2. Our basic position in the cigarette controversy is subject to the charge, and

may be subject to a finding, that we are making false and misleading statements to promote the sale of cigarettes.

Statistical association does mean causation.

The induction of malignant tumors in skin painting tests is irrelevant to the human smoking experience.

Although causation is accepted by every medical association, every voluntary health organization and the government, causation is established by science not by polling.

1. That medical research of recent years indicates many possible causes of lung cancer.

2. That there is no agreement among the authorities regarding that the cause is.

3. That there is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes (of lung cancer). We believe the products we make are not injurious to health.
. . . .
We believe the products we make are not injurious to health.
. . .

We are pledging aid and assistance to the research effort into all phases of tobacco use and health. 17

Examination of all recent reports and publications, however, reveals that many factors, such as various types of air pollution, as well as tobacco smoke have been suspected as causes of lung cancer. Although much has been written concerning the incidence of lung cancer, there is still a dearth of author authoritative findings on the subject. It is safe 1.0 say that no persuasive and definitive conclusion respecting the cause of this disease or the relation of smoking thereto, has bee.. established.

Examination of all recent reports and publications, however, reveals that many factors, such as various types of air pollution, as well as tobacco smoke have been suspected as causes of lung cancer. Although much has beer. written concerning the incidence of lung cancer, there is still a dearth of authoritative findings on the subject. It is safe to say that no persuasive and definitive conclusion respecting the cause of this disease, or the relation of smoking thereto, has been established.

a) It has not been scientifically established that smoking is a cause of disease, particularly lung cancer.

b) The solution lies in more research to which the industry is committed.

c) Scientists have been unable to establish any ingredient as found in cigarette smoke which has produced lung cancer in animals or human beings.

d) The industry believes that cigarettes are not injurious to health.

e) Moderation is the touchstone. 18/

" Intensive research of the past few years has not confirmed the theory that cigarette smoking may cause lung cancer " a theory suggested by statistical association studies.' 19

Scientific advisors inform us that until much more is known about such diseases as lung cancer, medical science probably will not be able to determine whether tobacco or any other single factor plays a 'causative role " or whether such role might be direct or indirect, incidental or important.20/

Let me make my Position perfectly clear. if we were able to make strong, affirmative, welldocumented statements which might tend to convince the public that the charges against our industry are invalid and insupportable, I would subscribe wholeheartedly to a series of paid advertisements in which we could tell our story. But since we cannot take such a position I think it far better to continue to let the public make its own judgments which since 1953 it has done with results not wholly unfavorable to the tobacco industry. 22

I believe that paid advertisements which would satisfy all of us, including our respective legal counsel and litigation counsel (and which would still remain firm and positive rather 'than negative or defensive) would be almost impossible to arrive at. 23/

2. Our basic position in the cigarette controversy is subject to the charge, and may be subject to a finding that we are making false a or misleading statements to promote the sale of cigarettes . 2 7 /

In defending the industry's interest, The Tobacco Institute has adopted a stance and used some methods which have led us to wonder if we are being realistic and constructive. 29/

For nearly twenty years, this industry has employed a single strategy to defend itself on three major fronts -- litigation, politics, and public opinion.

While the strategy was brilliantly conceived and executed over the years helping us win important battles, it is only fair to say that it is not - nor was it intended to be - a vehicle for victory. on the contrary, it has always been a holding strategy, consisting of

-- creating doubt about the health charge without actually denying it

--advocating the public's right to smoke, without actually urging them to take up the practice

--encouraging objective scientific research as the only way to resolve the question of health hazard

On the litigation front for which the strategy was designed, it has been successful. While we have not lost a liability case, this is not because juries have rejected the antismoking arguments.

On the political front , the strategy has helped make possible an orderly retreat. But it is fair to say that it has not stemmed the pressure for new legislation, despite the major concessions we have made.

On the public opinion front, however, our situation has deteriorated and will continue to worsen. This erosion will have an adverse effect on the other fronts, because here is where the beliefs, attitudes and actions of judges, juries, elected officials and government employees are formed.

THE STRATEGIC IMPASSE

As an industry, therefore, we are committed to an ill-defined middle ground which is articulated by variations on the theme that, "the case is not proved.- As the recent history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam demonstrated, it is impossible to hold the public on a middle course for any length of time. There seems to be no way that mass public opinion can engage in a controversy and choose an answer that goes beyond the range of either/or.

In the cigarette controversy, the public -- especially those who are present and potential supporters (e.g. tobacco state congressmen and heavy smokers) -- must

perceive, understand, and believe in evidence to sustain their opinions that smoking may not be the causal factor.

As things stand, we supply them with too little in the way of ready-made credible alternatives.

THE ALTERNATIVES

Two such credible alternatives exist:

1) The Constitutional Hypothesis I.e. people who smoke tend to differ importantly from people who do not, in their heredity, in constitutional makeup, in patterns of life, and in the pressure under which then [sic] live.

2) The Multi-factorial Hypothesis i.e. as science advances, more and more factors come under suspicion as contributing to the illnesses for which smoking is blamed -- air pollution, viruses, food additives, occupational hazards and stresses.

Our 1970 public opinion survey showed that a majority (52%) believed that cigarettes are only one of the many causes of smokers having more illnesses. It also showed that half of the people who believed that smokers have more illness than non-smokers accepted the constitutional hypothesis as the explanation.

Thus, there are millions of people who would be receptive to a new message, stating:

Cigarette smoking may not be the health hazard that the anti-smoking people say it is because other alternatives are at least as probable.

The Roper Proposal would be persuasive (if not strictly scientific) medium for this message, which we have done little to

develop in a systematic or comprehensive way. 30/

Many eminent medical authorities have stated that claims made as to a possible causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer are lacking in any real proof. Very little is known as to the true cause or causes of any cancer, and it is to be hoped that research financed by the Committee [TIRC] will aid medical science in discovering the cause.

IMPORTANT : If the paper contains any conclusions or findings unfavorable to tobacco, these are reported scrupulously. The account of these findings may be terse and placed at the end of the story, but it must be there. This document detracts from the contention that TI misled medical leaders.

R&D for international operations is totally separate from domestic efforts and engages in activities apparently not found in domestic research.

A wholly-owned subsidiary in Cologne, Germany engages in carcinogenic biological research, such as mouse painting, in violation of the verbal agreement among domestic companies not to perform animal testing in-house.

PM's German subsidiary has also engaged in product health claims considered insupportable and apparently without prior knowledge by the parent company,

- There is a clear-cut agreement among all U.S. cigarette manufacturers that any scientific discovery made within the companies, or otherwise sponsored by a single company, which might have a positive impact on the smoking and health without any costs to the other manufacturers. There would, therefore, be no incentive for RJR to sponsor the Cohen project. This applies to any other product development oriented research by a medical institution to be sponsored by a U.S. tobacco company.

- At this time RJR does not fund directly in the U.S., any directly smoking and health related research. All such requests are answered by referring the applicants to CTR.

Through the domestic industry, two "Gentlemen's" Agreements were operative in the early days:

Any company discovering an innovation permitting the fabrication of an essentially "safe" cigarette would share the discovery with others in the industry.

No domestic company would use intact animals in-house in biological research.

We know the latter agreement has been broken by at least two domestic companies and suspect the former agreement would not be honored today.

There is no other way to explain the high incidence of smoking in certain occupations.

Also, it seems to me this might be a good time to urge attention to additional causation theories. Unhappiness causes cancer. We've seen several foreshadowings of that one. I think dampness causes lung canceror perhaps it would be better said that dampness causes lung problems, some of which end up as cancers.

I never cease to wonder if Philip Morris is spending enough of its own money on furthering the scientific defense of cigarette smoking. 60/

I personally suspect that nervous tension is . . . the underlying cause of cigarette

smoking. Thus, whatever the merits of the design of this particular survey, I am afraid there is an association between cigarette smoking and slightly less than average life expectancy. In other words. the people who are tense and nervous and unable to accept the world as they find it probably are (1) more inclined to smoke cigarettes than the rest of the population, and (2) more likely to die early than the rest of the population, but their tendency to smoke cigarettes is a result of the personal characteristics that make them die early rather than a cause of death. 61/

A flood of publications during the past two or three months has appeared, mostly in the popular press, reporting on the experimental work of Graham and others, which tends to prove that some substance from cigarette smoke is capable of causing abnormal growths on the skin of mice.76/

I think Heller's overal belief is that there is increasing evidence of a causal relationship and he is inclined to think that there is something in the tar but only a small percentage of the mass contains it and it probably in the polycyclic hydrocarbons, and that we ought not to go and get scared and what we ought [illegible] to do is concentrate on the cause. Of course, Mr. Few's belief is they shouldn't pay any attention to the cause (sic] they ought to find a cure . I don't go along with this line of reasoning, but Mr. Few is so firmly entrenched with this idea, I didn't try to disabuse him of it because it probably would take

three days. I don't think this is too sound a position. The tendency is to go slow and they have given them no encouragement at all on labeling the packages.