Tobacco.org

• Clearing air on cigarette ads  

There seem to be two Dr. Alan Blums.

One is a tweedy academic — the family medicine professor and director of the Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society at the University of Alabama who has devoted his dead-serious career to the prevention of tobacco-induced illnesses.

The other is the self-described “Bart Simpson of the anti-smoking movement” — the alter ago who donned a fake pharmacist’s lab coat Wednesday to help set up “Your Cancer and Drug Store,” an exhibition on tobacco advertising that opens today in the Buffalo Museum of Science. . . .

The approach reflects a lesson learned in 1977 when Blum, then a Miami hospital intern and nascent anti-smoking crusader, lost a contentious radio talk show debate with a tobacco industry spokesman while the host, Larry King, blew smoke in Blum’s face.

Ever since, “I’ve tried to bring some humor and satire to a depressing issue that many people take very seriously,” Blum said. The strategy has included “house calls” to tobacco festivals and “anything else we could do to ridicule the brand names.”

Satirical references abound in “Your Cancer and Drug Store,” which was gleaned from a trove of tobacco advertising and promotional materials that Blum started collecting 15 years ago and now fills 2,500 boxes in his Alabama center.

He started by buying items distributed by cigarette companies that a Connecticut store owner had accumulated over two decades. “He must’ve thought it had collectible value, but it cost more to ship it [to Alabama] than I paid for it,” Blum said.

From the outset his goal was to mount an exhibition that underscored the everyday irony of seeing tobacco products on the shelves of pharmacies that dispense drugs prescribed to combat cancer, heart disease, hypertension and other diseases linked to smoking.

“I wanted to do an over-the-top, walk-through exhibit,” he said, citing the role that drugstores have played in keeping America smoking. “I’m not going after individual pharmacies as much as the chains that own them.” . . .

By touring “Your Cancer and Drug Store,” he said, “you are looking at origins of cancer just as much as you would by looking through a microscope.”

Jump to full article »

I wanted to do an over-the-top, walk-through exhibit. I’m not going after individual pharmacies as much as the chains that own them.
Prof. Alan Blum, on his Buffalo, NY, ad exhibit that explores the role that drugstores have played in keeping America smoking.

Your Cancer and Drug Store: One-stop shopping: prescriptions, cigarettes, urgent care and chemo.
Alan Blum's mock-drug store: an exhibition on tobacco advertising that opens today in the Buffalo Museum of Science.

ROCES: Tobacco and the Philippines  

For better or worse (health wise and economically-speaking somewhat), the Philippines has had a long affair with the tobacco plant. Today, the negative health effects of tobacco and cigarette smoking are well understood; so we hope that the affair is finally coming to an end. Beyond personal health, cigarettes pose a public health and garbage problem. Each day we lose count of how many people we see tossing their cigarettes on the streets and sidewalks: out of car windows, over their shoulder and right in front of other people. People would never indiscriminately litter in their own homes, but almost feel compelled to in public spaces. A health risk is also posed by second hand smoke. . . .

Our historical relationship with tobacco began in the late 1500s; it was one of the first plants exported to our shores by the Spanish empire. The goal was to turn the Philippines into a tobacco producing nation. The tobacco plant had a special affinity for our soil and took root quickly. Among the native population smoking tobacco quickly became a status symbol . . .

tobacco use among youth in the Philippines indicate that smoking is on the rise. The government has passed the Tobacco Control Act in 2003, but more needs to be done.

What we recommend are developing targeted publicity and anti-smoking campaigns focusing on the youth. The goal should be to educate people on the dangers of smoking. In the Philippines, we have not seen such a high-profile campaign mounted. The rising number of youths smoking demonstrates that the health risks of smoking are not being effectively taught. Youth-oriented campaigns have proven effective in other countries and should be emulated here. The benefits of reducing smoking in the Philippines will be found in public health, garbage and even beautifying our cities and streets.

Jump to full article »

Smoking: The hook, the habit, the hope  

What was all the fuss about? Smoking was definitely the thing to do if you grew up in the '50s. My parents smoked. The movie stars wielded their cigarettes like weapons, providing an effect that was as glamorous as it was powerful.

I was 9 when my father gave me the responsibility of buying his cigarettes. . . .

I wish I could say that watching my mother die was the catalyst that caused me to quit smoking. I wish I could say that I quit for my children. I wish I could say it was for my health, or at the very least, to save money.

It was none of those reasons. I quit smoking because I was ashamed!

It was April 15, 1971. I belonged to a women's club, and that night, we were seeing a spring fashion show. As I excitedly joined the others at the large table, I lit a cigarette, unaware of the persistent cough that usually accompanied my chronic bronchitis. The lights dimmed and the fashion parade began. As I relaxed with a cigarette, I exchanged eye contact with some women nearby -- and suddenly began to feel ill at ease. I continued to see glances my way. With pursed lips and furrowed brows, the looks increased, occurring with each cough, and amplified as the glow of my match signaled yet another cigarette.

Was I imagining this? My heart pounded and I took a closer look. At a table of 14, I was the only smoker. I inhaled and coughed and realized that my coarse, hollow cough was annoying those around me. I sat shrouded in a blanket of shame that assaulted both my ego and my self-worth. I knew I would never be the same again -- and I never was.

I am ashamed to admit these events that finally caused me to quit, but it's a shame I can live with.

Jump to full article »

Why Do So Many Baseball Players Chew Tobacco? 

Have baseball players always used smokeless tobacco?

Yes. In the mid-19th century—baseball's formative years—chewing tobacco was enormously popular in the United States. Early ballplayers likely chewed tobacco for the same reasons as other American men, but they soon discovered baseball-specific benefits. It spurs saliva production and lubricates the mouth in the dusty infield environment. When fielding gloves came into vogue in the 1870s and 1880s, players moistened the leather with spit. Pitchers used the juice from a chaw to prepare the notorious spitball, which was widely permitted until 1920.

It's not surprising that chewing tobacco has become identified with baseball. Both pastimes came of age when America was

Jump to full article »

• Scholars' Right to Keep Unpublished Work Private Is at Issue in Lawsuit 

In a case with potentially major implications for scholars and publishers, a Stanford University professor who often serves as an expert witness against tobacco companies is fighting an effort by lawyers for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company to obtain the manuscript of his unpublished and unfinished book on that industry.

A Florida state court judge has already authorized the tobacco company's lawyers to issue a subpoena requiring Robert N. Proctor, a Stanford professor of the history of science, to make his book manuscript available to them so they can comb it for possible material to use in cross-examining him in a civil lawsuit pending there.

But the lawyers for the plaintiffs suing the tobacco company last week filed a motion asking the court to reconsider that decision and protect Mr. Proctor from being forced to grant access to the unpublished manuscript. Their motion calls Mr. Proctor their "single most important witness" in their case against the tobacco company, and argues that forcing him to share the manuscript would violate his privacy, his free-speech rights, his academic freedom, and his rights as an author.

Mr. Proctor, for his own part, refused to produce the manuscript at a recent deposition in the case and has retained a San Francisco law firm to fight the subpoena—as well as any other efforts to obtain his book—in California state courts.

In an interview Monday, he said of the book: "It's my private thoughts. They are not organized yet. They are not in finished form." . . .

The Florida court where the case is pending, the state's Seventh Judicial Circuit Court in Volusia County, possibly could entertain arguments for and against the subpoena at a hearing scheduled for Thursday. . . .

Robert M. O'Neil, director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression at the University of Virginia and a veteran scholar of issues related to academic freedom, said Monday that the legal fight over the manuscript "has profound implications" for academe. . . .

Mr. Proctor said Monday that lawyers for the tobacco company have sought for more than a year to obtain the manuscript to his planned book, tentatively titled "Golden Holocaust: A History of Global Tobacco." . . .

In a deposition filed in connection with the Florida case, he describes himself as one of only two professors of history in the nation who regularly testify against the tobacco industry, and alleged that "the tobacco industry has spent years trying to harass, intimidate, and use multiple legal means to prevent me from testifying in litigation." He said that his book "will contain previously unpublished information regarding tobacco-industry practices,"

Jump to full article »

Golden Holocaust: A History of Global Tobacco
Tentative title of Robert N. Proctor's work-in-progress. RJR is battling in a Florida court for a sneak preview.

The Chemical Industry's Attack on Historians 

We think it important to put this controversy in a broader context. During the past decade or so historians have been drawn into the courtroom as expert witnesses in cases involving workers and consumers harmed by a variety of products including tobacco, lead, asbestos, silica and most immediately plastics. This issue has become widely discussed among historians of medicine but has so far escaped attention within the broader community of historians.[2] Of most significance for the historians of medicine is that Kenneth Ludmerer, past president of the American Association for the History of Medicine, Peter English, professor of medicine and history at Duke, Robert Hudson at the University of Kansas and John Burnham at Ohio State, among others, have worked for or testified on behalf of tobacco companies, lead companies and other industries that have been the defendants in lawsuits. In addition, historians such as ourselves, Robert Proctor at Stanford and Allan Brandt at Harvard have testified or worked with workers injured or diseased by their job, children damaged from lead and individuals hurt by tobacco, as well as various cities, states, and the federal government in suits brought against tobacco, lead, silica, and now the chemical industry.

It appears that the legal strategies of the law firms defending the various industries have been more or less the same, following a common pattern and a common rationale. In what historian Robert Proctor has called agnatology, industry has created a new "science" for the creation of doubt and ignorance about its actions in the past and historians have played a significant, if duplicitous role.[3]

In brief, as Robert Proctor has stated in a number of oral presentations and editorials with regard to the tobacco industry, historical experts testifying for industries have adopted a few basic techniques to undermine the historical data indicating knowledge of danger. In general, they have argued that:

* Whatever the evidence of knowledge within industries of the dangers of a product existed in the past, there was insufficient information available for there to be definitive proof of real danger.

* Therefore, there was always a need for more research before doubt could be eliminated and those who questioned that a material was dangerous meant that there was a "controversy" about whether or not it was.

* Causation is extremely difficult to prove and requires years, if not decades, of careful experimentation and observation before "controversy" about the sources of disease could cease.

* Hence, without certainty, and in the context of any on-going controversy about the danger of a product or substance, there was little or no obligation on the part of industries to act to remove their product from the market or to lower exposures to toxic materials within the factory. [4] . . .

[3] Robert Proctor has been engaged in the path-breaking research into historians' role in the tobacco cases and has coined this term in oral presentations. See, Robert N. Proctor, "Should Medical Historians be Working for the Tobacco Industry?" Lancet 363 (Apr 10, 2004), 1174-5.

Jump to full article »

Scholars' Right to Keep Unpublished Work Private Is at Issue in Lawsuit ($$) 

In a case with potentially major implications for scholars and publishers, a Stanford University professor who often serves as an expert witness against tobacco companies is fighting an effort by lawyers for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company to obtain the manuscript of his unpublished and unfinished book on that industry.

A Florida state court judge has already authorized the tobacco company's lawyers to issue a subpoena requiring Robert N. Proctor, a Stanford professor of the history

Jump to full article »

DIPIETRO: The Daily Walk of Shame: "Unbiased" Health Insurance Industry Report 

This new Motley Fool series examines things that just aren't right in the world of finance and investing. Here's what's got us riled today. . . .

This all comes out despite a report released last week by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stating that the legislation in question would reduce the federal deficit by $81 million by 2019 and would probably extend coverage to about 29 million Americans who currently lack insurance.

Why you should be indignant: Where to begin? There are at least three very good reasons to be apprehensive of PwC's report.

* Because the report is commissioned by AHIP, a group that represents health policies from companies like Aetna (NYSE:AET), Aflac (NYSE:AFL), and Humana (NYSE:HUM), PwC should have been extra careful to dispel any apparent conflict of interests. However, instead of performing tremendous due diligence, PwC seemed to have produced a report with too many holes to poke through and too much room left to be guessing about the legitimacy of their work. . . .

Well, you can choose to believe PwC's report or you can choose not to. Before you reach any conclusion, consider this: In the early 1990's PwC performed similar studies for the tobacco industry, which included bigwigs like Phillip Morris International (NYSE:PM) (then part of Altria) and Reynolds American (NYSE:RAI). They provided supposedly hard data that showed how a new excise tax on tobacco would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The report was apparently so lopsided that another consulting firm, Arthur Andersen, reviewed PwC's work. They found "serious methodological problems and errors of omission (one-sided analyses likely to lead to misinterpretation) in both the PW Report and the [tobacco industry's Tobacco Institute] Estimates." Ultimately, the string of blunders made by PwC led Andersen to report that "these and other serious flaws in the Price Waterhouse Report and the Tobacco Institute Estimates build upon one another in a cumulative fashion to present grossly exaggerated and misleading estimates of job loss from an increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco products."

There are some eerie similarities here considering that one of the methods considered for funding health-care reform is a tax on some very expensive "Cadillac" health-care plans. Looks to me like another case of lobbyists hiring consulting groups to find data that supports their claims instead of performing a comprehensive, objective analysis.

This report has conflict of interest written all over it. Ill-timed. Factually debatable. Contrary to reports by the CBO. I'm not buying one word of it.

Jump to full article »

• Audio slideshow: Created by Mad Men 

Cigarette vending machines should be banned and shops in England, Wales and Northern Ireland should keep stocks out of sight, MPs say. Similar plans are being discussed in Scotland.

But there was a time when there were very few restrictions on tobacco promotion. Larry Viner, of the Advertising Archives, takes a look at the ingenious, and not so truthful, ways the ad agencies tried to sell cigarettes in the past.

Jump to full article »

• Price Waterhouse and Big Tobacco 

There's a big scary new study out today from the health insurance lobby and PricewaterhouseCoopers purporting to show that the Senate Finance Committee's reform bill -- funded by new excise taxes on "Cadillac" health plans -- would cause future health insurance premiums to spiral out of control.

Before this genie gets too far out of the bottle, just consider the track record of such industry-funded excise tax "research" by Price Waterhouse.

In the early 1990s, Price Waterhouse did similar handiwork on behalf of Big Tobacco, serving up allegedly hard data to bolster arguments that a new excise tax on tobacco (a proposed mechanism to fund Clintoncare) would destroy hundreds of thousands of good American jobs.

Dire predictions. But a subsequent review of Price Waterhouse's methods by an independent team at Arthur Andersen, revealed that Price Waterhouse's "grossly exaggerated" and "one-sided analyses" were so "flawed" as to produce "patently unreliable results." . . .

“These and other serious flaws in the Price Waterhouse Report and the Tobacco Institute Estimates build upon one-another in a cumulative fashion to present grossly exaggerated and misleading estimates.”

“The cumulative effect of PW’s methods… is to produce patently unreliable results.”

Jump to full article »

Climate Cover-Up / The Crusade to Deny Global Warming  

"Climate Cover-Up documents one of the most disgusting stories ever hidden about corporate disinformation. What you'll discover in this book amounts to proof of an intergenerational crime." DAVID SUZUKI, Author of The Sacred Balance and Good News for a Change.

"This book explains how the propaganda generated by self-interest groups has purposely created confusion about climate change. It's an imperative read for a successful future." LEONARDO DICAPRIO, Actor and Producer . . .

Starting in the early 1990s, three large American industry groups set to work on strategies to cast doubt on the science of climate change. Even though the oil industry's own scientists had declared, as early as 1995, that human-induced climate change was undeniable, the American Petroleum Institute, the Western Fuels Association (a coal-fired electrical industry consortium) and a Philip Morris-sponsored anti-science group called TASSC all drafted and promoted campaigns of climate change disinformation.

The success of those plans is self-evident. . . .

Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts.

Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change.

Jump to full article »

When Cigarette Ads Had Balls 

In five years, will you be a wheezing, blackened mess? Or--conversely--will you have five more years of tobacco byproducts in your lungs? Well. You have to admire their "Lie big or lie dead" attitude. Click to enlarge. [Copyranter]

Jump to full article »

Chronicler of cool  

Los Angeles photographer Phil Stern turns 90 tomorrow. That's his photo of Frank Sinatra lighting JFK's smoke.

Jump to full article »

• The Truth About American Legacy 

The American Legacy Foundation is a rare example of a public charity being born with a silver spoon. Even before it began operating in 1999, the foundation was bequeathed more than $1 billion from the settlement of a massive lawsuit brought by the attorneys general of 46 states against the country's major tobacco companies. . . .

For the first few years, it seemed a great success. The foundation rolled out hard-hitting and ubiquitous advertising, known as "the truth" campaign. . . .

Then the magic stopped working so well. Since 2003, teen smoking rates have hovered around 22 percent, even as adult smoking has continued to dwindle (to under 20 percent now). After the final really big tobacco payment of $307.9 million came that year (under the Master Settlement), "the truth" campaign continued on a much smaller scale.

But despite spending less on those ads, awarding fewer grants for anti-smoking programs and seeing all the tobacco company contributions end last year, the foundation itself grew wealthier. As expenditures for its primary missions fell, two budget items kept growing: investment fees and salary costs, especially for top executives. . . .

While most nonprofits invest to protect their funds, the Legacy Foundation has pursued an aggressive investment strategy that includes hedge funds, foreign stocks (sometimes accompanied by currency exchange losses), interest rate swaps, two office buildings in downtown Washington and other investments.

Some observers say Legacy is trying too hard to perpetuate itself and the cause would be better served if it spent more of its endowment, which stood at $1.156 billion at the end of fiscal 2008.

The American Legacy Foundation says President Cheryl Healton's salary of $570,000 in 2008 (plus benefits) is about the same as the median for others in large philanthropic endeavors. . . .

(For a more complete rundown of the foundation's annual budget and spending, see the pie charts on these pages.) . . .

The foundation is phasing out its grant program for small innovative programs, for anti-smoking programs in rural areas and among minority groups, and for research. It has spent about $150 million on these grants during its existence.

As for media strategies: Despite embracing social media such as Facebook and YouTube, the ubiquity of the foundation's ads has faded. None has gone viral on the Web. The foundation has attracted fewer than 200 Facebook fans.

Meanwhile, tobacco companies lay out about $41 million a day for advertising.

Jump to full article »

"Tobacco and Health" Expert Witness Report Filed on behalf of Plaintiffs in: "The United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., Defendants," 

I am a Distinguished Professor of History at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, Pennsylvania, where I am also Co-director of the Science, Medicine, and Technology in Culture initiative. I have been asked to review the history of tobacco health hazards, focusing also on the history of the tobacco industry's response to evidence of a tobacco hazard. I have also been asked to respond to the February 2002 reports submitted by Kenneth Ludmerer, Theodore A. Wilson, Richard D. Thomas and Peter C. English. I will begin with some historical background, followed by a review of the discovery of tobacco hazards and the tobacco industry's response to these discoveries. I will then respond to the four reports prepared by expert witnesses for the defense.

Jump to full article »