Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
The Chronicle discusses attempts by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco to obtain access to an unpublished work by Stanford's Robert Proctor. Dr. Proctor is an expert witness in a lawsuit against the company; R. J. Reynolds thinks material in the manuscript will be helpful in its cross-examination of the historian of science. Dr. Proctor is fighting the tobacco company's subpoena. Dr. Proctor coined the term "agnotology," a term meaning the cultural production of ignorance.
Jump to full article »
A Stanford University professor who has sought to expose ties between historians and the tobacco industry is being accused in court of having broken the law in challenging the employment of four graduate students at the University of Florida as researchers assisting tobacco companies in litigation.
In motions filed in two Florida state courts last month, tobacco-company lawyers allege that Robert N. Proctor, a professor of the history of science at Stanford, engaged in illegal witness
History is unkind to tobacco companies, and never more so than since a federal court in 2006 found the industry guilty of perpetrating 50 years of fraud and deceit upon the American people. It's a sordid history to live down, and maybe that's why R.J. Reynolds is harassing one of the few historians who has been willing to step up and testify in court about the real history of the tobacco industry's behavior: Professor Robert N. Proctor of Stanford University.
Dr. Proctor specializes in the history of 20th- and 21st-century scientific controversies, including the history of tobacco and "agnotology,", the study of the cultural production of ignorance and doubt -- a field familiar to tobacco companies. After all, Brown & Williamson wrote in a 1969 proposal that
Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' [linking smoking with disease] that exists in the mind of the general public ... If we are successful in establishing a controversy at the public level, then there is an opportunity to put across the real facts about smoking and health. . . .
Tobacco companies hate Dr. Proctor because he helps draw a clear picture for juries about how the industry reacted when the hazards of smoking were revealed in the 1950s an onward. He has also evaluated how the history of smoking in the U.S. might have been different had the industry had responded honestly to evidence that its products cause disease. Dr. Proctor has even taken other medical historians to task for testifying in the industry's favor in lawsuits.
Big Tobacco has employed historians in the courtroom to help demonstrate how "everyone knew" about the dangers of smoking at any given point in time. More than 40 historians have testified for the industry, but only three have testified against. Dr. Proctor is one of those brave three. He has testified in 15 tobacco lawsuits since 1998, and now, in the latest suit, Koballa v. Philip Morris, et al, R.J. Reynolds is trying to stop him. . . .
Proctor's battle to protect his manuscript has broad implications for privacy, protection of academic work, and future court cases in which scholars, researchers and other experts are tapped to testify. As Dr. Proctor has pointed out, it is already difficult to find historians who are willing to testify against the industry. Now we can see why. It obviously takes courage to do so, and can lead to significant extra expense. That Dr. Proctor has had to spend so much of his own money to participate in this case is egregious.
This intimidation of Dr. Proctor, if the court allows it to continue, will only make the tobacco industry's path to win cases easier, and punish those who step up in court to tell the truth about this industry's past.
Students at the University of Florida (UF) and the University of Central Florida (UCF) spent last Saturday morning raising their voices for justice for tobacco workers. Chanting�"Justice now!" and holding signs that read "Hasta la Victoria" ("Onward to Victory"), dozens of students marched and rallied on UF's Gainesville campus.
The students joined members of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC), the Student/Farmworker Alliance and the National Farm Worker Ministry to demand justice for tobacco farm workers in North Carolina who suffer low wages and poor working conditions at the hands of Big Tobacco.
The rally followed a UF Student Senate resolution calling for a pay increase and better treatment of Immokalee farm workers, who pick the tomatoes used by Aramark, UF's food provider. "Somebody's got to fight for social justice," said UF junior Justin Wooten.
The students and activists wanted to send a message to Susan Ivey, CEO of Reynolds American, the parent of R.J. Reynolds, the nation's second-largest tobacco company. Ivey has refused to meet with FLOC members
For months, Altria (NYSE: MO) has been the tobacco industry's head of all things wholesome. By supporting FDA regulation of cigarette products (with much tighter advertising constraints), Altria became the only member of "Big Tobacco" to back anti-smoking concerns.
But now it's time for Altria to step aside, because Reynolds American (NYSE: RAI) could potentially one-up the former Philip Morris at its own game. According to rumors, Reynolds wants to purchase Swedish-based nicotine-replacement gum and spray provider Niconovum.
Niconovum is really small potatoes in the scope of Reynolds' overall business . . . Big Tobacco will always try to position itself as a collection of somewhat-caring corporate citizens. Now, it looks like Reynolds American may take the top spot as the industry's spin leader.
Why would a cigarette company buy a firm that makes products to help smokers quit?
It's a question that's left many scratching their heads ever since reports surfaced that Reynolds American -- the no. 2 U.S. tobacco company and the maker of Camel, Kool and Winston cigarettes, among others -- is in talks to acquire Niconovum.
Niconovum, a Swedish company, makes nicotine gum and other nicotine replacement products designed to wean smokers off of cigarettes. It was founded in 2000 by Karl Olov Fagerström, who the company's Web site trumpets as "one of the world's leading experts on smoking cessation and nicotine dependence."
Purchasing the company "runs totally counter to the mission statement of (Reynolds American subsidiary) R.J. Reynolds," said Gregory Connolly, a Harvard School of Public Health professor who researches tobacco products. "I'm astounded."
Fending off accusations it misappropriated the names of more than 185 indie rockers to promote cigarettes, Rolling Stone magazine on Thursday appeared to have one appellate justice solidly in its corner.
However, two votes are needed to win and one justice was absent during oral arguments in San Francisco's 1st District Court of Appeal. The third didn't tip his hand.
Rolling Stone was sued last year by a class of indie bands -- led by the San Francisco Bay Area's Xiu Xiu and Toronto's Fucked Up -- who claimed the magazine had traded on their names by using them in a November 2007 graphic/article juxtaposed with a four-page, fold-out advertisement by the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. that touted Camel cigarettes and the manufacturer's collaborations with indie groups. . . .
Nonetheless, the bands claim Rolling Stone intentionally used their names to help R.J. Reynolds sell Camels and that the ad implied the bands endorsed the product.
Trying to buy a company that specializes in products that help people quit smoking may seem like a radical change for Reynolds American Inc.
But analysts said yesterday that it all depends on how Reynolds would potentially use and market cigarette-replacement products in gum, pouch and spray form made by that company, Niconovum AB.
Media reports have said that Reynolds is close to buying Niconovum, of Helsingborg, Sweden, for $44.5 million. The reports are based on comments by David Sweanor, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and a tobacco analyst. Sweanor could not be reached for comment.
Reynolds said it is against its policy to comment on speculation. Niconovum officials could not be reached for comment. . . .
Niconovum was formed in 2000 by Karl Olov Fagerström, who is considered a leading expert on smoking cessation and nicotine dependence. It is managed by many of the individuals who were pivotal in the development of Nicorette, a nicotine-replacement gum.
Although some analysts view Niconovum's products as primarily smoking cessation, the company says on its Web site that it "believes that there is a market for a range of nicotine-replacement therapy products that will deliver nicotine more quickly and effectively than those currently available, thereby giving the consumer a perceived better control of cravings."
The evolution of some health-advocacy groups from anti-smoking to anti-tobacco is ratcheting up the moralistic aspect of buying and consuming a legal product.
Bill Godshall, the executive director of SmokeFree Pennsylvania, said he believes that smokers and public health could benefit if Reynolds buys Niconovum or its patents.
"Its smoke-free nicotine products are 99.9 percent less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, pose no risks to nonusers, and appear to be more smoker friendly than similar products marketed as smoking cessation aids,'' Godshall said.
It would be either one of the most cynical diversifications ever--or a brilliant stroke of synergy.
If a report in The Wall Street Journal is correct, America's second-largest seller of cigarettes may soon be peddling products that help people quit smoking. The Journal reported on Nov. 9 that Reynolds American (RAI), the distributor of Pall Mall, Camel, and Natural American Spirit cigarette brands as well as smokeless tobacco, is in "advanced talks" with Niconovum, a Swedish manufacturer of nicotine replacement products such as gum and mouth spray. University of Ottawa law professor David Sweanor told the Journal he was briefed by people close to the deal.
The move would mark the first time that a big tobacco company also sold smoking-cessation products, according to industry analysts. But it would be in line with the industry's efforts to diversify as cigarette purchases shrink in the U.S. One analyst referred to a purchase of Niconovum as a "cheap hedge" against the smoking decline. . . .
But as Morningstar's Gorham points out, Reynolds can make far more money convincing people to smoke than helping them quit. The cost per unit to produce cigarettes is extremely low—operating margins average 25%-30% industrywide, he says, which is high for consumer goods. (Pepsi (PEP), by comparison, which enjoys enormous scale and volume operating margins, reaches into the high teens, according to Gorham.)
It's unlikely that returns from smoking-cessation products can compete with that anytime soon. "I think we're talking 20 years-plus at this point before tobacco sales are offset by other sources," says Gorham.
Indeed, some view any talks between Reynolds and Niconovum as more of a publicity stunt, designed to place Reynolds in a better light.
Like a fast-food chain selling diet supplements or a gasoline company building electric cars, a major tobacco company is eyeing a surprising business: Helping the smokers who buy their products kick the habit.
Reynolds American Inc. , which sells the Camel and Pall Mall brands of cigarettes, is in talks to buy a Swedish company that makes nicotine gum and mouth spray designed to help people quit smoking by reducing their cigarette cravings, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.
Reynolds could buy Niconovum AB for roughly $44.5-million (U.S.), according to University of Ottawa law professor and tobacco expert David Sweanor, who said he had spoken with someone close to the deal. A spokesperson for Reynolds declined to comment.
The deal would also mark a shift for cigarette companies, many of which embraced diversification decades ago but have changed course in recent years. . . .
The acquisition of Niconovum would give Reynolds another cigarette alternative.
In addition to the gum and mouth spray, the Swedish company also makes a Snus-like product called the Zonnic pouch, which has nicotine but no tobacco. Many countries in the European Union as well as Australia and New Zealand, ban oral tobacco, Prof. Sweanor said. The pouch could give Reynolds a way around those regulations.
"I think this may be a very profitable business. They're catering to the same crowd, essentially," said Indiana University's Prof. Beneish, who was a smoker for 30 years. "They have a captive audience. Trust me."
Reynolds American Inc., the second- largest U.S. tobacco company, is in talks to buy a Swedish maker of nicotine gum and mouth sprays to broaden its offerings beyond cigarettes, a person with knowledge of the discussions said.
Reynolds, which makes Camel cigarettes and Grizzly snuff, wants to acquire closely held Niconovum AB as a way to reach consumers trying to stop smoking, said the person, who declined to be identified because the negotiations are private.
Buying Niconovum would advance Reynolds Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Susan Ivey’s push into nicotine products less harmful than cigarettes. The company is testing dissolvable tobacco tablets in the U.S. after introducing Swedish-style Camel snus earlier this year, Ivey told analysts Oct. 22. It bought snuff maker Conwood in 2006.
“It is one indication of the changing nature of the nicotine business,”
- When it became clear that the state budget was in crisis mode, three industries with much at stake in Harrisburg opened their wallets.
Gambling interests, natural-gas drillers, and tobacco companies have since January spent more than $4.5 million combined on lobbying efforts, according to expense reports filed last week with the state.
Those industries were among the few winners in a budget ravaged by the recession.
Casinos are poised to introduce poker and other newly legalized table games. Natural-gas drillers and tobacco companies fought off new taxes. . . .
Republican legislative leaders defeated the proposed cigar tax, along with one proposed for smokeless products such as chewing tobacco and snuff. Left standing was a new tax on little cigars - cigarillos.
In all, tobacco interests large and small spent nearly $1.5 million on lobbying from January through Sept. 30, records show.
Reynolds American Inc., whose subsidiary Conwood Co. is the nation's second-largest producer of smokeless tobacco products, devoted the most - $670,658.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.'s bid to carve out a "free speech" marketing niche for innovative products received a setback yesterday.
A U.S. District Court judge denied a motion for a preliminary injunction by Reynolds regarding the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which became law in June.
Judge Joseph McKinley ruled that "the plaintiffs have little likelihood of success" in challenging the modified-risk tobacco-products provision of the law.
A lawsuit was filed Aug. 31 in the Western District of Kentucky against the federal government and the Food and Drug Administration by Reynolds; Conwood Co. LLC, a sister company with Reynolds American Inc.; Lorillard Inc.; Commonwealth Brands Inc.; and two other parties.
The companies said they are trying to "protect their First Amendment right to communicate with adult tobacco consumers about their products." . . .
However, Adam Spielman, an analyst with Citigroup Global Markets Inc., said he believes that regulation will not undercut Reynolds' smokeless innovations. "The rules on new products do not require sign-off from the FDA if the product is substantially equivalent health-wise to existing products," he said.
The decision comes at a time when the National Cancer Institute has provided grants for a new series of medical studies on smokeless-tobacco products, some focused on whether the products provide a less harmful alternative to conventional tobacco products.
A federal judge ruled Thursday that tobacco companies hoping to block new restrictions on their marketing have little chance of succeeding.
The companies had asked U.S. District Judge Joseph H. McKinley Jr. to issue a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit they filed in August claiming new tobacco regulations violate their right to free speech.
The companies, including two of the industry's three largest, are challenging provisions of a law that gave the U.S. Food and Drug Administration new authority over tobacco. In a 29-page decision, McKinley outlined the arguments in the lawsuit and found that blocking the provisions was not warranted. The ruling focused on a narrow portion of the legal challenge dealing with modified-risk tobacco products.
The question before the Court is whether Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing the need for the “extraordinary remedy” of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the MRTP provision. Tennessee Scrap Recyclers Ass’n v. Bredesen, 556 F.3d 442, 447 (6th Cir. 2009). In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, courts consider four factors: (a) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (b) whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury without the injunction; (c) whether issuance of the injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and (d) whether the public interest would be served by the issuance of the injunction. . . .
Assuming that the MRTP provision implicates the First Amendment, it seems likely that its restrictions on speech are constitutionally permissible. . . .
In sum, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have little likelihood of success on the merits of their facial First Amendment challenge to the MRTP provision except on the theory that it operates as a prior restraint on speech and lacks a reasonable time limit for FDA review. . . .
Having considered each of the required factors, the Court finds that the “extraordinary remedy” of a preliminary injunction is unwarranted.
29
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.