned fruit and candy flavoring. But a political compromise charged the TPSAP to report on the public health impact of menthol in cigarettes. Many advocates opposed the compromise because 80% of African American smokers smoke menthol.

A statement released by the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids applauded the report saying, “We urge the FDA to implement the committee's recommendation in a way that maximizes the public health benefits.” Tobacco Free Kids led several of the major public health groups in negotiations with tobacco giant Philip Morris to see successful passage of the Act.

American Legacy Foundation Distinguished Professor of Tobacco Control at UCSF, Dr. Stanton Glantz, noted that the most significant finding was that menthol, “has a complex pharmacological interaction with nicotine that affects the addictive potential of cigarettes.” He added that, “The question at this point is whether the FDA and the Obama Administration will have the backbone to ban menthol in all tobacco products (or, at least as a first step, all smoked tobacco products, which is more than just cigarettes) and whether the major health organizations will unambiguously press for such a ban.”

If the stock market is any prediction tobacco companies still have little to worry about. Lorrilard, maker of Newport, the leading menthol cigarette, saw its stock value rise 3.4% as drafts of the report were released.

###

Harm redux/ FDA's limited authority

It is unfortunate to see ostensible tobacco prevention advocates carrying water for the tobacco companies under the banner of harm reduction. The term harm reduction was coined as a means of dealing in a compassionate manner with drug use and sexual behaviors that put one at risk of harm or disease. Needle exchanges and free condoms are tactics to protect individuals, and therefore the community, from the worst results of risk taking behaviors. Using the term in this manner there is no tacit approval, or disapproval, of the addiction but a means that an individual's behavior can reduce harm. The perversion of the concept toward tobacco is not behavior modification but product modification and hence implicit approval of nicotine addiction. Simply calling oneself smoke free does not address the real need to challenge the rogue capitalism behind the tobacco pandemic.

The linked article from Glantz, Barnes, and Eubanks is just about a must read for sincere tobacco free advocates. The question remains why so many public health advocates could support such poor, even detrimental, legislation. My first assumption is that while public health groups out of necessity must deal with tobacco related disease they are not primarily focused on what it takes to challenge tobacco.

My experience in tobacco prevention is minimal but an overwhelming awareness has been that not everyone who claims to be a tobacco free advocate is. This unfortunately includes everyone from ADH grantees, employees, and even major public health group lobbyists.

This sounds like an old saw to me now but I once heard Dr. Tom Houston remark that 100 years ago, when infectious disease was the leading cause of death, there were no transnational corporations challenging the public health. In 2006 Dr. Houston's words curiously came to fruition with a federal conviction for fraud and racketeering in U.S. versus Philip Morris. Philip Morris was the lone supporter among tobacco companies of the FDA's limited authority over tobacco. Be sure that it will not be alone in the inevitable litigation the tobacco industry will throw into the gears of curiously suspect legislation. Enjoy the article!

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000118

Arkansas Clean Indoor Air, needs work now

This morning KUAR, the public radio station in Little Rock, ran this story on the 3rd anniversary of Arkansas Clean Indoor Air act.  http://tinyurl.com/lxwlqt  

The statement is made that the law went into effect 3 years ago but fails to mention that the state only began enforcement  2 years ago.  The inside scoop here is that when the environmental branch of ADH was planning to enforce the law the tobacco prevention branch was not invited to these meetings.  As recently as September of 2007 ADH was telling businesses that secondhand smoke could not drift back inside a building when, in fact, the law specifically does not regulate any outside smoking.

Dr. Gary Wheeler is quoted in saying that Arkansas has not seen an expected reduction in heart attacks yet and there may be due to other variables unique to Arkansas.  He goes on to suggest that confusion about the law could be rectified by removing the exemptions.  Dr. Wheeler is right on both counts.

The Arkansas variable that may be most important is the fact that the ACIA is not comprehensive protection from tobacco smoke.

Celebrated advocate, UCSF’s Dr. Stanton Glantz, during a presentation at Pulaski Tech in NLR last year, specified that heart attack rates only go down when clean indoor air laws have no exemptions, like bars.  http://tinyurl.com/ktd39n

Arkansas clean air law may have numerically increased the number of smoke free businesses in what seems a dramatic fashion. But the large exemptions, like the over 21 loophole, probably did not decrease anywhere near as dramatically the amount of secondhand smoke to which people were exposed.  And to stretch the argument further those individuals still enduring heavy exposure to SHS, bar patrons and employees, may well also be those at the greatest risk for heart disease; poor health habits, little health care, etc.  

Arkansas Clean Indoor Air act needs a tremendous overhaul.  This is made most urgent given that we are now discovering the new lottery legislation opens the door for potential gambling parlors.  These parlors as well as the racinos will no doubt include restrictions for minors and a carte blanch ‘adults only’ cachet for the tobacco industry.