Reports that Matter

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

Tobacco Institute College of Tobacco Knowledge

Section 21 of 129

Tobacco Institute College of Tobacco Knowledge

  1. Coordination of information and careful instruction on how information should be presented and disseminated to the public was a major aim of the Enterprise. It was considered vital to leave no member vulnerable to attack in litigation or to subject the industry to further regulation. One extremely successful method used to ensure that industry representatives understood and were able to publicly transmit consistent statements regarding smoking and health and other issues of common concern to the Defendants was the operation of training seminars by the Tobacco Institute's College of Tobacco Knowledge. The College began in the 1970s and operated for over a decade. Dawson WD, 26:7-21, 27:2-6, 28:6-8; Dawson TT, 1/12/05, 9920:19-21; 2025864882-4895 (US 86140).

  2. Representatives of all the Defendants, including BATCo and Philip Morris Companies, Inc., as well as representatives of several international organizations (including TAC, INFOTAB, and ICOSI) (explained in detail infra) attended the College. 1000019640-9647 (US 86149*); 1000019649-9651 (US 86150); 2501290388-0396 (US 86156); TI16740660-0663 (US 72403); 503908538-8538 (US 29737); TI16740660-0663 (US 72403); 503908538-8538 (US 29737); TI04962210-2211 (US 67250); TI16740652-0659 (US 86168); TI16740741-0749 (US 86169); TI04962337-2341 (US 86170); (US 65473); TIFL0071151-1151 (US 86176); TIFL0071174-1174 (US 86142); TIFL0071152-1154 (US 86177); TIFL0071200-1202 (US 86178); TIFL0072275-2277 (US 86180); TI16740614-0616 (US 86181); TI11961414-1414 (US 86182); TIFL0072290-2303 (US 86183); 87645518-5522 (US 86184); TIFL0068394-8402 (US 86185); TI11961377-1377 (US 86186); TIFL0071027 (US 77029); Merryman PD, Florida v. American Tobacco, 7/25/97, 148:9-13.

134

  1. Students who attended the College sessions were "people from the tobacco industry;" people whose responsibilities included public affairs, public relations, government relations; "[p]eople from all facets of the industry from seed bed to sales counter;" and industry lobbyists. Merryman PD, Florida v. American, 7/25/97, 148:17-149:8; Zahn PD, Massachusetts v. Philip Morris, 5/28/98, 145:2-13.

  2. In accordance with the goal of achieving a unified public message for the industry, Walker Merryman, self-proclaimed "Dean of the College of Tobacco Knowledge" and also Vice President of Public Relations for the Tobacco Institute, gave presentations at the College during which he would "roam the room with a microphone and ask people questions [about what they had heard and learned over the two days] and see how they answered them." Merryman PD, Florida v. American, 7/25/97, 151:12-152:18; Merryman PD, Richardson v. Philip Morris, 4/9/98, 87:15-88:7; TI16740590-0593 (US 86148). For example, he might ask a student if he believed that there was a relationship between smoking and disease, and suggest that the better response was that "there is a statistical relationship between smoking and disease" rather than that "smoking causes disease." Merryman PD, Florida v. American, 7/25/97, 153:16-156:10.

  3. The purpose of the Tobacco Institute College of Tobacco Knowledge was to "improve working relations with all major segments of the tobacco industry." Dawson WD, 28:6-8. For example, Brennan Dawson participated in a mock segment of "The Phil Donahue Show" titled "Should Smoking Be Restricted in the Workplace?" during the 1988 College of Tobacco Knowledge conference, playing the role of Tobacco Institute spokesperson while James Savarese played Donahue and they acted out a reaction on behalf of the tobacco industry to a Surgeon General's Report on the subject of ETS. Again, the College's intended purpose with the rehearsal was always to ensure presentation of a unified and consistent public stance on smoking and health issues. Dawson WD, 29:6-30:1.

135

  1. The College of Tobacco Knowledge "gave attendees an overview of a number of issues that the tobacco industry faces or faced at the time." Merryman PD, Florida v. American, 7/25/97, 147:16-148:2; Chilcote PD, Richardson v. Philip Morris, 9/21/98, 259:8-261:10; Duffin PD, Munn, 1/7/87, 187:3-190:25. The Tobacco Institute not only funded and operated the College of Tobacco Knowledge, it also developed the College's curriculum and its staff taught the sessions. Dawson WD, 26:16-21; Zahn PD, Massachusetts v. Philip Morris, 5/28/98, 147:14-18; Chilcote PD, Richardson v. Philip Morris, 9/21/98, 261:11-15; Duffin PD, Munn, 1/7/87, 187:3-190:25.

  2. After Tobacco Institute executives Merryman, Kloepfer, and Chilcote approved the curriculum, the Tobacco Institute mailed announcements to its Communications Committee, the International Tobacco Information Center ("INFOTAB"), its senior staff, and other interested parties. TIFL0071011-1012 (US 86141); TIFL0071174-1174 (US 86142). In preparing for a College session, the Tobacco Institute would make its

senior vice presidents aware of the fact that one of these seminars was scheduled. And if they had new employees that they wanted to have invited or if they thought there was a contract lobbyist who might benefit, they could invite that individual. We also would let our member companies know that another seminar was scheduled, and if they had people in mind whom they thought would benefit from such a seminar, they could be invited.

Merryman PD, Florida v. American, 7/25/97, 149:9-150:3; 85701033-1033 (US 86143), 85701041- 1042 (US 86144); TIFL0069155-9155 (US 86145); TIFL0069161-9161 (US 86146).

  1. A number of speakers generally spoke on a "half dozen or more different issues." Merryman PD, Florida v. American, 7/25/97, 157:24-158:2. Speakers at the College sessions included Tobacco Institute employees with specialities in communications, public relations, and federal and state regulation; lawyers for the industry; medical consultants; state senators or representatives; economists; and statisticians. Merryman PD, Florida v. American, 7/25/97, 158:5- 159:5; Rupp WD, 39:20-40:3.
136

  1. The Enterprise wanted to achieve consistent public statements concerning various smoking and health related subject areas through its control of the College's curriculum. For example, there were frequent discussions at the College about the health hazards of smoking and of causation generally and how, according to the industry, causation had not yet been proven. Merryman PD, Florida v. American, 7/25/97, 159:13-160:4; 1000019640-9647 (US 86149*); TIFL0068950-8955 (US 86163).

  2. The College's curriculum also included the topic of industry sponsored research and the function of CTR generally. For example, presentations by Leonard Zahn, CTR public relations counsel, would describe the activities of CTR and its research program "so that all the mid and perhaps slightly above mid-level employees from the various companies would have an idea, more exact knowledge, of what the Council was and how it worked." Zahn PD, Massachusetts v. Philip Morris, 5/28/98, 145:14-146:11, 149:25-150:10; TI04962331-2334 (US 86167); TI04962389-2389 (US 62201); TI04962390-2398 (US 62202); TIFL0068387-8387 (US 77028). In addition, Zahn distributed or made available to the participants CTR materials including the Annual Report. Zahn PD, Massachusetts v. Philip Morris, 5/28/98, 148:8-20.

  3. Similarly, Addison Yeaman, CTR Chairman and President, spoke on the topic of sponsoring science, described in the syllabus as follows:

137

For 25 years, tobacco manufacturers, growers and warehouse operators have funded independent scientific research into tobacco use and health. How it is done and what is being learned.

1000019640-9647 (US 86149*).

  1. In addition to discussing the function of CTR, the College provided another opportunity for the Tobacco Institute and CTR to coordinate Enterprise activities. In a letter dated October 27, 1981, William Hobbs, CTR Chairman, wrote that CTR representatives "Tom Hoyt and Bob Gertenbach will attend T.I.'s College of Tobacco Knowledge November 16 and 17" providing an opportunity for the Tobacco Institute's Horace Kornegay to brief the CTR President and Executive Vice President on "T.I.'s advertising and research plans" because "it might be beneficial to CTR management." 503908538-8538 (US 29737).

  2. Another topic frequently discussed at the College was Environmental Tobacco Smoke ("ETS") and the failure to determine its true health effects on nonsmokers. 1000019640-9647 (US 86149*); TIFL0068913-8926 (US 86159); TIFL0068913-8926 (US 86159); TIFL0068939-8939 (US 86161). Industry ETS consultants like Nancy Balter, John Graham and "Gray" Robertson also explained their opposition to public smoking restrictions. TIFL0071152-1154 (US 86177); TIFL0071200-1202 (US 86178).

  3. The College curriculum also included an "international perspective" on smoking and health related issues. For example, Mary Covington, Secretary General of INFOTAB, spoke at the November 1981 College about international perspectives related to ETS, explaining that the College

seminars offer an opportunity to learn a lot about smoking issues and industry programs in a very short time. . . . Without a concerted effort by the tobacco industry [initiatives to eliminate smoking in public places] will make gradual headway in changing attitudes towards smoking as a socially acceptable custom.

138
  1. The topic of public relations was woven into each of the subject areas discussed above in order to achieve a consistent public message. For example, at both 1983 sessions of the College, William Kloepfer of the Tobacco Institute spoke to the students on public relations issues. In addressing the issue of the "effectiveness and unity" of the tobacco industry, Kloepfer contended that because "what affects one affects all," the Tobacco Institute used many strategies "to keep us together, to keep us all aware." According to Kloepfer, the Tobacco Institute Public Relations Division was primarily responsible for four strategies: the Tobacco Institute Tobacco Observer newspaper reaching 150,000 readers six times a year; advertising in tobacco trade publications; appearing as speakers before trade and industry groups; and the Tobacco Institute College of Tobacco Knowledge that has helped "educate" and "orient hundreds of key family members . . . a united industry is our most potent public relations and legislative tool." TI04962436-2454 (US 86172); TIFL0526112-6125 (US 62625).
  1. In addressing the issue of public smoking restrictions, Kloepfer noted that through our spokesmen, our literature, and our advertising, we broadcast two messages: (1) ambient smoke has not been proven dangerous to non-smokers, and (2) smoking restrictions cause unnecessary expense, inconvenience, and discrimination.

TI04962436-2454 (US 86172); TIFL0526112-6125 (US 62625). In addressing "our oldest, most frustrating issue," Kloepfer maintained, as late as 1983, that

We call it the primary issue. It is the smoking and health controversy. We think of it as controversy . . . a subject far from decided . . . and through our spokesmen and literature we make that point.

TI04962436-2454 (US 86172); TIFL0526112-6125 (US 62625).

139
  1. Finally, indications from those who attended the College were that the Enterprise, via the Tobacco College of Knowledge, was achieving its goal of uniting the industry and promoting a common public response to issues related to smoking and health. For example, Arthur Stevens, General Counsel for Lorillard, sent comments from the Lorillard attendees at one session to the Tobacco Institute. 03022004-2008 (US 86157); 85676573-6577 (US 86158). One employee wrote, "The information presented gave me a better view of the defensive position in which our industry finds itself." 03022004-2008 (US 86157); 85676573-6577 (US 86158). Similarly, in feedback after the September 1980 session regarding whether or not the College of Tobacco Knowledge was worthwhile, one Lorillard attendee wrote:

Definitely -- The opportunity to meet with the pros, who fight in the trenches, was an experience which expanded my knowledge and commitment to our mutual goals.

85700954-0955 (US 86162). Further commentary by Lorillard attendees on the Seventh College included:

[A]fter the program was completed, I definitely have a better understanding of the industries [sic] position in certain areas . . . past attendees should be updated whenever the industries [sic] stand on a position changes or new information is available, especially in the overall smoking and health controversy.

85180845-0846 (US 86164); 85700895-0895 (US 86166).

  1. In addition to the formal training received by Defendants' employees on the industry position in smoking and health matters at the Tobacco Institute's College of Tobacco Knowledge, industry lawyers also informally instructed tobacco company employees on the industry's smoking and health positions. For example, Jeffrey Wigand, former Vice President of Research and Development of B&W, shortly after starting to work for B&W, was sent to the law offices of Shook,
140

Hardy & Bacon in Kansas City, Missouri, for an orientation. Shook, Hardy & Bacon attorneys William Shinn, Robert Northrip and Charles Wall instructed Wigand on the tobacco industry position on causation and addiction. Scott Appleton, a B&W toxicologist, also attended a training session at Shook, Hardy & Bacon. Wigand WD, 29:26-30:10.

Tobacco Institute Testing Laboratory

  1. In June 1966, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") announced that it was establishing a laboratory to measure by machine the tar and nicotine content of cigarette smoke. That same year, the tobacco industry decided to establish its own laboratory, the Tobacco Institute Testing Laboratory ("TITL"), which would be a separate division of the Tobacco Institute. The TITL was established so that Defendants could conduct tests to determine the accuracy and reliability of the FTC laboratory's tests. The TITL was also used by Defendants for other testing purposes, such as the testing of the chemical Chemosol in the late 1960s and early 1970s. 500500320-0323 (US 20633); TIMN267142-7143 (US 21353); TIMN267120-7121 (US 21351). Murray Senkus, Director of Research at RJR, acknowledged that TITL was a "Mechanism for Mutual Cooperation" within the Tobacco Institute. 500500320-0323 (US 20633); TITL0003363-3374 (US 21931); TIMN267142-7143 (US 21353); TIMN267120-7121 (US 21351); TITL0003108-3111 (US 21597); 01246525-6537 (US 34516).

Joint Research Activity Directed by Defendants' Executives and Lawyers