Firms Still Deny Harm in Smoking, Report Says
Several major tobacco companies are continuing to deny in court filings that smoking causes disease, even though in recent years they have publicly acknowledged the health hazards of their products, a congressional staff report said Tuesday.
Over the last five years, cigarette makers, struggling to repair their tattered image, have conceded on their Web sites that there are significant risks associated with smoking--in some instances making statements that are hardly different from the views of their longtime foes. But the report, prepared for Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles), contends that the companies still are being evasive about the health hazards of smoking, secondhand smoke and the addictiveness of nicotine.
“A test of whether the industry has reformed is the truthfulness of company statements made under penalty of sanction in a court of law,” said Waxman, ranking minority member of the House Committee on Government Reform and an industry critic.
Waxman’s report is based on industry responses to a massive lawsuit filed by the Justice Department in September 1999. A federal judge in Washington threw out significant parts of the case but has permitted the government to pursue claims that tobacco companies were guilty of fraud and racketeering in concealing the hazards and addictiveness of smoking.
The industry has contended vociferously that the suit is meritless and that, unlike other major cases, it will not settle. The case is scheduled for trial next year.
The major tobacco companies said that they had acted responsibly. Spokesmen for Philip Morris Cos., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. and its parent, British American Tobacco, all said the firms had made appropriate statements about risks associated with smoking on their Web sites. Lorillard Tobacco could not be reached.
Waxman’s report states that:
* Four of the five major cigarette firms--RJR, BAT, Brown & Williamson and Lorillard--still question whether smoking causes disease, “even though medical and scientific authorities universally accept that smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other diseases.” Only Philip Morris, the largest manufacturer, did not contest that smoking causes disease, and RJR acknowledged only that smoking “may contribute to causing disease in some individuals.”
* Four of the five firms decline to admit that nicotine is addictive, “even though leading medical and scientific authorities have concluded that it is.” Only Brown & Williamson, the third-largest manufacturer, admitted that nicotine is addictive. For example, Lorillard stated that “after reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily obtainable by Lorillard is insufficient to enable Lorillard ... to admit or deny” that nicotine is addictive.
* All five major tobacco firms deny that environmental tobacco smoke, commonly known as secondhand smoke, causes disease in nonsmokers, “even though medical and scientific organizations, including the U.S. Surgeon General and the World Health Organization, have found that environmental tobacco smoke causes disease.” For example, Brown & Williamson acknowledged only that such smoke can be “irritating” or “annoying” to nonsmokers.
“Refusing to admit that nicotine is addictive or that cigarettes cause disease is the equivalent of saying that the earth is flat,” Waxman said.
The congressman issued the report just days before the U.S. Senate opens hearings on whether the Food and Drug Administration should be given expanded authority to regulate the cigarette companies. The report comes at a time when the cigarette makers--who in the last five years have agreed to pay out $246 billion in settlements and have been hammered by juries for almost $150 billion in damages--have been attempting to convince the public that they are not an outlaw industry.
Responding to the report, Philip Morris attorney Michael York said Tuesday, “Philip Morris is very comfortable with the positions it has taken on its Web site and in the court proceeding.”
Brown & Williamson spokesman Stephen Kottak said, “There are risks to smoking. We acknowledge those risks. They are clearly spelled out on our Web site.”
Brown & Williamson’s Web site says that the company’s position on smoking and disease has evolved in recent years partly because its “position on disease causation was widely misinterpreted.” The site now states that Brown & Williamson scientists “have concluded that, assessing all of the scientific evidence together, the best judgment is that smoking is a cause of disease.”
In its response to written questions from Justice Department lawyers, however, Brown & Williamson took a narrower position.
“For certain diseases, including lung cancer, studies in the U.S. and elsewhere indicate that the risks are strong and consistent. This suggests that smoking is a cause of (or a contributor to) disease in humans. However, we know of no way to verify that smoking is a cause of any particular person’s adverse health or why smoking may have adverse health effects on some people and not others.” At another point, the response states that the firm concurs that “smoking is a cause of certain diseases.”
David Betteridge, a BAT spokesman in London, said that whatever Brown & Williamson officials said was fine with him, since Brown & Williamson is a subsidiary of BAT.
An RJR spokesman said only that the company stood by the positions on its Web site, but declined further comment.
Richard Daynard, a law professor at Northeastern University in Boston and a longtime industry foe, said he thought it was “shortsighted” of the companies to haggle over whether smoke causes disease and whether nicotine is addictive, given the overwhelming scientific evidence.
“It will not take a silver-tongued lawyer for the Justice Department to prevail on these issues,” he said. “This seems like a rear-guard action in a surprising venue.”
