Defendants Falsely Denied that ETS Causes Disease

Defendants Falsely Denied that ETS Causes Disease

¶Exposure to secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in adults. Passive exposure causes two to three percent of all lung cancer cases in the United States. Compare DXA0390094-0699 at 0118, 0309 (US 88654) (1992 EPA Risk Assessment) (over 3,000 deaths annually) with Samet WD, 63:15- 64:5 (155,000 lung cancer deaths from all causes in 2000) and DXA0390094-0699 at 218 (US 88654) (98,451 lung cancer deaths in 1979). Exposure to secondhand smoke can also cause coronary heart disease, exacerbation of asthma, reduced lung function, and respiratory symptoms in children. See generally Samet WD.18

¶Although it is not in the record because it was issued this year, and accordingly, the Court does not rely upon it, the 2006 Surgeon General Report, titled "The Health and Consequences

¶Despite their internal acknowledgment of the hazards of secondhand smoke, Defendants have fraudulently denied that ETS causes disease. That public position and Defendants' efforts to deny and distort the scientific evidence of the harmfulness of ETS are evidenced not only in decades of press releases, reports, booklets, newsletters, television and radio appearances, and scientific symposia and publications, but in evidence of concerted, multifaceted public relations strategies designed to counter mainstream scientific publications. See Findings of Fact Section V(G)(6-8). For example, from January 1984 to April 1986, Reynolds ran a series of advertisements in newspapers across the country. One was titled "Smoking in Public: Let's separate fact from fiction"; another was titled "Secondhand smoke: Let's clear the air"; and a third ran under the headline "Secondhand smoke: The Myth and the Reality." The three Reynolds advertisements asserted: "In fact, there is little evidence -- and certainly nothing which proves scientifically -- that cigarette smoke causes disease in nonsmokers." 506290558-0792 at 0608, 0611, 0612 (US 29799). In addition, in December 1986, the Tobacco Institute published a brochure titled "Tobacco Smoke and the Nonsmoker: Scientific Integrity at the Crossroads." The Tobacco Institute claimed in its brochure that "a detailed review of the scientific literature on ETS" led to the conclusion that: "The

¶(...continued) of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke," contains noteworthy conclusions, which are entirely consistent with these Findings. In particular, the Surgeon General found "there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke." Office on Smoking and Health, U.S. Dept. Of Health and Human Servs., The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon Gen. — Executive Summary 9 (2006). Exposure to secondhand smoke can increase the risk of a child being born at a low birth weight, increase the risk of sudden infant death syndrome, and cause acute respiratory infections and conditions in children as well as adults. Id. at 9, 11, 12. Secondhand smoke also adversely affects the cardiovascular system, and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer. Id. at 9, 13. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco evidence does not support conclusions that ETS represents a health hazard to nonsmokers." TIMN 284404-4413 at 4405 (US 77088). Defendants' efforts continued even after the Surgeon General's seminal 1986 Report concluded that "involuntary smoking is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in healthy nonsmokers." VXA2110670-1053 at 0673 (US 63709).

¶Defendants' efforts to deny and distort the disease risks of exposure to secondhand smoke, or ETS, spread to virtually every corner of the world. Beginning in the 1970s, Defendants crafted and carried out an "open question" strategy, derived from the public relations strategy they employed successfully to discredit research related to active smoking, to address the issue of passive smoking. They carried out this strategy through a comprehensive plan, and the expenditure of an extraordinary amount of money, to develop a worldwide network of consultants involved in a public relations offensive to undermine the growing scientific consensus that ETS causes lung cancer, as well as other serious diseases. These consultants attacked legitimate scientific investigation through:

• The identification and pre-selection of scientists touted as "independent" ETS consultants by Covington & Burling, particularly John Rupp, and Shook, Hardy & Bacon. • The creation of supposedly "independent" scientific groups, such as Indoor Air International ("IAI") and the Associates for Research on Indoor Air ("ARIA"), and even a scientific journal written by lawyers and industry consultants that exists to this day. • The review, editing, and rewriting of consultants' papers and editorials by industry lawyers and scientists before publication. • The planning and execution of numerous industry controlled symposia all over the world to generate favorable publications.

¶See generally Findings of Fact Section V(G)(6)(a)((6)).

¶Defendants justify the powerful public relations machinery they employed to attack the scientific evidence establishing ETS as a cause of disease by asserting that the evidence did not establish a link between exposure to secondhand smoke and diseases such as lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. However, the scientific community had reached a consensus on ETS as a cause of disease by 1986, as announced in the Surgeon General's Report. Moreover, and most significantly, Defendants themselves had determined by the 1970s that ETS was harmful to nonsmokers. See Findings of Fact Section V(G)(3).

¶Defendants still, to this day, fraudulently deny the health effects of ETS exposure. At trial,

¶Philip Morris, BATCo, Brown &Williamson, Lorillard, and R.J. Reynolds denied that ETS causes disease in nonsmokers:

• RJR continues to publicly dispute that secondhand smoke causes diseases and other adverse health effects in nonsmokers. The company's position on its website indicates: "Considering all of the evidence, in our opinion, it seems unlikely that secondhand smoke presents any significant harm to otherwise healthy nonsmoking adults." US 9201). Mary Ward, an in-house attorney for RJR until 2004, testified that the RJR position on passive smoking has not changed since she joined the company in 1985, with the exception of admitting that ETS "may trigger attacks in asthmatics." Ward TT, 11/4/04, 5076:9-5077:22.
• Lorillard continues to dispute publicly the scientific consensus as well. Lorillard general counsel Ron Milstein testified that his company has never admitted in any forum that ETS exposure causes disease, and that an October 2003 press release containing one of his statements was in line with the company's position that ETS is not a proven health hazard. Milstein TT, 1/7/05, 9263:8-9264:24.
• B&W's most recent website tells the public that ETS is not harmful. The company's 2003 website stated: "It is, therefore, our view that the scientific evidence is not sufficient to establish that environmental tobacco smoke is a cause of lung cancer, heart disease or other chronic diseases." US 76761. B&W CEO Susan Ivey testified that her company places its positions on its website for consumers to rely on. Ivey TT, 11/16/04, 6098:7-19.

• BATCo also denies that passive smoke is a health hazard to adults or children. (no bates) (US 86747).
• From 1999-2001, the Philip Morris website publicly stated its disagreement with the scientific consensus as well: "Many scientists and regulators have concluded that ETS poses a health risk to nonsmokers. Even though we do not agree with many of their conclusions, below we have provided some links so you can access some of their views." (no bates) (US 92056 at 2); Parrish TT, 1/25/05, 11080:23-11082:14.
• In contrast to its corporate position on active smoking, Philip Morris does not state its agreement with, or even acknowledge the existence of, the scientific consensus that passive smoking causes disease. (no bates) (US 92055).

As they did with active smoking, using the Enterprise's public relations machinery,

¶Defendants fraudulently denied the adverse health effects of ETS in order to maintain the appearance an open controversy about the link between ETS and disease and thus maintain and enhance the cigarette market and their collective revenues.