Reports that Matter

United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc.: Amended Final Opinion

Defendants Undertook Joint Efforts to Undermine and Discredit the

Section 83 of 129

Defendants Undertook Joint Efforts to Undermine and Discredit the

Scientific Consensus That ETS Causes Disease 3435. As described above, Defendants recognized from the mid-1970s forward that the

health effects of passive smoking posed a profound threat to industry viability and cigarette profits, through (1) increasing numbers of smoking restrictions; (2) making smoking "socially unacceptable"; and (3) reducing the number of starter smokers. This recognition resulted in concerted, international action by Defendants and other members of the industry to meet the passive smoking threat head on.

a. Defendants Acted Through a Web of Coordinated and Interrelated International and Domestic Organizations (1) 1975-1980: The Tobacco Institute ETS Advisory Group 3436. Defendants set up the Research Liaison Committee ("RLC") in 1974 to collectively

assess and guide research that was jointly funded and managed by the companies. The RLC was comprised of senior executives and industry attorneys. A subcommittee or "Advisory Group" to the RLC, including outside attorneys Don Hoel and Ed Jacob, was directed in 1975 to consider and recommend research related to the emerging issue of passive smoking. The RLC meetings in 1976 were staffed by company general counsel such as Cy Hetsko (American Brands) and Alex Holtzman (Philip Morris). BWX0007549-BWX0007588 at 7575-7576 (US 20286); 1003293761-3763 (US 86502); 500294698-4698 (US 24145); 1003293752-3753 (US 20169).

1297

  1. Projects recommended by this Advisory Group to the RLC were presented to and approved for funding by the Tobacco Institute's Committee of Counsel, and funded by Defendants as both CTR Special Projects and Special Account #4 projects. 1003294930-4933 at 4931-4932 (US 23416); 503673145-3146 (US 86405); 1000255997-6001 (US 20086).

  2. The activities of the Advisory Group, referred to in some documents as the "Public Smoking Advisory Group," were kept confidential. According to Hoel's summary of the October 2, 1975 meeting of the group, and confirmed in the notes of the same meeting by Philip Morris's Bill Dunn and Ray Fagan:

All communications with potential researchers should be kept in strict confidence (i.e., the submission of a proposal should not later appear in a researcher's curriculum vitae). Potential researchers should be instructed not to place individual company names on proposals. Finally, the proposals should be labeled "DRAFT" and should not contain language of the type discussed.

1003294930-4933 at 4931-4932 (US 23416); 1000205071-5073 (US 20079).

  1. A handwritten Philip Morris summary of the November 5, 1975 meeting of the Advisory Group recorded that: "Ed Jacob suggested that no further formal minutes [of meetings] be made -- also all should destroy [crossed-out] remove notes and previous minutes from corporate files." 1003294811-4814 at 4811 (US 23402).
1298

  1. Other documents establish that the actions of the Advisory Group resulted in the funding of several ETS-related projects through CTR Special Projects and Special Account 4 throughout the late 1970s and into the early 1980s. These projects included work by John Salvaggio, Response Analysis, Stanford Research Institute (SRI) and others. 1005122237-2240 (US 20215); 1005122267-2271 (US 20219).

  2. In September 1984, the Committee of Counsel directed Donald Hoel to reconstitute and reconvene the committee he had helped coordinate in the 1970s to manage Defendants' passive smoking efforts. This new group was called the Tobacco Institute ETS Advisory Group (TI- ETSAG), sometimes referred to as the "Hoel Committee" after its chairman. 2015029667 (US 20315); Green TT, 11/15/04, 5975:23-5976:7.

  3. The TI-ETSAG existed from 1984 to 1988, when its mission was transferred to the Center for Indoor Air Research, or CIAR. 2023054167-4167 (US 75232); 511252621-2626 (US 51554).

  4. The TI-ETSAG was made up of representatives from the cigarette manufacturer Defendants, in-house counsel, outside law firm attorneys, and public relations experts from the Tobacco Institute. In addition to Hoel, some of the committee members included John Rupp of Covington & Burling, Lorillard's Alexander Spears, Reynolds scientists Charles Green and Guy Oldaker, Reynolds in-house counsel Mary Ward, Philip Morris scientists Tom Osdene and Bob Pages, Brown & Williamson scientist Gil Esterle, and Marvin Kastenbaum, and the Tobacco Institute's Bill Kloepfer and Charles Waite. The group met monthly. 2021004058-4064 (US 20339); TI00610153-TI00610154 (US 62064).

1299

  1. Liggett and American Tobacco did not participate directly, but they contributed funding to the committee activities. 2021004058-4064 at 4058 (US 20339); Rupp TT, 10/27/04, 4009:4-16.

  2. A Philip Morris document dated February 25, 1986 stated the mission of the ETSAG in these terms: "Solicit and review proposals for the conduct of ETS-related research that will be helpful to the industry. Recommend (to the Committee of Counsel) that approved projects be funded as CTR Special Projects." 2021004058-4064 at 4058 (US 20339).

  3. One goal of the ETSAG was to generate data and conclusions from independent scientists. The same Philip Morris report noted, "To be useful and effective, approved research projects: 1) should be conducted in independent, outside laboratories (not obviously connected with the tobacco industry) . . . . " 2021004058-4064 at 4058 (US 20339).

  4. The purpose of the TI-ETSAG was to generate data to resist smoking restrictions and conclusions that supported the industry's public position that ETS posed no proven health risk to nonsmokers. Tom Osdene wrote the following in an April 25, 1988 letter to Tobacco Institute president Sam Chilcote:

I think many of us have conceptualized the ETS issue as a battlefield in which the arena is dominated by public relations and legal issues while the ammunition which is used happens to be science. It has been the purpose of CIAR as well as its precursor, the ETS Advisory Committee, to provide ammunition in this fight.

2021012384-2388 at 2384 (US 20340).

  1. ETSAG funded projects as CTR Special Projects, with no SAB review, because the ETSAG "was more litigation oriented." Another purpose of the ETSAG was to fund projects in order to "get scientific publications that would be of use in litigation." Donald Hoel PD, United
1300

States v. Philip Morris, 6/27/02, 58:20-59:19.

  1. The Hoel Committee reported to and provided updates to the Committee of Counsel, which was authorized to approve ETS projects for funding. 521028862-8863 (U.S. 52693*);

680542518-2522 at 2520-2521 (US 30899); 91821775 (US 57128); 91820443 (US 57123); Donald

Hoel PD, United States v. Philip Morris, 6/27/02, 129:3-10, 129:24-130:7; Ward TT, 11/3/04,

4961:11-4962:5.

  1. From 1984 to 1988, the ETSAG was responsible for developing and managing the following passive smoking projects, all funded through CTR as Special Projects, without the approval of its Scientific Advisory Board:

ORNL Personal Nicotine Monitor, developed by Roger Jenkins and Michael Guerin at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and Reynolds. The project involved the development and field testing of the personal nicotine monitor originally designed and developed by Dr. Muramatsu of the Japan Tobacco and Salt Public Corporation [JTI]. The method of measurement was intended to reveal that nicotine levels in ambient air were very low. Approved funding via ETSAG: $855,000.

Indoor air particulate sampling, by Salvatore DiNardi. The purpose of this project was to "refute [the] oft-cited paper of Repace and Lowery (1980)," concluding that nonsmokers were exposed to high levels of airborne particulate due to ETS. Approved funding via ETSAG: $688,878.

Indoor air testing/surveys, by ACVA. The purpose of the project was to show that the "vast majority of [indoor air] complaints are directly caused by airborne dust, bacteria, and/or fungi" as well as poor ventilation, "and not to the presence of ETS." Approved funding via ETSAG: $13,800.

Portable air sampler, developed by Reynolds. The purpose of the sampler was to take "measurements" of air in aircraft, restaurants,

1301

homes, and workplaces, to show that everyday indoor air contains very small amounts of ETS. While the sampler was created by Reynolds, "scientists from PM, B&W, Lorillard and Reynolds will participate." Testing was carried out in numerous cities -- including New York, Ottawa, Dallas, and others -- using the Reynolds apparatus. The results were then used to resist smoking restrictions in those cities.

Epidemiological and other scientific critiques, by industry consultants Lee Husting, Theodor Sterling, David Sterling, Demetrios Moschandreas, Marvin Kastenbaum, and James Kilpatrick. The purpose of these critiques was to cast doubt on the epidemiological studies showing an association between passive smoking and lung cancer. Known approved funding via ETSAG: $198,034 (Husting); $70,000 (D. Sterling).

ETS allergy testing, by Tulane University researchers John Salvaggio and Samuel Lehrer. In Hoel's words, "it is expected that even the extreme case of the allergic asthmatic will not show physiological responses to ETS." Approved funding via ETSAG: $263,117.

Aircraft cabin air quality measurements, by R.J. Reynolds using the R.J. Reynolds sampler apparatus described above.

2021004058-4064 (US 20339); 507734379-4380 (US 29905); TIDN0008191-8194 (US 62592);

86024167-4167 (US 56093); 86024168-4172 (US 21089); 92613920-4198 (US 32132);

2028343885-3890 at 3887 (US 75166); 504933703-3707 (US 24220); 512252621-2626 (US 51554);

521028861 (US 27065).

  1. Lawyers reviewed all project proposals prior to funding and papers prior to publication. For example, a November 21, 1986 legal bill from Shook, Hardy & Bacon to Philip

Morris, Reynolds, Lorillard, and B&W listed the following work under the heading of "Science and

Research":

[R]eview Sterling memorandum re Vancouver ETS seminar; attorneys and analysts conference re Dr. First and ETS Advisory

1302

Group projects . . . review Koo manuscript . . . review DiNardi proposal . . . review ORNL paper submission on ETS; review IITRI project proposals and abstract . . . telephone conference with Dr. Sterling regarding clearance of manuscript . . . review and analyze ETS Advisory Group agenda . . . review research project and send to general counsel . . . correspondence and telex to Dr. Rylander . . . telephone conference with Dr. Sterling regarding clearance of paper on smoking by occupation. . . ."

682174838-4844 at 4839-4840 (US 69159).

  1. Numerous meeting minutes and summaries illustrate the extent to which ETSAG group members, particularly attorneys from Shook, Hardy & Bacon and Covington & Burling, designed, monitored, and carefully controlled projects initiated by the group. See, e.g., 20210039523957 (US 25563); 2021004054-4057 (US 25564); 2021004286-4290 (US 25565); 2021003620-3625

(US 25562); 504933596-3702 (US 24219); 512309183-9189 (US 24751); 505491303-1308 (US

50834); TIBU0030330-0331 (US 62566); TI05440380-0380 (US 62214); 2021001009-1009 (US

25533); 511252621-2626 (US 51554).

  1. The ETSAG reviewed and edited papers written by researchers it had not funded, but were funded by other industry organizations. For example, a record of the May 22, 1986 ETSAG meeting recorded the following with respect to a paper by long-time industry consultant Theodor

Sterling critiquing the model used by Repace in estimating annual deaths attributable to ETS:

Sterling on Repace -- Kastenbaum (TI) has had a conversation with Sterling suggesting he rewrite his papers before submitting for publication. The consensus is that Sterling has a good series of papers on Repace but needs to rewrite. Especially noted is the need not to appear to support the Repace model. . . . Hoel will follow up.

1303

  1. Defendants coordinated the actions of the ETSAG with those of other international industry bodies. For example, on April 8, 1986, a joint meeting of the ETS Advisory Groups from the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and INFOTAB took place in London "to discuss scientific and public relations problems relating to environmental tobacco smoke" and to "avoid duplication of the various efforts." Osdene and Green presented a summary of ETSAG projects to the assembled group. 505347172-7174 (US 20739).

  2. For two days in March 1987, the entire ETSAG met with representatives of the U.K. Tobacco Advisory Council (TAC), the German Verband der Cigarettenindustrie (VdC), and Japan Tobacco (JTI) at the L'Enfant Plaza Hotel in Washington, D.C. Each group presented its projects for discussion at this meeting. A public affairs presentation at this joint meeting stated that the industry needed to have a "systematic programme of research designed to refute the major allegations made against us." In addition, "Successful PA work on ETS will depend on the case remaining 'not proven,' and the need to ask you to keep producing work that challenges the anti-smokers' argument." Participants also agreed that the ETS research needed to utilize "neutral scientists" and the ETS issue needed to be expanded into overall "ambient air quality." TI00682162-2163 at 2162 (US 21240); 2501458142-8148 at 8142 (US 27951).

(2) 1977-1991: "Operation Berkshire" 3456. According to a Philip Morris memorandum dated December 3, 1976, Imperial

Tobacco Chairman Tony Garrett called Hugh Cullman, then Executive Vice President of Philip Morris Incorporated and President of Philip Morris International, to explore whether several of the world's largest manufacturers, including Philip Morris, BATCo, Reynolds, Reemtsma, and Rothmans "might be prepared to meet discreetly to develop a defensive smoking and health strategy for major markets such as the UK, Germany, Canada, US and possibly others." 2025025286-5286 (US

1304
  1. The initial objective of Garrett's proposal was to develop a defensive smoking and health strategy which would include a voluntary agreement, that no concessions beyond a certain point would be voluntarily made by the members [of the group] and if further concessions were required by respective governments, that these not be agreed to and that governments be forced to legislate.

The stated concern was that "the companies and countries would be picked off one by one and that the Domino theory would impact on all of us." 2025025286-5286 (US 20407).

  1. Garrett memorialized the conversation in a December 3, 1976 letter to Cullman in which he reiterated the objective "to form a defensive smoking and health strategy, to avoid our countries and/or companies being picked off one by one, with a resultant domino effect." Garrett also reported that BATCo, Reynolds, Reemtsma, Rothmans, and Imperial were prepared to consider such a unified strategy, and suggested that a meeting take place in April or May 1977 with company representatives and CEOs. 2025025290-5291 (US 22980).

  2. According to a February 23, 1977 letter from Cullman to Garrett confirming the participation of Philip Morris, the meeting became known as "Operation Berkshire." 2025025288- 5289 (US 20408). Garrett wrote in his March 7, 1977 letter to Philip Morris general counsel Alex Holtzman that "Operation Berkshire" was scheduled to be held on June 2-4, 1977, at an English manor called Shockerwick House near Bath. The goal was to allow executives an opportunity to "have a frank, informal, exchange of views on political strategy in respect of smoking and health."

1305
  1. In preparation for the June 1977 "Operation Berkshire" meeting, BATCo and Philip Morris drafted and circulated a confidential "Position Paper" for the companies to discuss at the meeting. BATCo forwarded the "Position Paper" to Garrett under cover letter dated April 28, 1977. The "Position Paper" set out a number of guiding principles relating to smoking and health, as part of the maintaining "controversy" or open question:

We acknowledge the fact that there is a continuing smoking and health controversy but we do not accept as proven that there is a causal relationship between smoking and various diseases . . . . In our view the issue of causation remains controversial and unresolved. . . . [W]e believe it is better to speak as an industry with one voice on such matters and that this can be accomplished through national associations of manufacturers. We take the view that to date there is no persuasive scientific evidence to support the contention that the non-smoker is harmed by the tobacco smoke of others . . . .

2501024571-4575 at 4572-4573 (US 21904); 2025025313-5318 (US 23741).

  1. Executives of the seven companies met at Shockerwick House in June 1977. Attendees included Holtzman from Philip Morris Incorporated, BATCo chairman Patrick Sheehy, BATCo deputy chairman Kit Lockhart, and Reynolds chairman Bill Hobbs. The companies established three "working parties" at the meeting, the first one to address the "social acceptability of smoking." Each of the working groups was tasked to develop an industry "position paper" to serve as a "vehicle to activate Industry Associations throughout the world." 2025024797-4803 (US 20406). According to a Philip Morris record of the meeting, Reynolds' counsel Sam Witt explained that the working parties would examine the areas of interest and "develop strategy" to collectively address smoking and health issues. Reynolds was tasked to "spearhead the Social Acceptability Working Party," or SAWP. 502948580-8591 at 8587 (US 21908); 2025025295-5300 (US 75146).
1306

  1. To guide the efforts of the "working parties" and coordinate the positions of the companies under an umbrella organization, the seven "Operation Berkshire" participants/companies formed the International Committee on Smoking Issues (ICOSI). 502948580-8591 (US 21908). The executives met again in November 1977 and March 1978, agreeing thereafter "that ICOSI should continue on a permanent basis." 2501020298-0308 at 0299 (US 21903). The participating companies established a $2 million budget for ICOSI to carry out its mandate. 2501024103-4107 (US 21909).

  2. A Philip Morris report on ICOSI dated April 1979 reviewed the history and goals of the organization, stating, "The whole industry, companies and Trade Associations alike must unite with common targets and common approaches." The report later stated: "ICOSI will thus be more involved in world, or perhaps regional, strategy and in achieving a truly united industry approach on problems affecting or likely to influence several countries." 1003717317-7330 (US 86518) (emphasis in original); see also Proctor PD, United States v. Philip Morris, 8/27/02, 48:13-49:19, 50:21-52:7.

  3. Through BATCO, B&W also participated in ICOSI. B&W general counsel Ernie Pepples reported in an April 12, 1978 memorandum to company leadership that ICOSI had been set up "on a formal basis in Brussels." Pepples recommended that B&W increase its participation in the organization given that the passive smoking issue had "reached a fever pitch here" in the United States. Pepples cautioned, "The things ICOSI will do or fail to do will have impacts in this market as well as in others." 503143820-4106 at 3909 (US 75974).

1307
  1. In October 1977, the ICOSI Social Acceptability Working Party (SAWP) distributed its first report to member companies. The first report listed BATCo public relations manager Richard Haddon and representatives from Philip Morris, Rothmans, Gallaher, and Reemtsma among the members of the SAWP, chaired by Reynolds. 501472756-2794 (US 66342). The first report also drew an explicit link between the health risks associated with passive smoking and the larger issue of "social acceptability" and warned that the trend in decreasing "social acceptability" had "serious long-term implications for the industry." The group identified the two most important basic influences on social acceptability issues: (1) the health effects to smokers and (2) government regulations of smoking resulting from the health effects of passive smoking. The SAWP gave the passive smoking issue "top priority," finding that "passive smoking is the most critical one of the social acceptability issues facing the industry today." To respond to the threat, the group recommended sustained "countermeasures," and emphasized the "need to act, not just react." 501472756-2794 at 2762-2772 (US 66342). The SAWP further concluded that

national trade associations (rather than individual companies) are key vehicles for launching countermeasures on social acceptability issues. Such association countermeasures become even more effective when they carry "third party" endorsements.

501472756-2794 at 2772-2773 (US 66342).

  1. The SAWP finalized its second report and forwarded it to members under a Reynolds cover memorandum dated February 7, 1978. In the second report, the SAWP again stated that passive smoking must be given "first priority" in resolving the "social acceptability" issues. The group also recommended that future coverage of ICOSI activities be centered on the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Germany. 980037079-7167 at 7082, 7085, 7161 (US 32445).
1308

  1. The second report also included a "policy statement on passive smoking," drafted by a law firm, for the ratification of the member companies. The ultimate conclusion of the "policy statement" was that "tobacco smoke in the atmosphere does not cause disease in non-smokers." 980037079-7167 at 7086-7088 (US 32445).

  2. A March 1978 BATCo document stated: "The aim of ICOSI is defensive research aimed at throwing up a smoke screen and to throw doubt on smoking research findings which show smoke causes diseases." 321588692-8692 (US 28544).

  3. ICOSI and the SAWP held a major meeting of member company representatives and international industry manufacturer associations on May 20-23, 1979 in Zurich. A Reynolds meeting summary recorded the "agreement that smoking does not pose a health hazard to non-smokers." The ICOSI chairman emphasized to the group that "member companies and associations should speak with one voice." 500876807-6812 at 6808, 6810 (US 24168).

  4. The Board of Directors of ICOSI met in Bermuda in October 1980. At this meeting the member companies decided that ICOSI would change its name to the International Tobacco Information Center, or INFOTAB. 503143820-4106 at 3910 (US 75974); 2501017220-7226 (US 45873).

  5. INFOTAB, the successor to ICOSI, was formed "to provide a unified forum amongst members of the industry to defend itself in the face of attack." It would monitor public health organizations, prepare unified positions and strategies on a global basis. 300528729-8731 at 8729 (US 46572). The INFOTAB Board of Directors included, at various times, Philip Morris Executive

1309

Vice President Hugh Cullman, Philip Morris general counsel Alex Holtzman, and Reynolds CEO

Ed Horrigan, (who was also at the time the chairman of the Tobacco Institute Executive Committee).

Don Hoel continued to attend meetings. 2025013308-3308 (US 21585).

  1. Defendant B&W produced a "Conspiracy Notebook," a July 17, 1990 binder prepared for the company by outside counsel at Lovell, White, Durrant and King & Spalding in preparation for defending conspiracy cases. In this binder, the mission of INFOTAB (as well as its predecessor

ICOSI) was described by B&W's counsel as follows:

The American tobacco industry, working with its counterparts in other countries around the world, organised ICOSI, later renamed INFOTAB for the purpose of coordinating the worldwide response of the industry to anti-tobacco activities. INFOTAB was used to formulate and publish a consensus position on the part of the industry. It monitored anti-tobacco organizations. It created an information service for the purpose of accumulating and disseminating intelligence on anti-smoking activities. It was used to identify and enlist allies around the world for the tobacco industry, to perform studies and research whose results would be helpful, and to rebut data and allegations from anti-smoking forces. The organization worked closely with TI in carrying out this mission.

503143820-4106 at 3909 (US 75974).

  1. Members of the Tobacco Institute met and coordinated with members of INFOTAB.

The chairman of INFOTAB gave a speech at the Tobacco Institute on November 16, 1981, in which he recalled how the Tobacco Institute provided INFOTAB with its communications plans regarding the Hirayama study linking passive smoking and lung cancer. INFOTAB then alerted 28 national associations around the world; as soon as the Tobacco Institute had its press releases prepared, it telexed them to INFOTAB; INFOTAB then transmitted them by telex to the other associations for their use in generating similar press coverage in other countries. 2501029891-9901 at 9898 (US

1310

20557). Don Hoel was recorded in the minutes of the October 1981 meeting as pointing to "passive smoking as an example of where NMAs [national manufacturer associations, such as the Tobacco Institute] in the U.S. and Europe had taken coordinated action." 502738346-8371 (US 24212).

  1. INFOTAB members and the Tobacco Institute held a joint meeting in Brussels in October 1984. Hoel -- a lawyer -- provided an update on ETS science issues. Tobacco Institute vice president Bill Kloepfer made a presentation, titled "Ambient Tobacco Smoke -- Political Action" to the group; Tobacco Institute president Sam Chilcote spoke on the economic implications of smoking restrictions, and the industry's initiatives to defeat them. A representative from the UK Tobacco Advisory Council (TAC) made a presentation as well. TI12820001-0290 (US 62398); TIOK0029713-9723 (US 86547); TIOK0029724-9734 (US 86548).

  2. On April 8, 1986, INFOTAB's Board of Directors met in London with industry scientists and lawyers to review the member companies' current and planned passive smoking research, as well as to discuss the industry's "public relations problems relating to environmental tobacco smoke." At this time, the Board of Directors continued to include senior executives from BATCo (Robert Ely), Philip Morris (Hugh Cullman), and Reynolds (Richard Marcotullio). Members of the ETSAG (Green and Osdene) attended and made a presentation on ongoing projects. Hoel and Rupp were present as well. 505347172-7174 at 7172-7173 (US 20739); 2022932502-2506 (US 22828).

  3. The 1986 INFOTAB "ETS Action Plan" recognized "the ETS issue as the most serious threat" to the industry and called for a plan "to slow down the wheel that is turning against us.":

General Approach

1311

This will be to provide a body of authoritative scientific evidence, based on existing and possibly future research programmes, and to use this as the core argument for addressing specific sub-issues with a range of PR and advertising techniques. . . . The PR and advertising techniques can then be used as appropriate to a particular country's position. . . .

100993158-3165 at 3158, 3159, 3161 (US 89556).

  1. INFOTAB also prepared an "ETS Kitset" for the industry to coordinate the companies' public positions on ETS. The "Kitset" identified two key strategy objectives for its members:

Objective 1 To demonstrate the inconclusive nature of claims that ETS has harmful effects, by bringing to light the scientific controversy over such claims.

Objective 2 To position ETS as just one (and a very minor) factor in a complex atmospheric mix which also includes petrol/diesel fumes, dust, bacteria (particularly in air conditioned environments), pollen, and in industrial situations an enormous variety of chemical fumes and substances.

2501155644-5648 at 5646 (US 45901*).

  1. The INFOTAB "Kitset" also contained "Campaign Resource Materials" that instructed members on the best ways to run publicity campaigns, and publicity leaflets addressing six "sub-issues" created by INFOTAB for use by recipients, with the aim that the "scientific" presentations therein reach the "target audience." To that end, INFOTAB provided a Public Affairs

Guide ("for use with politicians, civil servants, journalists and other opinion-leaders") and a "general leaflet" that addressed "the two major strategic themes of 'demonstrating scientific controversy' and

'ambient air quality.'" 2501155644-5648 at 5648 (US 45901*).

1312
  1. At the same time, the "Kitset" introduction made clear the INFOTAB Board's desire to keep its control and influence over the campaign secret:

This kitset contains two distinct types of document[s]. The leaflets have been written for publication outside the industry and have been scrutinized by industry experts. They are clearly distinguished as printed, two-colour publications, and do not carry either the Infotab name or the ETS campaign logo.