Tobacco Articles: org karney

'Watchdog' advocates for BPA

Sat, 22 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Statistical Assessment Service, a major player in the public relations campaign to discredit concerns about bisphenol A, claims to be an independent media watchdog. But a review of its finances and its Web site shows that STATS is funded by public policy organizations that promote deregulation. The Journal Sentinel found documents that show that its parent organization, the Center for Media and Public Affairs, was paid in the 1990s by Philip Morris, the tobacco company, to pick apart stories critical of smoking. In June, STATS ran a 27,000-word assessment of the media's coverage of BPA and sharply criticized the coverage - especially stories in the Journal Sentinel - for ignoring the science. . . . The Journal Sentinel in 2007 reviewed 258 scientific studies involving BPA and found the overwhelming majority determined the chemical to be harmful. Gina Kolata of The New York Times and the Center for Health Care Journalists linked to the STATS report on their Web sites, identifying the group as a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. But documents show that STATS' parent organization has a history of working for corporations trying to deflect concerns about the safety of their products. STATS and the Center for Media and Public Affairs are run by S. Robert Lichter, a professor of communication at George Mason University. The organizations share the same office and tax records. Documents from the Tobacco Institute on file at the University of California-San Francisco show that Philip Morris contracted with the Center for Media and Public Affairs at least twice during the 1990s to monitor media coverage of tobacco. A draft dated March 31, 1994, lays out Lichter's proposal to the tobacco company: "The Center will track and report on two or three case studies, examining all of the source material for claims and then review how the story was covered by the national media." An e-mail from the Tobacco Institute's files, dated Feb. 18, 1999, quotes Philip Morris vice president Vic Han referring to Lichter's center as "a media watchdog group that we have contributed to over the last several years." The center, according to the tobacco documents, was paid to conduct an analysis that takes into account the topical focus, sources and tone of presentation of tobacco stories in the media. . . . Trevor Butterworth, editor of STATS, has become BPA's fiercest advocate. He combs the Internet for stories that raise concern about the chemical, even on the most obscure blogs, and he chastises those who claim BPA can be harmful. Butterworth offers this advice on a journalism Web site: "Forget conventional PR! If some bratty journalist gives you a whack, whack back with obscene, jaw dropping disproportion: knee him in the groin, pull what's left of his hair out, tell him he writes in clichés, and misuses the semicolon, and stomp on his iPhone! A hack is like a bully, and charming a bully is a bit like reasoning with a psychopath or writing a novel on Twitter. For the tough cases, go Dada. . . . Defending the brand means exacting respect and that will come from fear not charm." . . . The Journal Sentinel reviewed IRS documents and found the Sarah Scaife Foundation reported giving STATS $100,000 in 2007, an amount that equaled all of STATS' assets - except for $435 in income interest. The Scaife Foundation funds a number of organizations that promote public policy against regulation, including the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute.

Lawyers for Tobacco Companies Breathe a Weary Sigh of Relief -- Memphis Business Journal -- 1999-05-17

Mon, 17 May 1999 04:00:00 GMT

After 18 months of pre-trial work, three Memphis attorneys - Leo Bearman, Albert C. Harvey and Lee Chase - spent the past 17 weeks in the courtroom as the local lawyers working on what is considered certainly one of the longest legal cases in recent memory in Shelby County. The attorneys successfully represented the three tobacco firms in which three separate cases were consolidated before a single jury. The jury reached a verdict on Monday (May 10) that the tobacco companies were not responsible for the deaths of three long-time smokers.

Tennessee court win a morale boost for Big Tobacco

Tue, 11 May 1999 04:00:00 GMT

Monday's outcome signals the industry's exposure to smoking-related suits has not risen as much as Wall Street had begun to fear, analysts said Tuesday. But analysts warned tobacco companies will have to win a case or two on the West Coast to restore investor faith after Oregon and California juries hit Philip Morris with damages totaling $131.5 million in two separate cases.

BAT surges after winning U.S. legal round

Tue, 11 May 1999 04:00:00 GMT

Shares in British American Tobacco Plc rose four percent on Tuesday after a favourable ruling for the tobacco industry in a U.S. lawsuit. The stock traded 20 pence higher at 550p -- having touched 554p -- by 0810 GMT.

Victories in 2 States Give Cigarette Makers a Boost

Tue, 11 May 1999 04:00:00 GMT

"It's going to give investors confidence that the industry can still win . . . when these trials are in jurisdictions that they perceive as fair," said Gary Black of Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. On Monday, Philip Morris' shares rose $1 to close at $38, while shares in R.J. Reynolds' parent, RJR Nabisco, fell $1.31 to $89.44. Both trade on the New York Stock Exchange. Others found less comfort in such reasoning. "There's no shortage of plaintiffs, or plaintiffs' lawyers, in either California or Oregon," said Martin Feldman, a tobacco analyst with Salomon Smith Barney. "California simply on its own remains a major threat to the industry."

Tobacco Firms Get a Victory In Court Case in Tennessee

Tue, 11 May 1999 04:00:00 GMT

But analyst David Adelman of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter said the outcome "doesn't mean the two West Coast verdicts were aberrations." Indeed, the Memphis jury found Reynolds and Brown & Williamson liable for the death of one of the smokers, but didn't award damages because Tennessee law bars damages in cases where plaintiffs are found to be at least 50% responsible for their injuries. . . Shelby County Circuit Judge D'Army Bailey allowed the jury to view only a handful of internal documents accumulated by Jacksonville, Fla., plaintiffs lawyer Norwood S. "Woody" Wilner. Mr. Wilner's star witness for smoking-related pulmonary diseases, Allan Feingold of Miami, was prevented from testifying about industry conduct. As a result, Dr. Feingold, chief of the department of pulmonary medicine at South Miami Hospital, didn't testify at all. Jury instructions in the case made it clear that plaintiffs could win damages only if the tobacco companies were more than 50% to blame for the lung cancer in each case.

Salomon's Feldman on Tennessee Tobacco Verdict: Analyst Comment

Mon, 10 May 1999 04:00:00 GMT

``It's very good news for the industry in that, had it lost, it would've painted a particularly difficult outlook for tobacco litigation going forward. The win suggests that the West Coast losses were the result of two factors: the liberal bias of the West Coast, and the judges, who were far looser with the amount of plaintiff-oriented evidence allowed into trial.'' ``The industry is clearly well-served in those states where it needs to be found more than 50 percent to blame.''

Health Advocate Sweda on Tennessee Tobacco Verdict: Comment

Mon, 10 May 1999 04:00:00 GMT

``It's disappointing, but recognize that the plaintiffs were up against a much tougher standard of fault than in California and Oregon. It is important to emphasize that the jurors did find some fault with the tobacco companies in their behavior.'' ``This verdict shouldn't be a compelling factor at all in the industry's upcoming case in Mississippi, which deals with second-hand smoke. The industry won't be able to use its traditional blame-the-smoker defense it uses in direct smoking cases.''

STREAMING VIDEO: Verdicts Reached In Memphis Tobacco Trials

Mon, 10 May 1999 04:00:00 GMT

Today, a jury in Memphis handed tobacco companies victories in three smoking and health cases that had been consolidated into one trial. A single jury heard the evidence and issued separate verdicts...all in favor of the tobacco companies. Watch streaming video which looks at the verdicts at http://www.newstream.com/99-193.shtml [This graph only]

Tenn. Jury Sides With Tobacco Cos

Mon, 10 May 1999 04:00:00 GMT

Curtis Johnson Jr., a lawyer for the plaintiffs, expressed disappointment but vowed to continue taking the tobacco companies to court. ``This is one case, this is one verdict and we'll be back again,'' he said.

Brown & Williamson Hails Memphis Consolidated Tobacco Trial Results

Mon, 10 May 1999 04:00:00 GMT

``Today's jury verdicts in three separate suits represent a significant victory and confirm that juries are still able to apply common sense and reasonable judgment regarding tobacco lawsuits,'' said Gordon Smith, attorney for Brown & Williamson. ``The jury in Memphis saw that these were not cases about documents or an alleged conspiracy, but cases about individuals who chose to smoke for many years and who were well aware of the risks associated with that behavior,'' Smith said.

R.J. Reynolds is Gratified by Jury Decision in Smoking and Health Case

Mon, 10 May 1999 04:00:00 GMT

``We are pleased with the jury's decision,'' said James R. Johnson, the lead defense attorney in the case filed by Bobby Newcomb, a smoker who died in 1998. ``The jury's verdict reflects the fact that they objectively judged the evidence, properly applied the rules of law and relied upon their common sense. ``Once again,'' Johnson said, ``jurors have agreed that smokers are well aware of the risks associated with smoking and have reaffirmed that they generally will not award money to smokers who assume those risks.''

Tobacco companies win round in Tennessee trial: (recasts, adds background)

Mon, 10 May 1999 04:00:00 GMT

They acknowledged that Newcomb died of lung cancer but argued that he was also a heavy drinker and gambler, and was comfortable with taking risks, cigarette smoking included. In the latter case, the jury held that Newcomb was 50 percent responsible for his illness and that Reynolds bore 30 percent of the blame while Brown & Williams bore the other 20 percent. In the other two cases, the jury assigned none of the blame to the cigarette makers.

Memphis Jury Verdicts in Favor of Philip Morris U.S.A. Applauded

Mon, 10 May 1999 04:00:00 GMT

``These verdicts, plainly and simply, reaffirm the common sense approach of jurors to these smoking and health cases,'' said Charles R. Wall, deputy general counsel for Philip Morris. ``Jurors reject the idea of giving money to people who chose to smoke.'' After less than 18 hours of deliberations, the 12-person jury returned its verdicts that Philip Morris was not responsible for the injuries suffered by the plaintiffs. ``Today's verdicts were especially gratifying to Philip Morris because we presented the testimony of company employees explaining to the jury how hard and long the company has worked to develop cigarettes responsive to health concerns,'' Wall said. ``In addition, we explained to the jury how Philip Morris, and indeed the entire cigarette industry, responded to the health claims made about cigarette smoking from the 1950s, through research and new products, in an effort to reduce risks associated with smoking,'' Wall said. ``I have to believe this testimony is reflected in the verdicts.'' The company witnesses testified that Philip Morris had marketed, albeit unsuccessfully, a cigarette with virtually no nicotine and is currently test marketing a cigarette that heats, rather than burns, tobacco. The company continues to do research on these and similar products.

Smokers' Attorney Thomas on Verdict in Tennessee: Comment

Mon, 10 May 1999 04:00:00 GMT

``If you sue the entire industry like (Woody Wilner) did and you have multiple plaintiffs, the documents are not enough to carry one plaintiff. The defenses to each individual case have a cumulative value so that if you have three plaintiffs, bad things about one plaintiff's case are held against another plaintiff in the liability determination, which it appears is what occurred here. Remember, in our case the jury decided 50-50 on negligence. It was on the fraud charge that the jury sided completely in our favor.''