APPENDIX A
PHILIP MORRIS' STATEMENT OF POSITION
We are entering into an historic resolution
of much of the controversy that has been focused on tobacco and
its use in the United States. The resolution should be the beginning
of a new era for the industry and its relationship with the public
and government. Hopefully, it will be an era characterised by
co-operation and agreement. We are fully committed to the objective
of discouraging and reducing underage smoking, as embodied in
the terms of the comprehensive agreement we entered into on 20
June 1997. We support and will work for passage of legislation
incorporating all the provisions of that agreement, including
the required new health warnings. In this regard, we have been
asked by various Members of Congress, Attorneys General, representatives
of the public health community, and others, to state our views
on a number of issues related to tobacco, and we are pleased to
do so.
CAUSATION
We recognise that there is a substantial body
of evidence which supports the judgment that cigarette smoking
plays a causal role in the development of lung cancer, and other
diseases in smokers. We previously have acknowledged that the
strong statistical association between smoking and certain diseases,
such as lung cancer and emphysema, establishes that smoking is
a risk factor for and, in fact, may be a cause of those diseases.
For example, of all the risk factors for lung cancer that have
been identified, none is more strongly associated with the disease,
or carries a greater risk, than cigarette smoking; a far greater
number of smokers than non-smokers develop lung cancer.
Despite the differences that may exist between
our views and those of the public health community, in order to
ensure that there will be a single, consistent public health message
on this issue, we will refrain from debating the issue other than
as necessary to defend ourselves and our opinions in the courts
and other forums in which we are required to do so. For that reason,
we are also prepared to defer to the judgment of public health
authorities as to what health warning messages will best serve
the public interest, as reflected in the proposed new health warnings.
"ADDICTION"
We recognise that nicotine, as found in cigarette
smoke, has mild pharmacological effects, and that, under some
definitions, cigarette smoking is "addictive". The word
"addiction" has been and is currently used differently
by different people in different contexts, and the definition
of the term has undergone significant changes over the past several
decades. In 1964, for example, the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon
General of the United States concluded that smoking, although
"habit forming", did not fit within its definition of
"addiction". However, in 1988, the Surgeon General redefined
the term, and concluded that smoking is "addictive".
We have not embraced those definitions of "addiction"
which do not include historically accepted and objective criteria,
such as intoxication and physical withdrawal, as important markers.
We acknowledge that our views are at odds with
those of the public health community, but in the last analysis
there is little point to a continuing public debate about the
definition of a word used both colloquially and technically to
describe many different kinds of behaviour. We continue to believe
that people can quit smoking if they resolve to do so, but we
recognise that it can be difficult to quit. Accordingly, to ensure
that there is a single, consistent public health message on the
issue of addiction, we will refrain from debating the issue other
than as necessary to defend ourselves and our opinions in the
courts and other forums in which we are required to do so, and
we will also defer to the judgment of the public health authorities
as to what health warning messages concerning addiction will best
serve the public interest, as reflected in the proposed new health
warnings.
ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO
SMOKE
The proposed warnings relating to environmental
tobacco smoke (ETS) accurately reflect the views of the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Surgeon General and certain health authorities.
While we believe that the evidence with respect to ETS is not
persuasive, nevertheless, we are again prepared to defer to the
judgment of public health authorities as to what ETS health warning
messages will best serve the public interest, as reflected in
the proposed new health warnings.
2 October 1997
|
