(PDF) The Tobacco Industrys Successful Efforts to Control Tobacco … · The Tobacco Industry=s Successful Efforts to Control Tobacco Policy Making in Switzerland Chung-Yol Lee, MD MPH

The Tobacco Industry==s Successful Effortsto Control Tobacco Policy Making in Switzerland

Chung-Yol Lee, MD MPHStanton A. Glantz, PhD

Division of Adolescent MedicineDepartment of Pediatrics

Institute for Health Policy StudiesSchool of Medicine

University of California, San FranciscoSan Francisco CA 94143

January 2001

The Tobacco Industry’s Successful Effortsto Control Tobacco Policy Making in Switzerland

Chung-Yol Lee, MD MPHStanton A. Glantz, PhD

Division of Adolescent MedicineDepartment of Pediatrics

Institute for Health Policy StudiesSchool of Medicine

University of California, San FranciscoSan Francisco CA 94143

January 2001

Supported in part by Swiss National Science Foundation Grant 823B-053423 to the first author and National CancerInstitute Grants CA-61021 and CA-87482, American Cancer Society Grant CCG-294, and a grant from the Richardand Rhoda Goldman Fund to the second author. This report was prepared in response to a request from the WorldHealth Organization Tobacco Free Initiative. Opinions expressed reflect the views of the authors and do notnecessarily represent any sponsoring agency, the WHO, or the Division of Adolescent Medicine or the Institute forHealth Policy Studies at the University of California. Copyright 2000 by Chung-Yol Lee and Stanton Glantz. Thisreport is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/swiss.

This report is the latest in a series of reports that analyze tobacco industry campaign contributions, lobbying, and other politicalactivity. The previous reports are:

M. Begay and S. Glantz. Political Expenditures by the Tobacco Industry in California State Politics UCSF IHPS MonographSeries, 1991.

M. Begay and S. Glantz. Political Expenditures by the Tobacco Industry in California State Politics from 1976 to 1991. UCSFIHPS Monograph Series, 1991.

B. Samuels and S. Glantz. Tobacco Control Activities and the Tobacco Industry's Response in California Communities, 1990-1991. UCSF IHPS Monograph Series, 1991.

M.E. Begay and S.A. Glantz. Undoing Proposition 99: Political Expenditures by the Tobacco Industry in California Politics in1991. UCSF IHPS, 1992.

S.A. Glantz and L.R.A. Smith. The effect of ordinances requiring smokefree restaurants on restaurant sales in California.UCSF IHPS Monograph Series, 1992.

M.E. Begay, M. Traynor, S. A. Glantz. Extinguishing Proposition 99: Political Expenditures by the Tobacco Industry inCalifornia Politics in 1991-1992. UCSF IHPS, 1992.

M.E. Begay, M. Traynor, S.A. Glantz. Tobacco Industry Political Expenditures in California State Politics, January-June,1993. UCSF IHPS, 1993.

M.E. Begay, M. Traynor, S.A. Glantz. Tobacco Industry Political Expenditures in California in the 1991-1992 Election. UCSFIHPS, 1993.

M.E. Begay, M. Traynor, S.A. Glantz. The Twilight of Proposition 99: Preauthorization of Tobacco Education Programs andTobacco Industry Political Expenditures in 1993. UCSF IHPS, 1994.

H. Macdonald and S. Glantz. Analysis of the Smoking and Tobacco Products, Statewide Regulation Initiative Statute. UCSFIHPS, 1994.

H. Macdonald, M. Traynor, S. Glantz. California’s Proposition 188 : An Analysis of the Tobacco Industry’s PoliticalAdvertising Campaign. UCSF IHPS, 1994.

S. Aguinaga, H. Macdonald, M. Traynor, M. Begay, S. Glantz. Undermining Popular Government: Tobacco Industry PoliticalExpenditures in California 1993-1994. UCSF IHPS, 1995. (http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/undermining)

M. Begay, and S. Glantz. Question 1: Tobacco Education Outlays From the 1994 Fiscal Year to the 1996 Fiscal Year UCSFIHPS 1995. (http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/q1)

F. Monardi, E. Balbach, S. Aguinaga, S. Glantz. Shifting Allegiances: Tobacco Industry Political Expenditures in California,January 1995 - March 1996. UCSF IHPS 1996 (http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/sa)

F. Monardi, A. O’Neill, and S. Glantz. Tobacco Industry Political Activity in Colorado 1979 - 1995. UCSF IHPS 1996.(http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/co)

F. Monardi, and S. Glantz. Tobacco Industry Political Activity in Washington 1983 - 1996. UCSF IHPS 1996.(http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/wa)

F. Monardi, and S. Glantz. Tobacco Industry Political Activity and Tobacco Control Policy Making in New Jersey 1982 - 1995.UCSF IHPS 1997. (http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/nj)

E. Balbach, F. Monardi, B. Fox, S. Glantz. Holding Government Accountable: Tobacco Policy Making in California, 1995-1997. UCSF IHPS 1997. (http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/ca9597/

S. Aguinaga-Bialous and Stanton A. Glantz. Tobacco Control in Arizona 1973-1997. UCSF IHPS 1997.(http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/az/

F. Monardi, and S. Glantz. Tobacco Industry Political Activity and Tobacco Control Policy Making in Pennsylvania 1979 -1996. UCSF IHPS 1997. (http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/pa)

B.J. Fox, J.M. Lightwood, S.A. Glantz, A Public Health Analysis of the Proposed Resolution of Tobacco Litigation. UCSF IHPS1998. (Available on the World Wide Web at http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/ustl/)

L. Goldman, and S.A. Glantz. Tobacco Industry Political Activity and Tobacco Control Policy Making in Oregon 1985 - 1997.UCSF IHPS 1998. (http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/or/)

F. Monardi, and S.A. Glantz. Tobacco Industry Political Activity and Tobacco Control Policy Making in Wisconsin 1981 -1998. UCSF IHPS 1998. (http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/wi)

F. Monardi, and S. Glantz. Tobacco Industry Political Activity and Tobacco Control Policy Making in Ohio 1981 - 1998.UCSF IHPS 1998. (http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/oh)

M. Givel, and S.A. Glantz. Tobacco Industry Political Power and Influence in Florida from 1979 to1999.UCSF IHPS 1999. (http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/fl)

S. Magzamen and S. A. Glantz. Turning the Tide: Tobacco Industry Political Influence and Tobacco Policy Making inCalifornia: 1997-1999. UCSF IHPS 1999. (http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/ca9799)

S. Magzamen and S. Glantz. Analysis of Proposition 28: Repeal of Proposition 10 Tobacco Surtax Initiative Statute. UCSFIHPS 2000. (http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/prop28)

J. Dearlove and S. Glantz. Tobacco Industry Political Influence and Tobacco Policy Making in New York: 1983-1999. UCSFIHPS. (http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/ny)

M. Givel and S. Glantz. The Public Health Undermined: The Tobacco Industry's Legacy in Missouri in the 1990's. UCSF IHPS.(http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/mo)

Executive Summary*

Cigarette consumption among people 15 years or older peaked in Switzerland in the early1970’s with 3,700 cigarettes per capita and per year, followed by a decline to 2,800 cigarettesper capita and per year in 1994. After a decline of the proportion of smokers from 37% in 1980to 31% in 1992, this proportion has increased again to 33% in 1997. Women, particularly theyoung, and children and adolescents, have shown a continued increase in smoking prevalence,despite the focus of tobacco prevention efforts on children and adolescents.

Every year, over 10,000 people die from tobacco use in Switzerland, about a sixth of allannual deaths in Switzerland, making smoking the leading preventable cause of death inSwitzerland. This number is more than 20 times higher than the number of deaths caused byillegal drugs.

The tobacco excise tax in Switzerland is the lowest in Western Europe.

The laws governing tobacco products, their marketing and sales, are weak and have littlepractical effect on the tobacco industry.

There is no meaningful protection of nonsmokers from the toxic chemicals insecondhand tobacco smoke, in public places or work places.

A ten-country survey on people’s experiences and attitudes concerning tobacco andsmoking in 1989, commissioned by Philip Morris International, showed that Swiss people wereaware of secondhand smoke’s adverse effects on health, but only a minority favored governmentregulations for smoking in restaurants and workplaces.

A first comprehensive 5-year tobacco prevention program, 1996 to 1999, issued by theSwiss Federal Office of Public Health lacked adequate financial resources, focus on specificinterventions, cooperation between partners for tobacco prevention, and program coordinationand management. It ignored the role of the tobacco industry.

As a result of recent events in the US and WHO’s active engagement of the tobaccoindustry, the draft five-year plan for tobacco prevention in Switzerland for 2001 to 2005identifies the tobacco industry as a major obstacle to tobacco prevention.

Until the recent merger of British American Tobacco (BAT) with Burrus-Rothmans in1999, the single most important tobacco company in Switzerland was Philip Morris (PM), with amarket share of close to 50% (and close to 25% for Marlboro alone). Since the merger, thetobacco market is dominated by PM and BAT, each with a market share of cigarette salesbetween 45% and 50%.

As was the case in the US, in the early 1960’s, the scientists in Swiss tobacco industryresearch laboratories (in this case, FTR (Fabriques de Tabac Réunies) / Philip Morris) accepted

* The Executive Summary appears in German on page 105 and French on page 109.

and discussed the dangerous effects of smoking on health in internal company communications.At that time, these scientists earnestly tried to find ways to reduce the carcinogenic effects ofcigarettes through elimination of carcinogenic components.

Contrary to privately expressed views, tobacco industry’s public position in Switzerlandwas that there was ongoing controversy in the issue whether smoking caused diseases or not.

The “controversy” was nurtured through regular media briefings and scientific meetingswith carefully chosen scientists who would publicly support the industry’s position, but withoutdeclaring their liaisons with the tobacco industry. Relationships with these industry“consultants” or “witnesses” were maintained through direct payments and indirectly throughfunding of their research.

By late 1980’s the tobacco industry had identified the decline of social acceptability ofsmoking in Europe as a major threat to its viability. This recognition led to the development of acomprehensive strategy to fight the secondhand smoke issue. “Courtesy and tolerance” andeconomic arguments were used to divert the public’s and policy makers’ attention from thehealth issue. The resulting strategies were often devised in consultation with executives of otherPhilip Morris subsidiaries and Philip Morris International headquarters in New York. Wellaware of its low credibility with the public, journalists were given interviews and told not tomention the tobacco company’s name in the newspaper article.

Official publications, such as “Smoking and Mortality in Switzerland” by the FederalOffice of Public Health, the report on the respiratory effects of secondhand smoke by the USEnvironmental Protection Agency, as well as original scientific publications, such as an article inthe American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, dealing with secondhandsmoke and respiratory symptoms in Switzerland (SAPALDIA study) written by a group of Swissscientists, were massively attacked by the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry employed“consultants” and politicians with industry ties, who used standard industry arguments.

One of the most active industry consultants in Switzerland was Peter Atteslander, aSwiss citizen and professor at the University of Augsburg in Germany. He wrote white papersfor the tobacco industry and reported from meetings worldwide. Atteslander appeared to be theessence only member of the Switzerland-based “Arbeitsgruppe für Gesundheitsforschung(AGEF) (“Working Group on Health Research”), which published his work without disclosingthe ties to the tobacco industry.

To fight smoking restrictions in restaurants and hotels, the tobacco industry developed astrong ally in the hospitality association, the International HoReCa. The secretary general ofInternational HoReCa at the time was Dr. Xavier Frei, also president of the SCRA (most likelythe Swiss Café and Restaurant Association). The hospitality association made extensive use oftobacco industry resources and repeatedly printed tobacco industry positions in hospitalityindustry newsletters, without the members of International HoReCa or SCRA being informedabout the close ties between their organization and the tobacco industry.

The “accommodation program,” a well-known tobacco industry strategy to preemptregulatory measures against smoking in restaurants and workplaces first developed in the UnitedStates, was used in Switzerland. The fact that even the logo was the same as the one used in theUS is another illustration of tobacco industry’s recycling of strategies and tactics worldwide.

The shift of focus from the problem of secondhand smoke to one of indoor air quality ingeneral was (and remains) a major strategy used by the tobacco industry worldwide to dilute theproblem of secondhand smoke with other indoor air pollutants and ventilation of buildings. Tothis end, an indoor air quality control company with close ties to the tobacco industry, ACVAAtlantic Inc., USA, later renamed Healthy Buildings International, HBI, collected data whichwas used extensively by the tobacco industry to further their goal of downplaying the role ofsecondhand smoke as a major component of indoor air pollutant. Employees of HBI were sentto Switzerland to collect data on Swiss office buildings, and the data were used in thenewsletters of HoReCa to support the accommodation program and against non-smokingregulations. HBI has been discredited in the US.

The tobacco industry tried to influence smoking policy in airplanes through partialfunding of IFAA’s (International Flight Attendants Association) world congresses. Thisinfluence was established through close relationship with the president of the association, acommon industry strategy in influencing organizations. When, in the wake of smoke-free flightsin the US and other countries, Swissair finally introduced smoke-free flights, it was heavilycriticized in newspaper articles by the Swiss “Smokers Club,” and later the Swiss “Club ofTobacco Friends,” whose president and founder is a former public relations official for thetobacco industry.

The Swiss Cigarette Manufacturers Association successfully influenced smoking policyin railway trains through letters to the publishers of newspapers and direct lobbying towardcantonal authorities and the head of the national railways.

Two referendums on tobacco and alcohol advertising bans in 1979 and 1993 wererejected by Swiss voters despite pre-referendum polls favoring advertising bans through a strongand lasting alliance of the tobacco industry with the advertising agencies and the print media.The tobacco industry successfully kept itself behind the scenes in order to avoid negativepublicity while financing the anti-advertising ban campaigns and supplying the alliance againstadvertising bans with well-crafted arguments by tobacco industry public relations and law firmsthrough the International Tobacco Information Center, INFOTAB. The tobacco industry and itsallies used economic and political arguments, such as purported effects on employment, state taxrevenues, and individual and corporate freedom to fight the advertising bans.

Close relationships with officials and politicians were emphasized and maintainedthrough regular meetings with the head of the political parties and briefings of the “tobaccocaucus” in the parliament. This caucus gave the tobacco industry the means to stay wellinformed about the political agenda and to easily influence the political process in their favor.

While Switzerland has some of the most progressive and innovative public healthpromotion programs, most public health advocates underestimate the power of, and drivingforces behind, a tobacco industry, and only few of them have confronted the industry directly.

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................................................3

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................................................7

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................10

WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM?.................................................................................................................................10WHY DO A TOBACCO INDUSTRY DOCUMENT ANALYSIS ON SWITZERLAND?....................................................................11WHAT IS THE POLITICAL STRUCTURE IN SWITZERLAND, AND WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY ARE HEALTH-RELATEDMEASURES?.................................................................................................................................................................................11WHAT ARE THE TOBACCO-RELATED DATA IN SWITZERLAND?..........................................................................................12WHAT ARE THE LAWS THAT REGULATE CIGARETTES AND SMOKING?...............................................................................14HOW DO SMOKERS AND NON-SMOKERS IN SWITZERLAND FEEL ABOUT SMOKING ISSUES COMPARED TO OTHEREUROPEAN COUNTRIES AND THE US?....................................................................................................................................15WHAT DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PLAN TO DO IN ORDER TO DECREASE TOBACCO CONSUMPTION?.............21WHICH TOBACCO FIRMS ARE REPRESENTED IN SWITZERLAND, HOW ARE THEY ORGANIZED, AND WHAT IS THEPOWER STRUCTURE WITHIN THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY?.......................................................................................................23

CHAPTER 2. METHODS........................................................................................................................................................25

CHAPTER 3. THE EARLY DAYS OF SMOKING AND HEALTH DEBATE IN SWITZERLAND..............26

CHAPTER 4. MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS ORGANIZED BY THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY................29

CHAPTER 5. CREATING CONTROVERSY AROUND THE ISSUE OF SMOKING AND SECONDHANDSMOKE...........................................................................................................................................................................................32

SECONDHAND SMOKE AND NONSMOKERS’ RIGHTS............................................................................................................32A CASE OF MEDIA EFFORT BY PUBLIC HEALTH ADVOCATES...........................................................................................37THE SWISS “SMOKING AND MORTALITY IN SWITZERLAND” BROCHURE ........................................................................38ATTESLANDER AS AN ARCHETYPAL TOBACCO INDUSTRY “CONSULTANT”....................................................................42U.S. EPA REPORT ON RESPIRATORY EFFECTS OF SECONDHAND SMOKE .......................................................................43SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY OF SMOKING IN EUROPE ...............................................................................................................44SAPALDIA STUDY..................................................................................................................................................................46

CHAPTER 6. THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY AND THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY: HORECA..................52

ACVA/HBI IN SWITZERLAND ................................................................................................................................................64

CHAPTER 7. SMOKING IN AIRPLANES, INTERNATIONAL FLIGHT ATTENDANTS ASSOCIATION,AND SWISSAIR...........................................................................................................................................................................68

SWISS SMOKERS ORGANIZATIONS..........................................................................................................................................69SMOKING IN RAILWAYS...........................................................................................................................................................70

CHAPTER 8. WORKPLACE SMOKING..........................................................................................................................72

CHAPTER 9. ADVERTISING...............................................................................................................................................74

1979 REFERENDUM ON TOBACCO AND ALCOHOL ADVERTISING BAN (GUTTEMPLER INITIATIVE) ............................74COOPERATION BETWEEN THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY AND THE ADVERTISING INDUSTRY IN EUROPE...........................801993 REFERENDUM ON TOBACCO AND ALCOHOL ADVERTISING BAN (ZWILLINGS INITIATIVE).................................84

CHAPTER 10. TAXATION................................................................................................................................................. 105

TAXATION, ITS DEVELOPMENT , AND COMPARISON TO OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES............................................... 105STUDY BY A. HOLLY ............................................................................................................................................................. 105

CHAPTER 11. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 106

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG......................................................................................................................................................... 107

RÉSUMÉ ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 111

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................................................... 115

APPENDIX 1: SELECTION OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NAMES ..................................................................... 125

APPENDIX 2: SELECTION OF TOBACCO INDUSTRY PEOPLE THAT APPEAR IN THE REPORT 127

“Europe is beginning to face many of the same political and social pressures that have been present in theUS for quite some time. Although this is far more true in the EEC [European Economic Community]region than in the EEMA [EFTA –European Free Trade Association, Eastern Europe, Middle East, Africa]region, a number of EEMA countries are experiencing theses pressures as well. The EEC is stillcontemplating an advertising ban; many countries in Western Europe now have active anti-smoking groupswhich are attempting to demonstrate the dangers of smoking to the populace; increasing cigarette taxes hasbeen referred to above, and this trend is actually more of a problem for PM [Philip Morris] Europe than itis for PM USA. All of these issues, however, are minor annoyances compared to the potential damage tothe industry posed by the environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) issue. It is through ETS that the anti-smoking forces in the US – as well as Canada, Australia, and other countries – have caused smoking tobecome a socially unacceptable form of enjoyment. Should this occur in Europe it would have seriouseconomic consequences for PME [Philip Morris Europe] for two reasons. The first is that opportunitiesfor smoking, and therefore, consumption would decline. France has already passed legislation whichvirtually eliminates smoking in public places, and other countries are debating similar laws. Secondly, ifsmoking is socially unacceptable, product image ceases to be important, and the major reason for smokingpremium products ceases to exist.” 1 [emphasis added]

--Philip Morris Europe R&D [research & development] three year plan 1993-1995, confidential

…in Switzerland, where 9 out of 10 people believe ETS is a health hazard, and 73% of non-smokers feelannoyed by smoking (of whom 59% say they feel annoyed in restaurants), and where only 19% of non-smokers feel smokers are courteous (one of the lowest scores measured), it is not surprising that 51% ofSwiss smokers say that they hear complaints often (one of the highest scores in Europe) and that 64% saythat they support separate sections in restaurants. A kind of social war -- albeit hidden -- seems to be ragingin Switzerland, war that smokers are in danger of losing unless the industry comes forward withammunitions which allows social harmony to be recreated. 2 p. 12 [emphasis added]

--An accommodation strategy in EEMA. A strategic brief. Prepared by Burson-Marsteller in May1990, strictly confidential

Chapter 1. Introduction

The prevalence of smoking in Switzerland is higher than in the United States and theavailability of smoke free areas lower. In addition, Switzerland has fewer restrictions onadvertising and promotion of tobacco products than some other countries in Europe. Onepossible explanation for these differences is differences in history, culture and social values,with the Swiss being more accepting of tobacco use and promotion than Americans and others.At the same time, however, there were efforts in Switzerland – largely unsuccessful – to enactclean indoor air laws, restrictions on advertising, and other tobacco control policies. While thetobacco industry clearly played an important role in defeating these policies, its role was oftennot clear at the time.

We now have a clear view of the tobacco industry’s strategies in Switzerland as a resultof lawsuits in the United States which have made millions of pages of previously secret tobaccoindustry documents public. These documents reveal that, as with its efforts to subvert scientificresearch on passive smoking at the International Agency for Research on Cancer3 and tobaccocontrol efforts at the World Health Organization,4 the tobacco industry made a large, and largelyinvisible, effort in Switzerland to prevent implementation of meaningful tobacco controllegislation and policies in Switzerland.

In contrast to what one might expect, the industry’s strategies for fighting tobaccocontrol in Switzerland were remarkably similar to strategies that the industry used in the UnitedStates and elsewhere. This result is perhaps less surprising when one considers that theinternational tobacco companies work cooperatively to maintain a large transnationalintelligence apparatus that is based on a sophisticated and well-funded network of informationchannels for knowledge and skills exchange designed to counter tobacco control efforts inSwitzerland (or any other country).5 Members of the public health community, the government,and the media seemed largely unaware of this situation.

The development and successful implementation of tobacco control strategies designedto reduce smoking and to protect the public health in Switzerland will require that public healthadvocates inside and outside government understand the industry’s strategies and tactics anddevelop the political will to engage and defeat them.

What is the scope of the problem?

Tobacco is projected to be the single most important cause for the global burden ofdisease, as measured by Disability Adjusted Life Year in the coming decades.6 (DisabilityAdjusted Life Year (DALY) is a measure of the burden of disease developed to take intoaccount the life years lost due to premature death and disability due to diseases, calculated byattributing specific disability weights to diseases.) Tobacco alone is estimated to contribute 9%of the total burden of disease by the year 2020, more than any other single cause, includingdiarrhea and HIV infection.6

Given this formidable challenge to public health, the World Health Organization (WHO),through the Tobacco Free Initiative (TFI), has initiated a coordinated global effort to curb the“silent epidemic.” The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, an international,multilaterally negotiated legal instrument, will provide the tobacco control policy measures thelegitimacy in all 191 member nations of WHO, and strengthen national efforts in tobaccocontrol, as well as promote international cooperation.7

Why do a tobacco industry document analysis on Switzerland?

For decades the tobacco industry has been hiding its knowledge about the harmful effectsof tobacco on health. In spite of accumulating scientific evidence, the tobacco industry has quitesuccessfully undermined tobacco control efforts over the past years, using political, legal, andpublic relations strategies to counter scientific evidence and minimize and confuse publicappreciation of the fact that tobacco kills.8, 9

It is the overall goal of this report to make the role of tobacco industry in Switzerlandrelevant to public health advocates, policy makers, and the public through exposure of tobaccoindustry strategies used to undermine tobacco control efforts in Switzerland. As Gro HarlemBrundtland, Director General of WHO, said in her welcome address at the first meeting of theWorking Group on the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in October 1999: “Ifwe have to control malaria, we have to understand the vector. It is not different with tobacco.”10

Swiss people, as elsewhere, have to understand who is the vector of tobacco-related diseases anddeaths.

What is the political structure in Switzerland, and whose responsibility are health-related measures?

Switzerland is a small, multilingual country with 7 million inhabitants and 3 majorlanguage regions. One out of five people is a foreign resident, with some urban areasapproaching a proportion of 1 in 4. Roughly 2 out of 3 live in urban areas.11 Switzerland hasmaintained a high level of wealth (GNP 1990 US$ 34,269) and a low level of unemployment(1996 3.7%)12 compared to other European countries. It is a direct democracy with many votingopportunities for its citizens on the municipal, cantonal, and federal level. The country has afederalistic political structure, which gives the cantons and municipalities much autonomy.13

Similarly, responsibilities for health related matters are shared by federal and cantonalauthorities, as well as by the private sector through a complex system of laws and regulations.Though not completely regulated by the free market, the private sector plays a very significantrole in this decentralized and heterogeneous health care and services system, which renders thecountry susceptible to undesirable alliances between the numerous regulatory authorities andprivate interest groups, including the more powerful economic interest groups.13

At the federal level, health care and services are the responsibilities of the Federal Officeof Public Health and the Federal Social Insurance Office, both of which are part of the Federal

Department (Ministry) of Internal Affairs. At the cantonal level, health is the responsibility ofone or several Departments. A harmonization of regulations among the 26 cantons iscoordinated by the Conference of Cantonal Directors of Health Affairs, which meets on a regularbasis and formulates position papers and recommendations for health services management andplanning that is of common interest.13

Life expectancy at birth between 1990 and 1995 was 74.7 years (compared to 72.5 in theUSA) years for males, 81.2 (79.3) years for females. Infant mortality rate in the same timeperiod was 6 (9) per 1,000 live births. Age standardized annual death rate per 100,000 in early1990’s were as follows (Fig. 1) (values for the USA in parentheses):Ischemic heart disease for males 158.1 (235.5), for females 69.3 (126.4).Cerebrovascular disease for males 60.8 (52.8), for females 47.5 (46.2).Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for males 39.6 (45.3), for females 11.7 (23.6).Lung cancer for males 65.0 (85.9), for females 12.1 (36.9)11, 14

What are the tobacco-related data in Switzerland?

Ninety-five percent of raw tobacco is imported. At the same time, Switzerland had anexport surplus of over 20,000 million cigarettes in 1993, the bulk exported to Eastern Europeand Asia. This translates to approximately US$ 130 million net earnings from cigarette trades in1993. About 4,400 people were reported by the tobacco industry to be employed in cigarettemanufacturing and related businesses in 1994. Tobacco tax revenues amounted to US$ 1 billionin 1994.11

Fig. 1Age standardized annual mortality rate per 100,000

Early 1990’s in Switzerland and USA

100

150

200

250

IHDmale

IHDfemale

Lungcancermale

Lungcancerfemale

CHUSA

Tobacco consumption in Switzerland peaked in the early 1970’s at around 3,700 percapita and year for age 15 or older, with estimated decrease to around 2,800 in 1994 (Fig. 2).16,000 million cigarettes, 170 million cigars, and 180 tons of smoking tobacco were sold inSwitzerland in 1994. An estimated time of 9 minutes of labor at the average industrial wage wasnecessary to earn a package of 20 cigarettes in the early 1990’s.11

The proportion of smokers 15 years old and older in Switzerland decreased from 37% in1980 to 31% in 1992. The proportion of smokers has increase again since to reach 33% in 1997.(Fig. 3) However, the male-female prevalence ratio decreased from 46%/28% (1.6) to 36%/26%(1.4) in the same time period. In general, the smoking prevalence is lowest in the Germanspeaking part and highest in the Italian speaking part, with the French speaking part somewherein-between.11, 15, 16

Fig. 2Cigarette consumption (sticks) per capita and per year

1970 and 1994Switzerland and USA

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

1970 1994

Switzerland

USA

Fig. 3Proportion of smokers 15 years and older

1980, 1992, 1997

1980 1992 1997

% s m o k e r

There were approximately 1.75 million smokers between 15 and 74 years of age in 1990,which corresponds to 33% of the population (women 27%, men 38%). Among 15 to 24 yearold, the proportion of smokers increased to over 40% from 1992 to 1997 (women from 26% to40%, men from 36% to 46%). Overall, women and school children have shown an increasingtrend in smoking prevalence during the past 10 years: 24% of women aged 18 to 19 smoke, andthe proportion of smokers among school children has increased from four to seven percent. Thetrend among heavy smokers (20 or more cigarettes per day) is particularly worrisome forwomen: Their prevalence increased from 8% to 12% over a decade, while the prevalence ofheavy smokers among men stayed stable around 20%.11, 13, 15, 16 In 43% of households withchildren age 6 or younger, there is at least one smoker, whereas in 48% of households withchildren and youth up to the age of 18, there was at least one smoker.17 Smoking is initiated inteenage years in a large majority of adult smokers that most people smoke in Switzerland. Thereis an erroneous perception among teenagers. Even among non-smokers almost half of teenagersbelieve that a majority of their colleagues smoke.18

Smoking-attributed death rate increased gradually until mid-1908’s to plateausubsequently and possibly decrease slightly during the 1990’s. Since the early 1980’s, lungcancer mortality has been declining among men. In contrast, lung cancer mortality amongwomen has been increasing steadily to reach an annual rate of increase of more than 5%currently, which represents the most rapid increase in female lung cancer rates anywhere in theworld (along with Hungary).11

Every year, over 10,000 people are estimated to die from the consequences of tobaccouse in Switzerland. This number corresponds to about a sixth of all annual deaths inSwitzerland, and is more than 20 times higher than the number of deaths caused by illegal drugs.This makes smoking the most common preventable cause of premature deaths.19

What are the laws that regulate cigarettes and smoking?

In 1995, new regulations limited tar contents to 15 mg per cigarettes and banned theimportation and sale of tobacco products for oral use. A general health warning has beenmandatory for cigarettes, as is a rotating health warning on packages of cigarettes and rollingtobacco packs since 1978 (“Warning from the Federal Office of Public Health: Smoking candamage your health”). The warning label was adapted to the one used in EU countries in 1995(“Smoking leads to cancer, chronic bronchitis and other lung diseases”).20 p. 1

Laws governing advertising to minors have been in place since 1978. Advertisingspecifically targeted at youth and free promotional items during sporting and cultural events thatare primarily attended by minors (ages 18 years or younger) is prohibited. In magazines andother publications aimed at minors, and in electronic media (TV and radio), cigarette advertisingis prohibited. Except under certain conditions, use of descriptors for cigarettes, such as “pure”

11, 20

There are no restrictions in sales of tobacco products to minors. However, distribution oftobacco products to minors free of charge is prohibited. There are efforts by tobacco controladvocates and some public health officials to ban tobacco sales to minors younger than 16 yearsof age. The sale of smokeless tobacco is forbidden.20

Even though there is occupational and safety legislation that nominally protects non-smokers from secondhand tobacco smoke at the workplace, this legislation is weak and rarelyenforced.11 This law, which has been in place since October 1, 1993, leaves a good deal offreedom of interpretation to the employer, who also has much power over the employee, so thereis not much employee protection. It says “The employer, within the framework of operationalpossibilities, has to ensure that non smoking labor is not inconvenienced by other people’stobacco smoke.” Smokefree public places are required in post offices, museums, theaters, etc,enforced by the operating authorities. However, there are no fines for those who refuse tocomply with these regulations.20, 21 For all practical purposes, there are no effective protectionsfor nonsmokers from the toxic chemicals in secondhand tobacco smoke in Switzerland.

How do smokers and non-smokers in Switzerland feel about smoking issuescompared to other European countries and the US?

In 1989, under the pressure of increasing smoking restrictions and decreasing socialacceptance of smoking, Philip Morris International undertook a simultaneous 10 country surveyof public opinions on various smoking-related issues. (Fig. 4)22, 23 The 10 countries surveyedwere: Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, The United Kingdom,and former West Germany. This study included a national probability sample of 1,000 smokersand 1000 non-smokers of age 20 or older for each country surveyed.

Fig. 4. Cover for major public opinion survey conducted in Europe for Philip Morris.

As in other countries, only a small minority of Swiss people was aware of secondhandsmoke as a cause of indoor air pollution. Nonetheless, a large majority of smokers (84%) andnon-smokers (91%) in Switzerland considered secondhand smoke to be a health hazard. InFinland, Sweden, UK, and US, the proportion of smokers (non-smokers) consideringsecondhand smoke a health hazard was only between 32% (54%) and 47% (71%). (Fig. 5)

Fig. 6

Fig. 5

According to a study commissioned by the tobacco industry in 1996, the proportion of Swisspeople who considered secondhand smoking to be a problem had remained the same at 89%.24

Compared to most other surveyed countries, with the exception of Germany, Spain, and France,Switzerland had the lowest proportion of non-smokers (60%) who would still object tosecondhand smoke, even if told by the national health authority that cigarette smoke in the aircould not harm health. Like most other surveyed countries, a majority of non-smokers inSwitzerland found cigarette smoke annoying (73%, other countries between 66% and 88%).Among those non-smokers who are annoyed at least once a week, 59% felt so in restaurants(other countries between 2% and 37% only), 19% felt annoyed in the office (other countriesbetween 9% and 42%), and only 11% felt so at home (other countries between 8% and 41%,with the majority of countries between 10% and 30%). (Fig. 6) Of the weekly annoyed non-smokers in Switzerland, 46% move away sometimes, and 23% move away very often, (Fig. 7)while 32% sometimes ask, and only 7% usually ask the smokers to put their cigarettes out.Nonetheless, 90% of smokers heard complaints from non-smokers.

Overall, in 1989, Switzerland had one of the lowest proportions of smokers and non-smokers (generally lower than 30%) who favored smoking bans in restaurants (Fig. 8), publicwaiting rooms/lobbies (Fig. 9), and on flights (Fig. 10a and 10b), except in offices (Fig. 11),where the proportion of those in favor of smoking bans was somewhat higher (37% and 51%,respectively).23 Whereas in 1989 the proportion of Swiss people favoring separate facilities forsmokers and non-smokers in restaurants was approximately 69% (64% in smokers and 74% in

Fig. 7

non-smokers in a balanced sample of smokers and non-smokers, Fig. 12),23 this number hadincreased to 75% overall in 1997.24 The numbers for separate facilities in offices were muchlower (Fig. 13). As for smoking ban in offices, while 44% overall (37% among smokers, 51%among non-smokers) favored this regulation in 1989,23 this number had increased to 55% in1997, demonstrating an overall tendency toward favoring smoking regulations in workplacesand public places.

Fig. 8

Fig. 9

Fig. 10a

Fig. 10b

Fig. 11

Fig. 12

What does the Federal Government plan to do in order to decrease tobaccoconsumption?

In consideration of the high smoking prevalence, in particular the increase of smokingamong adolescents, and estimates of mortality due to smoking, as well as the accumulatingevidence of the dangers of smoking and secondhand smoking, in August 1995, the Swiss FederalCouncil adopted an action plan to reduce tobacco use over a period of about 4 years. The initialcomprehensive action plan intended to address tobacco tax and sponsoring of sports and culturalevents, but not tobacco advertising.19 However, this action plan was later drastically reduceddue to financial constraints and to the following goals and strategies.25

– To decrease the number of new smokers (primary prevention)– To increase the number of those who are willing to quit smoking (secondary prevention)– To protect the non-smokers from secondhand smoke.

Fig. 13

To achieve the above goals, following strategies were used:

i. Inform objectively about the consequences of tobacco abuse;ii. Support those who are willing to quit;iii. Sensitize specific target groups (women and youth) for this problem;iv. Protect the non-smokers in their working environment.19, 25

To this goal, CHF 2.5 million (USD 1.6 million), or approximately CHF 0.36 (USD 0.23) percapita, were provided annually by the federal government over a time period of 4 years, between1996 and 1999. Taken together, the money spent on tobacco control sums up to around CHF 5million (USD 3.2 million) per year, or CHF 0.72 per capita (USD 0.46), with a 50% contributionby non-governmental organizations. The tobacco industry and its allies however, spent 20 timesmore, i.e. around CHF 100 million (USD 67 million), or CHF 14.30 (USD 9.15) per capita, topromote smoking annually during the same time period.26

Conspicuously missing from the list of strategies are structural interventions, such astobacco advertising ban, increase of tobacco excise tax, or prohibition of smoking in publicplaces, except for workplace smoking. Even though a global quantitative goal of reduction ofsmoking prevalence from over 30% to less than 30% was set, this quantitative goal was seen asunrealistic considering the financial resources, and was given up early in the project.27 Anevaluation by the Institute for Social and Preventive Medicine of the University of Bernecriticized the plan for the lack of financial resources, lack of focus on specific themes ofintervention, lack of cooperation between partners of tobacco prevention, and inadequateprogram coordination, and program and data management by the Federal Office of PublicHealth.27

In the draft of the tobacco prevention program 2001-2005, strengthened by newdevelopments in the US (such as tobacco litigation, revelations of tobacco industry secretdocuments, favorable results of studies on smoke free workplaces and public places), in theEuropean Union (total advertising ban, except for points of sale), as well as two Swiss studiescommissioned by the Federal Office of Public Health on the social and economic costs ofsmoking, and the relationship between taxation and smoking prevalence, the importance of legalregulatory measures for tobacco prevention is emphasized.24

Eine der dringlichsten Massnahmen stellt die Verschärfung der geseztlichen Vorschriften dar, einFazit, das bei Experten aus aller Welt unbestritten ist, wie z.B. in den USA vom Center[s] for DiseaseControl and Prevention, in Grossbritannien von der Association for Public Health, bei der Weltbank undder WHO sowie von den Fachleuten der Eidgenössischen Kommission für Tabakprävention.24 p. 19

[One of the most urgent measures is the strengthening of legal regulations, an undisputedconclusion among experts from all over the world, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,USA, the Association for Public Health in UK, the World Bank, and the WHO, as well as experts of theSwiss Federal Commission for Tobacco Prevention]

The five areas of legal measures are “advertising exclusively targeted at smokers, taxation oftobacco products, additional financial means [for tobacco prevention], prohibition of [tobacco]sales to minors, declaration of tobacco products [harmful substances in tobacco and tobaccosmoke, such as nicotine and tar, problem of outdated methods of determining levels of thesesubstances in cigarette smoke].”24 p. 20 In addition, international coordination of prevention

efforts and the cooperation with international organizations is given a specific place in the list ofobjectives, such as the ratification of the Framework Convention of WHO.

Most importantly, unlike in the 1996-1999 version of tobacco prevention program, thetobacco industry is named explicitly as a special interest group and major player in tobaccopromotion that needs to recruit new smokers in order to compensate for those who quit and thosewho die. Therefore, new laws (food law) that limit tobacco advertising and promotion areconsidered in this five-year tobacco prevention program of the Federal Office of Public Health.24

p. 28 In justifying these potential legal measures, the Federal Office of Public Health can rely onseveral recent scientific publications on tobacco advertising, promotion, and taxation andsmoking among youth.24 p. 28

Which tobacco firms are represented in Switzerland, how are they organized, andwhat is the power structure within the tobacco industry?

The international tobacco companies have gradually merged with or ousted local tobaccocompanies so that today almost the entire Swiss cigarette market is controlled by internationalcompanies. While twenty years ago, 43% of cigarette brands smoked were Swiss brands, thefour Swiss brands’ current market share has declined to 28% by 1988.28

In terms of sales volume in cigarette units, F.J. Burrus, had a market share of 29.6%when still independent and the largest Swiss cigarette producer. F.T.R. (Fabriques de TabacRéunies)-Philip Morris (PM), the largest international cigarette producer in Switzerland, had ashare of 30.9%.29 Less than 10 years later, in 1990, Burrus’ market share had declined to 20.6%,while Philip Morris’ market share had increased to 39%.30 The corresponding numbers for 1998were approaching 50% for PM and only 26.3% for F.J. Burrus-Rothmans (Rothmans boughtBurrus in June 199631) despite the merger of Burrus with Rothmans in 1996. Philip Morris’Marlboro alone occupied 24.5% of the market share in volume.29

The major tobacco companies currently represented in Switzerland are, in the order ofmarket share: Philip Morris (PM), F.J. Burrus-Rothmans (BR), British-American Tobacco(BAT), and RJ Reynolds (RJR). In January 1999, BAT and Rothmans announced their merger,resulting in another company with a Swiss market share of approximately 45%, close to that ofPM, thereby virtually decimating the number of cigarette producers in Switzerland, and with twocompanies sharing over 90% of the market29, 32, 33 (Fig. 14). The former BAT factory in Genevawas closed, and the entire production was moved to Boncourt, a small village of 1,400 in thecanton of Jura.34, 35 Two hundred fifty employees in Geneva lost their jobs, and it wasspeculated that Geneva with WHO and Guy-Olivier Segond, Cantonal Council of Geneva andMinister of Health, who is an outspoken anti-tobacco activist, and who had embarrassed thetobacco industry during the international meeting of tobacco industry in Geneva in 1998 withcounter-meetings and demonstrations,36 was not an attractive site for the tobaccomultinationals.35

Another deal of interest to Switzerland was the sale of RJR’s International Tobacco toJapan Tobacco.37 Fortunately for the employees of RJR in Dagmersellen, in central Switzerland,and in Geneva, Japan Tobacco did not have any worldwide infrastructure of its own, therefore

making the 220 jobs in Dagmersellen and the 400 jobs at the world headquarters of RJR inGeneva relatively safe.37

More interesting than the obvious mergers between or sale of cigarette companies is thebehind the scene entanglement of powerful economic interests. Rothmans belongs to two thirdsto Compagnie Financière Richemont in Zug, Switzerland, a luxury goods producer that owns,through Vendôme Luxury Group, famous brands like Cartier, Dunhill, Montblanc. To one third,Rothmans belongs to the South African Rembrandt Group, both of which are controlled by theJohann Rupert of South Africa, who will give up his majority share in Rothmans for a 35%participation at BAT33, 38. BAT in turn, had merged its finances division with the large Swissinsurance company Zürich-Versicherungen in 199833.

Despite the rapidly changing scene in the tobacco industry and tougher regulations inmany countries, Richemont has been able to increase its net earnings by 19.6% between 1998and 1999. The tobacco sector is considered a cash cow which enables Richemont to investquickly and expand.39, 40

The tobacco industry -- both cigarette and cigar manufacturers -- is organized in theFederation of Tobacco Industry called “Fédération de l’Industrie Suisse du Tabac” (FIST). Thecigarette manufacturers are organized under the Association of Swiss Cigarette Manufacturers,called “Association Suisse des Fabriquants de Cigarettes” (ASFC), and later – most likely as aconsequence of the dismantling of the cartel of cigarette manufacturers in Switzerland at the endof 1992 – Association of Swiss Cigarette Industry, “Communauté de l’Industrie Suisse de la

Fig. 14Tobacco companies’ market share

in Switzerland in 1999

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

P M B A T O t h e r

Market Share %

Chapter 2. Methods

This analysis of the tobacco industry’s efforts to influence tobacco-related policy inSwitzerland is, for the most part, based on tobacco industry’s documents published on theinternet subsequently to litigation cases against tobacco industry and Swiss newspaper articles.Additional information on Swiss governmental and non-governmental institutions andorganizations, pro-tobacco as well as anti-tobacco, were gathered through internet search and afew interviews. It was difficult to obtain information from individuals and organizationsworking on tobacco control in Switzerland.

The bulk of tobacco industry documents were downloaded from the Philip Morris (PM)documents site (www.pmdocs.com), because PM has been the single most important cigaretteproducer in Switzerland and, more importantly, PM has been the strongest and most proactivedriving force within the tobacco lobby in Switzerland. Therefore, tobacco industry is often usedinterchangeably with Philip Morris. We believe that the fact that we could not consider BATdocuments in Guildford, UK does not significantly reduce the comprehensiveness of the report,as the international tobacco industry operated through the national manufacturers association forall of the important policy matters, where Philip Morris played a leading role when it came tofighting tobacco control measures.

Given the inconsistent entry of fields for the electronic search of documents on theindustry document web sites (accessible through www.tobaccoacchive.com), the searchproceeded from general single search terms, such as “Switzerland,” to more complex Booleanterms, as more specific terms became available from the documents initially found by generalterm searches. Because Philip Morris’ European Headquarters and its research laboratory(Science and Technology, S&T) are based in Switzerland, a fair number of documents were notspecific to Switzerland. For the same reason, many documents gave insight into the networkingstrategies of Philip Morris’ marketing and lobbying operations. The specific search terms thatproved most useful were mostly the names of key players, both opponents and proponents oftougher tobacco regulations, as well as key tobacco policy-related publications and events inSwitzerland.

Names, events and publications from other countries were also considered if they were ofinterest for Swiss tobacco policy and tobacco industry’s counter attacks. Finally, closely relateddocuments could sometimes be found using adjacent document bates numbers, or usingdocument types.

Within specific events and issues, a chronological approach will be used and the majorplayers examined.

Chapter 3. The Early Days of Smoking and Health Debate inSwitzerland

As in the United States and the UK,8 p. 32, pp. 108-170, pp. 201-234 by the mid-1960’s, scientistsworking inside the tobacco industry in Switzerland had accepted the conclusion that smokingcaused disease in smokers. For example, researchers of the research laboratories of Fabriques deTabac Réunies (FTR), Philip Morris’ cigarette unit in Switzerland, privately concurred with theconclusions of the landmark 1964 US Surgeon General’s report (also known as the “Terryreport,” after Luther Terry, the US Surgeon General at the time),41 while at the same timeworrying that it would lead to increased regulation of the tobacco industry. Max Häusermann,Scientist with the FTR laboratory in the 1960’s, later Vice President for Research andDevelopment, wrote in the FTR research report 1962 - 1965:

The [1964 Surgeon General’s] Report’s only positive effect – if there is any – is that it compels the tobaccoindustry to adopt a common view towards the problem:Whether we like or not, we must adopt the standpoint that tobacco smoke may be a health hazard forcertain individuals.42 p. 2 [emphasis added]

Even so, they “welcomed” the 1964 Surgeon General’s report, because they felt that it facilitated

pretend any longer that there was no association between smoking and health:

…Up to this day, these subjects could not be investigated freely by industrial research, because the tobaccoindustry was afraid that the adoption of certain hypotheses implied an avowel [sic] of culpability. It can beforeseen now, however, that the [Surgeon General Luther] Terry Report and its immediate practicalconsequence of cigarette labeling, have eliminated much psychological obstacles.42 p.2 [emphasis added]

Häusermann then continues to discuss smoking and health related issues in a way that shows thatthese scientists were earnestly looking for safer alternatives to the existing cigarettes at the time:

We then can frankly attack the following problems:– Objective measures of the tumorigenicity of tobacco smoke to certain animals.– Reduction of the tumorigenicity of tobacco smoke (see later).– Seek for a substitute for the smoking habit satisfying the same of equivalent needs.

a short time. It is even possible that practical remedies to the tumorigenicity of tobacco smoke are devisedand applied in practical cigarette engineering, but proof of a reduction of tumorigenicity cannot befurnished before many years .

…The underlying hypothesis is that the “tar” delivery of a cigarette is quantitatively related to thetumorigenicity of its smoke. There are experimental data supporting this theory, …

It seems reasonable, however, to admit that a reduction of the total amount of particular [sic]smoke should result in a reduction of the health risk. This opinion has been expressed in a paper publishedby our Department (Paper # 20, Appendix #4) [P. Waltz and M. Häusermann: “NeuzeitlicheFilterzigaretten und ihre Auswirkungen auf die Rauchgewohnheiten und Rauchinhalatsstoffe.” (New filtercigarettes and their effects on smoking habits and inhaled smoke contents) Z. Präventivmed., 8, 73-98(1936)]

…The problem of the reduction of the (weak) tumorigenicity of tobacco smoke can only be attackedwith success if the biological research is accompanied by extensive chemical and physical studies on theformation, composition and modification of tobacco smoke.

…The experimental difficulty encountered with smoke condensate resides in its low or very lowtumorigenicity. In order to obtain a significant increase of tumors in the experimental animals, very highconcentrations of smoke condensate must be applied. Not only is this kind of experimentation far awayfrom the reality of smoking, but the acute toxicity of smoke condensate (e.g., due to its nicotine content) orof total smoke (e.g., due to its carbon monoxide content) may interfere. This is probably the main reasonwhy experimental lung cancer cannot yet be induced in animals exposed to cigarette smoke.

…Biological research, however, would be nonsense should it not give an answer on how to reduce thetumorigenicity of cigarette smoke. Two extreme attitudes towards the cause of tumorigenicity of tobaccosmoke are possible:

1) The tumorigenic activity is due to tobacco smoke as a whole. Isolated smoke constituents will notbehave in a representative manner.

2) The tumorigenic activity of tobacco smoke is due to a limited number of tumor initiating andtumor promoting substances and factors (Wynder and Hoffman).

The first attitude is highly satisfying from a pure philosophical standpoint, but it excludes any seriousexperimental investigations about the origin and cause of the tumorigenicity of smoke. The only practicalconclusion that can be drawn from this thesis is to reduce the amount of smoke as a whole throughappropriate means. This reduction should permit to push the threshold of tumorigenicity beyond themaximum man’s age. But as a non selective reduction of smoke is theoretically impracticable, even thissolution might not be wholly satisfying .42 pp. 2-45 [emphasis added]

In contrast to these privately expressed views, however, the Swiss industry’s publicposition – that there was “controversy” regarding whether smoking caused disease – remainedunchanged. As in the United States, the primary public representative for the tobacco industrywas not the companies, but an association designed to insulate the companies from direct publicaccountability and scrutiny. The Swiss Association of Cigarette Manufacturers (ASFC,Association Suisse des Fabriquants de Cigarettes) serves this function in Switzerland. Whenasked by a journalist about the conclusions in the US Surgeon General’s report, A. Artho, mostlikely a scientist with Burrus, and a member of the Scientific commission of ASFC, sidesteppedthe issued of lung cancer and put the standard tobacco industry spin8 pp. 48-56 on the SurgeonGeneral report’s weak conclusions on nicotine addiction:

Roughly, the course of the interview was as follows. Artho said that the U.S. Surgeon General’sCommittee report was a good one in that it was independent. He stressed that nicotine was absolved fromblame and that the report had said smoking was beneficial for mental health. The report said nothing newon the risks of smoking. .... Artho had said that there was obviously a need for more research on the effectsof filters, etc.43 p. 1

At the same time, in news interviews, the members of the Scientific Commission ofASFC were very careful not to admit any possible negative health effects of smoking. TheScientific Commission consisted of industry scientists, each representing an individual cigarettemanufacturer in Switzerland. It had an advisory function and advised the Swiss Association ofCigarette Manufacturers in scientific matters, including measures to be taken in the smoking andhealth “controversy” in Switzerland:

…Glasson [president of the scientific commission of ASFC], who by this time was very agitated andworried, mentioned that he had been unable to get from ASFC, a clear authorisation of what he could sayand had no time to refer to ASFC the text of a statement. Wyler [a public relations specialist from Geneva,who came to the meeting of the Scientific Commission of ASFC on January 31, 1964 to help Glasson toprepare the TV interview] had a text ready, which Glasson didn’t much like. Waltz, Ceschini and I saw acopy and suggested that it went too far in referring to “the noxious materials in smoke which must be

43 p. 2

In a confidential inter-office correspondence of Philip Morris, H. Gaisch, Director ofScience and Technology at FTR (Fabriques de Tabac Réunies, PM Switzerland) Neuchâtel,Switzerland,to J. Hartogh, Vice President, Corporate Affairs and Headquarters Marketing, PhilipMorris EEC, suggested that they use standard tobacco industry arguments that the evidencelinking smoking and disease was just “statistical:”

Perhaps the “moderation” argument has to be constructed in terms of common sense leaving aside allepidemiologic consideration deliberately, justifying this by pointing out that almost any theory could besupported by a deliberate selection of the statistical data available today.44

At the same time, Gaisch noted that the industry was working to make a safer cigarette:

3. Scientific developments are ongoing to eliminate or reduce such smoke components for whichreasonable scientific evidence is available that this could possibly be beneficial to the smoker.44

These interchanges reflect the growing ambivalence of the tobacco industry during thesecond half of 1960’s and 1970’s toward the smoking and health issue. Initially, the tobaccoindustry made earnest efforts to identify the carcinogenic components of cigarette smoke inorder to make smoking less harmful. When this failed, the tobacco industry went into denial andfocused on ways of minimizing foreseeable damage to its profits due to governmentalrestrictions and declining social acceptability of smoking.

Very early on, the tobacco industry realized that, in order to make it harder for thelegislature to advance any restrictive measures or for the public to restrict the tobacco industryvia the ballot, the declining social acceptability of smoking and the tobacco industry had to bearrested. A 1988 long range plan of Philip Morris EEMA suggested:

Increasingly, the successful field manager, in addition to selling cigarettes and beating the competition,must deal with other industry issues. Interaction with regulatory officials is key in most markets and directcommunication with consumers on defending their rights and smoking acceptability is now a majorconcern...

We will develop and mobilize all resources – internal PM, external agencies and consultants, theindustry and NMA’s [national (tobacco) manufacturer associations], and all potential allies – to fight andto halt the deteriorating social and legislative trends against tobacco; we will focus particularly onScandinavia/Finland, Switzerland and the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council, includes Bahrain, Kuwait,Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates],…

Resist the deterioration in the public attitude towards smoking . Concentrate upon the ETS issueand smoking restrictions,… Undertake aggressive PR to counter misinformation and bias, in Finland,Sweden and Switzerland, in particular.45 [emphasis added]

As early as 1989, Philip Morris had identified Switzerland as a key battleground inEurope.

Chapter 4. Meetings and Workshops Organized by the TobaccoIndustry

In Switzerland, as in the rest of the world, the tobacco industry has sponsored a variety of“scientific” symposia.46 The goals of these symposia are generally threefold:

– Give scientific legitimacy to tobacco industry’s claims that there was no evidence thatsmoking and secondhand smoke was harmful to health.

– Publish the proceedings to create a citable source that could be used in political and legalproceedings, as well as to manipulate the scientific debate.47

– “Inform” the public about the industry claims (disguised as scientific facts) through invitedjournalists in order to “create controversy” about the effects of smoking and secondhandsmoke.8 pp. 346-352

There is good evidence that data presented in industry-sponsored symposia onsecondhand smoke are unbalanced and more likely to be authored by tobacco-industry affiliatedindividuals than journal articles or consensus reports on secondhand smoke prepared byindependent bodies such as the US National Academy of Sciences or other similar scientificbodies.46 Similarly, when controlling for article quality, peer review status, article topic, andyear of publication, tobacco-industry affiliation of the author was the only significant predictorof the conclusion that passive smoking is not harmful to health.48

In the 1970’s tobacco industry sponsored research was being carefully organized andcoordinated through the scientific committee of the Association of Swiss CigaretteManufacturers. Rather than being a true scientific committee that gave unbiased advice ontobacco industry research, the scientific commission, which consists of scientists representingthe various tobacco firms in Switzerland, followed scientific and societal developments withregard to the smoking and health issue and helped in formulating tobacco industry positionpapers, such as on secondhand smoke, indoor air quality, and addiction. Later the scientificcommission more directly participated in public relations activities.49 In an internal memo, PaulIsenring, Director of Industry Policy Coordination for Philip Morris Europe, Middle East,Africa, explains the composition and function of the scientific committee:

The Association of Swiss cigarette manufacturers has a so-called scientific committee. Prof. K. Bättig,Zurich, is the president and the companies are represented by their research people (PM until 2 years agoby Dr. Häusermann, now by Dr. Gaisch). The committee is coordinating all scientific smoking and healthissues and gives its opinion and proposals on this subject. Furthermore, the committee is coordinating allresearch on smoking and health.50

One of the meetings between outside researchers, tobacco industry researchers, and members ofthe Association of Swiss Cigarette Manufacturers (ASFC), held on March 21, 1974, was more acautious probing into the attitudes of tobacco industry sponsored researchers toward the issue ofsmoking and health, rather than a briefing of industry “consultants.” The tobacco industry alsowanted to obtain information on what these outside scientists, all of which were at least partlyfunded by the tobacco industry,51 thought about the industry “going public” with smoking and

health related information. The president of ASFC, F. Corbat, stated to the meeting participantsthat the purpose of the meeting would be two-fold:

– to get first hand information on scientific research– to discuss the opportunity of public information on smoking and health aspects.50

The participating “outside” researchers were: E. Grandjean, Institute of Hygiene andPsychology on work: ‘Toxicological studies on the smoke of the cigarettes’; C. and R.Leuchtenberger, Swiss Institute for Experimental Cancer Research (ISREC): ‘Research on thebiological effect of the cigarette smoke inhalation on lungs of animals’; G. S. Kistler,Department of Anatomy, University of Zurich: ‘Malignancy: a multifactoral [sic] process’; G. S.Kistler and P. Davis: ‘Acute toxicity of tobacco smoke’; K. Bättig, Scientific Institute ofComportment [sic], Zurich: ‘Psychopharmacological research on nicotine.’

Because none of the participating researchers really advised the industry to becomepolitically more active on the issue of smoking and health – some explicitly advised the tobaccoindustry to stay away -- the then-president of the Association of Swiss Cigarette Manufacturerswas frustrated after the meeting:

President Corbat fighted [sic] the expression “toxicity” in the context of tobacco. He added that tobaccoproducts are legally sold like alcohol and other products. He said that the industry would be considered tobe a kind of a “public poisoner” and that it should be therefore possible to take position without enteringthe polemic. He has a bad feeling remaining only in the defense.50

A symposium held in Zurich on April 29-30, 1976, had a very different goal: rather thana forum for an open interchange with the scientific community, it was organized jointly by thetobacco industries of Austria, Switzerland, and Germany, as represented by their associations, asa two-day “scientific” conference “for the press on the beneficial effects of smoking.”52 Many ofthe invited participants were tobacco industry consultants. These industry consultants werescientists who had been carefully chosen through intermediaries, such as public relations firms,so that the tobacco industry could be reassured that they had not expressed, and would not do soin the near future, views that were unfavorable for the tobacco industry, and who could publiclyrepresent the tobacco industry’s positions without stating their ties to the tobacco industry.8 p. 289

The meeting was broadcast by the Swiss television company. Press commentaries weredescribed by P. Isenring, Director of Industry Policy Coordination for Philip Morris Europe,Middle East, Africa as:

…generally positive so far with some criticism about the onesidedness in the choice of the referees andtheir presentations….The Swiss radio, however, commented very positively. On the other hand, the Swissanti-smoking league made a fierce public attack against the scientific sincerety [sic] of an industry-sponsored conference like this.”52

Isenring also noted:

In an industry round-table, the following problems were discussed: markets, products (lightcigarettes), nicotine, the role of Government in a free society, freedom of choice of the consumer, fiscality,passive smoking, warning label, role of advertising. Approximately 30 journalists, mainly from Germany,Austria, and Switzerland, and a few from U.K., France, Belgium and Scandinavia attended. In conclusion:

it was a valid and positive attempt of the industry to make the journalists aware of the ‘other side of thecoin’, i.e. to establish the scientific controversy on smoking and health.53

We do not have further information on this meeting.

Just as the tobacco industry sponsored symposia to create controversy about the effectsof smoking on smokers, they organized symposia on secondhand smoke, when secondhandsmoke became the real threat to the tobacco industry due to the publication of the 1986 SurgeonGeneral’s report, The Health Effects of Involuntary Smoking.54 One of the earliest such meetingson secondhand smoke was the Second Workshop on Environmental Tobacco Smoke organizedby a tobacco industry consultant, Ragnar Rylander: “ A Workshop on Effects and ExposureLevels,” which took place on March 15 to 17, 1983 at the University of Geneva, Switzerland.55 p.

2 (A first workshop had taken place in 1974, but we do not have any information on the firstworkshop.) It was part of a regular tobacco industry’s public relations effort.

The conclusion of this major international symposium was that available evidence does not confirm thattobacco smoke in the air causes chronic health problems.

The report was published as a supplement to the European Journal of Respiratory Diseases .Introducing the report, chairman Ragnar Rylander of Sweden noted the subject has been widely discussedfor many years. Government authorities frequently request precise answers on scientific issues relating topublic health, the physician-researcher wrote.56

Rylander, the chair of the workshop and one of the three editors of the report, is one ofthe most active tobacco industry’s scientific consultants in Europe. The budget allocated to himby Philip Morris in 1992 was “USD 60,000/year unrestricted research grant and USD

57 and Rylander later served as a member of Philip Morris’ IARC TaskForce58 which was established to stop or counter a study that the International Agency forResearch on Cancer was conducting in Europe on the link between secondhand smoke and lungcancer. As a publication by the US Tobacco Institute (the tobacco industry’s lobbying arm inthe United States8 p. 39) for media distribution states, the proceedings from the second workshopon environmental tobacco smoke was published as a supplement in the European Journal ofRespiratory Diseases in the same year. This workshop was the first of three workshops onsecondhand tobacco smoke organized by the Tobacco Institute within 15 months in order tooffset the impact of the 1986 Surgeon General’s report on secondhand smoke and health.54 TheTobacco Institute distributed the white paper on these workshops to the media just before thepublication of the Surgeon General’s report.55 We do not know what influence this white paperhad on the impact of the Surgeon General’s report on the public in Europe, and in Switzerland inparticular.

Chapter 5. Creating Controversy around the Issue of Smoking andSecondhand Smoke

Despite the fact that the public health communities in Europe had not yet developed acomprehensive and unified strategy to approach the problem of secondhand smoke (or, as theindustry prefers to call it, Environmental Tobacco Smoke [ETS]) as a public health issue, by1987 the tobacco industry, spearheaded by Philip Morris, had developed detailed plans to headoff restrictions of smoking in public places in Europe in order to maintain the socialacceptability of smoking.59 The tobacco industry in the US had understood the importance ofthis issue to its viability in the 1970’s.8 pp. 391-394, 60 p. 7-8

As in the United States and elsewhere, the tobacco industry’s umbrella strategy was (andremains) to distract the public from the major health problems related to smoking, and insteadframe the issue of smoking as one of “free choice” (smoking), “individual freedom andresponsibility” and “courtesy and tolerance” (passive smoking). At the same time, the industrywould continue to work to discredit epidemiological studies that linked smoking and passivesmoking with disease, claim that restricting smoking would have major negative economicconsequences for society, and stir up “controversy” whenever opportune. These tactics wereenforced through the recruitment of carefully identified and chosen scientific “consultants”8 pp.

327-337, 58 pp. 33-34 to combat increasing awareness of the dangers of secondhand smoke and bytrying to divert attention to indoor air quality (IAQ) in general and to promote ventilation as asolution to the problem of secondhand smoke pollution.8 pp. 410-412

Secondhand Smoke and Nonsmokers’ Rights

Swiss and European governmental publications from 1988 clearly identify secondhandsmoke (or environmental tobacco smoke, ETS) as a major source of indoor air pollution.61, 62

According to the official Swiss government report:

Tobacco is one of the commonest contaminants of the air both in private residencies and in offices.62 p. 34

(a) Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)Generally speaking, this is by far the most important source of chemical pollution in indoor air. It

is now generally accepted that ETS may cause cancer of the lung. Sick building syndrome is statisticallymore pronounced in smokers than in non smokers (Skov et al.) and there is an excess of symptoms in nonsmokers and ex-smokers exposed to ETS compared with the same non exposed categories (Robertson* etal. 1988).61 p. 11 [*this is NOT Gray Robertson, the president of ACVA/HBI; see further below]

The minutes of a Philip Morris EEMA (EFTA, Eastern Europe, Middle East,Africa)/EEC (European Economic Community, now called EU, European Union) strategymeeting held on May 11, 1987 summarizes the tobacco industry’s strategies:

Objectives of the ETS Strategy (from the EEMA Plan)End goals:

– Resist smoking restrictions– Restore smoker confidence

Prerequisites:

– Reverse scientific and popular opinion– Restore social acceptability of smoking– Preserve product liability defences

– Components of the ETS StrategyTargeted PA/PR Activities:

– Public– Politicians– Competent authorities– Unions– Employers– Airlines– Hotels, restaurants, cafeterias

Climate Development and Support:– Seminars– Briefings– Research (basic and applied)– Publications– Professional body participation

Established Third Parties– Scientific experts (identification, organization)– ACVA-type [ACVA, later renamed Healthy Buildings International (HBI) is a company that

provides consultations on indoor air quality that routinely downplays the importance ofsecondhand smoke; it was built in large part through secret tobacco industry funding. Despite itsstrong ties to the tobacco industry, ACVA/HBI presents itself as an “independent expert.”ACVA/HBI is discussed in detail later in this report.]

– While a strategy is market-specific (its targets, in particular), the underlying research is not.– Responsibilities within PM

– The responsibility for the targeted PA/PR activities rests with the market responsibles [sic] (andtheir CA [corporate affairs] staff), and the markets carry the budgets. This is also true for ACVA-related activities.

– The identification of 3rd-party scientists will be undertaken by HGA [Helmut Gaisch of FTRScience and Technology, PM research laboratory in Neuchâtel, Switzerland] with the assistanceof an IAPAG- related [we do not know what IAPAG stands for] scientist (J. Rupp [a lawyer at theWashington DC law firm of Covington and Burling, which handles political matters for thetobacco industry] to nominate) who will make initial contacts.

– HGA [most likely Helmut Gaisch, Head, Research and Development, Philip Morris EEMA] willcarry the budget for all 3rd-party scientist activities.

– The coordinators for all ETS Strategy issues within the respective Regions are MDH [MichaelHorst, Vice President, Philip Morris External Affairs, in Brussels] (EEC) and KJW [K. Ware,director of Planning] (EEMA).

– Industry CoordinationIt is preferable to build up a coordinated, international industry effort. Ideally this would be underthe auspices of INFOTAB [a coordinating body created to facilitate communication among and onbehalf of the multinational tobacco companies; its original name was ICOSI (InternationalCommittee on Smoking Issues)]. In many markets it will be advisable or even necessary to workthrough the NMA [national manufacturers’ association] or an industry club. Nevertheless it wasunderstood that PM must forge on and lead/act unilaterally whilst the industry coordination isbeing established in individual markets. This coordination should ultimately lead to integrationwith respect to the buffer entity.

– PMI [Phililp Morris International] SupportBack-up available:

– Experience gained in other parts of the world (U.S., Hong Kong, (hotels and restaurants),Australia (airlines))

– Videotapes– Brochures (issue-specific, target-specific)– Surveys (design of)

– Press kits– Booklets to address public officials in lay terms (e.g., ACVA material)– Invitations to PM-sponsored events– Coordination of media briefings

Follow-up (proposed/requested):– Need for follow-up generated by media briefings (vehicles to be put in place; material to be

developed: information has to be kept flowing so as to sustain the momentum created by suchbriefings). D. Badler, P. Grandjean and P. Maglione are to prepare a draft paper to be discussed bythem in New York on June 15 and then propose to participants of ETS meeting. They will alsoinvestigate the ETS FYI idea [we do not know what FYI stands for]

– Capitalization worldwide on efforts in U.S.– Proposed briefings on U.S.-based correspondents to newspapers published in EEMA-EEC regions

and US-based wire service editors and reporters– Generic advertising campaigns

Remarks:− The need for flexibility was stressed to take into account the idiosyncrasies of each market.− Media briefings should be held only when the follow-up capability is established.− The product liability implications of what is said and communicated in the course of media

briefings and elsewhere must be borne in mind.− ACVA must be perceived to be at arm’s length from the industry, including in media briefings.

should seem as yet another third party expert amongst others.– Other Support (needed or forthcoming)

– Public speaking training to be provided for third-party experts– Suitable environment to be created for third-party scientists (e.g., opportunity to meet peers and

exchange ideas, access to information)– Database being set up to provide references and arguments on detailed issues met in EEC. (P.

Maglione [Director of Public Affairs, Philip Morris EEC])– Possibility of access to pan Arab media through participation of PM in industry-media

representatives meeting next autumn (JBR [J. Rupp of Covington & Burling law firm] to follow-up with KIF [unclear who this is])59

This document demonstrates impressively how comprehensive and global the strategies werethat the tobacco industry used to undermine tobacco policy. Most important, the author of thisplan, Jean Besques, from corporate affairs, Philip Morris EEMA, emphasizes a level ofinternational cooperation and knowledge transfer rarely exhibited by the health community.

The media was used to disguise tobacco industry’s claims as “neutral” journalist reportsby asking the journalists not to identify the tobacco industry as the source of the newspaperarticles after giving interviews, thereby muddling the source of information. A memo by J.-M.Theubet (Philip Morris Europe) to Mary W.Covington (Philip Morris International) entitledS[moking] + H[ealth] Press Relations, Switzerland informs:

Please find enclosed 2 articles by René and Claude Langel, Editors in chief of the Sunday edition of“Tribune – Le Matin,” Lausanne. We gave them an interview and asked not to publish the name of ourcompany. As you will see, they wrote interesting articles for the tobacco company.63 [emphasis added]

The tobacco industry also lobbied members of parliament through the nationalmanufacturing association and other less evident allies, including the advertising association,employers association, and hotels and restaurants association. Specific examples of thesetobacco industry strategies will be given later.

Decisions on industry position statements, such as on scientific issues, had to be clearedby legal consultants from one of the law firms that worked for the tobacco industry. A passagefrom a monthly report by Helmuth Gaisch, Director of Science and Technology, FTR/PhilipMorris Switzerland, to Stephen C. Darrah, Vice President, Operations, Philip Morris EECRegion, and Ron Lively, successor of Stephen C. Darrah in the following year (1990), makes thepoint of tightly controlling public communications explicit:

Upon invitation of HGA [Helmuth Gaisch, Director of Science and Technology, FTR/Philip MorrisSwitzerland] a meeting was held in Neuchâtel with the purpose of improving the coordination of IAQ[indoor air quality]-related activities. The following persons were present: M.C. Bourlas, H. Brass, PIC,F.H. Dulles, G. Giscard-d’Estaing, M.D. Horst, C.E. Lister, P. Maglione, IAM, PEM, S.C. Parrish, M.Pottorft, HER, J.B. Robinson, J.P. Rupp, and C. von Maerestetten. …

…The results could be summarised as follows: The objective of exchanging information insufficient detail on all on-going projects was attained, although some uncertainty remained as to the natureof what is being done in the USA. The intention of those present regarding cooperation with othercompanies was discussed in detail and should result in greater flexibility for future dealings. A decisionwas made on improvements to the on-going collaborative projects between the various [Philip Morris]Corporate Affairs Departments, B-M [Burson-Marsteller, a public relations firm], C&B [Covington &Burling, law firm] and S&T [Science & Technology, the research branch of FTR, PM Switzerland],designed to transform “Science” into “News.” For example, the present “First Clearance Loop” consistingof LISTER/TEEL[E] [C. Lister and K. Teele, both of Covington & Burling] + HGA [Helmut Gaisch,Director of S&T] is going to be enlarged to include S. Parrish [Head of Worldwide Regulatory Affairs,later Senior Vice President of External Affairs, PMI].64 pp. 10-11

It is important to realize that, even though the tactics employed in Switzerland werecustomized to its particular social and political situation, the basic ideas behind these tacticswere in no way unique to Switzerland.[Glantz, 1996 #105; Philip Morris, 1996 #70] Morecommonly, they were developed in consultation with Philip Morris’ European and internationalheadquarters, as well as the other tobacco companies (often through ICOSI/INFOTAB) using thestrategies that had already been successfully tested in other countries. In 1993, the Philip Morrislong range plan 1993-1995 discusses the need for a centralized coordination of research andother industry activities in an era of declining social acceptability of smoking:

Given the European-wide dimension of the social-political approach, logic requires that development andundertaking of actions must, to a large extent, be coordinated, concerted and driven by CA [CorporateAffairs] HQ’s [headquarters] EEMA and EEC in terms of research, communication and guidance.65

Because “decisions to prohibit smoking are made at all levels of society,”66 p. 2 andbecause “smoking restrictions symbolize fundamental shifts in societal mores and attitudestowards health and the environment, but increasing smoking restrictions also symbolize theeffectiveness and perseverance of the anti-smoking and health lobbies, … a successful long-term approach to ETS will require direct and indirect communication with the following groupsof people.”66p. 2 As listed in a memo from Gérard Wirz to multiple recipients within PhilipMorris Europe these people included:

Government:– Labor Ministries– Health Ministries– Environment Ministries– Safety & Health regulators– Transport & Tourist ministries

– Press:– Social journalists– Health/Science journalists– Specialised Press (Horeca, unions, engineering, etc.)

Potential Allies:– Unions– Horeca Associations– Employers Associations– Chefs and gastronomy associations– Thinks [sic] tanks and policy centers– Economic and accounting groups– Suppliers– Ventilators and IAQ groups

Important Decision Makers:– Workplace managers– Restaurateurs– Building owners– Airline managers– Airport managers– Rail operators– Hotel managers– Works Council Representatives– Managers of public places

Influencers of Future Social Acceptability:– Philosophers/Ethics– Psychologists– Sociologists– Statisticians– Management Professors– Occupational Safety & Health professors– Public policy experts– Legal/Insurance leaders– Hotel and restaurant schools– Antis and other activist groups– Tobacco industry66 p. 2

The tobacco industry key strategists had to admit to themselves that, in order to win allies fortheir cause, they needed to develop winning messages that were tailored to the potential allies’interests. They also realized, as elsewhere, that it was in their best interest to avoid health as anissue:

My second observation is that very few of these target audiences are interested in our health-relatedmessages. Instead, they seek solutions and ways to improve their own standing.

PM has not fully developed winning messages for each of these groups partly because of ourapproach to message development. In the past, our approach has always been based on countering anti-smoking claims, which automatically places the debate on the least favorable grounds for us, i.e. health.

What we will do on April 30 is prioritize the target groups and develop the 5 to 10 messagepoints we want to communicate to these target audiences . Tony Andrade will give on-the-spot legalclearance.66 p. 3 [emphasis added]

Unlike the well organized and well funded, comprehensive analyses and strategies of thetobacco industry, the public health advocates limited themselves to sporadic or limited actions.They never mobized the political will to overcome to financial constraints, despite the fact thatthe political structure of a strongly federalistic system with much autonomy to local authoritiesfavors grassroots action at the local level, which has proven to be the most effective venue for intobacco control in the United States. For similar reasons, obtaining detailed information onearlier tobacco control efforts from the tobacco control side was very limited. As a draft of aPhilip Morris Corporate Affairs Plan in 1987 recognized:

A gradual anti-tobacco trend continues in Switzerland but opponents have not yet developed professionallymanaged, well financed organizations. However, the threat to our business is substantial and sufficientlyimmediate that it is critical to build a Philip Morris corporate affairs program in Switzerland thatcomplements and supplements that of the ASFC (NMA [national manufacturers association])67 bates 2501254719

The following newspaper debate, which occurred earlier in the late 1980’s, is one of therare concerted media efforts undertaken by public health advocates to work with journalists whohad not been “persuaded” by tobacco industry media briefings beforehand.

A Case of Media Effort by Public Health Advocates

While the tobacco industry, with its almost unlimited financial resources, was capable ofleading well-organized, and often disguised, media campaigns, there had been successful mediaefforts by tobacco control advocates earlier, as illustrated by three letters to the editor of a well-regarded Swiss newspaper. The letters to the editor were published in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung(NZZ), one of the most respected newspapers in Switzerland, and often the only Swissnewspaper available abroad. These letters appeared on October 4, 1988, as a reaction to anaccusation and complaint from the tobacco industry following a health-oriented TV program,called “Schirmbild,” aired on September 8, 1988, in which the evidence for harmful effects ofsecondhand smoke on health were discussed. We do not have the details of the program itself.

According to the letter written by the program editor to the newspaper, the tobaccoindustry in a press release on September 15, 1988, accused the editor of the TV program of“irresponsibility, one-sided choice of research results, and overestimation of unprovenassumptions.” (We could not find the original press release.) The editor of the program states inher letter to the newspaper editor that the tobacco industry had already pressured the programeditorial office even before the program was aired in an effort to prevent it from being airedaltogether. The editor justified the program by citing several studies from the USA and Sweden,which show the health damaging effects of passive smoking. The editor of the TV program alsomentioned the ruling of the highest Swedish insurance court that passive smoking was one of therecognized causes of work-related diseases.68

One of the other two letters, published in the same newspaper issue, was written byTheodor Abelin, Professor of Social and Preventive Medicine in Berne, Switzerland, and anexpert in smoking-related health issues, who has been working on the smoking and health issuesince early 1960’s. Abelin reinforces the scientific arguments against secondhand smokebrought forth in the TV program and cautions the newspaper editors not to simply “take over the

vocabulary of the tobacco industry,” who tried to ridicule the anti-tobacco statements made inthe program.69. The third author, Inge Spillmann-Thulin, executive director of the SwissAssociation for Non-Smoking (later called Swiss Association for Smoking Prevention), pointsout the polemic argumentation of the tobacco industry as a potential indicator of the tobaccoindustry’s worry about similar court decisions in Switzerland as in Sweden.70

We do not know whether there was a response from the tobacco industry. Whatever thecase, this was one of the rare instances where several public health advocates made acoordinated effort to publicly confront tobacco industry’s efforts to downplay the health effectsof secondhand smoke.

The Swiss “Smoking and Mortality in Switzerland” Brochure

In Switzerland, the first major confrontation between the public health advocates and thetobacco industry over an official publication was triggered by a brochure issued jointly in 1989by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, the Conference of Cantonal Directors of HealthAffairs, and The Swiss Association for Smoking Prevention, entitled “Smoking and Mortality in

71 This report was intended to follow World Health Organization’srecommendation and example to publish epidemiological data on smoking and mortality inSwitzerland that would serve decision making in health policy. The main statement of thebrochure, based on an extensive review of the scientific literature and written in a format thatwas intended to be useful to policy makers, was that smoking, including secondhand smoke,caused approximately 8,000 to 10,000 deaths in Switzerland each year. This debate spanned atleast 18 months. Besides numerous governmental officials, scientists, and various tobaccoindustry representatives, the debate finally involved two external, independent reviewers fromthe U.S. and Germany in order to put an end to the debate.72-74

The reasons for why the tobacco industry feared the publication “Smoking andMortality” is given in a letter entitled “Countering Swiss Federal Office of Public Health anti-tobacco brochure,” written by Jean Besques, PM’s chief strategist in its effort to minimize the

Switzerland” brochure to the tobacco industrythrough further reduction of social acceptability of smoking and information of the public on theharmful effects of smoking and secondhand smoke:

…we should consider means of countering the brochure, in addition to the FTR/ASFC [Fabriques de TabacRéunies, Philip Morris Switzerland/Association Suisse des Fabriquants de Tabac, the Swiss tobaccomanufacturers association] initial effort to offset the press release [sent out by the publishers of thebrochure “Smoking and Mortality in Switzerland”].

…It’s significant that this “public relations manifesto” was “signed” by (and in part targeted at)the Public Health Directors who have the authority, budget and responsibility for driving the anti-tobaccoefforts in Switzerland.

…as this is an official Swiss government communication, we believe that the industry must domore than issue one public comment.

…Mr. Bardy as a Swiss citizen and as the head of the ASFC, should hand deliver a writtendemand [unclear what was demanded, most likely to stop further distribution of the brochure under debateuntil the issue was discussed with the tobacco industry] to the OFSP [Swiss Federal Office of Public

Health], and concurrently deliver copies of it to the Parliamentary Tobacco [see later] members. Mr.Bardy’s ASFC letter should also be placed as an op-ed piece.

A member of Parliament should also be encouraged to direct a question to Mr. Coti [sic] [FederalCouncilor Cotti, president of the Federal Council, the federal government]75.

The tobacco industry had been surprised by the publication of the brochure and had notbeen able to counter the statements of the brochure in time, before the brochure was made publicthrough a press release by the Federal Office of Public Health and its distribution amonginterested individuals and organizations. In a follow-up letter to his first one suggesting thetriggering of a parliamentary debate, Jean Besques, Manager, Industry Issues, Corporate Affairs,Philip Morris EEMA, justifies his favoring a letter from the ASFC to officials over a question inparliament (in which case the debate would have become open to discussion within theparliament, whereas with a letter to the officials, the debate stayed “private,” i.e., between thetobacco industry and the involved officials (as opposed to politicians). It shows the commonstrategic thinking of the industry that was aimed at avoiding open public conflicts, which wouldhave been to the disadvantage of the industry because of its low public credibility, and instead,lobbying discretely behind the scenes:

The initial plan to raise a question in parliament gave way to a new scheme which is more promising andquicker to implement. The alternative chosen is a letter from the ASFC to both the federal public healthoffice and the conference of cantonal public health officials …

The letter’s purpose is twofold: to bring the authorities to review their position on the use of the brochure.

– to provide a document to which the tobacco industry and its allies can refer [because the letterwould have included all the tobacco industry arguments used to create “controversy” aroundthe issue of smoking and health].

…it avoids the adverse public reaction (e.g., bad press) a parliamentary question could trigger; itis more likely to dissuade public health officials from distributing the brochure or quoting from it than aparliamentary question, which would have forced the officials into a counter-attack;…76

In two additional follow-up letters, Besques lays out his ideas about creating acontroversy about the brochure in order to discredit it with the general public by takingadvantage of the public’s general distrust of “experts:”

The more sophisticated we have to be in our defense, the less convincing we are with a publicimpatient of intellectual niceties and eager for stark statements that are easy to rephrase or just repeat.However, the public may be unquestioning but it is also proud and insists on being shown respect. Andthere lies our opportunity.

…we could tell it that it deserves more than oversimplifications and that our opponents, short ofexplanations, especially to the common man, display a low opinion of its intelligence. …we could note thatany discussion requires an understanding of a whole series of concepts and proceed to expose the mainones in a clear and simple, yet complete fashion. A scientific primer could be put together whether in theform of a video tape or as a book(let) or leaflets or a series of newspaper articles etc.76

Knowing their low credibility with the public, reference to the tobacco industry is to beavoided:

…We could educate the public and even do it without referring to tobacco.

…As a tobacco manufacturer, we are constrained in our addressing people under age or under the smokingage limit. However, can the law stop us from disseminating educational material which (1) our opponentsdon’t bother to supply to explain their cases; (2) doesn’t mention tobacco?77

Two days later, Besques presents a more detailed and specific plan to discredit thebrochure which reflected standard tobacco industry tactics of nit picking at scientific studieswhile ignoring the overarching conclusions:

1st step: A list of flaws commonly found in epidemiological studies not dealing with tobacco could bedrawn up on the basis of textbooks and well-known review articles. 2nd step: The Swiss brochure and itssource material could be shown to illustrate each one of these flaws.

…This indirect criticism may be more convincing than a direct attack: 1) it would have theauthority of the textbooks and review articles behind it; 2) the errors denounced in the brochure would nolonger appear to be unique to a brochure dealing with tobacco; 3) it wouldn’t look like an attack but like aninvitation to use proper methods; 4) under this scheme there is no need to discuss the specific figures givenby the brochure.78

The first step in implementing this plan was for the tobacco industry to solicit critiques ofthe work from “independent” experts that were carefully chosen because of their favorable, or atleast non-hostile stance toward smoking or the tobacco industry, as well as their academic statusin their respective fields, such as sociology, psychology, biostatistics, etc.. The tobacco industrysolicited critiques of the brochure from two of their scientific consultants, B. Schneider,Professor at the Institute for Biometry of the Hannover School of Medicine, Germany,79 andPeter Atteslander,80 as well as from Bernie O’Neill from the US law firm Shook, Hardy &Bacon.81 Again, in order not to expose themselves to the public, in which case the smoking andhealth issue, an unfavorable battleground for the tobacco industry, would have become the focusof the public, these critiques were only used in private meetings and discussions with the publichealth advocates and federal officials who were involved with the brochure.

Schneider’s critique was focused on technical aspects of the brochure, such ascalculations of risk, but was not critical of the brochure. This was probably the reason why hiscomments did not enter the debate.

In contrast to Schneider’s report, the industry made heavy use of Peter Atteslander’swork. Atteslander, scientific director of “AGEF - Arbeitsgruppe Gesundheitsforschung” (HealthResearch Working Group, based in Port, Switzerland) and Director of the “Institut fürSozialökonomie” (Institute for Socioeconomics) of University of Augsburg, Germany,82 playedan important role for the tobacco industry in this and later debates on the issue of smoking andhealth. Even though AGEF represents itself as a “group,” no other names other than Atteslanderwere ever mentioned in any documents concerning AGEF.

This 30-page critique, much longer than the brochure it is criticising, touches not onlymethodological, but also philosophical aspects of health and public policy, and cannot be simplysummarized. However, the argument of smoking as one of multiple causes of death and thedifficulty of epidemiological studies in establishing cause and effect relationships is a standardtobacco industry argument in critiquing unfavorable studies.58

Atteslander’s critique was used to influence politicians and officials, as well as the press.Atteslander’s critique of the official brochure was widely distributed by the tobacco industryamong Swiss MPs, those who received the official brochure, and the press, prior to a meetingwith officials of the Federal Office of Public Health and academics working in the field of publichealth, which was requested by the tobacco industry in order to stop further damage to theindustry by wider distribution of the brochure. The industry probably also sought to intimidatethe public health advocates with the critiques of industry consultants, directly and indirectly bysending the critique to the highest level of the political system, namely to a Federal Councilor,one of the seven executive members of the federal government:

The critique written by Prof. Atteslander has been sent to the MPs, all those who have got the officialbrochure, and the press. The English translation was ready today. Plans are to ask for a date with FederalCounsillor [sic] F. Cotti, or the sanitary directors. Staff from our side BARDY, GAISCH, consultants(SCHNEIDER?).83

An analysis by three independent Swiss experts in public health, selected by the officials,could not end the debate around smoking and mortality in Switzerland. In their introduction,these independent experts did point out the well-known tobacco industry arguments against allquantitative data, which show the dangerous effects of tobacco. They also clearly state that thereis no doubt about the fact that tobacco is the only legal substance the consumption (and not onlyits abuse) of which is harmful to health.84

The tobacco industry requested a meeting with the public health officials in order tomake them back away from the statements made in “Smoking and Mortality in Switzerland.”However, after an unproductive meeting between the representatives of the Swiss Federal Officeof Public Health, independent public health scientists, and representatives of the tobaccoindustry with their consultants, including Atteslander and Schneider. On January 17, 1990, thecontroversy could only be ended through consultation of two foreign experts in the USA andGermany,74who had been suggested by the Federal Office of Public Health and agreed upon bythe tobacco industry. One of the two consulted experts took a more mediating role, and the otherbasically agreed with the prior analysis done by the three Swiss experts.72, 73 M. Ita, secretary tothe director of the Federal Office of Public Health wrote a letter accompanying the two experts’letters, and basically ended the debate by saying: “With it [the position papers of the twoexperts], we regard the discussion around this issue [brochure on smoking and mortality inSwitzerland] as ended.”74

Even though there had been publications in Switzerland that dealt with the problem ofsmoking and health before this debate about the “Smoking and Mortality in Switzerland”brochure took place, the publication and distribution of this particular brochure seems to havetaken the tobacco industry by surprise. Before this publication, the tobacco industry had beenconsulted prior to any official decisions, including revisions of laws concerning tobacco-relatedissues were taken. Also, this was the first time that official institutions, the Swiss Federal Officeof Public Health and the Conference of Cantonal Directors of Health Affairs had taken such aclear position on the issue of smoking and health. This was the beginning of a moreconfrontational course taken by Swiss public health officials, who, until then, were used to the aconsensus process with the tobacco industry, typical for the Swiss political scene.

Atteslander as an Archetypal Tobacco Industry “Consultant”

Although Atteslander repeatedly asserted his independence from the tobacco industry, hewas clearly seen by the tobacco industry as sympathetic; a 1989 Philip Morris EEMA regionannual report noted that he was on the list of a group of pro-tobacco consultants being invited toone of the industry’s “workshops” designed to discredit the evidence linking secondhand smokeand disease:

In November 3-4 in Montreal under the sponsorship of McGill University a conference is being organizedentitled International Symposium on Environmental Tobacco Smoke. About 60 scientists are expectedfrom around the world including 25 from Europe. Participants from EEMA include … Baettig &

85 bates 2500019965

This recruitment of scientific consultants is a well-known tobacco industry strategy todiscredit or counteract scientific publications that are unfavorable to smoking.8, 58, 86 Thesymposium’s proceedings were later published as the “McGill Symposium” and widelydistributed by the tobacco industry.

Despite the fact that Atteslander wrote the critique of “Smoking and Mortality”80 at therequest of the Association of Swiss Cigarette Manufacturers,87 he fervently asserts hisindependence in a protest letter to the president of the Swiss Conference of Cantonal Directorsof Health Affairs, Burkhard Vetsch, after the secretary general of the organization had calledhim a representative of the tobacco industry.88 Atteslander made these claims in spite ofdocuments that show his activities as an observer and scientific informant of meetings for thetobacco industry, and his being paid by the tobacco industry for his activities:89-94

…Ferner müsste die Grössenordnung von zur Verfügung stehenden resp. notwendigen Mitteln besprochenwerden.89

…Ich rechne mit einem zusätzlichen Aufwand von ca. 8.000 bis 10.000 Sfr.93

…Über den bisherigen Aufwand (Zeit, diverse lange Telefongespräche Schweiz-Peking undUnkosten der Recherche in Peking) werde ich gesondert berichten.92

…Zu letzterem wäre ein Betrag zwischen US $ 12.000 bis 20.000 zunächst ausreichend.94

[…In addition, the amount of available and necessary [financial] means, respectively, have to be discussed.…I am anticipating an additional expense of ca. CHF 8,000 to 10,000.

…About past expenses (time, various long phone calls Switzerland-Beijing, and overheads for research inBeijing), I will report separately.…For the latter, a sum between US $ 12,000 and 20,000 would be sufficient for the moment being.]

The fees requested by Atteslander in these communications may give false impressions of theamount of money he received from the tobacco industry. Even when tobacco industrydocuments are available that explicitly state the exact amount of research grants or consultantfees, it is often difficult to figure out the exact amount that a consultant/researcher received intotal from the tobacco industry. This is due to the fact that payments are classified according toresearch type (“primary” projects, i.e., not ETS-related, and ETS-related projects), andconsultant fees.95 bates 2025602160_2161 Also, depending on the recruitment process, and also whetherthe payment is a research grant or a consultant fee, it is paid directly by a tobacco company, e.g.,

Philip Morris (USA or Switzerland-FTR),95-99 indirectly by the national manufacturersassociation (with contributions of tobacco companies represented in that particular country),51 orthrough a legal firm working for the tobacco industry, such as Shook, Hardy & Bacon orCovington & Burling.97

As an example, Atteslander received in 1992 CHF 30,274 (USD 20,736, until July 1992)directly from S&T (Science and Technology) FTR,100 while he received CHF 50,000 (USD34,247) through Shook, Hardy & Bacon.97 Direct, budgeted payments Atteslander was toreceive as a consultant from FTR/Philip Morris alone in other years are: 1991 USD 10,50096,1993 USD 100,000,95 1994 USD 90,000,98 1998 USD 20,000.99

Atteslander also prepared a 50-page document for the tobacco industry (located amongPhilip Morris documents) entitled “The tobacco industry and the social policy environment.Concept for an offensive strategy.”101 While the precise purpose and audience for the documentis not known, the document lays out Atteslander’s “vision” of how to deal with the deterioratingenvironment for the tobacco industry. While nominally Atteslander’s independent advice, boththe content and rhetoric closely mirror standard tobacco industry positions.

The reasons that the tobacco industry sought to use Atteslander is described clearly inPhilip Morris’ Long Range Plan 1993-1995:

Continue well established collaboration with sociologist professor P. Atteslander (Switzerland/Germany)for giving scientific advice and consultancy on specific Swiss industry issues.65

One of the reasons for Atteslander being so useful to the tobacco industry was that hewas a Swiss citizen, even though he was a professor at a German university. While he did notsay anything any different from any of the industry’s “consultants” world-wide, his Swisscitizenship added to his credibility as a scientist in the Swiss political and scientific debate onsmoking and health issues.

U.S. EPA Report on Respiratory Effects of Secondhand Smoke

In May 1992, the US Environmental Protection Agency released a draft report on therespiratory effects of secondhand smoke which identified secondhand smoke as a cause of lungcancer in nonsmokers, a Group A (proven human) carcinogen, and a cause of asthma and otherrespiratory problems in children.102 While there was nothing ground breaking in this report – theUS Surgeon General54 and National Academy of Science[NRC, 1986 #207] had both issuedscientific consensus documents reaching the same conclusions six years earlier in 1986 – theEPA report attracted world-wide attention and threatened to stimulate a further decline in socialacceptability of smoking and a concomitant increase in regulation.

Reflecting worldwide tobacco industry concern about the impact of the EPA report, theSwiss Association of Cigarette Manufacturers (Association Suisse des Fabriquants de Cigarettes,ASFC) published an industry brochure entitled “La fumée de tabac ambiante. Un jugementhâtif” (Environmental Tobacco Smoke. A premature judgement) in an attempt to discredit theUS EPA report. In line with standard industry practice, the brochure selectively cites “experts”

who have criticized the studies used in the EPA report (several of whom also happen to haveserved as tobacco industry consultants), as well as the meta-analytic methods employed by theEPA for the study, saying:

La méta-analyse est un modèle “pommes-et-oranges” qui est contesté par une grand nombre descientifiques. [Meta-analysis is an “apples and oranges” model, which is questioned by a large number ofscientists]103

Again following a standard tobacco industry tactic, the brochure ends by mentioning thesick building syndrome, thus reframing the issue of secondhand smoke into an issue of generalindoor air quality,103 and opening the door for consultants such as ACVA/HBI (see below).

On February 25, 1993, the Swiss Community of Cigarette Industry (Communauté del’Industrie Suisse de la Cigarette, CISC) received the EPA Scientific Advisory Board reviewdraft of the 1992 EPA for consultation.102, 104 They swiftly responded by issuing a press releasein which they take the standard industry position which dismisses the meta-analytic findings ofthe report as a statistical artifact.105, 106

We do not have enough information on what happened as a response to the press releaseby the tobacco industry criticizing the EPA report.

Social Acceptability of Smoking in Europe

Philip Morris’ growing concern over the secondhand smoke issue is documented in thefollowing abstract from the Philip Morris Europe R&D confidential three-year plan 1993-1995:

Europe is beginning to face many of the same political and social pressures that have been present in theUS for quite some time. Although this is far more true in the EEC region than in the EEMA region, anumber of EEMA countries are experiencing these pressures as well. The EEC is still contemplating anadvertising ban; many countries in Western Europe now have active anti-smoking groups which areattempting to demonstrate the dangers of smoking to the populace; increasing cigarette taxes has beenreferred to above, and this trend is actually more of a problem for PM Europe than it is for PM USA. All ofthese issues, however, are minor annoyances compared to the potential damage to the industry posed bythe environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) issue. It is through ETS that the anti-smoking forces in the US – aswell as Canada, Australia, and other countries – have caused smoking to become a socially unacceptableform of enjoyment. Should this occur in Europe it would have serious economic consequences for PME fortwo reasons. The first is that opportunities for smoking, and therefore, consumption would decline. Francehas already passed legislation which virtually eliminates smoking in public places, and other countries aredebating similar laws. Secondly, if smoking is socially unacceptable, product image ceases to beimportant, and the major reason for smoking premium products ceases to exist.1

In addition to public relations action to discredit the scientific evidence linkingsecondhand smoke and disease and political action to fight any attempts to translate the growingscientific case that secondhand smoke endangers nonsmokers into restrictions on public smokingand smoking in the workplace, Philip Morris also recognized the need to develop new cigarettesthat would be less objectionable to nonsmokers and, so, impose a lower social cost on smokers:

…. As a consequence, it is essential that PME R&D take whatever actions possible to ensure that smokingremains socially acceptable. There are two divergent strategies which must be pursued.

The first strategy involves the development of products which might be regarded by the consumeras being more “socially acceptable.” Such products include those with reduced sidestream visibility,reduced sidestrean odor, reduced sidestream irritation, and reduced exhaled smoke….It is essential thatPME R&D collaborate with PM USA R&D to the greatest extent possible on these projects and, at thesame time, determine if there are viable markets for such products.

…The second strategy requires that PME R&D supply any and all technical support which can beused by other areas of the company to combat the ETS issue. Such work includes but is not restricted tounderstanding the kinetics of the aging of certain components of ETS; ensuring that published literature inthe ETS field is not irresponsible; carrying out research to determine if the composition of sidestreamsmoke can be controlled; and monitoring ETS in public structures. The importance of this strategy isunderscored by the fact that there is a separate program to address it.1 [emphasis added]

Given the fact that Philip Morris had identified secondhand smoke as its most vulnerableissue nearly a decade earlier, it is remarkable that tobacco control advocates in Europe have beenso slow to embrace the issue. Philip Morris had considered the introduction of cigarettes withreduced sidestream smoke emission to improve social acceptability of smoking. However, thetobacco industry also feared the triggering of a discussion about the health consequences ofsecondhand smoke in countries where people were not yet aware of the adverse health effects ofsecondhand smoke, such as in Switzerland. A note to the file by Michael J. Reardon, AssistantRegional Counsel, Philip Morris EEMA in Lausanne shows that already as early as 1985 PhilipMorris was proactively addressing this problem:

Project SIDESTREAM involves the European introduction of a cigarette with reduced sidestream smokeemission. Geoff Bible [Executive Vice President, Worldwide Tobacco, Philip Morris Companies Inc.] hadrequested Aleardo Buzzi [President, Philip Morris EEC region] and Walter Thoma [President, PhilipMorris EEMA region] to give a very high priority to the introduction of this project. Germany andSwitzerland are felt to be the key markets for Project SIDESTREAM.

Among the technical issues to be discussed are the following:1. Will FTR and/or PM GmbH be in the position to manufacture cigarettes for Project SIDESTREAM in

the near future?2. Will the composition of the paper used for Project SIDESTREAM create any problems with national

health boards? It should be noted that the paper in question contains magnesium.3. Will the issue of fire safety be raised by the introduction of Project SIDESTREAM? Based on

experiences with PASSPORT, a Canadian brand incorporating technology similar to that used forProject SIDESTREAM, the cigarettes are often thought to be extinguished (and thrown away) whenthey are still lit.

On the marketing side, concern was expressed that by making sidestream smoke an issue in a countrywhere it is not presently a concern (e.g., Switzerland), we may be damaging the social acceptability ofsmoking in general. It was acknowledged that this risk would disappear if all of our existing brandsincorporated the Project SIDESTREAM technology.107 [emphasis added]

The prominent role of social acceptability of smoking in tobacco industry strategy can beunderstood as a threat to profit and image. Decreasing social acceptability not only directlyinfluences cigarette consumption, but also indirectly cigarette sales through diminished power ofimage advertising and impression of norm. The importance of image advertising, particularlyfor youth, Philip Morris’ target group, is expressed in a presentation made in New York by ananonymous FTR representative on May 23, 1988. It discredits the tobacco industry’s claims thatthey do not target youth, Switzerland not being an exception:

I am delighted to be here today to show you why Philip Morris is the No 1 cigarette company inSwitzerland and why we will keep this position in the future.

Over the next 30 minutes, you will see how a carefully balanced mix of image-strong advertisingcampaigns and dynamic, youth-oriented promotions continue to improve both the volume and marketshare of our company.…The food trade accounts for nearly 40% of total industry sales. However, the preferred outlets of youngpack purchasers, our target group, are still kiosks, tobacconists or cafes and bars. Vending machines,included under cafes and bars, account for nearly 10% of total industry volume.…Switzerland is relatively free of cigarette advertising restrictions. Only Radio and Television are banned bylaw. An industry code restricts the use of magazines to 1 full page and newspapers to 3/4 page.……over half of all cinema-goers are under 25.

…Marlboro is no exception. With our target being the young consumer , we concentrate on two mainthemes……In summer we concentrate our sampling and promotional efforts on open-air concerts and music festivals.…On the promotional front we have also refreshed our approach. Last winter strange things were happeningin the Swiss mountains. Young people were putting away their traditional skis and taking to the slopes onmono-skis, snow-boards and parachutes. But what did this have to do with Muratti? Look at the colours. Its[sic] fun, there’s sun and is there really no sea?… Muratti Snowtime was advertised in print, outdoor andin the cinema.…To conclude, in Switzerland today, Philip Morris’ position is very healthy . We are the clear market leader .We have four solid legs to stand on, each supported by a strong brand image.…With what you have seen today and our plans for the future, you can be confident that Philip Morris willcontinue to strengthen its position as the No 1 cigarette company in Switzerland.108

Philip Morris EEMA did not disappoint its audience. It continues to be the leader today,albeit with much smaller margins to its major competitor, due to the recent merger betweenBurrus-Rothmans and British American Tobacco (BAT).

The following chapters illustrate the efforts and methods the tobacco industry utilized inorder to maintain social acceptability of smoking, be it through denial of the health damagingeffects or through high visibility of smoking in public places and on advertising and promotionalmaterial that would transmit the impression that smoking is the social norm.

SAPALDIA Study

The “Swiss Study on Air Pollution and Lung Diseases in Adults” (SAPALDIA) was alarge, multicenter study of the relationship between environment and respiratory symptoms anddiseases. It is part of a large research program sponsored by the Swiss National ScienceFoundation, called “Mensch, Gesundheit, Umwelt” (Man, Health, Environment). It is a stillongoing, large multicenter study, and was initiated in order to study a wide range ofenvironmental factors that impact respiratory health. It includes epidemiologists and cliniciansfrom various regions of Switzerland. Because indoor air pollution was part of the study,

secondhand smoke was included in the study. The study included the relationship betweensecondhand smoke exposure in a large, randomly selected sample of nearly 10,000 adults in 8different locations in Switzerland and chronic respiratory symptoms.

The SAPALDIA results were published in 1994 in the American Journal of Respiratoryand Critical Care Medicine.109 The authors found a statistically significant association betweenpassive smoking exposure and respiratory symptoms, with odds ratios (OR) that ranged from1.39 to 1.94. (The odds ratio is the ratio of the probability that someone exposed to secondhandsmoke will get the disease under study compared to the probability than an exposed person willget the disease.) The 95% confidence intervals for all the odds ratios excluded 1.0, indicatingthat these elevations in risk were “statistically significant.” The associations were dose-dependent for episodic symptoms, such as wheezing and dyspnea, whereas the association withsymptoms of chronic bronchitis was related to years of exposure. These findings were robust,with little changes when additional control variables were added.109 In other words, secondhandsmoke caused serious pulmonary problems in people exposed in Switzerland at home and atwork.

Despite the fact that the results were not published until 1994, part of the results weremade public in May 1993 through a press release by the Swiss National Science Foundation,which was reported in a well-regarded, internationally distributed Swiss newspaper, NeueZürcher Zeitung (NZZ), known for its authority and quality of reports, on May 13, 1993. Thisnewspaper, read widely by the Swiss economic establishment, stated among other things:

…Damit wurde in der Schweiz erstmals die erhöhte Anfälligkeit von Passivrauchern in Zahlen belegt. ….Ferner fällt gemäss der Studie die Rauchbelastung am Arbeitsplatz deutlich stärker ins Gewicht als jene zuHause. [Thus, for the first time in Switzerland, the increased vulnerability [to respiratory diseases] wasdocumented in numbers. …In addition, according to the study, the burden of smoke is heavier at theworkplace than at home].110 [emphasis added]

These are important scientific findings, especially those related to workplaces.

A few months before the study results were published in the American Journal ofRespiratory and Critical Care Medicine, another press release was communicated to the media.This time, the problem with secondhand smoke was part of a larger press release dealing with airpollution and respiratory diseases, but the secondhand smoke – respiratory disease relationshiptook a prominent position in the newspaper article of the Tages-Anzeiger, another major Swissnewspaper, published in the largest city of Switzerland, Zurich, and also read by people outsideof the region.111 This time the press release dealt with air pollution in general and respiratoryhealth with secondhand smoke being mentioned as one of the air pollution components.

As soon as the first results were made public in May 1993,110 the tobacco industry startedits efforts to discredit the study. In a letter dated May 18,1993, Jean-Claude Bardy, the directorof CISC (Swiss Association of Cigarette Manufacturers), wrote to the general secretary of theSwiss National Science Foundation, funder of the SAPALDIA study, inquiring about thedocument from which the data for the press release was taken, in particular with regard topassive smoking.112

A month later, Bardy wrote Atteslander, asking for an expert opinion regarding the pressrelease itself and its conclusions:

Die Herren R. Pantet und U. Crettaz, Philip Morris SA, haben Unterzeichneten über das am 9. d.M. mitIhnen geführte Gespräch in der Sache Sapaldia-Studie“ Mensch, Gesundheit, Umwelt” und die am 12. Mai1993 erfolgte Pressemitteilung des Schweizerischen Nationalfonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichenForschung orientiert.

Grobanalyse des Inhaltes der Pressemitteilung sowie des Vorgehens zur Bekanntgabe “ersterdefinitiver Teilergebnisse” der Studie via diese Pressemitteilung legte einige offenbar gravierendeUngereimtheiten und Unzulässigkeiten an den Tag. Diese lassen die starke Vermutung aufkommen, dassdie vorzeitige und aus dem Zusammenhang der Studie herausgerissene Bekanntgabe von Teilergebnissenbetreffend das “Passivrauchen” eher das Produkt vorgefasster Schlussfolgerungen und Absichten ist undweniger das Bemühen um objektive Information der Oeffentlichkeit.

Wir möchten Sie hiermit anfragen, ob Sie bereit wären, eine Sachverständigen-Prüfungvorzunehmen, inwieweit

a) die Pressemitteilung als solcheb) in der Pressemitteilung enthaltene Aussagen

nach dem Stand der Dinge zum Zeitpunkt der Veröffentlichung sowie ggf. aufgrund weiterer,nachträglich eingeholter Zusatzinformationen wissenschaftlichen Kriterien und Usanzen standhalten oderdiese zumindest nicht gravierend verletzen.

Eine in einer zweiten Phase ggf. vorzunehmende eingehende Ueberfprüfung der methodischkorrekten Anlage und Schlussfolgerung der Studie bleibt vorbehalten.112

[R. Pantet and U Crettaz, Philip Morris SA have informed the undersigned of the discussion withyou that took place on the 9th of this month concerning the SAPALDIA study “Man, Health,Environment,” as well as the press release of the Swiss National Science Foundation of May 12, 1993.

A provisional analysis of the content of the press release, and the process involving theannouncement of the “first definite partial results” of the study through this press release, presumablyuncovered some badly flawed and inadmissible data. This makes us believe that the prematureannouncement of partial results concerning “secondhand smoke,” devoid of context, is the result ofpreconceived conclusions and intentions, rather than an attempt for objective information of the public.

We would like to ask you whether you would be willing to serve as an expert to examine whether

– the press release itself– the contents of the press release

fulfill, if necessary, based upon additional information that are later retrieved, current scientific criteria andcustoms, or, at least, do not violate them in a critical way.

A more detailed analysis of a correct design and conclusion of the study in a second phase is contingentupon the results of the above.]

Atteslander responded favorably to this tobacco industry request. In the first issue ofvolume 153 of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 1996, he andSchneider published a letter to the editor applying the standard tobacco industry argumentsagainst any scientific study liking smoking or secondhand smoke with disease to the SPALDIAstudy:

Our first question concerns study design. Cross-sectional surveys are unable to resolve the antecedent-consequence uncertainty. If a study cannot show that the exposure to a suspected risk factor occurredbefore the symptoms arose, then how can a statistical association be meaningful?

…Does not a nonresponse rate of 44% suggest a self-selection bias, which must be fullyunderstood before the study could be applied at large?

…How was the questionnaire validated?…A fifth question concerns statistical methods. Linear logistic [sic] regression depends on

assumptions of the specific model. How good was the fit between the model and the data?(emphasisadded)

The SAPALDIA study was intended to be a “Swiss study on Air Pollution and RespiratoryDiseases in Adults.” How has it become an indoor air study on passive smoking?

Any epidemiologically unbiased risk estimate is one that seeks to represent as perfectly aspossible (besides chance) the true value of the risk in the base population. The above questions suggest thatthis is not the case for the SAPALDIA study.113

The authors did not disclose their financial ties to the tobacco industry.

Even though the lead authors of the SAPALDIA study, Leuenberger, Schwartz, andAckermann-Liebrich, were given the opportunity to respond to Atteslander and Schneider’scritiques,114 this kind of letter-writing is used extensively by the tobacco industry in order tomake it appear that scientific findings linking smoking and secondhand smoke to disease arecontroversial.47, 115

This approach is similar to industry attacks on earlier studies on passive smoking anddisease, as illustrated by a major international advertising campaign the industry ran in 1981against the first study linking passive smoking and lung cancer8 p. 414 (Fig. 15).

The tobacco industry’s public campaign against the SAPALDIA study continued wellafter it was published. In September, 1994, Edgar Oehler, a former Swiss national councilor(Member of parliament, national council, which has 200 members and represents the electoratein proportion to the population size of a canton) and president of the Swiss cigarettemanufacturers association, appeared on the popular Swiss political TV program “Kassensturz”and criticized the SAPALDIA study on methodological grounds.

Rather than publicly defending the study, the principal investigator, Ursula Ackermann-Liebrich, replied to these accusations via a confidential letter to Edgar Oehler. It is unclear whyUrsula Ackermann-Liebrich, Director of the Insitute of Social and Preventive Medicine in Basle,who should have been aware of Oehler’s strong ties to the tobacco industry, as he wasrepresenting the tobacco industry as the president of the Swiss Association of CigaretteManufacturers, she thought that a confidential letter was the right channel to resolve the“misunderstanding” that was created during the popular broadcast.116 Likewise, therepresentative of the public health institutions during the broadcast, Felix Gutzwiller, professorof Social and Preventive Medicine, and director of the Institute of Social and PreventiveMedicine in Zurich, also wrote a confidential letter to Oehler, stating:

…Ich hoffe natürlich auch, dass damit verhindert werden kann, dass weiterhin ähnliche Fehlaussagen über[I hope also, that this information (from the principal

investigator of the study) will prevent further public misstatements about the SAPALDIA study].117

Both scientists may have thought that Oehler’s critique of the study was based on amisunderstanding of the scientific content of the study rather than part of a long-standingtobacco industry strategy to “create controversy” about scientific work that does not meet itspolitical needs. More importantly, the fact that they decided to respond privately rather than

Fig. 15

publicly meant that the public was left with the misimpression that there were seriousmethodological questions about the methods in the study.

In contrast to the public, which did not see the responses from Ackermann-Liebrich andGutzwiller, both of these “confidential” letters were passed on to Philip Morris, where we foundthem.

There was another very typical aspect of this tobacco industry story which never receivedthe public’s attention, and which clearly demonstrates how the tobacco industry mislead peopleinto believing that tobacco industry consultants were independent scientists who acted purely inpursuit of scientific truth. As we already saw above, Jean-Claude Bardy, director of the SwissAssociation of the Cigarette Industry himself had written Peter Atteslander in May 1993 askingfor a critical appraisal of the SAPALDIA press release. Over the following three years, manyletters had been exchanged between the tobacco industry (mainly through Jean-Claude Bardy,sometimes together with Edgar Oehler, and often with copies to the Federal Counselor RuthDreifuss and André Aeschlimann, president of the Swiss National Research Council) and theprincipal investigators of the study, Philippe Leuenberger and Ursula Ackermann-Liebrich, twosuccessive presidents of the Swiss National Science Foundation’s council, Jean Cavadini (1994)and Ralf Hütter (1996), as well as two successive secretaries general of the Foundation, PeterFricker (1993) and Hans-Peter Hertig (1995).118, personal communication In these letters, the tobaccoindustry repeatedly criticized the timing of the press release that reported the findings of theSAPALDIA study, showing the adverse effects of secondhand smoke on airways. Morespecifically, the tobacco industry criticized the fact that the press release had been cleared beforethe publication of the findings in a scientific journal.

When the tobacco industry finally reached their goal of arranging a meeting betweentheir representatives and representatives of the Swiss National Science Foundation on January29, 1996,119 Ralf Hütter asked the critical question about the similarities between the tobaccoindustry’s questions to the authors of the SAPALDIA study and the questions that PeterAtteslander had asked in the letter to the editor of the American Journal of Respiratory andCritical Care Medicine.113, 119 Even though we know from the tobacco industry’s internaldocuments that Atteslander had clearly been involved in this long-lasting dispute on request ofthe tobacco industry from the very beginning of the debate, and that he had been a paidconsultant of the tobacco industry long before the SAPALDIA episode,57, 95-100 Atteslanderreconstructed a distorted version of his involvement in the SAPALDIA dispute in a letter sent toJean-Claude Bardy in order to hide his true identity as an industry consultant.120

The public health advocates and scientists failed to respond effectively in public to thefallacious statements that the tobacco industry publicly made. Therefore, not only did they missanother opportunity to educate the public about the true state of the scientific evidence thatsecondhand smoke is dangerous, but left it to the tobacco industry to mislead the public withwidely-used industry claims to the contrary.

Chapter 6. The Tobacco Industry and the Hospitality Industry:HoReCa

The tobacco industry has low public credibility, so it often seeks to operate throughintermediaries.4, 121, 122 With regard to issues of smokefree workplaces and public places, thetobacco industry has devoted considerable effort to developing alliances with the hospitalityindustry.123 pp. 135-144, 124 In Switzerland, the tobacco industry developed a strong workingrelationship with the International Organization of Hotel and Restaurant Associations (HoReCa),which had its headquarters in Zurich, Switzerland, and the Swiss Café/Restaurant Association.67,

125

The importance of a collaboration between the tobacco industry and other organizationsis outlined in a market research report for the three years 1994-1996 for the Philip Morris EEMA(EFTA, Eastern Europe, Middle East, Africa) region under the heading of regional corporateaffairs:

Continue to build and support industry working groups, consumers’ rights and tax-payers movements125 p.2

Even though the Swiss hospitality industry associations were not set up by the tobaccoindustry (as they have been in some other instances),121, 123 pp. 135-144 the tobacco industry wasable to influence the hospitality industry to serve its own needs. One such industry workinggroup was the ASFC/SCRA working group:

Develop collaboration with cafés-restaurants associations.-Promote a voluntary smokers/non-smokers accommodation programme for cafés and restaurants throughthe ASFC/SCRA working group and by lobbying Swiss tourism industry.125 p.16

This working group was likely the result of a “cooperative, four year program with the SwissCafé/Restaurant Association which permits the industry to educate and activate their membersand customers in opposition to government mandated smoking restrictions.”67 bates 2501254720

The success of this effort (from the tobacco industry’s perspective) is documented inPhilip Morris’s 1987 internal report, “Switzerland – 1987 Objectives. Corporate Affairs”illustrates the point:

Smoking in restaurants : the ASFC organized a meeting with the heads of the hotel/restaurant associationand the head of the association of the manufacturers of air quality installation. Regular articles arepublished in newspapers by the hotel/restaurant association on the ETS issues without mentioning thetobacco industry. An agreement of four years has been signed between the ASFC and the hotel/restaurantassociation which will allow the [tobacco] industry to undertake PR campaigns in 1,800 restaurants eachyear.126 p. 10-11 [emphasis added]

Rather than defending the interests of its members (hotels and restaurants), HoReCa and SCRAwere willing to serve as a conduit for the tobacco industry. From the documents we have, itseems that the members of the hospitality association were not aware of the close liaisonbetween their association and the tobacco industry.

This collaboration with the hospitality industry, and collaborations with otherassociations, was successful from the tobacco industry’s perspective. One example of such asuccess is the defeat of a proposed amendment to a cantonal law in the Canton of Lucerne in1990, which would have required all restaurants to offer non-smoking tables. It was rejected bya majority of the cantonal parliament of Lucerne. Raymond Pantet, Director Public Affairs &Relations FTR, Phillip Morris EEMA, reported in a memo for distribution within Philip Morris(copies to Ulich Crettaz, Manager, industry and economics affairs, FTR, Stig Carlson, ManagerCorporate Affairs, Philip Morris EEMA, Steve Parrish, Head of Worldwide Regulatory Affairs,and others) that the involvement of tobacco industry allies in the hospitality industry was a keyelement in the industry’s victory:

This positive result has been achieved thanks to strong involvement of the director of the association ofcafé-restaurants owners and of the head of the cantonal section of a national economical organisation

Both allies who are members of the cantonal parliamenthad been briefed in detail on our arguments (tolerance, courtesy; IAQ).127 [emphasis added]

The same memo continues to explain that this tobacco industry victory was reported in amajor Swiss newspaper, Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ), and the article was offered to othercountries to be used to oppose restaurant smoking restrictions:

The Swiss news agency (SDA/ATS) issued an information on the decision and we are going to faxtomorrow the original text in German with an English translation. This information has been printed by thefamous “Neue Zurcher Zeitung” (NZZ) which is internationally well known. You will receive a copy ofthe article as well.

If our colleagues in foreign countries want to exploit the news, I suggest they refer to the NZZarticle.127

NZZ summed up the industry victory:

No obligatory non-smoking tables in the Canton of LucerneLucerne, the 2nd July (1990). The Lucerne Greater Council made a U-turn on Monday. It did not

pass an amendment to the law whereby non-smoking tables were to be prescribed for restaurants. In 1988,it had even approved an SP (Swiss socialist party) motion on the subject, although with the addendum“provided that the conditions in the establishment allow this.” …

The non-socialist majority in the Council were of the opinion that non-smoking tables should beprovided voluntarily and not as a mandatory obligation under law. In any case, such a prescription wouldnot be able to be enforced in practice. Non-smokers would be better protected from passive smoking bygood ventilation of the establishment. In the final analysis, it was a matter of showing consideration.

Non-smokers now form a majority. Experience shows, however, that voluntary provision of non-smoking tables does not work, argued the supporters of the bill in vain. Even the piece of information thata quarter of all lung cancer cases can be traced to passive smoking did not shift the opponents of the billfrom their position.128

Another example of how the tobacco industry manipulated policy making throughinfluence of allied organizations is shown by the thematic similarity of arguments againstsmoking restrictions which are voiced in tobacco industry documents and publications byInternational HoReCa, the International Organisation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations.HoReCa issued a brochure for its members in April 1991 with the title “Hospitality, Courtesy,Conviviality.” The objectives of this “initiative” are stated as follows:

…This initiative rests on the conviction that creating a comfortable, congenial dining experience is avalued tradition and an individual art of the restaurateur.

…To preserve that tradition, this program takes the initiative in welcoming smokers and non-smokers and accommodating their preferences with equal regard. The theme is harmony, which issymbolized by the logo shown on the inserts in the right pocket.

…This is an effort not only to preserve our traditions and our rights, but also to avoid risks ofunworkable regulations imposed from outside…To protect the art of hospitality we have created in ourestablishments so that they will continue to be congenial meeting places where our guests can enjoymaximum conviviality.129 [emphasis added]

The logo used in this campaign, consisting of a smoking cigarette within a Yin and Yangharmony symbol, was almost identical to the one used for the accommodation programelsewhere to fight smoking restrictions in restaurants, such as in New York123 pp. 135-136 (Fig. 16and 17).

The accommodation program was seen by Philip Morris as the key element in the fightagainst smoking regulations in restaurants and other indoor places. An undated presentationdocument explains the importance of the accommodation program and its role in the relationshipwith the hospitality industry in Philip Morris’ efforts in the US:

Philip Morris and the Hospitality IndustryThe Accommodation Program serves as a link between PM and the hospitality industry. Our ability tointeract effectively with the hospitality industry is critical to our ultimate objective, which is to maintainthe ability for our consumers to enjoy our products in public venues such as restaurants, hotels, bowlingcenters, and shopping malls. This relationship becomes even more important as legislative threats continueto mount at local, state, and federal levels.130 bates 2045517337

From a newsletter of International HoReCa(Hotels, Restaurants, Cafes), distributed inSwitzerland.

From a tobacco industry campaign in Philadelphia,USA, aiming at increasing social acceptability ofsmoking.(Accommodation program)

Fig. 16Fig. 17

The same document goes on explaining why the tobacco industry needs “to build a strong andrelevant partnership with the hospitality industry”:

Since we are reliant on the industry to be out in front fighting on this issue, it is important that we are ableto forge a strong and relevant relationship with members of the industry. We must be a player if we expectto carry any weight. This requires that we are able to pursue every opportunity to promote common ground(shared customer base) and vested interest. And that we are able to invest in supporting the industry.Sponsorship opportunities allow us to get on the agenda, build critical relationships and make our issue apriority where it otherwise might not be one. In order to do this, we need to be visible, credible, and carry astrong reputation in support of the industry. The alcoholic beverage and credit card companies have doneso, and done so well.130 bates 2045517339 [emphasis added]

It also tells us what role the accommodation program can play:

The accommodation program provides us with the tool in order to develop and foster key relationshipswithin the [hospitality] industry. It is a resource that we provide to the industry in order to assist them inproperly accommodating their smoking and nonsmoking customers and guests, but also a platform fromwhich we can address the industry and bring some attention to our issue. It allows us to build relationshipswith individual business owners, and with local, state, and national trade associations. It give[s] us thevoice to educate the industry on our issue, and bring to the forefront some of the economic impact data thatpaints a clear picture of the potential effects of government mandated smoking bans. It also allows us tobuild and ultimately mobilize an ally base, at both the grassroots level, and more importantly, at thegrasstops level, among industry leaders and trade associations. It also provides PM, as well as thehospitality industry, with a platform to communicate that government mandated restrictions on smokingare unnecessary – the industry is proactively dealing with the issue on their own .

The resources and relationships developed through The Accommodation Program can be utilized to helpsupport our social and legislative objectives . However, the program must adapt its tactical execution invarying markets, based on legislative environment in order to help us most effectively support theseobjectives.130 bates 2045517341 [emphasis added]

A confidential document prepared by Burson-Marsteller in May 1990, entitled “Anaccommodation strategy in EEMA. A strategic brief,” emphasizes the importance of theaccommodation program in Switzerland:

The arguments were provided by Philip Morris to the International HoReCa, and thespecial report dated October 1989 were signed by Healthy Buildings International in Fairfax,VA, and Healthy Buildings International Iberica, Madrid, Spain, an organization with strong tiesto the tobacco industry. We were not able to find documents that show the financing of theprogram in Switzerland by Philip Morris or the Swiss tobacco manufacturers association.

The main tobacco industry strategies grew out of the industry’s concern over theincreasing public awareness of the dangers of secondhand smoke and its expectations that moreregulations and restrictions on smoking will follow. This concern is expressed in a confidential

draft of the Worldwide Strategy and Plan, coordinated with PM USA, PMI, WorldwideRegulatory Affairs, Corporate Affairs, Worldwide Operations and Technology, dated October14, 1996:

Situation Overview (con’t)In this environment smoking bans and unreasonable restrictions have continued to proliferate and havebecome increasingly restrictive for smokers and burdensome for the owners and operators of facilities.…ForecastAn increased number of proposed bans and restrictions can be expected in view of a number of pendingreports and the likelihood of additional scientific publications.[Philip Morris, 1996 #70 p. 4, 10]

Therefore, some of the tobacco industry’s prime objectives were:

1. Ensure the reasonable and rational outcome of regulatory and quasi-regulatory initiatives.2. Accommodate the preferences of smokers and nonsmokers:-Encourage self-regulation by the affected parties and/or reasonable government initiatives.-Identify and support IAQ technologies.[Philip Morris, 1996 #70 p.11]

For the hospitality sector, the tobacco industry’s keyword was “accommodation,” which wasused also in the brochure by International HoReCa, illustrating once more how the tobaccoindustry “trained” the key personnel of allied organizations.

WorldwideHospitality

– Support the continued expansion of The International Hotel Association’s (IHA) Courtesy of Choiceprogram which provides tools to support accommodation for the association’s 330,000 member hotels andrestaurants in 145 countries.

– Broaden adoption of the Courtesy of Choice program by IHA members in the 24 countries where it isunderway and implement the program in an additional 6 countries in 1996.

– Develop a CD-ROM version of the Courtesy of Choice ventilation training materials for use by facilityengineers and for inclusion in professional training curricula.

– Develop accommodation programs for smaller establishments.– Support HoReCa International initiatives.– Identify multinational pubs and tavern associations and technical organizations to develop solutions for the

sector.– Provide markets with support to develop local accommodation programs as needed with various hospitality

sector organizations.[Philip Morris, 1996 #70 p. 38]

In several EEMA countries, these supportive activities having been well in place forseveral years (at least 5 years),129 including Switzerland; Philip Morris’ objectives were simply:

Introduce locally sponsored programs in the sector in Denmark and Czech Republic and sustain activitiesin Sweden, Switzerland and Hungary.[Philip Morris, 1996 #70 p. 44] [emphasis added]

The cooperation between the tobacco industry and the hospitality industry was notunique to Switzerland. The tobacco industry routinely seeks support from the hospitalityindustry to resist smoking restrictions in restaurants, cafes, and hotels. For example, theMassachusetts Restaurant Association (MRA), a nonprofit trade association for the food andbeverage industry, had collaborated with the tobacco industry since the late 1970’s in order todefeat state and local laws in Massachusetts that would restrict smoking in beverage and food

service establishments and other public places.124 In California, in late 1980’s and early 1990’s,the tobacco industry created several front organizations, such as Beverly Hills RestaurantAssociation in Beverly Hills, Restaurants for a Sensible Voluntary Policy in Los Angeles,121

Sacramento Restaurant and Merchant Association in Sacramento, and California Business andRestaurant Alliance in Long Beach, that nominally represented the hospitality industry.122 InNew York, in the mid-1990’s, Philip Morris used a small restaurant organization, which itfunded and renamed to the New York State Tavern and Restaurant Association (NYSTRA orNYTRA – it used three other names subsequent to a threat by the non-tobacco affiliated NewYork State Restaurant Association (NYSRA) to sue NYTRA because it could be confused withNYSRA.123 pp. 135-136

The cooperation between the tobacco industry and the hospitality industry was verysuccessful in Switzerland in preventing meaningful smoking regulations in restaurants, cafes,and hotels to be introduced. Unlike in California and New York, the Swiss public healthadvocates were not monitoring tobacco industry’s cooperation with other associations, therebyfailing once again to uncover tobacco industry’s manipulations in the background. If customersof restaurants, cafes, and hotels are to be protected from the harmful effects of secondhandsmoke, these tobacco industry manipulations will have to be uncovered and publicly presentedin order to obtain a broad public support for indoor smoking regulations, including restaurants,cafes, and hotels.

Chapter 7. ACVA, HBI, and the Tobacco Industry

Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) has been the focus of tobacco industry’s attention for obviousreasons. Once secondhand smoke had become the topic of discussion, “diluting” the problem ofsecondhand smoke with other indoor air pollutants and diverting people’s attention fromsecondhand smoke to a matter of ventilation has been a standard tobacco industry strategy forpreventing regulatory measures that would require smoke free areas. This strategy complimentstobacco industry efforts designed to use the hospitality industry to advance the tobaccoindustry’s interests, particularly regarding workplace smoking regulations.

The tobacco industry’s general strategy is to provide studies of indoor air quality thatimplicate anything but secondhand smoke as a major source of indoor air pollution. To achievethis end, the tobacco industry has created or promoted several companies who specialize inproviding such studies. As with its scientific “consultants,” the financial relationship betweenthe tobacco industry and these indoor air consultants was not disclosed. Establishing “thirdparties” is one of the main industry strategies for dealing with secondhand smoke. As theminutes of EEMA/EEC ETS strategy meeting held on May 11, 1987 states:

2. Components of the ETS strategy

Establish Third Parties:

- Scientific experts (identification, organization)- ACVA-type59 [emphasis added]

ACVA refers to ACVA Atlantic, Inc., USA, a company that specializes in indoor air quality. In1989 ACVA completed a survey of indoor air quality of Swiss office buildings.

ACVA, later renamed Healthy Buildings International (HBI) has come under severecriticism in the United States. A US congressional inquiry in 1994 held by Congressman HenryWaxman found that HBI falsified more than 25% of data from an HBI study in the US.8 p.412, 131,

132 According to a Washington Post article from March 24, 1996, “the tobacco industrysubsidized and widely publicized HBI’s scientific findings, helping to shape the public’sunderstanding about the potential danger of secondhand smoke -- or, as the industry would haveit, the lack of danger. HBI accepted just over $200,000 from the tobacco industry’s Center forIndoor Air Research to produce what HBI called “the single largest and most representativeestimate” of workplace exposure to secondhand smoke ever made in the United States. The1989 project involved 36,000 measurements in 585 different buildings. Its findings, which heldthat secondhand smoke typically occurred in such low concentrations in offices as to be of littleconcern, were cited over and over in public forums by HBI and tobacco industry representatives.Four years later, Waxman’s congressional investigators retained Alfred Lowery, a scientist at theNaval Research Laboratory, to review the project’s measurements. Lowery said in a report thatHBI’s conclusions were “marred by unsubstantiated data, discrepancies, and miscalculations.”Lowery said his review raises “serious questions of scientific fraud.” The congressionalinvestigators concluded that there was “a widespread pattern of significant data alterations” inthe study. Gray Robertson, president of HBI, says Lowery’s analysis was wrong, and he defends

133

Robertson was initially asked by the Business Council on Indoor Air (BCIA), a“lobbying group composed of such Fortune 500 companies as Owens-Corning Inc. and DowChemical Corp.—it has no tobacco company members,”133 to make one of his “standardpresentations on what causes indoor air quality.”133 “Companies like Owens-Corning wereworried about government “witch hunts” into the contributions of products like fiberglass to

133 After that, he sent Jeffrey Seckler, one of his employees, to a meetingof the council. Seckler, who had only a BA in psychology, was named chairman of the technicalcommittee of the Business Council on Indoor Air over PhD’s and engineers. BCIA’s technicalcommittee lobbied the US Environmental Protection Agency on indoor air issues. The $15,000membership fee for BCIA was reimbursed to HBI by the Tobacco Institute.133

HBI, financed by Philip Morris with well over $500,000 a year, produced for severalyears a HBI magazine, which was sent out for free to between 300,000 and 350,000“subscribers” worldwide. Paid subscriptions numbered only about 400, providing about $24,000annual income. Nowhere in the magazine was the tobacco industry’s funding for the magazineacknowledged, and the funding was provided by Philip Morris through Covington & Burling’saccounts, a law firm working for the tobacco industry. Given the declining tobaccoconsumption in the US, “the future of the tobacco industry was -- and remains – international.”Because Europe had very little indoor smoking restrictions in those days, the magazine shouldprovide Philip Morris with “a means to influence the early debates. Philip Morris had paid forHBI inspectors to tour Switzerland and other countries during the 1980’s; HBI inspected 28buildings and provided Philip Morris fodder for the company’s campaign to dissuade Europeanauthorities from adopting indoor smoking restrictions.133

The way that the tobacco industry uses ACVA/HBI is well illustrated in how the USTobacco Institute, the tobacco industry’s lobbying and political organization in the UnitedStates, used an HBI report in a press release on December 10, 1986, to argue against a cleanindoor air law then under consideration in New York City. Subsequent to the publications of theU.S. Surgeon General’s 1986 report on secondhand smoke,54 the debate about smokingrestrictions in indoor public places, workplaces, restaurants and bars, among others, had becomethe focus of the New York State Public Health Council. The Public Health Council wasrelatively insulated from special interests, such as the tobacco industry, because its memberswere appointed rather than elected, therefore not being vulnerable to influences of financialcontributions to political campaigns by the tobacco industry.123 pp. 16-19 It was in this context thatHBI’s study of indoor air quality in New York City restaurants and offices to support tobaccoindustry’s public claim that smoking restriction proposals were unneeded, was publicized. TheTobacco Institute’s press release stated:

“The levels of nicotine and particulate matter found in New York City indicate that smoking regulationsare unnecessary in order to assure adequate indoor air quality,” said Gray Robertson, president of ACVAAtlantic, Inc., a Fairfax, VA., firm specializing in “sick building syndrome.”

“These findings should be of vital interest to government officials who have not had the benefit ofactual scientific tests in their consideration of the appropriateness of smoking restrictions,” said ScottStapf, assistant to the president of the Tobacco Institute.

“This study clearly shows that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) should not be anenvironmental concern to persons who work and eat in New York. These findings underscore the critical

importance of scientific measurements. If laws affecting the environment are going to be based on science– as we believe they should be – then those making regulations should have an accurate assessment of

“Results of this study indicate that ETS is not a problem in New York City offices and134

The industry claimed secondhand smoke is not a significant problem in New York City offices,and therefore, smoking restrictions were not necessary.

The results, however, were collected under very specific instructions to the HBIemployees, so that they would minimize any tobacco smoke detected. Jeffrey Seckler, a formeremployee of HBI from 1989 to 1991, states in his civil action #93-0710 demand for trialdeposited with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on November 7,1994:

…specific instructions and ground rules for HBI employees/technicians to follow applied to all of thebuildings they inspected, private and public were: (1) when taking air samples for nicotine tests, they wereinstructed to take air samples in lobbies and other easily accessible areas where the circulation was best,thus reducing the readings; (2) if asked, always recommend to clients that any air pollution problem couldbe solved by better ventilation; (3) banning or restricting tobacco use or smoking was never to berecommended; and (4) every inspection report was to be reviewed and undergo final editing by either Mr.Binney (vice president of HBI) or Mr. Robertson (president of HBI) before it was sent out.131 p.7-8

[emphasis added]

Once the Tobacco Institute had become the main client of HBI, the firm grew rapidly.As the above demand for jury trial documents, Reginald Simmons, another former employee ofHBI, who was hired by HBI in January 1986 as a field technician and project team supervisor,states in his affidavit:

7. In January 1986, Reginald Simmons was hired by HBI President Gray Robertson as a field technicianand project team supervisor; his job included performance of indoor air quality assessments. At the timeHBI was still very small: in addition to Mr. Robertson, there was Mr. Peter Binney, whose title was VicePresident and approximately two other employees. At the beginning, HBI did one or two jobs per week,often limited to cleaning ducts and other minor contracts. In the Spring of 1986, while working in anOliver Carr building in Washington, DC an employee named John Madaris and Mr. Simmons wereapproached by a Vice President of the Tobacco Institute (which was apparently located in the building). Heasked them a lot of questions about HBI and asked who he could talk to; they referred him to GrayRobertson. Shortly thereafter, there was a series of meetings between Gray Robertson and officials of TI.From that point (the end of 1986) HBI became very busy with projects for the Tobacco Institute; the phonewas ringing every day and HBI was foced to hire new staff. (Affidavit of R. Simmons, attached hereto asExhibit “BB,” hereinafter “Simmons Affidavit,” pp 2-3)

Tobacco Institute becomes dominant client8. Day after day, HBI inspected buildings in the Washington, DC area and other areas on the east coast forTI, including many building housing unions that the TI had relationship with. The inspection assignmentswere controlled by Gray Robertson and Peter Binney. (Simmons Afffidavit, p. 3)9. At weekly staff meetings, HBI employees openly discussed all the work HBI was getting from TI andTI’s members, such as Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds. At that time (1986-1987) HBI also fostered arelationship with Fleishman Hillard, a public relations firm, and Covington and Burling, a law firm, both ofwhom were representing TI. By early 1987, HBI was receiving contracts from TI to inspect buildingsthroughout the United States. The staff was again expanded and HBI employees were literally flying in alldirections of the country to do inspections for TI or its members. (Simmons Affidavit, p. 3)131 pp. 6-7

HBI’s activities quickly expanded worldwide, including Switzerland. Far from beingindependent experts, tobacco industry representatives were heavily involved in all aspects ofHBI’s work. The demand for jury trial deposited by Jeffrey Seckler with the District Court ofthe District of Columbia in 1994 tells us how well Philip Morris treated the HBI employees sentto Switzerland:

In 1988 and 1989, TI and its members sent HBI employees throughout the world to perform specialinspections for them. In February of 1989, eight HBI employees (including Mr. Simmons-a fieldtechnician and project team supervisor) were sent to Switzerland for a period of six weeks (two teams offour employees for three weeks each) to do dozens of inspections under the auspices of TI and PhilipMorris. The Philip Morris officials were from Philip Morris Europe, Department of Science andTechnology. Mr. Simmons still has their business cards – the officials included Dr. Pierre P. Ceschini,Principal Scientist, Dr. Peter Martin, Principal Scientist, and Dr. Helmut Reif, Principal Scientist; heworked with them in Neuchatel, Switzerland. While there Mr. Simmons and his HBI staff stayed in themost exclusive and expensive hotels and were told they could have anything and everything they needed.They were provided drivers that took them to each city and took care of all of their personal needs. Onweekends they were allowed to go anywhere they wanted at the expense of Philip Morris. For example,one weekend they took Mr. Simmons and other HBI employees to St. Moritz, an exclusive Resort, wherethey went skiing; other HBI employees were taken to Venice and Florence, Italy. In all of these HBIinspections, Philip Morris personnel were present. The final reports for the Switzerland study were editedby Mr. Binney and Mr. Robertson. … At all times Mr. Simmons and his staff were under the control of TIor its members, such as Philip Morris, and there was usually a debriefing by said officials . For example,following the multi-inspection tour in Switzerland, they were questioned by the three Philip Morrisindividuals mentioned above.131 p. 10-11 [emphasis added]

HBI played a major role in influencing indoor smoking policy in the US. All the datacollected by ACVA/HBI in Europe, including Switzerland would not have much impact, were itnot for the strategic use of it through various media campaigns and “scientific meetings” thatwere organized to publicize its findings. Following are some examples of this strategy.

In addition to producing surveys of indoor air quality that met the tobacco industry’sneeds, Gray Robertson, president of HBI, participated in several of the tobacco industry’ssymposia and conferences on secondhand smoke and indoor air quality. For example, heparticipated in a conference on indoor air quality, called Healthy Building ’88, which took placein Stockholm from September 5 to 8, 1988.61 p. 23 From this conference on indoor air qualityresulted a chapter by Gray Robertson in the book “Indoor and Ambient Air Quality.”135 Thechapter was entitled “Source, Nature and Symptomology of Indoor Air Pollutants” and itdownplayed the importance of secondhand smoke as a source of indoor air pollutant and irritant.Smoking is only mentioned toward the end within a long chain of other potential indoor airpollutants, or it is mentioned under “Inorganic Oxides” section within the sub-chapter “IndoorPollutants – the Types” (“Some of the more common ones are described below”)135 p. 311

INDOOR POLLUTANTS – THE SOURCESVirtually everything we use in the interior sheds some particulates and/or gases.

… People themselves are a major contributor since each person sheds literally millions ofparticles, primarily skin scales, per minute. Many of these scales carry microbes but fortunately the bastbulk of these microbes are short lived and harmless.

Clothing, furnishings, draperies, carpets, etc. contribute fibers and other fragments. Cleaningprocesses, sweeping, vacuuming, dusting, etc. normally remove the larger particles, but often increase the

airborne concentrations of the smaller particles. Cooking, broiling, grilling, gas and oil burning, smoking,coal and wood fires also generated vast numbers of airborne particulates, vapors, and gases.

…Inorganic Oxides… Carbon monoxide is emitted from unvented kerosene heaters or wood stoves and it frequently

diffuses into buildings from automobile exhaust fumes generated in adjacent garages. Small to tracequantities of each of theses gases and other organics are present in cigarette smoke.135 p. 311-2 [emphasisadded]

To close the circle, Robertson uses the data his company, ACVA/HBI, collected to minimizetobacco smoke’s contribution to indoor air pollution, in his the chapter “Symptomology ofIndoor Air Pollutants” to argue that tobacco smoke is an insignificant air pollutant.

… Without doubt, the pollutant most often blamed for these symptoms by the public is environmentaltobacco smoke (ETS). However, there are usually confounding variables presented by a number ofpotential contaminants that precludes a quick analysis establishing a single source of contamination. Themain problem being the incredible similarity between symptoms from widely different irritants or evenenvironmental conditions. …

This similarity of symptoms is usually unappreciated by the public and in part it accounts for abias against tobacco smoke, which happens to be the sole visible air pollutant. … Despite being the mainsuspect of the occupants in many of the building we have examined, we have determined high levels ofenvironmental tobacco smoke to be immediate cause of indoor air problems in only four percent of the 223major buildings investigated by ACVA between 1981 and 1987 (see Table 2). Significantly, in those fewcases where high accumulation of ETS have been found, ACVA also has discovered an excess of fungi andbacteria in the HVAC [heating, ventilation, and air conditioning] system. These microorganisms usuallyare found to be the primary causes of the complaints and acute adverse health effects reported by buildingoccupants.135 p. 315 [emphasis added]

ACVA/HBI’s standard statement was that ventilation can solve the problem of smoking.

At least one of the two editors of the book “Indoor and Ambient Air Quality,” R. Perry,College of London, is mentioned in a Philip Morris document under the tobacco industry’s ETSactivities, as a tobacco industry consultant. According to a memo written by Mary Pottorf,Philip Morris Management Corp. in New York, to Tom Osdene, R&D Richmond, Philip MorrisUSA, and Tony Andrade, Legal department of Philip Morris Europe, R. Perry received USD107,600 in 1991 for his contract research on indoor/outdoor air pollution, important for thesecondhand smoke debate.136 The same memo by Mary Pottorf indicates that industryconsultants’ usefulness may have been judged more by their credibility in representing tobaccoindustry claims in public than the success of their projects:

Perry. This is a never ending, seemingly loosely managed program that has not fulfilled its earlyexpectations. Because Perry is so valuable in other areas and this sprawling project seems to continue togive him credibility, we should continue funding, but with more narrowly defined, intermediate endpoints.Alternatively, supply unrestricted funds.136

The document entitled “ETS project management. Role of PMUSA Science &Technology: this department can design and implement a project control system for company-wide management of ETS activities.” lists several projects carried out by consultants or bycompanies sponsored by the tobacco industry, where R. Perry and ACVA/LINK studies arementioned:

*PERRY--COLLEGE OF LONDON, IAQ AT THE WORKPLACE; RSP, CO, NICOTINE STUDIES INENGLAND; RESULTED IN AN INDOOR AIR BOOK; DEVELOPED A PASS UNIT…*ACVA-- SWISS IAQ SURVEY IN OFFICESGRAY ROBERTSON RUNS A VENTILATION BUSINESS, IAQ SURVEYS AND MEASUREMENTS– LOCATED IN ATLANTA…*LINK—INQUIRY ON THE NATURE AND OCCUPANCY OF SWISS OFFICES AND THEIRDISTRIBUTION137 bates 2025800305 [emphasis added]

Gray Robertson and his employees have testified before legislative bodies all over theUS and even in other countries, e.g. in UK.8 p. 412, 138 p. 2 In a letter dated August 11, 1987, to GuyL. Smith, Vice President of Corporate Affairs, Philip Morris, New York, Gray Robertsonenumerates all the work he has been doing for the Tobacco Institute and declines to participatein a national media campaign for Philip Morris for reasons of the link between ACVA /HBI andthe tobacco industry being uncovered by the media:

… Had you called me, my message would had been, sorry, at this time there is no way I could entertainfurther TV, radio, or press coverage. Since August 1986, working with Fleishman Hillard as PR agents, Ihave visited 60 U.S. cities on behalf of the Tobacco Institute. In each city we average two to three TVinterviews, three to four radio shows, and one to two newspaper interviews, i.e. over 480 media interviewsin one year. Add to this one full week in Australia, one in Hong Kong, and one in Canada for nationalcoverage on behalf of Philip Morris International and it makes for a busy schedule.

When not occupied in media campaigns, I spend a considerable amount of time traveling the U.S.to appear in legislative hearings as an expert witness for the tobacco industry at city, state, and federallevel. Two others of my staff deputize for me at these hearings if I am unavailable, though I make it mypolicy to give such legislative hearings first priority.

I understand from the Tobacco Institute and directly from the directors of both Philip Morris andR.J. Reynolds that my testimony is one of the most convincing arguments your industry has in contestinganti-smoking restrictions.

…It was with considerable trepidation, therefore, that we negotiated with the Tobacco Institute to

start this last year’s media tour. Many felt that the media would quickly identify a link between ACVA andthe tobacco industry that would jeopardize my future testimony on legislative issues. However, despitemassive media attention, to date no one has identified such a link , which reflects well on the tact anddiplomacy of our public relations firm of Fleishman Hillard.

…Furthermore, it is the feeling of all my staff, also of the Tobacco Institute staff we work with and

of our attorneys Covington & Burling, that much of our success to date has been due to the “invisiblebond” that exists between ACVA and the tobacco industry. By too closely associating with any tobaccocompany, we may gain some short term PR gains, but will undoubtedly damage our value as “unbiased”and independent expert witnesses. With this uppermost in mind, I could not have agreed to participate inyour media campaign.

It is with regret therefore, that I hear, after the fact, that you have commissioned Dorf and StantonCommunication to publicize this issue. Please ask them to stop because I simply cannot devote any moretime whatsoever to this subject and the direct visible association between ACVA and Philip Morris ispotentially damaging to our role as expert witnesses . It is the opinion of the Tobacco Institute, and of theother tobacco companies, that it is vital that we do nothing to jeopardize our services in the legislativearena.139 [emphasis added]

ACVA/HBI in Switzerland

ACVA/HBI’s studies on indoor air quality were also used in Europe, includingSwitzerland to support tobacco industry’s arguments against indoor smoking regulations. As sooften, the tobacco industry was very careful not to disclose that the ACVA study was funded bythe tobacco industry in order for the results not to loose credibility. Despite the fact that thetobacco industry played a major role in developing ACVA, Jean Besques, Manager IndustryIssues, Corporate Affairs, Philip Morris EEMA says in a memo summarizing the minutes of theETS strategy meeting on May 11, 1987:

ACVA must be perceived to be at arm’s length from the [tobacco] industry, including in media briefings.It’s role at most should seem as yet another third party expert amongst others.59 [emphasis added]

By “third party,” the tobacco industry meant an organization or an individual that had morepublic credibility than the tobacco industry itself, and which was usually sponsored by thetobacco industry, directly, or more often, indirectly through their law firms, such as Covington& Burling.133

The aim of the paper resulting from this ACVA study on Swiss office buildings was tocounterbalance the effects of an earlier study which was commissioned by the Swiss Office forEnergy Economics as part of a project of the International Energy Agency (IEA), the “Wannerreport” or “Report 44.” At the time there was great concern over the energy costs associatedwith heating and cooling air in buildings. Permitting smoking increased the level of ventilationrequired even to control odor, and public health advocates were using the potential energysaving associated with smokefree buildings as an argument for restricting smoking. HelmutReif, Science & Technology, FTR/PM EEMA says in a report (recipient not known):

(3) The usage of this paper was explained as to provide the Swiss authorities with brand-new material whchcould [sic] replace the one used by the Wanner report and could lead to new insights in the domaine [sic]of smoking and the working place.[Reisch, 1989 #134]

The Swiss report, written by J. Schlatter and H.U. Wanner, was based on a document ofthe International Energy Agency, called “Energy Conservation in Buldings and CommunitySystems Programme, Annex IX, Minimum Ventilation Rates. Final Report of working phases Iand II, 1987;” it concluded:

Tobacco smoke:If the strictest criteria (no nuisance to nonsmokers, absolute elimination of any risk to health even of themost sensitive people) are applied to the definition of minimum ventilation rates for rooms where there issmoking, it becomes evident that these criteria cannot be met by ventilation measures . The only alternativeis strict segregation of smokers and nonsmokers.62 p.51 [emphasis added]

The report recommended the following:

Control of sources3.Smoking should be forbidden in rooms where there are children and sick people, and in large publicrooms with natural ventilation. There ought to be no smoking, or smoking ought to be at least restricted, inresidential rooms and other smaller rooms where there are nonsmokers. Where possible, smokers’ rooms

or offices should be provided. Alternatively (for example restaurants or open-plan offices), as a minimumnon-smokers’ corners should be introduced.62 p.57

This recommendation was very strong for its time, particularly in Europe.

In Switzerland, Philip Morris also commissioned a study on the composition anddistribution of office buildings by LINK, a Swiss survey institute, in order to “explain” thedifferences found between the ACVA study and the report written by Schlatter and Wanner. Theresults of the ACVA and LINK study were used to influence the decision makers and opinionleaders in the regulation of workplace smoking. A working paper, written by Ulrich L. Crettaz,manager of industry and economic affairs, FTR, dated September 20, 1989, is entitled“Merchandising ACVA/LINK study. Action plan.” It contains Philip Morris’ strategies formeeting the objective of influencing key decision makers and opinion leaders, as well as a list ofthe 19 target organizations and their respective individuals. The document tells why PhilipMorris funded the ACVA and LINK studies. The studies were to support the tobacco industry’sargumentation that ETS was only a minor problem negligible when seen in the context of indoorair quality. The results of the ACVA and LINK studies would have helped the tobacco industryto weaken the formulation of the revised workplace law (OLT-3), which would have introducedmore stringent regulations regarding smoking at workplace (for details, see later in theworkplace smoking):

In order to support and make more credible general argumentation on ETS with regard to Indoor AirQuality, and in particular with regard to the smoking at workplace issue (OLT3), PM (S&T) [PhilipMorris, Science & Technology] ordered and organized the realization of an “Indoor Air Quality Survey ofTwenty-six Swiss Office Buildings.” This survey was executed by ACVA Atlantic Inc., USA fromFebruary 7, 1989 to March 15, 1989.

The IAQ survey has been completed by a statistical analysis of the 79’200 Swiss commercial and industrialexploitations and of the respective buildings and offices (LINK study).

The LINK study’s objective was to show that the ACVA study can be considered as reasonablyrepresentative of buildings as a whole, in Switzerland.140

It goes on to list the objectives for “the merchandising of the ACVA/LINK studies:”

To inform all concerned and interested people and organizations on the facts and the truth concerning ETSand its significance in the context of IAQ in general, of Swiss office buildings and the respectiveworkplaces in particular.

– To help those responsible to make appropriate and reasonable decisions concerning the smoking atworkplace regulation (OLT3) and further threats of regulations with regard to ETS/IAQ.140

And, Philip Morris’ -- and the tobacco industry’s strategy, since Philip Morris often was themastermind for the national manufacturers association -- is detailed in the following section:

a) To present the results (overall results and results relative to specific buildings) to relevant targetgroups (employers, employees, authorities, preventive medicine).

b) To publish the ACVA survey (summary) in a scientific or quasi-scientific journal.c) To get published extracts, summaries and comments concerning the ACVA survey in professional

magazines .d) To inform of the facts and the truth concerning ETS and its significance in the context of IAQ in

general.140

The ACVA and LINK studies were to be presented to the following organizations in aone-day session in Bern on March 15, 1990:

a) To relevant authorities and offices within the Federal Administration (cf. separate list).b) To relevant employers’ and economic organizations of national / federal importance (cf. separate

list).c) To relevant employees organizations of national / federal importance (cf. separate list).d) To relevant professional organizations of national / federal importance (cf. separate list).140

The program of the session was carefully thought out in order to include officialrepresentatives of the above organizations, including the relevant offices of the federaladministration. Among others, Gray Robertson, president of HBI, gave a talk as an introductionto the ACVA study.140 We do not have any information on whether this meeting took place.

The results of the same ACVA study were later used in the already mentioned HoReCanewsletter by the International HoReCa to convince its members that secondhand smoke was nota significant indoor air pollutant and that it can be managed through adequate ventilation.129

After presenting HBI (Healthy Buildings International, ACVA’s new name) as “the leading firm129 the results are presented in the special report summary dated October 1989,

which was distributed to the members of International HoReCa.129 bates number 2025477415

WHAT DID THEY FIND?

1. Worldwide, restaurants are not exposing their patrons to unhealthy or dangerous levels of nicotine, evenwhere no smoking restrictions exist.

HBI compared actual concentrations of nicotine measured with widely accepted standards for exposure tonicotine. None of the studies showed average nicotine levels even approaching the British and Americansafety limits established.

2. Based on the nicotine content in an average cigarette and the average amount of air inhaled during aspecific period, HBI establishes a measured nicotine concentration in indoor air in terms of “cigarette

A diner would have to spend 141 continuous hours sitting in a “world average” restaurant before inhalingthe nicotine equivalent of one cigarette.

3. Tobacco smoke does not figure prominently in the air content of a restaurant.

The results show that in general 30 percent of suspended particulate matter in the air originates fromtobacco smoke. Further, it makes hardly any contribution to carbon monoxide levels. Far more significantsources of carbon monoxide in restaurants are actually motor vehicle emissions and cooking sources.

4. The most effective way of reducing all indoor pollution in any restaurant space is to have adequateventilation rates.

Several HBI studies compared ventilation rates to tobacco smoke levels. The results pointed to a dramaticreduction not only in tobacco smoke but in overall levels of many other indoor pollutants when ventilationwas improved.

HBI concludes that adequate ventilation helps provide a cleaner, more enjoyable dining experience andmay, in time, make the question “smoking or non-smoking” less relevant to restaurant operation.129

Once again, the tobacco industry used its well-established strategies developed in the USin order to manipulate tobacco policy in another country, Switzerland in this case. Thecollection of indoor air quality data by a company later unmasked as tobacco industry sponsored,and accused by a former employee as having deliberately altered collected data in favor of thetobacco industry’s claims that secondhand smoke was not an important factor of indoor airquality, was employed in Switzerland to collect indoor air quality data in Swiss offices. GrayRobertson, president of AVCA/HBI, also presented at the meetings to which Swiss officials,such as from the Swiss Labor Office and Swiss Employers Union, were invited. These“findings” from the ACVA/LINK studies were recycled for the newsletters and special reportsof the International HoReCa in order to convince the members of HoReCa to oppose smokingrestrictions in restaurants, cafes, and hotels. The members of HoReCa, as most of the membersof the organizations that were manipulated by the tobacco industry, such as the InternationalFlight Attendants Associaton (IFAA, see below), were most likely not aware of the tobaccoindustry’s influence on their organization. It is very likely that, would members of theseorganizations have known the behind-the-scenes role of the tobacco industry, many of themwould have made a better informed choice concerning the issue of secondhand smoke.

Chapter 7. Smoking in Airplanes, International Flight AttendantsAssociation, and Swissair

Another worrisome development for the tobacco industry was the increasing number ofairlines that ended smoking in the airplane cabins in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s,particularly after WHO suggested in August 1990 that all airlines should consider endingsmoking in their flights.141 The tobacco industry had two main approaches to this problem.First, it sought to directly influence the airlines through talks with officials of airlines andsponsoring of annual meetings of the International Flight Attendants Association (IFAA). As sooften, this was done through direct contact with a key individual, in this case, the president ofthe association. Second, smoker clubs were “activated” in order to influence public opinion onsmoking in airline cabins.141 More specifically, members of smoker clubs were asked to write toairlines and also letters to newspapers.

We do not have any information on how the then-president of IFAA, Peter A. Tronke,got involved with Philip Morris, or what his motivations were to collaborate with Philip Morris.In 1988, Tronke wrote to Paul Maglione, Philip Morris Lausanne, Switzlerland, and toldMaglione how difficult it was for him to convince the IFAA Board to have Philip Morrissponsor the congress and in return have the opportunity to talk to the participants about indoorair quality issues:

During our board meeting in Budapest last week, we had a very thorough discussion about the latestdevelopments with regard to smoking bans.

…The Philip Morris sponsorship of the 8th IFAA World Congress in Brussels next year was a matter

discussed with mixed emotions, as you can imagine. Although it wasn’t easy, we did come to a conclusionwhich I personally think will turn out beneficial for both, P.M. and IFAA!

…For the World Congress at the Hotel Metropole Oct. 23.-25., 1989, the IFAA Board followed my

suggestion to offer P.M. two hours on Inflight Air Quality. The Board agrees with me that a Europeanscientist should hold the lecture; and I personally prefer a female scientist from Belgium or France, ifpossible. P.M. is also allowed to set up a chamber/booth for the demonstration of the case holding theequipment collecting the various data. For both, the demonstration plus lecture, two hours should besufficient, I guess.142

As before for the congress in Zurich, Switzerland, in 1987, similar conditions werenegotiated. However, the president of the IFAA asked for some additional funding:

From our Brussels World Congress we expect a similar or even greater response as we had inZurich and plan to invest a lot of money. We would apprecite [sic] a P.M. contribution of about SFr70,000.- 80,000 [approximately USD 50,000-60,000] — to help us also to pick up the expenses forattendees coming from underdeveloped countries. Concerning all other conditions, we could copy theagreement signed for the Zurich World Congress last year, if you like.

Dear Paul, I sincerely hope you will accept our proposal, which, I can assure you, wasn’t easy to142

We do not have more information on what resulted from this collaboration.

At the same time, the tobacco industry was having discussions with Swissair about itspolicy on smoking with favorable results for the tobacco industry. Philip Morris began to workwith the Zurich and Geneva offices of Burson-Marsteller (BM), a major world-wide publicrelations firm that does extensive work for Philip Morris. As the EEMA region annual reportregarding PMI corporate affairs action plan for Switzerland informs:

Beginning in August [1989] FTR began working with the Zurich and Geneva offices of BM [Burson-Marsteller] as the in-market affiliate agency for communicating industry/PM messages.85 bates 2500019968

The same annual report tells us how Philip Morris plays a game of a “double agent” byusing two airlines’ statements against each other in order to convince both to keep smoking seatsin airplanes:

Pursuant to an on-going dialogue between FTR CA [Fabriques de Tabac Réunies Corporate Affairs] andSwissair Management, Swissair reconfirmed publicly its policy of providing seats to both smoking andnon-smoking passengers. This story was widely publicized via the PM/BM Communications Program.Swissair and its affiliate Balair have been both provided with the SAS IFAQ [In-Flight Air Quality] study.We are also trying to use Swissair’s recent agreement to affiliate in Europe with SAS to persuade SAS to

85 bates 2500019965

Parallel to the activities related to in-flight smoking on Swissair flights, there wereefforts going on to influence smoking policy on airplanes all over Europe and the Middle East.85

bates 2500019965_9966

Swiss Smokers Organizations

Similar to the US, the tobacco industry has worked to organize smokers and presentindustry-funded “smokers’ rights” groups as simply collections of concerned citizens. Forexample, in a press release dated August 1990, the Swiss Smoker Club criticized WHO’sdemand for smoke-free airplanes. The Smoker Club also accused WHO of serving the “anti-tobacco fanatics.” The issue around secondhand smoke is called an “intoxication theory” and itis claimed that smoking bans are used to distract from the problem of poor air quality in theairplanes.141

Tobacco industry documents reveal that the Swiss Smoker Club received substantialfinancial support from the Swiss national manufacturers association (NMA, ASFC). In aninterview given to Ursula Buschor, a journalist with the “Blick,” a popular paper with the largestreadership among newspapers in Switzerland, by the founder and president of the first smokers’club in Switzerland, Peter Jaeggi, the latter denied any financial support by the tobacco industry,saying:

Wir bekommen weder Geld noch Hilfe von der Tabakindustrie. Wir vertreten die Raucher, nicht dieWirtschaft![We do not receive money nor help from the tobacco industry. We represent the smokers, and not theeconomy]143

This claim may have been true at the time the club was founded; within a year however, thetobacco industry, upon Philip Morris’ initiative, started funding the Smokers Club:

Pursuant to FTR’s [Philip Morris Switzerland] initiative, the Swiss NMA (ASFC) began this year toprovide substantial support (SFR 80,000) to the Swiss Smokers’ club, RAUCHER-CLUB. During MarchRAUCHER-CLUB generated significant publicity in Switzerland and internationally by offering to pay “inthe interest of worldwide smokers’ solidarity” the fines of smokers jailed in the Philippines. This summerRAUCHER-CLUB filed a petition with over 18,000 signatures with the Swiss Federal Council urging thatthe government cease wasting taxpayers funds on campaigns harassing smokers. The club has over 500members.85 bates 2500019972 [emphasis added]

When the club was founded, it received wide publicity through articles in major newspapers.144-

146

Several years later, in 1997, after Swissair had finally introduced non-smoking on allflights to the USA, a “new” smoker organization called “Club of Tobacco Friends” (Club derTabakfreunde) criticized Swissair for its non-smoking policy. A newspaper article in a weeklynewspaper was entitled “the flying smokers are fed up with paternalism” (die fliegendenRaucher haben die Bevormundung satt). The president and founder of the club is OthmarBaeriswyl, a former public relations official for the Swiss tobacco industry. As with similarorganizations in the US, he had to admit that the tobacco industry supports financially thepublication of a glossy newsletter, but insisted that the tobacco industry agreed to support thenewsletter only after some hesitation, and that it was a very small supplementation.147, 148 Inanother newspaper article a year before, Baeriswyl had stated that his Club received only modestsponsoring from the tobacco industry.149 Baeriswyl also placed at least four identical articles inmajor newspapers in different regions in July 1997. In these articles he lamented thediminishing social status of the smoker, and Baeriswyl also pointed out that the Swiss pensionfund “depended” on the cigarette excise tax, a common tobacco industry argument.150-153

As in the US, the tobacco industry in Switzerland used front organizations, such assmoker clubs, to send their messages across to the public without having to expose themselvesas the true origin of special interest messages. These “smokers’ rights” groups were eithersupported or created by the tobacco industry when they realized how successful the tobaccocontrol forces were with such grassroots movements as the smokers’ rights organization incontrolling the local legislative agenda.121 Even though it is difficult to know how much impactthe Swiss smokers’ organizations have had on smoking policy, there are several examples ofmedia advocacy by the Swiss smokers’ organizations. Swiss citizens need to be informed aboutthese tobacco industry front organizations more widely, so they can make informed andunbiased choices made about smoking regulations.

Smoking in Railways

Following is a short section on smoking in railways and ASFC’s successful letterwritingand lobbying. This quote comes from a document called “Switzerland – 1987 objectives”:

…the regional new railways in Zurich will not totally ban smoking as antis asked for. In fighting this issue,the ASFC developed an action of letters to the publisher and directed lobbying action towards the cantonalauthorities of Zurich and the head of the national railways.126 p.11

The tobacco industry also tried to influence smoking policy in trains, among other ways,through invitation of key persons from the main railway car builder in Switzerland. Theintention was to influence their opinion through briefings, then “morally” bind them by invitingthem to lunch and showing them around in the factory.154

Here again, the tobacco industry knew how to connect to potential allies and “makefriends” with them in order to further their particular interests. And often they were successful.

In 1994, the Swiss Federal Railways (CFF) reversed a 1992 decision to make regionaltrains smoke-free until 1996. According to a Philip Morris Corporate Affairs Weekly HighlightsMarch 28 to April 1, 1994, written by Jan Goodheart, Manager of Philip Morris WorldwideRegulatory Affairs, “the press release attributed the policy change to increasing conflicts andmaterial damages in smoke free trains. In December 1993 a public opinion survey wasconducted by the tobacco industry in cooperation with the CFF which revealed that 44% of trainpassengers were in favor of offering smoking sections in regional trains, while only 30% favoredsmoke-free trains. Various alternative solutions are currently being examined.”155 bates 2025840477

And, “a petition submitted to Swiss Parliament calling for smokefree areas in Swiss railwaystations has been rejected by the Lower House on March 19th.”155 bates 2025840477

Chapter 8. Workplace Smoking

Regulation of smoking at workplace was felt as yet another threat by the tobaccoindustry. Already in 1988, when an article in the federal labor law (article 19, ordinance forprotection of the non-smoker) was in its planning phase, the tobacco industry was proactivelyworking out an action plan to counter any regulations and influence the legal process from thestart, as an inter-office correspondence of Philip Morris EEMA shows:

Problem addressed: Planned article 19 to regulate smoking at the workplace (two main features:article concerned with passive smoking specifically, rather than employee’s health; employer would beresponsible for making own regulations).

…1. … summarise what has been done elsewhere to deal with ETS at the workplace and to define ways ofattacking the problem in Switzerland (from a scientific standpoint).2. ACVA to conduct a worksite survey in Switzerland.

– Hga/HER to brief Gray Robertson on the IEA/Schlatter Wanner studies on the energy cost ofETS.

– Gray Robertson to draw up and present conclusions of the survey.– Cost estimated at FS 150,000 to be borne in whole by S&T.

(The ACVA study is to serve a double purpose; - provide argumentation rapidly before any major projectyields useful findings; - serve as a pilot study for a large-scale survey).3. Document challenging Article 19 to be prepared by Hga, RAP and Charles Lister on following lines:(a) Results of the ACVA survey (Gray Robertson)(b) ETS to be put in the IAQ context (Charles Lister)(c) Health risks comparison based on international results (Frank Lunau)(d) Recommendation to the Swiss authorities of air quality/ventilation standards (Frank Lunau/CharlesLister)(e) Implications of planned legislation (in terms of employees’ health, employer’s liability, respectively)(Hga/RAP/Swiss lawyer?)156

Shifting the debate to indoor air quality (IAQ) was again a major part of the tobacco industrystrategy, and the ACVA/HBI study and HBI’s president were once again major players.

By 1990, the tobacco industry was consulted by the Swiss Federal Department forEconomic Affairs to comment on the labor law revision concerning workplace smoking. Thedraft of the article 19 for the protection of the non-smoker read:

“Der Arbeitsgeber hat im Rahmen der betrieblichen Möglichkeiten dafür zu sorgen, dass die Nichtrauchernicht durch passives Rauchen in ihrer Gesundheit beeinträchtigt werden.157

[The employer, within the framework of operational possibilities, has to ensure that non-smokers’ health isnot harmed by secondhand smoking]

In its official commentary, as expected, the tobacco industry criticized article 19 for theprotection of nonsmokers by using well-known arguments. They argued that there was noscientific evidence that secondhand smoke was harmful for health, that the ordinance was amisleading special regulation for a minority to protect them from an inconvenience, and that theordinance did not improve air quality, but instead, pushed forward “solutions” that would notundermine the social acceptability of smoking or impact cigarette sales:

a) Bestimmung zum Schutz von etwas, dessen Existenz fragwürdig ist.

b) Irreführende Sonderbestimmung für eine Minderheit zum Schutz vor einer Belästigung.c) Eine Bestimmung, welche die Luftqualität nicht verbessert, sondern zu Scheinlösungen drängt.[(a) Regulation to protect something whose existence is questionable.(b) Deceptive special regulation for a minority to protect from an annoyance.(c) A regulation, which does not improve air quality, but presses for mock solutions.]157

In the Philip Morris long range plan 1993-1995 for Switzerland, the components of thecomprehensive strategy to influence the revision of the ordinance for non-smoker protection waslisted:

Workplace Smoking: OLT-3 Action Plan

A smoking at workplace regulation threat, via the Draft Labour Law Ordinance, called OLT-3, is pendingsince end 1989. A decisive step has been taken by the Federal Coucil, when, in Spring 1992, it put topublic consultation the Draft Ordinance ruling on hygiene at the workplace. A final decision is expected tobe taken by the Federal Council not earlier than beginning of 1993.

– Elaborate a follow-up action plan in the event that specific regulation regarding “ETS/smoking/healthprotection” were introduced, despite the support at consultation by the entire Swiss industry and economyof industry’s counter-proposal. The aim of the action plan, to be developed in collaboration with maineconomic associations (Vorort/USAM), would be to ensure a moderate and common sense application ofsuch a regulation.

– Further disseminate Swiss “Good Air Quality at Workplace” leaflet.– Establish direct contacts with major companies, Jacobs Suchard included, in order to give input for a

voluntary accommodation policy.– Maintain existing contacts and develop relations with relevant economic and political environment

(ventilation industry and engineers, architects, building contractors, personnel manager associations, labourunions, occupational safety and health authorities) with the aim to promote IAQ and accommodationsolutions .

– Identify psychologist for undertaking research on the adverse impact of repressive smoking bans andrestrictions.

– Develop argumentation and communication re the S&H [smoking and health] issue in the widerperspective of “social engineering .”65 p. 16 [emphasis added]

When the revised ordinance finally went into force in October 1, 1993, it left a good dealof freedom of interpretation to the employer, and reflected the tobacco industry’s success in“softening” the wording of the ordinance. The word “health” had disappeared and was replacedby “inconvenience:” “The employer, within the framework of operational possibilities, has toensure that non smoking labor is not inconvenienced by other people’s tobacco smoke.”20, 21

We do not have information on what the public health advocates undertook to counterthe lobbying of the tobacco industry. Maybe they were not aware of the enormous influence ofthe tobacco industry, or they simply did not have the political will to oppose the tobaccoindustry’s influence, or both. Whatever the case, this major victory of the tobacco industry inthe revision of the ordinance regulating workplace smoking is another sad demonstration of theunderestimated influence of the tobacco lobby. The tobacco industry continues to hinder propersmoking regulation at the workplace and elsewhere in the interest of corporate profit,undermining the prevention of unnecessary suffering and thousands of untimely deaths due tosmoking and passive smoking.

Chapter 9. Advertising

1979 Referendum on Tobacco and Alcohol Advertising Ban (Guttempler Initiative)

During the early 1970’s, many countries were beginning to impose strong advertisingregulations on tobacco products. Norway introduced a total advertising ban under the TobaccoAct of 1975. Finland banned advertising and sales promotion of tobacco in 1978. Swedenintroduced anti-smoking legislation in 1977 which made 16 different health warnings oncigarette packs compulsory, and in 1979, regulations were introduced which restricted cigaretteadvertising in newspapers and magazines.158 pp. 277-278 Even more influential for Switzerland,Germany introduced a new food law in 1974 that allowed the government to impose restrictionson the tobacco industry without having to obtain the approval of the German parliament. It alsobanned tobacco advertising on the radio. (The tobacco industry had eliminated TV advertisingvoluntarily to avoid government restrictions.159) All these actions helped generate interest inadvertising restrictions in Switzerland.

In Switzerland it is possible for concerned citizens to enact a law by direct popular votethrough the initiative process, thus bypassing legislative bodies which are dominated by specialinterests like the tobacco industry. Once more than 50,000 signatures are collected andsubmitted to the government, the Federal Council, a 7-member executive body of thegovernment, reviews the initiative as to its content and advisability. Thereafter, the FederalCouncil has up to two years to submit a report to the Federal Assembly, the unified legislativebody of the two chambers. The Federal Assembly then has the option of 1) approving theinitiative and putting it to a vote of the people with or without a recommendation of acceptance,2) rejecting the initiative and putting it to the vote with or without a recommendation of refusal,or 3) rejecting the initiative, then putting it to a vote of the people together with a counter-proposal. The Federal Assembly has up to four years, once the signatures are handed in, toreach a decision before the vote. For the initiative to be successful, it has to win the majority ofboth the voters and the cantons.160

On April 10, 1976, the Templerence Society (“Guttemplers”) started this process when itsubmitted enough signatures (77,307) to require a vote on people’s initiative that, if enacted,would impose a total advertising ban on alcohol and tobacco products in Switzerland.161 TheTemplerence Society is an international organization that had more than 1 million members inover 40 countries in the 1970’s. They are “both politically and religiously neutral,” and aimtoward a “better life through brotherhood and abstinence from all drugs.”160.

Even before the signatures for the first people’s initiative on tobacco advertising weresubmitted to the Swiss government in 1976, Philip Morris was preparing itself to fightadvertising bans. Paul Isenring, Director of Industry Policy Coordination for Philip MorrisEurope, Middle East, Africa, had secured the support of Blöchlinger, president of theAssociation of the Editors of Swiss Dailies, whom Isenring had known for more than two years,during a meeting in Lucerne on June 7, 1974,162 to oppose advertising restrictions. Blöchlingerpromised to promote the “Freedom and Responsibility” argument, put forth by the tobaccoindustry in order to combat any marketing restrictions. The “Freedom and Responsibility”

argument was used to counter the impending advertising restrictions in Switzerland. The“Action Freedom and Responsibility” was developed to provide tobacco industry spokespeoplewith the common arguments against tobacco control advocates positions in Europe, the MiddleEast, and Africa in 1974, to assure a unified position with policy makers, the public, the media,and to counter critiques from tobacco control advocates.162 pp. 1-10

Regarding the Swiss situation, Isenring reported a close relationship with the Swissmedia:

I have known Mr. Blöchlinger for more than two years. In Spring 1972 we discussed the problemof cigarette advertising restrictions. He agreed from the very beginning to cooperate with the industrybecause he strongly felt that the advertising restrictions of cigarettes would mean the beginning of furtherrestrictions of personal freedom (including advertising restrictions of other products). He thereforesupported the foundation of the action “Freedom and Responsibility” together with a number of otherSwiss political, economical and industrial personalities, associations and groupings.

The Swiss dailies give now free space for objective information on the problem “Freedom andResponsibility” and the subject will also be treated at the Swiss television. You find enclosed the activityprogram from September 5, 1973 of the action “Freedom and Responsibility.”

Mr. Blöchlinger feels that, in the context of smoking and health, objective information on theexisting controversy should be given by the daily papers and not only the negative anti-smoking part of thestory. He agrees to put at our disposal the channels to the Swiss dailies and to approximately 9 otherEuropean countries as soon as we are ready with a source of information.162 [italic emphasis added]

This cooperation between Philip Morris, Europe, the dominant force among the tobacco firms inSwitzerland and worldwide, and the president of the association of Swiss newspaper dailiesforeshadowed a difficult fight for the supporters of the advertising ban.

This difficulty was increased by the fact that the people’s initiative called for endingadvertising not only on tobacco but also alcohol products, giving the alcohol industry a strongmotivation to join the tobacco industry in opposing the initiative. The task force (see Table 1 fora list of members) on Swiss referendum at the headquarters of Philip Morris Europe inLausanne, Switzerland, on January 25, 1978 identified the importance of working with thealcohol industry.

As a final point, Mr Schedel identified the groups that are likely to support the efforts of the tobaccoindustry, as follows:

a) Full use should be made of the “tobacco family,” particularly the tobacco growers (FAPTA). Thoughtobacco growing is not so important in Switzerland, the growers belong to the farming community and itcan be expected that they will be supported by the agricultural cantons.

b) There are also other important “influence groups” which will be worthwhile contacting, e.g. the printmedia, the advertising profession, PROMARCA (Société suisse de l’industrie des biens de consommation)[Swiss society of the consumer goods industry], the Vorort (Directoire de l’Union suisse pour leCommerce et l’Industrie) [Swiss federation of commerce and industry]

c) Consideration should be given to talking to and enlisting the support of the Association of wine-growers,liquor distillers and brewers .163 pp. 60-61 [emphasis added]

The tobacco industry also decided to seek a compromise that would avoid the initiativeby amending the Food Law, which covered tobacco, in a way that would have minimum impacton the industry but which could be used to fight the initiative.

Specifically, the tobacco industry task force on the Swiss referendum identified “theamendment to the Food Law (ODA, amendment of chapter 33 of the food law concerningtobacco and tobacco substitutes)163 p. 75 as related to tobacco products” as “a key issue which willinevitably have a major effect on the Government’s attitude regarding the appropriateness of the

163 p. 59

In July 1977, the tobacco industry was satisfied with the proposal they had worked outwith the “Department of Health”163 p. 55 (most likely the Federal Office of Public Health).

…the Industry Association had worked out with the Department of Health a proposal last year, which wasquite acceptable for the industry, since the major change from today’s situation would have been a warninglabel in a fairly soft version talking only about the “abuse.” This proposal has been given into theconsultation phase and received hard attacks from the anti-smoking forces who are asking for muchtougher regulations.163 p. 55

Table 1

Members of the ICOSI Task Force on Swiss referendum(International Committee on Smoking Issues)[, 1978 #4 p. 57]

Chairman: Harold H. SchedelMarketing Director, Switzerland, Philip Morris Europe, Lausanne

Members: D.F.L. NeedhamStrategic Planning, Gallagher Limited, London

W. StammReemtsma Cigaretten A.G., Gontenschwil

Dr. J.P. LichtiLawyer, Chairman of the Executive Board, Imperial Tobacco (Switzerland S.A., Geneva)

L.P.A. PriceDirector of finance and administration, BAT (Switzerland) S.A., Geneva

Dr. St. SuwaldResponsible for Finance and Administration, Sullana A.G., Wetzikon

Before an amendment to the food law could proceed, however, the government had to consultwith 17 organizations, including several consumer organizations, tobacco control organizations,as well as the Swiss federation of tobacco industry (FIST, Fédération de l’Industrie du Tabac)To the tobacco industry’s dismay, during the consultation process tobacco control advocatesdemanded a much tougher regulation, making a new round of negotiations between the Healthauthorities and the tobacco industry necessary.

In the first industry task force on Swiss referendum meeting on January 25, 1978, it wasdecided that several studies needed to be done in order to better analyze the situation and tocome up with a strategy. The studies that were planned were:

– one on product liability: under the assumption that the initiative would be accepted and in case the tobaccobecomes included under the law covering toxic substances.

– The latter one, because several cantonal chemists have proposed this to the Health department. Anotherstudy, which is under way now, is an opinion pool [sic].

– Also we make a study on advertising overspill into Switzerland. This may become a key economicargument which may well be valid for our “allies” of the print media.163 p. 56

The industry selected Dr. Brandt, an advisor to the government on the food law, to carry out thisstudy on product liability;163 p. 64 we do not know whether this study was ever carried out.

The main proposals the Federal government received during the consultation phase arelisted in the minutes of the January 25, 1978 meeting of the task force on Swiss referendum ofICOSI (the International Committee on Smoking Issues, the tobacco industry’s internationalcoordinating body on political issues; see appendix for a list of the members of the task force onSwiss referendum of ICOSI):

– mention of the numbers on cigarette packs (4 numbers)– a tougher warning label than the one proposed [by the government]– a ban on theme/image advertising163 p. 59

Knowing the potential impact of the food law for the outcome of the referendum on totaladvertising ban, the tobacco industry was willing to make compromises in order to weaken theadvertising ban initiative, as the introductory remarks by the chairman of the task force on Swissreferendum, Harald. H. Schedel of Fabriques de Tabac Réunies S.A. (Philip Morris inSwitzerland) reveal:

So we will be confronted in the next months with rediscussing the entire issue with the Health authorities.Whatever will be the outcome of these discussions, it is clear that on some points we will have to makeconcessions if we want to avoid that the Health department is recommending to the Federal Assembly tosupport the initiative or making a counter-proposal negative for us.163 pp. 55-56 [emphasis added]

In the general briefing of the task force on Swiss referendum in the meeting minutes ofthe third meeting of ICOSI in Hamburg on March 9 and 10, 1978, the idea of supporting theamendment of the food law in order to preempt the total advertising initiative is laid out moreexplicitly:

It may well be in the industry’s interest to renegotiate a reinforced Food Law as a valuable argumentagainst the Initiative, since the Federal Council can either propose to the Chambers a counter-proposal tothe Initiative or recommend its refusal without a counter-proposition, stating the modifications to the FoodLaw are satisfactory and achieve the objectives set up by the Department of Internal Affairs, i.e. protectionof youth.163 p. 76

The opinion poll the task force wanted on the idea of an advertising ban in Switzerlandwas done by INBIFO (Institut für Biologische Forschung, a German Philip Morris researchinstitute) in April and May of 1978. This large survey included 3,000 weighted interviews withoversampling of small cantons, of which 51%, or 1,518 had strong intentions to vote.164 Theresults were not encouraging for the tobacco industry. Strong majorities of total population(62%) and those with strong intentions to vote (71%) supported an end to tobacco advertising(the wording of the questionnaire are not known to us), while only 23% (total population) and20% (strong intentions to vote)supported the status quo.164

Similarly, among smokers and non-smokers, 56% and 69% favored a ban on advertising.A national opinion survey conducted by Publitest AG (we do not know whether this poll wassponsored by the tobacco industry or not) a year prior to the industry sponsored study hadalready shown that a majority of the Swiss population favored a total advertising ban on tobacco(59.1%), even though in the French part of Switzerland slightly more people were against theban than for it (49.7% vs. 47.6%).163 p. 65 The newer study had been done by Philip Morrisbecause it felt that the earlier study was out of date and too limited in scope due to its smallerand less representative sample.163 p. 66

The tobacco industry mobilized against the initiative through its well-established tacticsof creating controversy and lobbying via a public relations agency. According to a meetingagenda of the third meeting of the International Committee on Smoking Issues (ICOSI, whosename was changed to International Tobaccco Information Center/Centre Internationald’Information du Tabac - INFOTAB, on December 8, 1980),165 the tobacco industry planned

…dissemination of material to the press and to give flexible responses on Smoking and Health attacks withthe aim to achieve awareness in the public about the existence of an ongoing controversy.

…the necessity of employing a leading PR agency. Their role will be the lobbying in the differentparliamentarian commissions and the coordination of the efforts on all levels the “Anti-InitiativeCommission” – which will be the official body to recommend to the voters the rejection of the initiative –will have to undertake.163 p. 56

After consideration of the “anti-smoking and anti-alcohol groups,” the tobacco industrydecided that it would not help the industry to attack its opponents based on political ideology orto generate “controversy” about smoking and health:

a) our enemies do not necessarily belong to the Left and therefore cannot be categorised according to theirpolitical beliefs.

b) it would be unwise for the industry to exercise any pressure on these groups as no benefit would bederived from re-hashing the emotional issue connected with the smoking and health controversy.163 p. 67

Finally, the tobacco industry also felt that compromising by ending theme/imageadvertising, while helping defeat the initiative, could result in losing full support of their allies.

It was felt that if the Industry were to give in to a ban on theme/image advertising , which could result inthe Initiative being rejected, our natural allies (print media, advertising profession, etc.) may not give usfull support as they might be tempted to think that they would still get the same level of business from thetobacco industry.163 p. 68

At the same time, the task force was very concerned about the potential impact of anadvertising ban in Switzerland on neighboring countries. The introductory remarks to the reporton the task force on Swiss referendum by Harald H. Schedel, Chair of the task force andmarketing director of Philip Morris Europe, observed:

…the Swiss task force is fully aware that a ban of advertising in a liberal country like Switzerland wouldhave strong negative influences on the attitude of neighboring countries [sic] governments. This is onereason more for fighting united on this issue.

I am confident that with concerted actions we have a good chance to defeat this very dangerous threat.163 p.

Despite the fact that the tobacco industry’s own polls showed substantial public supportfor ending advertising in 1977 and 1978, the industry was able to defeat the initiative. MaryCovington, secretary general of INFOTAB (the International Tobacco Information Center,formerly ICOSI) reported the initiative’s defeat on February 20, 1979 to member companies.Consistent with industry strategy throughout the campaign to defeat the initiative, Philip Morrissought to maintain a low profile:

Do not send this out on behalf of Philip Morris.

The Swiss people, voting in a direct referendum, today rejected by a majority of 59%, a total ban onadvertising for alcohol and tobacco products.

…Commenting on the results of the vote, Dr. Raymund [Raymond] Broger, member of the upper house ofthe Swiss parliament and president of the Swiss advertising association said:

“The Swiss people have, once more, proclaimed their belief in the responsibility and freedom of theindividual, as well as the right to information, including information through advertising. The people,following Swiss tradition, have spoken against government interference where it is neither effective norappropriate.”166

This defeat of the advertising ban initiative was a setback for the tobacco controladvocates, and it would take more than ten years before there was another the referendum onadvertising of tobacco products attempted.

Just as the tobacco industry feared that advertising restrictions in Switzerland wouldspread to other countries, it also used its victory in Switzerland to fight similar restrictionselsewhere. For example, this quote by Raymond Broger was used again in 1981 in a letter byJohn T. Winebrenner, vice president & general manager of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company(HK) Ltd., written on behalf of seven other international and national tobacco companies,including British American Tobacco, Brown & Williamson, Japan Tobacco and Philip Morris to

Geoffrey Barnes, deputy director of social services of Hong Kong to oppose smokingrestrictions in enclosed places, warning labels on cigarette packs and advertising, testing andpublication of cigarette smoke constituents.

In a 1979 vote in Switzerland, voters in all 23 cantons rejected a direct referendum proposing a totaladvertising ban on both alcohol and tobacco products. Commenting on the overwhelming defeat, RaymondBroger, a member of the Upper Parliament, said: “ The Swiss people have, once more, proclaimed theirbelief in the responsibility and freedom of the individual. The people, following Swiss tradition, havespoken out against Government interference when it is neither effective nor appropriate.”167 p. 4

Two points are worth noticing in this statement. First, Raymond Broger’s special interest aspresident of the Swiss Advertising Association is hidden by not mentioning the fact. Second, thewording of the quote by Weinbrenner is almost identical to that of Covington’s memo, whichillustrates how public expressions of opinion by tobacco industry allies are recycled all over theworld by the tobacco industry, while the industry itself remains in the shadows.

Cooperation between the Tobacco Industry and the Advertising Industry inEurope

While the Swiss tobacco control advocates were recovering from the defeat at the ballotinitiative in 1979, and it would take another decade until a second referendum would take place,the tobacco industry organized internationally to fight advertising restrictions. It worked closelywith its main allies, the advertising associations, to continuously develop and implementstrategies to fight current and future advertising bans in other countries. This continuing effortto fight legislation that would ban tobacco advertising put the international tobacco industry inan advantageous position compared to national tobacco control organizations.

The tobacco industry played this catalytic role in the globally coordinated fight againstadvertising bans without the politicians and other organizations becoming aware of it. Thetobacco and advertising industries were well aware of their low credibility with governments ingeneral, and in the matter of tobacco advertising ban in particular. An earlier report on a EAAA(European Association of Advertising Agencies) meeting with the European Committee onTobacco Advertising in Frankfurt on January 29, 1980 by J. M. Hartogh, Vice President,Corporate Affairs & Head Quarters Marketing, PM EEC, dated January 31, 1980, to JulianDoyle, ICOSI Brussels (later INFOTAB) recounts:

I pointed out the credibility problem that both the tobacco industry and the advertising industry encounterwith governments and other groups. I therefore suggested that the tobacco and the advertising industriescould best work together by finding an authoritative credible third party which would be willing to sponsorinformational activities to bring our common point of view across to governments, politicians and othergroups.168 [emphasis added]

The same report notes that the tobacco industry contributed the major financial share toefforts to fight advertising restrictions in the common plan to find an “authoritative credible third

The meeting agreed with this plan, but wanted to know how this could be financed. I stated that if a soundplan is worked out, which would serve the tobacco industry’s objectives, the tobacco industry would veryprobably provide the necessary means and assistance.168

We do not know who was finally identified as the “authoritative credible third party.” However,INFOTAB (formerly ICOSI, International Committee on Smoking Issues, an organizationfounded by seven major international tobacco companies in the late 1970’s to coordinate theirstrategies globally against the growing anti- tobacco movement) sponsored a project calledCATAC, Campaign Against Tobacco Advertising Censorship, a cooperation between theEuropean advertising industry and the tobacco industry. A memo by T. (Tana) L. Wells,manager public affairs, corporate affairs EEMA (EFTA (European Free Trade Agreement),Eastern Europe, Middle East, Africa) for Philip Morris dated June 22, 1983, for distributionamong the presidents and directors of Philip Morris EEMA, explains this worldwidecooperation:

Pursuant to the INFOTAB sponsored CATAC (Campaign Against Tobacco Advertising Censorship)project, cooperation between the European advertising industry and the tobacco industry has beenformalized. At a meeting held in Brussels on June 16, 1983 a programme was launched involving a systemof national coordinators from the advertising industry who will be promoting positive action to defendadvertising in general but also tobacco advertising specifically.

The meeting was characterized as an important public commitment to action by the European advertisingindustry. It is hoped that trans-Atlantic coordination will be the first step in the expansion of thisprogramme of cooperation between the two industries worldwide.

Participants at the Brussels meeting were as per the attached list. Tobacco company representatives wereinvited as guests and, for the most part, were members of the former INFOTAB Defense of AdvertisingCommittee or DAC which was responsible for the early CATAC project.169 [emphasis added]

That this European coalition of tobacco industry and advertising industry did succeed ina transatlantic coordination of expansion of cooperation between the two industries worldwide isillustrated by a publication by the International Advertising Association, World Headquarters inNew York in 1984, entitled “Tobacco and advertising. Five arguments against censorship.”Unlike most other publications sponsored by the tobacco industry however, this oneacknowledges openly the fact that the arguments in defense of advertising tobacco products wereprepared by the international tobacco industry.

I.A.A. believes in the universal freedom to advertise all products which are legally traded in worldmarkets. This belief provides the essential impetus behind our continuing campaign to encourage ourmembers, and indeed all people engaged in the business of advertising, to be prepared at all times to act indefence of that freedom.

I.A.A. further believes that the freedom to advertise legal products is indivisible, and that restrictionsapplied to one group of products will inevitably lead to erosion of the freedom to advertise all products.

In lending its name to the publication of arguments in defence of advertising tobacco products prepared bythe international tobacco industry, I.A.A. is showing neither fear nor favour.

While acknowledging that many people may hold personal views about smoking, I.A.A. believes that thearguments against the advertising of tobacco are so heavily publicised by those who are against smoking,that the counter-arguments which seek to justify the continuation of tobacco advertising should be equally

exposed to those engaged in the business of advertising, so that they may draw their own informedconclusions.170

The background notes for national coordinators of the Campaign Against TobaccoAdvertising Censorship outlines the rationale for the cooperation between European advertisinginterests. As was the case during the 1979 popular referendum in Switzerland and elsewhere,60 p.

162 emphasis was put on rights of individuals and businesses to exercise freedom of choice, whilethe issue of smoking was explicitly not to be the focus of the campaign in order to win thecooperation of those within the advertising association who did not look favorably uponsmoking.

It is fully appreciated that not all advertising people are directly involved with the advertising of tobacco.Some may be personally less than enthusiastic about smoking. However, this initiative is not concernedwith the issue of smoking or not smoking but with the preservation of the inalienable rights of individualsand businesses to exercise freedom of choice within the law.171 p. 1 [emphasis added]

Two additional arguments mentioned besides the freedom of choice argument are alsocommonly used by the tobacco industry in the advertising ban debate: the “slippery slope”argument and the economic argument.

The erosion of the fight to advertise cigarettes is seen by many thinking advertising people as a significantfirst step towards the restriction of other products which may, for a variety of reasons, attract the interestof pressure groups and, through their efforts, become the preoccupation of legislators in many countries.

Few members of the public realise the enormous contribution made by advertising to the economy of amodern free enterprise society, and the advertising business itself has been untypically modest about itsachievements. There are those who believe that the advertising business is dangerously complacent aboutthe situation. On the other hand, the anti-advertising lobbies are constantly denouncing the shortcomings ofcommercial advertising, seeking always to restrict and censor its operations in the name of the commongood.

Many enlightened advertising people feel that the time has come to redress the balance.171 pp. 1-2 [emphasisadded]

The national coordinators were key advertising professionals in each European country,identified by the secretariat of the EAAA/EAT who were asked to:

– give their time and expertise to organise campaigns against advertising censorship in their own countries.

– co-operate in a two-way information exchange with EAT.

– maintain close communication with the various sections of their (national) advertising industry.

– plan and develop long-term activity to help their own advertising community to continue to play theiressential role in the economy of their country.171 p. 2

The national coordinators’ task is described as followed in the same notes:

to motivate those whose livelihood is threatened by the growing burden of Government and Consumeristinspired activity to restrict and unfairly control advertising practices.

– firmly resist, by lobbying and other activit[i]es, those who seek to apply censorship to advertising.

– to promote a better understanding of the vital role played by advertising in the everyday affairs of thesocial and economic life of their country.171 p. 3

Even though the background notes had explicitly said in the introduction that the issuewas not about smoking or not smoking, when recruiting allies in the respective countries of thecoordinators, the tobacco manufacturers and tobacco manufacturers’ associations in eachcountry were considered the “most obvious sources from which effective allies might be

171 p. 4

The tobacco industry, directly through INFOTAB and indirectly through EAT, suppliedthe national coordinators with “information and material for use in campaigns.”171 p. 4 Bysupplying the advertising industry with the information and political and lobbying know-howacquired by the tobacco industry for the Campaign Against Tobacco Advertising Censorship(CATAC), the tobacco industry had a channel through which to advance its position to thepublic, key individuals, and organizations while keeping itself behind the scenes.

CATAC material will be made available to National Coordinators and includes practical aids to mountingprogrammes, organising lobbies, dealing with the media, in addition to explaining the arguments in the‘right to advertise cigarettes’ issue.

An on-going flow of information will be established by EAT/INFOTAB and communicated by EAT tokeep National Coordinators abreast of developments affecting the international advertising industry, andprovide an ‘early warning’ system on new proposed legislation or consumerist activity which mightthreaten to spread to other countries. It is of vital importance that this should develop from the outset into atwo-way interchange of information.

‘Refresher’ meetings are envisaged at regular suitable intervals to maintain enthusiasm and cross-fertilizeideas.171 pp. 4-5 [emphasis added]

The central contact points were Alastair Tempest, the secretary of the European AdvertisingTripartite, and Antonietta Corti, Director of Information Services of INFOTAB, both inBrussels.171 p. 5

The main arguments that are given by the tobacco industry and advertising industryagainst advertising bans are politically framed by Ronald Beatson, Director-General, EAAA, inhis speech given to the national coordinators for the defense of advertising and advertising oftobacco products at the Hilton Hotel in Brussels on June 16, 1983, entitled “the importance of

There are powerful forces at work that would destroy our market economies by placing the supply of goodsand services under state control. Having spent the first three days of this month in Leningrad, I am stillvividly aware of the unsmiling misery of consumers who have nothing much to consume but genericsbecause the men with the guns, the warrior classes of the new Sparta, take all, and even they have to makedo with those dreadful-looking air and tobacco tubes. They have no choice but Hobson’s. As Shakespeare

Freedom is a sine qua non in our market economy, where the supply of money, but not the supply ofgoods, is controlled by the state.

…

Attacks on free enterprise may be blatantly Marxist, or they may be more subtle: insidiously exploiting thegenuine concerns of consumerist movements, addressing highly emotive issues like advertising to childrenin order to stab at the soft under-belly of our market economy. Whatever its form, an attack on freeenterprise is an attack on freedom of speech and freedom of choice. ‘Leftist’ politicians (if I may use adefinition based on the seating arrangements in the French National Assembly) exploit the notion ofmajority rule by promising the greatest Utopia to the greatest number. To finance delivery of Utopia, theybleed the private sector. To justify this vampirism they accuse their victims of being socially irresponsible,or physically dangerous. The victims’ activities are restricted or regulated by the People’s Nursemaids inthe name of consumer protection’[sic], but the victim is kept alive as a vital source of blood. Consumeristmovements, usually self-appointed, are the assistant nannies of our society, chiding us for the way wespend our money and our time, protecting us from our silly selves. By and large, consumerists seem tothink that what is good for business is bad for consumers, and so they tilt like Don Quixote at the mills.

Many Greens are Red , but this does not mean that the consumerist people are simply the longa manus ofthe Communist Party. They are Utopian idealists , missionaires manqúes [sic], advocating the advantagesto consumers of a free market economy, while opposing the free enterprise system that produces theseadvantages.

…At EAAA we do everything possible to advocate and promote free enterprise, freedom of speech,freedom of choice.

René Descartes said ‘I am unlike God in every way except for my capacity to make decisions’. Lenin, onthe other hand, described men as ‘insects’. That’s about the sum of it: freedom to advocate, choose anddecide, or a numbing treadmill of coercion and constraint.172 p.2, 3, 4 [emphasis added]

Consistent with the tobacco industry’s central strategy of remaining out of the publicspotlight, Beatson explicitly appeals to the advertisers not to make a special case in“discriminating” against so-called “sensitive” products, such as tobacco, alcohol, children’sproducts, patent medicines,171 p. 3 also called “critical” products.168

Let us not undermine our common cause by pointing sectarian fingers at other product categories,assuming a Pharisaic stance about other so-called ‘sensitive’ products. From those narrow corridors of themind where Savonarola and the Puritans once stalked, it is easy to summon up charges against practicallyany product. But accusing others [e.g., the tobacco industry] not only jeopardizes our own position, it alsomisses the point; for we are not professionally concerned with the claimed hazards of products on legalsale.

Our members’ job is to produce persuasive, cost-effective, successful advertising, and our job as a TradeAssociation is to defend the interests of advertising in general in Europe, and of advertising agencies inparticular. We do not attempt to do this alone, but in collaboration with our advertiser and media partnersin the European Advertising Tripartite. …172 p. 5

This continuing effort and cooperation between the tobacco industry and advertisingindustry laid the groundwork for the defeat of a second proposed total advertising ban inSwitzerland in 1993.

1993 Referendum on Tobacco and Alcohol Advertising Ban (Zwillings initiative)

The tobacco industry was careful not to be provocative in advertising by adhering to theexisting Food Law, which regulates testing and advertising of tobacco products. It tried to

influence the revision of the Food Law to its favor. A draft of a Philip Morris Corporate Affairsplan for 1987 suggests:

Lead the industry in the revision of the Food Law and particularly the regulations to implement this law.While the seven member Swiss Federal Council will decide the final wording of the regulations, theFederal Commission on Tobacco will make initial proposals. The national [Federal] Public Health Office(OFSP) will seek to influence the Commission’s recommendations by advocating tax increases, restrictionson marketing and sales and maximum limits for these constituents, and harsher warning labels.

As this Federal Commission begins work in 1988, work in close cooperation with the membersrepresenting the ASFC, growers, trade and advertisers to ensure that our viewpoint is well documented andis being communicated persuasively. Enlist the support of the Tobacco Caucus in Parliament [see furtherbelow] to influence government officials who are commission members.67 bates 2501254719

In this effort, Philip Morris saw the newly formed Federal Tobacco Commission as itsally:

Make the best use of all available communication means permitted by the current Food Law, but avoidbeing too provocative. Lead the industry in influencing favourably its revision.

A careful and flexible interpretation of Convention and Food Law, mainly on “jurisprudence,” hasalways been the frame for selecting advertising and promotional activities. We have tried not to be tooprovocative.

In view of the Food Law revision, the Tobacco Industry has now a new partner: the FederalTobacco Commission .[Philip Morris, 1987 #62]

Philip Morris’ confidence was based on the fact that, unlike the Federal AlcoholCommission, which had no representative of the alcohol industry, the Federal TobaccoCommission included several representatives/allies of the tobacco industry. Therefore, it comesas no surprise that the Federal Council, frustrated by the inefficiency of the commission, did notrenew its mandate for the Federal Tobacco Commission’s in 1996:

…The ASFC has been able to reestablish a true dialogue with the Health authorities. They have put alltheir efforts on the constitution of the Federal Commission on Tobacco. Though its composition is notbalanced, tobacco circles are represented. It should be remembered that the Federal Commission onAlcohol does not include any representation of the alcohol industry, but antis only.[Philip Morris, 1987#62]

In 1998 however, a new federal commission was formed to advise the federalgovernment on issues of tobacco prevention. This time the commission did not have anytobacco industry representatives:

The Federal Council has formed a new Federal Commission for Tobacco Prevention. It replaces the formerFederal Commission for Tobacco Issues – a never functioning board, because consistently blocked byrepresentatives of the tobacco lobby.173

On April 12, 1988, 9 years after the defeat of the first initiative for a total advertising banon alcohol and tobacco products at a referendum, a “wide coalition of anti-tobacco/alcoholgroups, put together under the umbrella of the ‘Swiss Association for the Prevention of Problems

174 bates 2046312820 initiated a new proposal for a total advertising

ban on alcohol and tobacco products, called the “twin initiative.” The referendum on thetobacco and alcohol advertising bans were expected to take place late in 1993 or early in 1994.

As part of its effort to oppose advertising restrictions, the tobacco and advertisingindustries organized a “public hearing” to generate negative press for the idea of advertisingrestrictions. Ronald Beatson, director general of the European Association of AdvertisingAgencies, subsequently participated in a hearing organized jointly by the Union of SwissAdvertising Agencies (Bund Schweizerischer Werbeagenturen, BSW) and the InternationalAdvertising Association in Hotel Savoy, Zurich, in June 1991, Beatson was quoted as sayingthat restrictive practices of some member states of the European Community would destroy themarket. The press had been invited to this hearing entitled “Can the advertising industry defenditself against the EC trend to prohibit advertising?”175

The tobacco industry succeeded in maintaining a low profile. The article in thenewspaper Basler Zeitung which reported on the meeting only mentioned the word tobacco onceas an example of an advertising ban. Even when Volker Nickel, CEO and speaker of theGerman Advertising Association, was quoted in the same newpaper article saying that “neutralstudies had sufficiently proven that addictive behavior could not be fought through advertisingbans,” any mention of the word tobacco or nicotine addiction was avoided.175

The following memo from Andras Fehervary,174 manager government relations andpublic affairs, Philip Morris Corporate Affairs in Budapest, to Anne Okoniewski, coordinator ofresearch analysis, public affairs, Philip Morris International in New York, summarizes the“Swiss Ad Ban Case Story,” written by JPP (most likely Jean-Pierre Paschoud, Director,Industry Policy, Philip Morris EEMA). The case study starts with an overview of the procedurefor popular initiatives, then talks about the organizations that favor advertising ban. It ascribesthe rising pressure on member nations to WHO’s tobacco prevention campaigns. Significantly,Jean-Pierre Paschoud talks about the ineffectiveness of the Swiss Federal Tobacco Commission,due to the representation of the tobacco industry and its allies.

This private recognition of the industry’s influence contrasts with its public position thatit had little influence on the Commission. Less than five years earlier, Jean-Claude Bardy,director of the Swiss Association of Cigarette Manufacturers had complained in a letter to thechief editor of the largest daily quality newspaper in Switzerland, Tages-Anzeiger, about anarticle in which the journalist had said that the tobacco industry had a “strong representation”within the Swiss Federal Tobacco Commission. Bardy said in the letter that the industry wasrepresented “only” by six people, of which only one from the tobacco industry, as opposed to 12of tobacco control advocates.176

Health prevention and care is a competence of each canton. Thus, a large number of public and/or privateorganizations are directing (involved in) the anti-tobacco fight:

The Federal Health Office, reporting to the Ministry of the Interior [Department of Internal Affairs], isactually driving and coordinating the activities; the office is in theory assisted by a Federal TobaccoCommission whose role is to issue plans and recommendations. But effectiveness of the commission isclose to nil, probably due to the fact that the industry and its applies [sic], in spite of their relativeunderrepresentation (4 out of 15 members) succeeded in blocking or delaying the proposals ;174 [emphasisadded]

The players the tobacco industry considered “major players of the anti-tobacco game,”174

and what they concentrate on, is listed in the following section of the memo.

medical prevention institutes of the major universities (Zurich, Bern, Lausanne);national private groups such as AT (Association Tabagisme), SAN (Swiss Action Non-Smokers), Cancerand Tuberculosis Associations, FMH (Swiss Medical Association), ISPA (Swiss Institute for Alcohol andDrug Prevention), and the Swiss Foundation for Health Promotion.

The anti-tobacco lobby is mainly concentrating its activities on the ETS issue (public smoking, smoking atthe workplace) and marketing/ad bans. They are currently trying to set up a global [federal] tobaccoprevention plan, including a plan for increased taxation.174 bates 2046312819

The top ten advertisers in Switzerland in 1991 are listed in the same document, amongwhich the tobacco industry only takes the 8th place with 76 million Swiss francs (approximately50 million US dollars), corresponding to 6.5% of the sum of expenditures of the top tenadvertisers (in the order of expenditure: “cars, trade/distribution, newspaper, banks/finance,house/accommodation, clothing, magazines, tobacco, insurance, travel/hotel trade”).174 bates

2046312820

The document also acknowledges that tobacco advertising and promotion is virtuallyunregulated in Switzerland.

1.4 Existing legal and voluntary restrictions

Tobacco and alcohol advertising on TV and radio are forbidden by law since 1964.

Advertising aimed at minors (below age 20) is prohibited since 1978 by the food-stuff law, which includesthe distribution of samples and gifts to youngsters and branding on sportswear, sport devices andcars/bikes. This applies also to tobacco products.

In the early 1970s, the National Manufacturers Association (NMA) set up a code of voluntary restrictionsincluding quantitative limitations (size and number of ads, number of samples and gifts to be given toconsumer, etc.) and qualitative measures (no use of popular figures especially appealing to the young, nomention of the S&H [smoking and health] issue (?) [sic], etc.)

Despite these legal or voluntary restrictions, tobacco advertising and promotion can essentially beconsidered as free in Switzerland.174 bates 2046312820 [emphasis added]

The text of the “twin initiatives” is described in the memo as follows, with the alcoholadvertising ban initiative having a very similar wording:

Popular initiative for the prevention of problems linked to tobacco

At least one percent of the revenues from the taxation of tobacco has to be used in conjunction with thecantons, for the prevention of tobacco related diseases.

2. Advertising for tobacco products and their brands is prohibited. This is the same for all services andgoods that look like or (lead one to) make think of them as to word, picture, or sound. Federal legislationcan allow limited exceptions in special cases.174 bates 2 046312821

The memo goes on to describe the opposition that the tobacco industry and theadvertising industry had been able to build up during the years between the two efforts to imposerestrictions on advertising:

As soon as the launch of the “twin initiative” was made public in the beginning of 1988, the tobaccoindustry and the advertising branch decided to gather all concerned parties in an “Information Committee,”in order to monitor the issue and set up the grounds for the future fight. Around 30 industries andassociations accepted their proposal to begin meeting regularly under the chairmanship of the SwissAdvertising Association. Those represented were:

Tobacco, beer, wine, liquors, advertising agencies, advertisers, media agencies, outdoor (advertising)companies, cinemas, publishers, printers, trade, department stores, HORECA – the hotel and restaurantassociation, leading economic organizations, other associations, clubs, etc.

The committee met between three and [f]our times a year until the popular vote took place on November29, 2993 [sic]. These regular meetings unquestionably strengthened the coalition, as every member wasinformed at each step of the issue, and was given the opportunity to provide their input.

Clearly, such a large committee is not an appropriate vehicle for the effective management of the campaignagainst the initiatives. A smaller “Project Group” composed of representatives of the most threatenedindustries and branches was therefore set up in the beginning of 1990. Those represented were:

The NMA [national manufacturer association], PM [Philip Morris], beer, wine, liquors, advertisingagencies, publishers, outdoor advertising companies, cinema, HORECA [Hotel, Restaurant, CaféAssociation].

The tasks of the “Project Group” were:

to define the argument action platform against ad bans;develop the communications tools, and in particular

- media campaigns- information print material- non-media activities- PM activities- lobbying activities

direct the implementation of all activitiesmonitor the activities of the initiative committeerun public opinion polls.

In Switzerland, all major votation campaigns are implemented by one of the key politico/economic topassociations. Therefore, the coalition decided to give the lead of the “Project Group” to USAM (UnionSuisse des Arts et Motiers [Métiers]), whose main strength was their strong organizational network at thecantonal level, in all cantons. As a result, an experienced secretary of USAM chaired the “Project Group’s”meetings.

Finally, the fighting structure against the initiative was compl[e]ted by the hiring of one of the best PRagencies in political matters: Jaeggi Communications, Bern. It is worthwhile noting that the agency’sowner and manager, Dr. Dieter Jaeggi, was simultaneously one of the industry’s allies in the FederalTobacco Commission. In addition, Jaeggi Communications had already been working for Philip Morris SA(Balair ads and tolerance/courtesy campaign). As a result, this close relationship made directing andcontrolling the campaign much easier.174 bates 2046312821_2822

The last sections of the “story” reproduced in the memo by Andras Fehervary to AnneOkoniewski shows the prominence of Philip Morris within the tobacco industry and within theanti-advertising ban organization. They also summarize the main strategies used in fighting theadvertising bans, including the issue of credibility of the tobacco and alcohol industry,necessitating a background operation of the tobacco and alcohol industry, the use of existinglobbying networks, and the taking advantage of the relationship with the federal administration,government officials, Parliament and political parties:

4. Industry and PM fighting structure

Seven companies are members of the Swiss NMA (CISC) – Communauto [Communauté] de l’IndustrieSuisse de la Cigarette): Philip Morris, BAT, Burrus, (Swiss owned), RJR [RJ Reynolds], Sullana, Rinsoz &Ormond, Reemtsma. President of the CISC is Dr. E. Oehler, an influential Christian-Democratic MP [seealso SAPALDIA study]. Mr. J.C. Bardy, director, manages the administrative office in Fribourg, with astaff of 10 people including a PR manager and a scientific attaché.

Representatives of the companies generally meet once a month, where industry issues a[r]e discussed andactions framed for dec[i]sion in the frame of the General Assembly.Preparatory work is done by a PR Commission, made up of representatives of the five big companies:Philip Morris (2-3), BAT (1), Burrus (1), RJR (1), and Sullana (1).The Pr [sic] Commission issues recommendations to the General Assembly, with some decision power incases of urgency/importance.

Through its three person Corporate Affairs staff, PM provides leadership to the industry. Most of theissues are handled by PM and proposals for action are then passed on to the NMA. In most cases, theother manufacturers follow PM recommendations as they do not dispute of their own Corporate Affairsmanpower.

5. Strategies

From the beginning, it was clear that the best chance for fighting successfully a tobacco ad-ban was to keepthe issue as part of the overall problem of freedom of speech . On the other hand, alcohol manufacturers,the advertising branch and publishers realized rapidly that they could benefit from the tobacco industry’sresources and expertise. Thus all parties decided to build up a common front, with one common campaign.The strong coalition was maintained throughout the long political process, with minor attempts by outdoorcompanies and advertising agencies to go their own way, which were successfully contained or utilized inthe scope of the overall campaign objectives.

The second strategical [sic] rule was to keep tobacco and alcohol industries in the background. In otherwords, the decision was made to use the advertising branch, publishers and sponsored events asspearheads. This principle allowed the coalition to avoid entering health issues and to keep the debate atthe level of freedom of speech.

Thirdly, it was desired to use pro-active behavior at all phases of political treatment of the initiative withthe Federal Council and Parliament to prevent undesired or unacceptable political compromise. Thismeant full use of existing lobbying networks and the consolidation of relationship with the federaladministration, government officials, Parliament and political parties .174 bates 2046312823 [emphasis added]

The tobacco industry always tries to keep health issue out of the debate.60 p. 12

As an alternative to the popular initiative, the Swiss federal government suggestedrevising article 13 of the food law, which regulates tobacco products in Switzerland.65 p. 11 Thisrevision was heavily influenced by the tobacco industry, as can be seen from a report written by

SGC (most likely Stig Carlson, Director Corporate Affairs, Philip Morris EEMA) on August 9,1993.

The Swiss Federal Council was driven to redraft a softer counter-project to the ad ban initiative after theconsultation phase.

The parliament finally accepted the text supported by the industry for art. 13 of the revised food law.

A coalition against ad bans was kept united and active.

A two year national pre-campaign started (posters and press) in June under the umbrella of the“Association against further ad bans” in order to influence political circles and prepare the Swisspopulation to [sic] the votation political campaign in 1994.

The Advertising self limitation code was signed by all industry members and the “Swiss Commission for

As a result of our communication strategies to journalists on the ad ban issue, press reporting was nearly100% positive.[Carlson), 1993 #185 p. 2] [emphasis added]

The Federal Council’s (the Swiss federal government) second draft of counter proposalwas much more favorable to the tobacco industry due to a strong opposition by what the tobaccoindustry calls “the economy” during the consultation on the first draft. This success (from theindustry’s point of view) is summarized in a memo by Georges Diserens, Vice PresidentSwitzerland, Scandinavia/Finland, Duty Free, Philip Morris EEMA, to Andreas Gembler,President Philip Morris EEMA region, dated January 27, 1992.

Federal Council decided on the indirect counter-project to be submitted to Parliament by end February.Compared to the first draft put last year in consultation, the new proposal shows that Federal Council hastaken a step backward, due to the strong opposition expressed by the economy. The main differences [allmore favorable to the tobacco industry] are the following:

- tobacco ads are allowed in newspapers and magazines, as long as the content is directly linked toproducts and their characteristics;

- sponsoring is permitted under the company name, with mention of the brands sold by the firm;

- advertising for diversification brands is allowed, as long as it does not promote sales of tobacco goods.

- Tobacco advertising is allowed in/at POS [points of sale], (German version says “at” whilst Frenchtranslation says “in”), which are directly linked to tobacco products, if it is not targeted towards youngpeople.

- Sampling to a “determined” group of people could be allowed.

First reaction of industry and allies is that the new proposal is not acceptable, because being still based on atotal ban with some exceptions. For the industry, it means in particular a prohibition of image advertising.The advertising branch cannot accept the discrimination between press and outdoor/cinema which wouldsuffer a total ban. Articles published today in the major newspapers express an overall opposition of printmedia who consider the project is still going to[o] far.

Dr. Oehler is member of the Commission for the LDA [most likely foodstuff law] revision.

Debates in Parliament which could start in spring will give us and our allies good opportunities forextracting further concessions, as authorities seem to be receptive to concerns of economic circles andcoalition against ad-bans is keeping its unity.177

The tobacco industry’s objective to “keep an acceptable level of freedom of speech,”65 p.

11 its strategy was as outlined in the Philip Morris long range plan, “Switzerland 1993 – 1995”:

We will develop sales and marketing strategy and action plans in separate sections. Our Corporate affairsstrategy is to fight both the initiative and the Federal counter-project by offering a reasonable alternative toauthorities and Swiss voters through the voluntary advertising restriction agreement which came into forceon September 1, 1992.65 p. 11

The specific strategies employed by the tobacco industry to fight the federal council’scounter-project are also listed in the long range plan 1993 – 1995 for Switzerland by PhilipMorris EEMA.

Action plan:

Our plan, together with our allies, is to:

- Maintain common front of manufacturers- Drive and maintain current wide coalition opposed to ad-bans (media, economy, sport, culture, etc.)- Continues running the pre-campaign under the umbrella of the “Association against further ad-bans”- Pursue promoting favourable articles in media, in particular during debate in parliament.- Lobby MPs in favour of a reasonable solution during debate in parliament.- Continues lobbying of third parties and dissemination of documentation.- Evaluate pros and cons of initiating a referendum against Art. 13. or a parliamentary counter-project.65 p.

As for the popular initiative itself, the action plan was as follows:

This action plan complements the counter-project action plan. Given the time frame, our strategy is toprepare the ground for the future votation and to:

- Continue using Jaeggi’s agency to prepare communication tools and campaign.- Develop a campaign against the initiative and have it ready by end 1993.- Go public when opportunities arise.- Continue sustaining the “Association against further ad-bans”.- Support regional media.- Monitor evolution of public opinion through telephone tracking studies.65 p. 13

A public opinion poll done by the tobacco industry at the end of October 1993, just amonth before the referendum on advertising ban showed that a substantial plurality of Swissvoters favored an advertising ban, 41.3% in favor versus 30.0% against, with 23.8%undecided.21 bates 2500107764

While these results still reflected support for the advertising restrictions, they did indicatethat the tobacco industry’s ongoing campaign over the preceeding years had been effective.Only four years earlier, in 1989, a comprehensive opinion poll undertaken by Philip MorrisInternational in 10 European countries, including Switzerland had shown that 57% stronglyagreed that all cigarette advertising should be banned.23 bates 2500147506

The reason for a successful campaign thus far was seen by Philip Morris as follows:

The results achieved until now are due to a strong coalition of allies, comprising the advertising andalcohol industries and supported by all the main economic associations and the Press; to a preliminarycampaign sensitizing the general public to the issue of free choice, and to the reinforcement of the industryCode of Conduct.21 bates 2500107761 [emphasis added]

Besides the efforts undertaken to influence people’s and the media’s opinion in theirfavor, the tobacco industry also strongly lobbied the politicians and others to be successful infighting the advertising ban initiative.

During October and November [1993, the month the vote would take place] our efforts to swing publicopinion and defeat these initiatives have been developed along two axes:

- The first is a political campaign aimed at the general public using all available media and supported inthe field by 150 Members of Parliament and local committees in every canton.

- The second axis is a grassroots mobilization program, emphasizing the importance of taking part in thevote. More than 5,000 trade partners, suppliers, sponsored organizations and employees have beencontacted by direct mail.[# need cite ]

As elsewhere, the industry used its voluntary code of advertising as a shield againstgovernment regulation. Several times, the industry code of conduct was mentioned by thetobacco industry as one of the main strategic ingredients in fighting the popular initiative ontobacco advertising ban. The 1993-1995 three year plan, EEMA region, under key corporateissues addressing legal, legislative and regulatory challenges, it says:

Strategies: Fight advertising restrictions/bans in all instances.

Action plans/milestones: Switzerland: Lobbying activities and mass advertising in favor of the “industry178 bates 2500108245

The role of the industry code as a defense against regulation is described in a memowritten by Georges Diserens, Vice President Switzerland, Scandinavia/Finland, Duty Free,Philip Morris EEMA to Andreas Gembler, President Philip Morris EEMA on June 19, 1992, fivemonths before the referendum on tobacco and alcohol advertising ban would take place:

Industry Advertising Self Limitation Code

After long discussions, all members of the ASFC accepted a self-limitation code in an extraordinarymeeting held on June 16. The draft text presented by PM in the fall 1991 was actually accepted by ourcompetitors, with some minor changes. The final French and German texts are being fine-tuned by theASFC and will be available for signature next week. Key self-limitations are the following:

- no models under 25 and no provocative scenes suggesting social, sexual or athletic success in the ads;- one half-page ad only by manufacturer in dailies;- one full page ad by brand in magazines (max. 2 brands by manufacturer in the same issue);- no ads on the fourth cover page of magazines;- no cinema commercials before 8 p.m. and two tobacco commercials only in the same program;- no posters in the surroundings of schools (200 meters);- no permanent outdoor material which is not linked to POS [points of sale] (HORECA excl.)- prohibition of all semi-permanent and temporary outdoor material, except ashtrays;

- no advertising in amusem*nt arcades;- no advertising on outdoor vending machines;- no sponsoring of events attracting mainly youngsters;- no stands in fairs/exhibitions, except those linked to an exhibition sponsored by a manufacturer (for ex.

motor shows);- no promotional activities in shopping-center lobbies;- no gifts susceptible of being used by kids;- no T-shirts given or sold to youngsters;- no public sampling, except samples given to adults at POS and bars/cafes/restaurants.

The code will be put in force on Sept. 1, 1992 [approximately a year before the referendum would takeplace on November 28, 1993], with a transitory period until January 1, 1993 for limitations which cannotbe implemented rapidly.

The major aim of the code is a reinforcement of youth protection measures, in view of the debates inparliament on the initiative, which will start on Sept. 3, 1992. The objectives of industry and allies arefirstly to convince MPs that there is no need for a counter-project and that youth protection can be betterachieved through self-regulation within the tobacco and advertising industries, and secondly to pushvoters to reject the initiative in 1994 because of its uselessness.

In order to get maximum credibility, the code will be countersigned by “Publicite Suisse” and itsenforcement controlled by the “Commission suisse pour la loyaute en publicite,” which is composed ofrepresentatives of advisers, agencies, medias and consumers.We have image advertising in all media.179 pp. 1-2 [emphasis added]

This tobacco industry self-limitation agreement was not a de novo invention of the Swisstobacco industry, but a modified version of the Philip Morris International cigarette marketingcode.180

A memo by Jean-Pierre Paschoud, Director Industry Policy, FTR/Philip Morris EEMA toMatthew Winokur, Director Philip Morris Worldwide Regulatory Affairs, Europe, how easilythe tobacco industry navigated through the political landscape with very little resistance from thetobacco control advocates. This is a good example of missed opportunities to challenge tobaccoindustry’s claims and tactics:

Further to your note of April 6 addressed to Stig Carlson [Director Corporate Affairs, Philip MorrisEEMA], please find enclosed the English translation of the Swiss industry’s self-limitation agreementenforced on September 1st 1992.

As you will see, the skeleton of this agreement is the PMI Code, completed by tailor-made measures.

Enforcement of the code has not created any major problem. Up-to-now, the Swiss Commission for fairpractices in advertising has only received two minor complaints which have been rejected.

Made public through a press conference, the agreement got wide media coverage and positive comments.Antis did not really challenge it.181 [emphasis added]

A handwritten note by Matthew Winokur on the memo adds:

FYI – good use of PMI Code…181

Less than three years after the referendum on advertising ban, this advertising code wascriticized by a letter to the editor of the newspaper L’Express from Neuchatel, Switzerland. Thewriter complained about the outdoor cigarette advertising close to schools which was clearlyagainst the tobacco industry advertising code (the writer knew the industry code).182 This alsoshowed how ineffective the control by a presumably “neutral body” was in reinforcing the code.

Journalists were regularly “informed” by the tobacco industry on advertising bans:

Editors information sessions on ad-bansTwo briefing sessions aimed at journalists have been organized in Zurich this week by USAM, incollaboration with “Publicite Suisse.” Approx. 30 key chief-editors and editors attended presentations onthe ad-ban issue, given in particular by Prof. Bergler [Head of the Institute of Psychology at BonnUniversity, Germany]170 and Volker Nickel [CEO and speaker of the German Advertising Association]175.Today, another session is being held at Curti-Medien, gathering 39 participants. Similar briefings areplanned with Ringier in the fall.179 p. 2

These sessions were repeated at least once; on February 17, 1993, at least threenewspaper articles appeared in three different newspapers describing the economic hardship theadvertising industry was in and how this situation would worsen with an advertising ban ontobacco and alcohol products. “Werbeagenturen spüren die Rezession” (Advertising agenciesfeel the economic recession),183 “Les publicitaires défendent la cigarette. Les recettes desagences de pub ont faiblement progressé en 1992. Leur association craint les initiatives surl’interdiction de la publicité pour le tabac et l’alcool” (The income of the ad agencies haveincreased only slightly in 1992. Their association fears the initiatives on the advertising bans ontobacco and alcohol),184 or “La pub pour le tabac et l’alcool en baisse en 1992. Les agencesdénoncent l’hypocrisie ambiante” (Downward trend of tobacco and alcohol advertising in 1992.The agencies denounce the surrounding hypocrisy).185 No opinion of public health professionalswere presented in any of the three articles to contest the opinions of the tobacco and advertisingindustry.

During the last month before the referendum took place, several articles appeared inSonntagsblick, a popular newspaper that has the largest circulation in Switzerland, which clearlyexpressed tobacco industry’s views. For example, on November 11, 1993, three weeks beforethe referendum, an article was published in Sonntagsblick that discussed tobacco production at aR.J. Reynolds’ cigarette factory in Switzerland. This article noted that “300 employees havebeen producing 24 million cigarettes daily for 22 years,” or “200 tons of fresh, coarsely cuttobacco are stored in fully air conditioned halls … not simply tobacco, … , but these are tobaccoblends that have been puzzled out in years of research work. In ‘Camel’ alone there are 21different types from all over the world, which ultimately make up the aroma. Swiss tobacco isalso added to the production.” Helmuth G. Fritsch, director of R. J. Reynolds is quoted saying:

Kurzfristig würde sich ein Ja bei uns nicht auf die Arbeitsplätze in der Produktion auswirken. AndereFunktionen in Verkauf, Promotion und Marketing könnten jedoch schon sehr rasch in Frage gestellt sein.

Das von den Initianten angestrebte totale Werbeverbot … würde den Markt blockieren, weil wir nicht

Ein verbessertes Produkt könnte dem potentiellen Kunden nicht mehr bekannt gemacht werden. DieMotivation zur Forschung wäre damit weg vom Tisch, die Raucher würden nicht weniger, sondern

[Das Werbeverbot] stellt eine weitere Bevormundung des Bürgers durch den Staat dar.

[In the short run, a yes [to the advertising ban on tobacco products] would not influence employment in ourproduction. Other sectors, such as sales, promotion, and marketing may however quickly be compromised.

The target of the initiative, a total advertising ban [on tobacco products] … would block the market,because we could not communicate with the consumer any more.

An improved product could not be made known to the potential customer. The motivation for researchwould be gone, the smokers would not smoke less, but stronger tobacco.

[The advertising ban] is another tutelage of the citizen by the state].186

One week later, on November 14, 1993, or two weeks before the referendum, anotherarticle appeared in Sonntagsblick that dealt with the problem of sponsorship by the tobaccoindustry. Several advertising agencies and organizers of international music and film festivals inSwitzerland were interviewed and quoted. Again, the opinion was quite uniform, as the title ofthe newspaper article succinctly expressed:

So gefährdet ein Ja zur Zwillingsinitiative Festivals und Rockkonzerte. Wer Kultur sagt, muss auchSponsoring sagen.

[This is how a yes to the twin initiative [for a total ban on alcohol and tobacco advertising] puts at riskfestivals and rock concerts. Who says culture must also say sponsoring.]187

The article was accompanied by information on the referendum on advertising ban onalcohol and tobacco products which would take place on November 28, 1993. The politicalparties and organizations for the ad ban were the socialist party (SP) as the only major traditionalparty represented in the executive, two much smaller parties in the political center to right (LDU,EVP), one very small nationalist party (SD), and the ecologist party (Grüne), as well as Youth,Physician, and Health organizations. The three other major traditional political parties in thepolitical center to right (FDP, SVP, CVP) however, and the trade were against the initiative.187

The Swiss people were bombarded during the pre-referendum campaign by industrysponsored messages through large posters and matchboxes that targeted Swiss people’straditional strong aversion against state regulations and fear of losing popular events sponsoredby the tobacco industry. Following are examples of texts used on posters from an internal PhilipMorris presentation dated November 17, 1993, 11 days before the referendum (Fig. 18, 19, 20).

Answer no to the two initiatives with a headline Verbotitis meaning prohibition disease.No to being bossed around.

Open-air cinema closed due to advertising ban.

As part of our field work we are also distributing 1.3 million matchboxes which convey messages on thethreats of an advertising ban.21 bates 2500107768-7775

Fig. 18

Fig. 19

Fig. 20

100

As in the past, the tobacco industry’s large and sophisticated campaign overwhelmed thepublic health forces and the tobacco industry and its allies defeated the initiative in theNovember 28 vote by a majority of 74.4% for the tobacco advertising ban (74.7% foralcohol).The industry achieved this victory despite the fact that, as mentioned before, pre-referendum polls had shown that, overall and in the German part of Switzerland, which makesup more than 60% of the country’s population, a majority of people had been in favor of the totalban on tobacco advertising, namely 57% strongly in favor of an advertising ban in 1989 and41% for versus 30% against an advertising ban in 1993, only a few weeks before thereferendum.21, 23

On November 29, 1993, the European Association of Advertising Agencies sent out apress release which read:

Bureaucrats who are inspired more by the nursemaid theories of a command society than by common senseviews expressed through free democratic votes are today fuming at the results of yesterday’s referendum inSwitzerland on alcohol and tobacco advertising.

But we are rejoicing.

A proposal to ban advertising for alcoholic beverages and tobacco products was roundly defeated by three-quarters of the voters in yesterday’s referendum in Switzerland.

This is a major victory for the freedom of commercial speech for all products on legal sale, and a fineexample for all other States in Europe.188 [emphasis added]

Conrnuz, et. al.189 analyzed the pre-referendum campaign and the result of thereferendum in a paper published in Tobacco Control in 1996 written before the industrydocuments became available and concluded:

This case study is an example of an unbalanced battle, because of the strong alliance among the tobaccoindustry (high profits in a market of ongoing expansion), the state (tax revenues), the media (directadvertising), and sports and cultural activities’ planners (indirect advertising). The advocates of the banwere unable to effectively inform Swiss citizens about the hidden goals of cigarette advertising. Thus,without knowledge of counter-arguments to the mostly fallacious claims made by the opponents, the Swisspeople were unable to make an informed decision on the initiative. The failure of the Swiss ban initiativeshould be instructive for other countries as they consider related issues.189 p. 153

While it is true that this was an unbalanced battle, this fact does not fully explain the defeat ofthe initiative. The lack of balance was, and will be, the case almost anywhere in the world,because the tobacco industry has much more financial, and also experiential, resourcesworldwide compared to tobacco control advocates. Conrnuz, et. al., given the lack of access tothe tobacco industry documents in 1995-1996, underestimated the financial input by the tobaccoindustry by far, when they stated:

Compared with at least SFr 2 million (about US$ 1.6 million) spent by the opposition [not just the tobaccoindustry, even though the tobacco industry most likely contributed the major financial share], the initiativecommittee had only raised SFr 500’000 (US$ 400’000).189 p. 151

According to the long range plan 1994-1996 for Switzerland, the industry actuallycalculated the cost of campaigns to be 7 to 8 million (probably in CHF, approximately USD 5.5

101

to 6.5 million).190 bates 2501145994 As past experience elsewhere, such as in Florida or California,and in Switzerland has shown, people usually favor legislative tobacco control measures, untilthe tobacco industry starts its campaign.60, 191 As Conrnuz, et. al. also noted, the lack ofprofessional PR management, lack of coordination among public health organizations,inefficient use of limited financial resources for media campaigns, and above all, obliviousnessof past arguments and counter-arguments in other countries contributed to the overwhelmingrejection of the initiative by the voters.189 pp. 151-153

What was almost completely missing was a public appreciation of the role of the tobaccoindustry in manipulating the political process, which was so effectively used by public healthadvocates in California in the early 1980’s in their campaigns against the tobacco industry.60, 191

p. 286 In those battles, public health advocates worked to expose the tobacco industry connectionswith the opposition.

The argument of shortage of time for campaigning for the public health advocates – dueto advancing of the date of the vote by the government from March 1994 to November 1993 fortechnical reasons, brought forth by Conrnuz, et. al., is only partly valid. As already mentionedabove, the tobacco industry had been preparing itself through global cooperation for upcomingadvertising bans in various countries without a break since the first referendum on tobacco andalcohol advertising ban in 1979. The tobacco industry had predicted the decision date ofvotation to be in the second half of 1993,190 bates 2501145994 long before the opponents realized it.

The public health advocates had used mainly three arguments during the campaign forthe advertising ban. First, they brought forth that “advertising seduces [people to smoke] andpromotes the consumption of a product that is addictive,” second, “a yes … protect[s] ouryouth,” and third, “a yes promotes health.”192 p. 2 As Verena El Fehri, director of the SwissAssociation for Smoking Prevention remarked, even though the campaign stressed smokingprevention among youth, it did not engage youth in the campaign.193 p. 3 For most voters, thesingle measure of advertising ban did not seem to have an immediate or short-term effect on theprevention of deaths due to smoking. Also, the arguments brought forth by the tobacco industry,such as individual and market freedom was very effective in Switzerland where people stronglybelieve in free markets,193 p. 3 as was the argument that advertising bans would severely harm theeconomy and would lead to even more unemployment, in a time when unemployment wasrelatively high in Switzerland, and the advertising industry’s profit margins were shrinking.192 pp.

2-3 A draft of a Philip Morris EEMA Corporate Affairs plan in 1987 informs us about PhilipMorris’ intentions, to be executed through the national tobacco manufacturers association,ASFC:

Recruit more members for the 21 member Parliamentary “tobacco caucus” and stimulate these membersto persuasively communicate industry views to the Parliament. Integrate these allies into the early warningsystem.67 bates 2501254720 [emphasis added]

Now that we have the documents, the question asked by Verena El Fehri, why 150 members ofparliament were so strongly opposed to the advertising bans193 p. 3 can be more easily answered:it was the heavy lobbying within a parliament that already had an influential “tobacco caucus.”

102

The following sections show that the tobacco industry knew from their experience in theUS and elsewhere, that at a national level, lobbying of politicians and policy makers was the bestweapon in the war against tobacco regulations.121

Even after the victory in the referendum on advertising ban of tobacco and alcoholproducts, the tobacco industry did not take a rest, certain that the next initiative or proposalwould not be far off. Georges Diserens, Vice President for Switzerland, Scandinavia/Finland,and Duty Free of the EEMA region predicted in the Philip Morris long range plan forSwitzerland 1994-1996, well aware of the tobacco industry experience in California60 pp. 21-32:

Antis [tobacco control advocates] initiate advertising restrictions proposals at cantonal and communal level(especially where initiative was accepted).190 bates 2501145992

The action plan therefore included:

Monitor antis’ activities at cantonal and city level by using cantonal committees involved in the politicalcampaign (CISC) [Communauté de l’Industrie Suisse de la Cigarette, Swiss Association of CigaretteManufacturers].190 bates 2501145995

Knowing that not only direct advertising but indirect advertising, such as sponsoringwere also in danger of being banned, Philip Morris sought to “fight creation of a foundation forsponsoring” through the “use of [their] allies to support industry position on exceptions and

190 bates 2501145997

One other reason for failure of the initiative mentioned by Conrnuz, et. al. was the lack ofsupport for the initiative by the Swiss government and parliament, though they did not attempt togive an explanation for the lack of support by the government and the parliament:

Both refused to back an alternative proposal for a less ambitious (but also more feasible) ban on tobaccoadvertising. Two months before the vote, every Swiss citizen was sent a booklet containing therecommendations of the Federal Council with the arguments both in favour of and against the initiative.However, the government’s conclusions in the brochure were based on the arguments made by theopponents of the ban. The government mentioned that specific campaigns (such as educational campaignstargeted at schoolchildren) would be a more appropriate vehicle to implement tobacco control policy thanthe proposed ban. The government stated, for example, that a warning on cigarette packages about theharmful effects of tobacco would be more effective than the proposed advertising ban.

The Swiss government failed to note that tobacco sales and smoking prevalence declines havebeen found in countries where tobacco advertising has been banned (Canada, Norway, New Zealand). Theimportance of cigarette tax revenues was also not mentioned in the government’s brochure.189 p. 151

The lack of support for the advertising ban – or the support for the tobacco industry and its allies-- is not surprising when one knows how seriously the tobacco industry took the maintenance ofrelationships with key politicians within the various major political parties combined with thefailure of the public health community in Switzerland to mount an effective counterbalancingeffort.

Meetings with the leaders of the political parties were arranged by sending faxes to thepresidents of the political parties in October 1993 (the month before the vote), then following upwith a letter in November 1993 – still before the vote, inviting the political leaders of various

103

parties to a meeting with tobacco industry representatives in December 1993 – after the vote,preceded or followed by a meal.194 The political parties contacted included CVP (ChristlicheVolkspartei), SVP (Schweizerische Volkspartei), FDP (Freiheitliche Partei der Schweiz), SPS(Sozialistische Partei der Schweiz), Partie Libéral Suisse, and Autopartei. There may have beenother parties invited,195, 196 but we do not have documentary confirmation that SPS responded.

Even though we do not have the faxes sent to the presidents of the political parties, andthe documents we have do not mention any specific objectives of the meetings, it is very likelythat these meetings were meant to present the politicians with industry views and maintain therelationship with the politicians at a more personal level. During the approximately 2 hour longmeetings, the following topics were presented: tobacco industry in Switzerland with relevantnumbers, tobacco and health (for which Jean-Claude Bardy, president of the Swiss Associationof Cigarette Manufacturers, thanked Helmut Reif, Principal Scientist of FTR/Philip MorrisSwitzerland), problems of the tobacco industry, and various other topics.196

In 1991, two years before the referendum on advertising ban, the Swiss Society of HealthPolicy, a private organization founded in 1976 with the aim of promoting the discussion inhealth policy through publications and regular conferences, published a monograph on tobaccoadvertising and tobacco consumption.197 The monograph had been commissioned by the SwissFederal Office of Public Health and written by two economists, Robert Leu and DaniloBernasconi. After reviewing a long list of available literature on this topic, they came to theconclusion that:

Insgesamt ergibt sich aus diesen Studien damit die Schlussfolgerung, dass Einschränkungen derTabakwerbung unter sonst gleichen Umständen den Tabakkonsum wahrscheinlich reduzieren würden.[Overall, these studies lead us to the conclusion that advertising bans on tobacco advertising, underotherwise similar circ*mstances, would most likely reduce tobacco consumption.]197 p. 96 [emphasis inoriginal]

Leu and Bernasconi go on to close with the following paragraph:

Unter der gesundheitspolitischen Zielsetzung stellt aufgrund der Ergebnisse der in diesemGutachten zusammengefassten internationalen Literatur eine Kombination von Werbeeinschränkung,Gegen- (Gesundheits-)werbung und erhöhter Besteuerung das wirksamste Mittel zur Reduktion desZigaretten- (Tabak-)konsums dar. Wie aus einigen ökonometrischen Untersuchungen deutlich wird,besteht dabei insbesondere auch die Möglichkeit, dass synergistische Effekte auftreten. [From healthpolicy perspectives, and under consideration of the results of the international literature reviewed in thisexpertise, a combination of advertising restriction, counter- (health-) advertising, and higher taxation is themost effective means to the reduction of cigarette (tobacco) consumption. As can be concluded from someeconometric studies, it is possible that there are synergistic effects, i.e. the overall effect of such acombined intervention is greater than the sum of the effects of the individual interventions.]197 p. 101

It is unclear why this monograph, which was commissioned by the Swiss Federal Officeof Public Health to the attention of the (first) Federal Commission for Tobacco-related Issues(which had several industry representatives or representatives of its allied organizations) nevergot the publicity it deserved in the political discussion of tobacco advertising ban during thedebate leading up to the referendum in 1993. The fact that it did not figure prominently amongthe tobacco industry documents nor in the analysis of Conrnuz, et al.189 probably means that itsdissemination had effectively been prevented early on by the tobacco lobby, or that public health

104

advocates failed to use a potentially highly useful argument effectively to have an impact on theoutcome of the referendum that followed two years later.

The tobacco industry once again won a battle over advertising bans in Switzerland. Thecomprehensive analysis of the 1993 referendum on advertising ban by Conrnuz, et. al., publishedin Tobacco Control in 1996,189 has shown that multiple factors, including lack of and inefficientuse of finances for and by public health advocates, repetition of a mistake made in late 1970’s bycombining advertising bans on tobacco and alcohol, failure to hire professional public relationspeople, and failure to apply other successful strategies used by public health advocateselsewhere, were responsible for this clear defeat of the advertising ban initiative.

Our analysis of tobacco industry documents not only confirms that the tobacco industrywas actively fighting the advertising bans. It shows that the tobacco industry was actually thedriving force of the entire anti-advertising ban coalition. It also demonstrates how successfullythe tobacco industry managed to operate behind the scenes in order to keep a low profile and toavoid the issue of its low credibility as well as the issue of tobacco and health.

105

Chapter 10. Taxation

Taxation, its development, and comparison to other European countries

Despite Switzerland’s high living standard, and the rapidly shrinking federal pensionfund’s partial dependence on the tobacco taxes, it has had, and still has, the lowest tobaccoexcise tax among all Western European countries. While other nations’ excise taxes withoutVAT range from 57% (Belgium) to 66.7% (Portugal), Switzerland only asks for barely over50% (1999). The entire tobacco tax goes to the federal pension fund, as written down in theconstitution (about CHF 1.6 billion (approximately USD 1 billion) in tax revenue for the pensionfund in 1999). In addition, 0.577% of tobacco sales revenues goes to a fund that subsidizesindigenous tobacco farming, which produces relatively poor quality tobacco.20, 198, 199

The contribution of tobacco excise tax to the pension fund is frequently used by thetobacco industry to preempt any legislation that may decrease tobacco sales, such as totaladvertising bans. The tobacco industry argues that decreasing cigarette consumption would hurtthe already shrinking pension fund. They were confident that the customs administration agreedon this argument with them. The Philip Morris EEMA Long Range Plan for 1990-1992 lays out(EEMA: EFTA, Eastern Europe, Middle East, Africa. Philip Morris Europe, Middle East,Africa was reorganized into PM EEMA and PM EEC in January 1982, with both headquarters inLausanne, Switzerland.200):

Excise taxes are earmarked to fund the State Pension (AVS) as such we have an ally in the customsadministration to maintain a very high minimum specific tax.[Philip Morris, 1990-1992 #115]

Study by A. Holly

A 1999 study by a group of economists from the University of Lausanne tested theinfluence of various models of tobacco excise tax increases on smoking incidence andprevalence. They recommended that the federal government should seriously consider taxincrease as an effective way of reducing smoking incidence and prevalence. While increasingfederal revenues, the tax increase would decrease the burden on the social services expenditureand abolish the need for another increase in V.A.T. in order to support the federal pensionfund.201 The tobacco industry criticized the report on the grounds that the smokers alreadycovered the expenses they caused, and that higher cigarette prices would discriminate againstthose with low income.202

106

Chapter 11. Conclusions and Recommendations

The tobacco industry in Switzerland, as in the US and in the rest of the world, has beenusing the same strategies over and over to fight science and tobacco control policies worldwide.Their well-organized intelligence network enables them to always stay up-to-date and exchangetimely information and tested know-how between countries and regions. This is made possiblethrough enormous financial resources of the tobacco industry and the fact that the industry hasdeveloped and maintains a network of experts worldwide.

The tobacco industry enlists the help and support of allies from other industries and thetrade, as well as politicians, in order to maintain a low public profile. Swiss public healthadvoactes have not exposed these relationships and forced these groups away from the tobaccoindustry.

The tobacco industry has skillfully exploited the Swiss tradition of consensus democracy,using the process of discussion and comment to water down or stop tobacco control measures.Public health advocates have not been effective players in this process because they have notdevoted adequate resources to participating in this process. Public health advocates have notcapitalized Switzerland’s federal structure to enact tobacco control measures at the local level,where the tobacco industry is weakest.

Thanks to the incorrect belief within the public health community that Switzerland is aspecial case, the paramount and consistent role of the tobacco industry in tobacco control hasbeen largely ignored. The success of the tobacco industry in keeping debates away from healthand the effects of secondhand smoke in the background attests to the industry’s success, as doesthe rising prevalence of smoking among youth and women.

The tobacco industry knows of its low credibility with the public. Therefore, discretionand confidentiality are deadly for tobacco control. The tobacco and health issue has to be keptvisible in the public arena, where it can be discussed by as many people as possible for anextended period of time. This open discussion will limit tobacco industry’s influence.

The tobacco industry acts through surrogates and front groups, particularly in thehospitality industry. To be effective, public health advocates must confront these connectionsand isolate the tobacco industry from such groups.

Tobacco industry thinks and acts very strategically and for the long term. Public healthadvocates in Switzerland need to adopt similar strategies, if possible by employing professionallobbyists, public relations people, and public policy specialists. The battle against tobacco willonly be won if public health advocates learn how to work together and integrate successfultobacco control strategies from other countries. Many counter-arguments and counter-strategieshave been successfully employed in other countries and can easily be adapted to Switzerland.

107

Zusammenfassung

Der Zigarettenkonsum bei Leuten über 15 Jahren erreichte in der Schweiz in den frühensiebziger Jahren eine Spitze mit 3'700 Zigaretten pro Kopf und pro Jahr um daraufhin bis imJahr 1994 auf 2'800 Zigaretten pro Kopf und pro Jahr zu sinken. Nach einer Abnahme desRaucheranteils von 37% im 1980 auf 31% im 1992 stieg dieser Anteil wieder auf 33% im 1997.Bei Frauen, v.a. die jungen Frauen, Kinder und Jugendliche musste man eine stetige Zunahmeder Raucherprävalenz feststellen. Dies, trotz der besonderen Beachtung dieserBevölkerungsgruppen in den Tabakpräventionsbemühungen.

Jedes Jahr sterben über 10'000 Leute an den Folgen des Tabakkonsums in der Schweiz,entsprechend etwa einem sechstel aller jährlichen Todesfälle, womit das Rauchen die führendeUrsache der vermeidbaren Todesfälle in der Schweiz einnimmt. Diese Zahl ist 20 mal höher alsdie Zahl der Todesfälle durch illegale Drogen.

Die Tabaksteuer in der Schweiz ist die niedrigste in ganz Westeuropa.

Die Gesetze, die die Tabakprodukte und ihr Marketing und Verkauf regulieren sindschwach und haben wenig praktischen Einfluss auf die Tabakindustrie.

Es gibt keine wirkungsvollen Schutzmassnahmen der Nichtraucher vor den toxischenSubstanzen im Passivrauch in öffentlichen Orten und am Arbeitsort.

Eine Umfrage in zehn Ländern über die Erfahrungen und Einstellungen der Leutebetreffend Tabak und Rauchen im Jahre 1989, die von Philip Morris International in Auftraggegeben wurde, zeigte, dass die Schweizer Bevölkerung sich der negativen Auswirkungen desPassivrauchens bewusst waren, dass aber nur eine Minderheit eine gesetzliche Regulierung vomRauchen in Restaurants und am Arbeitsplatz befürworteten.

Ein erstes umfassendes Tabakpräventionsprogramm des Bundesamts fürGesundheitswesen vom 1996 bis 1999, konzentrierte sich auf spezifische Interventionen,Kooperation zwischen verschiedenen Partnern der Tabakprävention und Programmkoordinationund –management. Es ignorierte die Rolle der Tabakindustrie.

Als Folge der kürzlichen Ereignisse in den USA und der aktiven Rolle der WHO in derKritik der Tabakindustrie erwähnt der Entwurf des Fünfjahresprogramms für dieTabakprävention die Tabakindustrie als ein Haupthindernis der Tabakprävention.

Bis zur kürzlichen Fusion-von British American Tobacco (BAT) mit Burrus-Rothmansim 1999 war Philip Morris weitaus der bedeutendste Tabakkonzern in der Schweiz mit einemMarktanteil von fast 50% (und beinahe 25% für Marlboro allein). Seit der Fusion wird derTabakmarkt dominiert von PM und BAT, die einen Marktanteil im Zigarettenverkauf von jezwischen 45% und 50% innehaben.

108

Wie es in den USA in den frühen 1960er Jahren der Fall war, akzeptiereten unddiskutierten die wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeiter der schweizerischen Tabakindustrie (in diesemFall FTR (Fabriques de Tabac Réunies)/Philip Morris) die gefährlichen Auswirkungen desRauchens auf die Gesundheit in internen Firmenmitteilungen. Damals suchten dieseWissenschaftler gewissenhaft nach einer Möglichkeit die krebserzeugenden Wirkungen derZigaretten durch die Elimination der kanzerogenen Komponenten zu reduzieren.

Entgegen der privat geäusserten Meinungen vertrat die Tabakindustrie in der schweizerÖffentlichkeit die Stellung, dass noch immer eine Kontroverse darüber besteht ob RauchenKrankheiten hervorruft oder nicht.

Die „Kontroverse“ wurde genährt durch regelmässige Medieninformationen undwissenschaftliche Tagungen mit sorgfältig ausgewählten Wissenschaftlern, die in derÖffentlichkeit die Stellung der Tabakindustrie vertraten, jedoch ohne ihre Verbindung zurTabakindustrie zu deklarieren. Die Bezeihungen zu diesen „Beratern“ und „Zeugen“ wurdenunterhalten durch direkte Zahlungen oder indirekt durch die Finanzierung ihrer Forschung.

In den späten 80er Jahren hatte die Tabakindustrie den Zerfall der gesellschaftlichenAkzeptanz des Rauchens in Europa als eine Hauptbedrohung zum Überleben identifiziert. DieseErkenntnis führte zur Entwicklung einer umfassenden Strategie um das Thema desPassivrauchens zu bekämpfen. „Höflichkeit und Toleranz“ und wirtschaftliche Argumentewurden benutzt um die Aufmerksamkeit der Öffentlichkeit und der Politiker vom ThemaGesundheit abzulenken. Die resultierenden Strategien wurden oft ausgedacht inZusammenarbeit mit leitenden Angestellten von anderen Tochterniederlassungen von PhilipMorris und dem internationalen Hauptquartier von Philip Morris in New York. Ihrer schlechtenGlaubwürdigkeit in der Öffentlichkeit bewusst, wurden Journalisten Interviews gegeben undihnen mitgeteilt den Namen der Tabakfirma im Zeitungsartikel nicht zu nennen.

Amtliche Publikationen wie „Rauchen und Sterblichkeit in der Schweiz“ vom Bundsamtfür Gesundheitswesen, der Bericht über die Auswirkungen des Passivrauchens auf dieAtemwege vom amerikanischen Bundesamt für Umwelt (US EPA), sowie wissenschaftlicheOriginalarbeiten, wie der Artikel im American Journal fo Respiratory and Critical Care,welcher sich mit dem Passivrauchen und Atemwegsbeschwerden befasst (SAPALDIA Studie)und von einer Gruppe von schweizer Wissenschaftlern geschrieben wurde, wurden schwerangegriffen von der Tabakindustrie. Die Tabakindustrie stellte dafür „Berater“ und Politiker mitBeziehungen zur Industrie an, die dabei die Standardargumente der Tabakindustrie benutzten.

Einer der aktivsten Industrieberater war Peter Atteslander, ein schweizer Bürger undProfessor an der Universität Augsburg in Deutschland. Er schrieb Weissbücher für dieTabakindustrie und berichtete von Konferenzen weltweit. Atteslander schien im Wesentlichendas einzige Mitglied der in der Schweiz beheimateten „Arbeitsgruppe fürGesundheitsforschung“ zu sein, welche seine Arbeiten veröffentlichte ohne die Verbindung zurTabakindustrie offenzulegen.

die Tabakindustrie aus dem Gastgewerbe, dem International HoReCa, einen starken

109

Verbündeten. Der Generalsekretär des International HoReCa zu jener Zeit war Dr. Xavier Frei,gleichzeitig auch Präsident des SCRA (vermutlich Swiss Café and Restaurant Association). DasGastgewerbe machte reichlich Gebrauch von den Ressourcen der Tabakindustrie und drucktewiederholt Stellungnahmen der Tabakindustrie in Mitteilungsblättern des Gastgewerbe, ohnedass die Mitglieder des International HoReCa oder des SCRA über die enge Verbindungzwischen ihrer Organisation und der Tabakindustrie informiert worden wären.

Das „Accommodation Program“ (in etwa Programm der gegenseitigen Rücksichtnahme),eine gut bekannte Tabakindustriestrategie um gesetzlichen Bestimmungen zuvorzukommen undin den USA entwickelt, wurde in der Schweiz angewandt. Die Tatsache, dass sogar das gleicheLogo in der Schweiz wie in den USA benutzt wurde illustriert die weltweite Wiederverwertungder Strategien und Taktiken der Tabakindustrie.

Die Verlagerung des Fokus vom Problem des Passivrauchens zu jenem derInnenraumluftqualität allgemein war (und ist noch heute) eine Hauptstrategie der Tabakindustrieweltweit um das Problem des Passivrauchens mit anderen Innenraumschadstoffen undGebäudeventilation zu verwässern. Zu diesem Zweck sammelte eine Firma mit engerVerbindung zur Tabakindustrie, ACVA Atlantic Inc., USA, später umbenannt auf HealthyBuildings International, HBI, die Qualitätskontrollen der Innenraumluft durchführt,umfangreiche Daten, die von der Tabakindustrie benutzt wurden um die Rolle des Tabakrauchsals einer der Hauptschadstoffe der Innenraumluft herunterzuspielen. Angestellte der HBIwurden in die Schweiz gesandt um Daten von schweizer Büros zu sammeln, und diese Datenwurden in den Mitteilungsblättern des HoReCa benutzt um das „Accommodation Program“ zuunterstützen gegen gesetzliche Regelungen für das Nichtrauchen. HBI wurde in den USAdiskreditiert.

Die Tabakindustrie versuchte die Rauchregelungen in Flugzeugen durch partielleFinanzierung der Weltkongresse des Internationalen Verbands der Flight Attendants (IFAA) zubeeinflussen. Dieser Einfluss wurde etabliert durch enge Beziehungen zum Präsidenten desVerbands, eine gängige Strategie der Tabakindustrie um Organisationen zu beeinflussen. Als imGefolge von rauchfreien Flügen in den USA und anderswo die Swissair schliesslich rauchfreieFlüge einführte, wurde sie vom schweizer „Raucher Club“ und später vom schweizer „Club derTabakfreunde“, dessen Präsident und Gründer ein ehemaliger Public Relations Funktionär derTabakindustrie war, in Zeitungsartikeln heftig kritisiert.

Der Verband Schweiz. Zigarettenfabrikanten beeinflusste erfolgreich dieRauchregelungen in den Zügen durch Briefe an die Redaktoren von Zeitungen und durchdirektes Lobbying von kantonalen Autoritäten und den Direktor der SchweizerischenBundesbahnen.

Zwei Referendums über das Verbot von Tabak- und Alkoholwerbung im 1979 und 1993wurde vom Schweizer Volk verworfen trotz der Tatsache, dass Umfragen vor dem ReferendumVerbote von Werbung favorisierten. Dies wurde erreicht durch eine starke und anhaltendeAllianz der Tabakindustrie mit den Werbeagenturen und den Print Medien. Die Tabakindustriehielt sich im Hintergrund um negative Publizität zu vermeiden während sie die Kampagnengegen die Werbeverbote finanzierte und die Allianz gegen Werbeverbote mit gutgeschmiedeten

110

Argumenten der Public Relations und Anwaltsfirmen der Tabakindustrie durch das InternationalTobacco Information Center, INFOTAB, belieferte.

Enge Beziehungen zu Beamten und Politikern wurde betont und gepflegt durchregelmässige Treffen mit den Spitzen der politischen Parteien und Instruktionen des „Tabak-Ausschusses“ des Parlaments. Dieser Ausschuss gab der Tabakindustrie die Mittel um gutinformiert zu bleiben über die politische Agenda und den politischen Prozess zu ihren Gunsteneinfach zu beeinflussen.

Zwar hat die Schweiz eine der innovativsten Programme zur Gesundheitsförderung, dochunterschätzen die meisten Leute des Gesundheitswesens die Macht von und den Antrieb hinterder Tabakindustrie, und nur wenige von ihnen haben die Tabakindustrie nicht direktkonfrontiert.

111

Résumé

La consommation de cigarettes chez les personnes âgées de 15 ans ou plus en Suisse aatteint son apogée au début des années 70 avec 3,700 cigarettes par personne et par an, puis adécliné jusqu’à 2800 cigarettes par personne et par an en 1994. Pendant les années 80 laproportion de fumeurs diminua de 37% en 1980 jusqu’à 31% en 1992, mais pendant les années90 cette proportion augmenta jusqu’à atteindre 33% en 1997. Les femmes, surtout les jeunes,les enfants et les adolescents, ont vu leur prevalence de tabagisme augmenter continuellement,malgré des efforts de prévention visant particulièrement les enfants et les adolescents.

Chaque année, plus de 10,000 personnes meurent à cause du tabac en Suisse, à peu prèsun sixième de la mortalité annuelle de la Suisse, rendant le tabagisme la plus importante causeprévantable de décès dans ce pays. Ce chiffre est plus de 20 fois plus important que le nombrede morts causées par les drogues illégales.

La taxe sur le tabac en Suisse est la plus basse de l’Europe de l’ouest.

Les lois gouvernant les produits de tabac, leur marketing et leur vente, sont faibles et ontpeu d’effets pratiques sur l’industrie du tabac.

Il n’y a aucune véritable protection des non fumeurs contre les composantes chimiquestoxiques de la fumée de cigarette, que ce soit dans les endroits publics ou sur les lieux de travail.

Un sondage commissionné par Philip Morris International sur les expériences et lesattitudes à propos du tabac et du tabagisme dans dix pays en 1989 démontra que les Suissesétaient conscients des effets du tabagisme passif sur la santé, mais que seulement une minoritéfavorisait le contrôle gouvernemental du tabac dans les restaurants et sur les lieux de travail.

Un premier programme compréhensif de prévention du tabagisme, de 1996 à 1999, émitpar l’Office Fédéral Suisse de la Santé Publique, a été caractérisé par un manque de financementadéquat, d’interventions précises, de coopération entre les associations de lutte contre letabagisme, et de gestion. De plus, le programme a ignoré le rôle que joue l’industrie du tabac.

Grâce aux événements récents aux Etats-Unis et à l’attaque montée par l’OMS contrel’industrie du tabac, le programme quinquennal proposé pour 2001-2005 identifie l’industrie dutabac comme étant un obstacle majeur dans la lutte contre le tabagisme.

Avant la fusion de British American Tobacco (BAT) avec Burrus-Rothmans en 1999, leplus important producteur de produits de tabac en Suisse était Philip Morris (PM), avec près de50% du marché (et près de 25% pour Marlboro uniquement). Depuis cette fusion, le marché dutabac est dominé par PM et BAT, qui ont chacune entre 45% et 50% du marché.

Comme c’était le cas aux Etats-Unis dans le début des années 60, les chercheurs deslaboratoires de l’industrie du tabac (dans ce cas, FTR (Fabriques de Tabac Réunies)/ PhilipMorris) ont accepté et discuté des effets nocifs du tabagisme sur la santé dans les

112

communications internes des compagnies. A ce moment-là, ces chercheurs ont honnêtementessayé de trouver des moyens de réduire les effets cancérigenes des cigarettes en éliminant les

Contrairement à ses opinions exprimées en privé, la position publique de l’industrie dutabac en Suisse était qu’il existait encore une polémique à propos de la question de savoir si le

La “polémique” fut entretenue grâce à de nombreuses conférences de presse et réunionsscientifiques avec des chercheurs qui étaient soutenus par l’industrie mais qui déclaraient leursupport public de la position de l’industrie sans parler de leurs liaisons avec l’industrie. Lesrelations entre l’industrie et ces “consultants” ou “témoins” étaient entretenues à travers despaiements directs et à travers le financement de leurs travaux de recherche.

A la fin des années 80 l’industrie du tabac avait identifié la perte d’acceptabilité socialedu tabagisme en Europe comme étant l’une des plus importantes menaces pour sa viabilité.Cette prise de conscience mena au développement d’une stratégie compréhensive visant laquestion du tabagisme passif. “La courtoisie et la tolérance” et les arguments économiquesfurent utilisés afin de détourner l’attention du public et des figures politiques des questions desanté. Ces stratégies furent souvent créées en consultation avec les cadres d’autres filiales dePhilip Morris et du siège de Philip Morris International à New York. Bien au courant de leurmanque de crédibilité dans le public, les compagnie de tabac accordaient des interviews auxjournalistes mais les mettaient en garde de ne pas mentionner le nom de la compagnie de tabacdans leur article.

L’industrie du tabac attaqua en masse les documents officiels tels que “La mortalité dueau tabac en Suisse” publié par l’Office Fédéral de la Santé Publique, le rapport sur les effetsrespiratoires du tabagisme passif publié par l’Agence de la Protection de l’Environment desEtats-Unis, ainsi que des articles scientifiques comme l’article publié dans American Journal ofRespiratory and Critical Care Medecine sur le tabagisme passif et les symptômes respiratoiresen Suisse (étude SAPALDIA) écrit par un groupe de chercheurs Suisses. Les compagnies detabac employèrent des “consultants” et des figures politiques qui avaient des liens avecl’industrie, et qui utilisèrent les arguments standards de l’industrie.

L’un des consultants les plus actifs était Peter Atteslander, un citoyen Suisse et unprofesseur à l’Université d’Augsburg en Allemagne. Il écrit des livres blancs pour l’industrie dutabac et fit un compte rendu des conférences de toutes les parties du monde..Atteslandersemblait être essentiellement le seul membre du “Groupe de travail pour la recherche de santé”,basé en Suisse, et qui publiait ses œuvres sans révéler ses liens avec l’industrie du tabac.

Pour combattre les limites sur le tabagisme dans les restaurants et les hôtels, lescompagnies de tabac développèrent leurs relations avec l’association hôtelière InternationalHoReCa. Le secrétaire général d’International HoReCa à ce moment-là était le Dr. Xavier Frei,le président de la SCRA (probablement l’Association des Cafés et Restaurants Suisses).L’association hôtelière fit recours aux ressources de l’industrie du tabac et à maintes reprisespublia les opinions de l’industrie dans les bulletins de l’industrie hôtelière, sans que les membres

113

de l’International HoReCa ou de la SCRA ne soient avertis des liens étroits qui existaient entre

Le “programme d’accommodation,” un programme bien connu développé par l’industriedu tabac aux Etats-Unis pour empêcher que ne soient établies des lois contre le tabagisme dansles restaurants et lieux de travail, fut employé en Suisse. Le fait que même le logo était le mêmeque celui utilisé aux Etats-Unis est un autre exemple de la manière dont les compagnies de tabacrecyclent leurs stratégies et leurs tactiques dans le monde entier.

La stratégie qui consiste à détourner l’attention du public du problème du tabagismepassif en faisant appel au problème de la qualité de l’air intérieur en général était (et demeure)une des stratégies majeures employées par l’industrie du tabac pour diluer le problème dutabagisme passif avec ceux d’autres produits polluants et de la ventilation des bâtiments. A cesfins, une compagnie de contrôle de la qualité de l’air intérieur ayant des liens étroits avecl’industrie du tabac, ACVA Atlantic Inc., USA, plus tard renommée Healthy BuildingsInternational (HBI), receuillit une large quantité de données pour l’industrie du tabac afin del’aider à minimiser le rôle de la fumée de tabac comme polluant de l’air intérieur. Des employésde HBI furent envoyés en Suisse pour récolter des données sur les immeubles suisses, et cesinformations furent utilisées dans les bulletins de HoReCa pour soutenir le programmed’accommodation et décourager les réglementations contre le tabagisme. HBI a depuis étédiscréditée aux Etats-Unis en tant qu’autorité impartiale sur le sujet de contrôle de la qualité de

Les compagnies de tabac essayèrent d’influencer la réglementation sur le tabagisme dansles avions à travers le financement partiel des congrès mondiaux de l’IFAA (International FlightAttendants’ Association). Cette influence fut établie en favorisant de bonnes relations avec leprésident de l’association, une stratégie souvent utilisée par l’industrie du tabac pour influencerles associations. Quand, suivant l’établissem*nts des vols non fumeurs aux Etats-Unis et dansd’autres pays, Swissair imposa enfin l’interdiction de fumer sur ses vols, elle fut sévèrementcritiquée dans les journaux par le “Club des Fumeurs” Suisse, et plus tard par le “Club des Amisdu Tabac” Suisse, dont le président et fondateur est un ancien cadre de relations publiques pour

L’Association Suisse des Fabricants de Cigarettes influença la réglementation sur letabagisme dans les trains avec succès grâce à des lettres envoyées aux éditeurs de quotidiens etdes requêtes directes auprès des autorités cantonales et du directeur du réseau ferroviairenational.

Deux référendums sur l’interdiction de publicité pour le tabac et l’alcool en 1979 et 1993furent rejetés par les électeurs Suisses, malgré les sondages pré-vote positifs, à cause del’alliance de l’industrie du tabac avec les agences de publicité et la presse écrite. Lescompagnies de tabac réussirent à dissimuler leur rôle dans cette campagne afin d’éviter toutepublicité négative, tout en finançant la campagne contre l’interdiction de publicité et en luifournissant des arguments développés par des sociétés de relations publiques et des avocats àtravers le centre international d’information sur le tabac, INFOTAB. Les compagnies de tabacet leurs alliés employèrent des arguments économiques et politiques, tels que la menace d’effets

114

négatifs sur l’emploi, les revenus, les impôts, et le droit des individus et des entreprises decombattre les interdictions de publicité.

Les liens étroits entre l’industrie du tabac et les figures politiques et officielles furentdéveloppés et maintenus à travers de nombreuses réunions avec les dirigeants des partispolitiques et de nombreux briefings du “comité électoral pro-tabac” au Parlement. Ce comitéélectoral permit à l’industrie du tabac de rester bien informée au sujet de l’agenda politique et defacilement influencer le processus politique.

Bien que la Suisse ait certains des programmes de santé publique les plus progressistes etinnovateurs, la plupart des partisans de la santé publique sous-estiment le pouvoir et la forcemotrice de l’industrie du tabac et qu’une minorité parmi eux a confronté l’industrie directement.

115

References

1. Philip Morris Europe R&D three-year plan 1993-1995 (confidential). Philip Morris Europe, R&D; 1992.12.15(received by Ken Houghton). Accessed: 1999.12.20. Bates Number: 2021310830_0923. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

2. An accommodation stragegy in EEMA. A strategic brief. Burson-Marsteller; 1990.05.07. Accessed: 2000.08.04.Bates Number: 2021181862_1887. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

3. Ong E, Glantz S. Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer's second-handsmoke study. Lancet 2000;355:1253-9.

4. Zeltner T, Kessler DA, martiny A, Randera F. Tobacco Company Strategies to Undermine Tobacco ControlActivities at the World Health Organization. Report of the Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry Documents.Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2000.July.

5. ICOSI-International Committee on Smoking Issues. Philip Morris; 1978.05.24. Accessed: 2000.07.02. BatesNumber: 2024260787_0791. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

6. Murray CJL, Lopez AD. Evidence-based health policy - lessons from the Global Burden of Disease Study. Science1996;274(1 November):740-3.

7. WHO. The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. World Health Organization (Tobacco Free Initiative).1999. Last updated: 11.01.1999. URL: www.who.int/toh/fctc/fctcintro.htm#TheFCTC.

8. Glantz SA, Slade J, Bero LA, Hanauer P, Barnes DE. The Cigarette Papers. 1st ed. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press; 1996.

9. Bates C, Rowell A, WHO ab. Tobacco explained. The truth about the tobacco industry...in its own words (WorldNo Tobacco Day). Geneva: WHO, Tobacco Free Initiative; 2000.05.31.

10. Brundtland GH. Opening address. First meeting of the Working Group on the WHO Framework Convention onTobacco Control. WHO. 1999. Accessed: 1999.11.04. Last updated: 10.27.1999. URL:www.who.int/toh/fctc/fctcintro.htm.

11. CDC. Tobacco or health: a global status report. Country profiles by region, Switzerland. Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention. 1999. Accessed: 1999.11.16. URL: www.cdc.gov/tobacco/who/switzerl.htm.

12. BFS. Statistik Schweiz: 3 Erwerbsleben - Arbeitslosigkeit (Swiss Statistics: 3 Work - Unemployment). Bundesamtfür Statistik, BFS (Swiss Federal Statistical Office). 2000. Last updated: 02.04.2000. URL:www.statistik.admin.ch/stat_ch/ber03/du0302.htm.

13. WHO. Country Information. Switzerland. WHO, Regional Office for Europe. 1997. Accessed: 2000.01.03. URL:www.who.dk/country/swi/swihl01.htm.

14. CDC. Tobacco or health: a global status report. Country profiles by region, USA. Centers for Disease Control andPrevention. 1999. Accessed: 2000.01.17. URL: www.cdc.gov/tobacco/who/usa.htm.

15. BFS. Erste Resultate der Schweizerischen Gesundheitsbefragung 1997 (First Results of the Swiss Health Survey1997). Bundesamt für Statistik (Swiss Federal Office of Statistics). 1998. Report No.: 108. Accessed: 2000.01.18.Last updated: 11.27.1998. URL: www.statistik.admin.ch/news/archiv98/dp98108.htm.

16. BFS. Statistik Schweiz. 14 Gesundheit. Konsum illegaler Drogen und legaler Genussmittel 1997. Bundesamt fürStatistik, BFS (Swiss Federal Office of Statistics). 1997. Last updated: 06.23.1999. URL:www.statistik.admin.ch/stat_ch/ber14/du1408.htm.

17. Junker C, Töny G, Abelin T. Wunsch, Versuch und Erfolg mit dem Rauchen aufzuhören. Ergebnisse einerBevölkerungsbefragung in der deutschen Schweiz (Desire, attempt, and success in quitting smoking. Results of apopulation survey in the German part of Switzerland). Berne, Switzerland: Institut für Sozial- und Präventivmedizinder Universität Bern; 1999. Report No.: BAG Vertrag Nr. 6003.

18. Krebs H, Hänggi D, Demarmels B, Fehri VE. Motivstudie Rauchen 1997: Die Rauchgewohnheiten und derenHintergründe bei Jugendlichen in der Deutsch- und Westschweiz (Motivation study smoking 1997: The smokinghabits and their motives among youth in the German and French part of Switzerland). BAG Vertrag Nr. 5864:Arbeitsgemeinschaft Tabakprävention Schweiz, Bern. Kommunikations- und Publiku*msforschung, Zürich; 1997.

19. BAG. Massnahmenpaket zur Verminderung der gesundheitsschädigenden Auswirkungen des Tabakkonsums. Zieleund Strategien des Bundesamtes für Gesundheit. Bern: Bundesamt für Gesundheit (Swiss Federal Office of PublicHealth) - Sektion Alkohol, Tabak und Arzneimittel (Section Alcohol, Tobacco, and Medicaments); 1996.10.

20. El Fehri V. Tobacco litigation in Switzerland. Berne, Switzerland: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Tabakprävention (SwissAssociation for Smoking Prevention); 2000.02.14.

116

21. Petruciani O. Switzerland - OB 1994 Presentation. Philip Morris Europe; 1993.11.17. Accessed: 2000.01.08. BatesNumber: 2500107754_7829. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

22. Tobacco issues 1989. How today's smokers & non-smokers in Europe feel about smoking issues (speech). PhilipMorris International; 1989.10. Accessed: 1999.12.26. Bates Number: 2501150000_0014. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

23. Tobacco issues 1989. How today's smokers & non-smokers in Europe feel about smoking issues (slides). PhilipMorris International; 1989.10. Accessed: 1999.12.26. Bates Number: 2500147468_7533. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

24. Tabakprävention: Programm 2001-2005. Entwurf (Tobacco prevention program 2001-2005. Draft). Beilage 2:Bundesamt für Gesundheit (Swiss Federal Office of Public Health); 2000.05.26.

25. BAG. Massnahmenpaket Tabak (MPT). Aktivitätsbericht 1996-1997, Perspektiven 1998-1999. Bern: Bundesamtfür Gesundheitswesen, BAG (Swiss Federal Office of Public Health) - Sektion Alkohol und Tabak (Section Alcoholand Tobacco); 1998.10. Report No.: BAG-10.98-d-300d.

26. AT. The Swiss Association for Smoking Prevention celebrates its first 25 years. Berne, Switzerland:Arbeitsgemeinschaft Tabakprävention/Association Suisse pour la Prévention du Tabagisme, AT (Swiss Associationfor Smoking Prevention); 1998.05.

27. Bolliger-Salzmann H, Cloetta B, Bähler G, Müller F, Hofmann C. Das Massnahmenpaket Tabak 1996-1999 desBundesamtes für Gesundheit - Schlussbericht über die Ergebnisse der Globalevaluation. Institut für Sozial- undPräventivmedizin, Universität Bern, Abteilung für Gesundheitsforschung. 2000. Accessed: 2000.05.08. Lastupdated: 05.2000. URL: www.admin.ch/bag.

28. Yazgi A, Rochat J. Industrie du tabac. Etouffés ailleurs, ici les cigarettiers respirent (Tobacco industry. Suffocatedelsewhere, here the cigarette producers can breathe). L'Hebdo (Internet edition) 1998.05.28. URL:www.webdo.ch/hebdo/hebdo_1998/hebdo_22/tabac_22.html.

29. Yazgi A, Rochat J. Industrie du tabac. La Suisse ne compte pas pour des clopinettes. L'Hebdo (Internet edition)1998.05.28. URL: www.webdo.ch/hebdo/hebdo_1998/hebdo_22/tabac_22.html.

30. Yazgi A. Made in ... Suisse Romande (3). La souris parmi des éléphants. (Made in ... French-Switzerland (Nr. 3 in aseries). The mouse among elephants. La Tribune de Genève 1990.08.06;Sect.Geneva, Switzerland.

31. df. Satisfaction à Boncourt, où l'on fabriquera plus de cigarettes. Rothmans concentre en Ajoie sa production decigarettes. Soulagement. (Satisfaction in Boncourt, where more cigarettes will be produced. Rothmans concentratesits cigarette production in Ajoie. Relief.). Le Quotidien Jurassien 1996.10.02.

32. BBC. Business: The Company File. BBC Online Network. 1999. Accessed: 1999.12.22. Last updated: 01.11. URL:news2.this.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/the_company_file/newsid_252000/252593.stm.

33. Claassen D. Fusion mischt Tabakbranche auf. BAT und Rothmans International, zwei der grössten Tabakkonzerneschliessen sich zusammen. Sie werden ein Sechstel des Welt-Zigarettenmarktes beherrschen. 1999. Accessed:1999.12.22. Last updated: 01.12.1999. URL: www.tages-anzeiger.ch/archiv/99januar/990112/41909.HTM.

34. Passer C. Boncourt contre Genève: le jeu de dupes. L'Hebdo 1999.06.03.1999. URL:www.webdo.ch/hebdo/hebdo_1998/hebdo_22/tabac_22.html.

35. Maise F. Keine Zigaretten mehr aus Genf. 1999. Accessed: 1999.12.22. Last updated: 07.16.1999. URL:www.smd.ch/cgi_bin/ta/smd_dok.cgi?RA1999071701201.

36. Noël F. Quand l'économie se heurte à la santé... (When economy collides with health...). Tribune de Genève1999.02.26;Sect.2.

37. Camel-Zigaretten werden japanisch. Neue Luzerner Zeitung. 1999. Last updated: 1999.03.10. URL: www.neue-lz.ch/nachrichten/artikel.jsp?ref=332987343.

38. Brandt H. Ein Kapitalist der neuen Schule. 1999. Accessed: 1999.12.22. Last updated: 01.13.1999. URL:www.smd.ch/cgi-bin/ta/smd_dok.cgi?RA1999011400057.

39. Priebe C. Luxusaktien: Gewinner im Depot? 1999. Accessed: 1999.12.22. Last updated: 09.24.1999. URL:www.smd.ch/cgi-bin/ta/smd_dok.cgi?RA1999092501512.

40. Rösch M. Im Rampenlicht. Richemont: Erfolg mit Uhren. 1999. Accessed: 1999.12.22. Last updated: 06.18.1999.URL: www.smd.ch/cgi-bin/ta/smd_dok.cgi?RA1999061901521.

41. USDHEW. Smoking and Health. Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public HealthService. Public Health Service Publication No. 1103. Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education andWelfare; 1964.

42. Häusermann M. FTR research Report 1962 - 1965. Fabriques de Tabac Réunies, FTR Research Laboratories, PhilipMorris, Switzerland; 1965.Accessed: 2000.12.29. Bates Number: 2028631277/1319. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

117

43. Meeting of Scientific Commission of ASFC at Fribourg. British American Tobacco, BAT; 1964.01.31. Accessed:2000.01.06. Bates Number: TINY0003204_3211. URL: www.tobaccoinstitute.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

44. Gaisch H. Position on Smoking and Health. Philip Morris Europe SA; 1979.02.23. Bates Number:1000219570_9572. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

45. Philip Morris EFTA, Eastern Europe, Middle East, Africa. Long Range Plan 1989-1991. Philip Morris, EFTA;1988.12. Accessed: 1999.12.22. Bates Number: 2501480053_0198. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

46. Bero LA, Galbraith A, Rennie D. Sponsored symposia on environmental tobacco smoke. JAMA 1994;271(8):612-7.47. Rennie D. Smoke and letters [editorial]. JAMA 1993;270(14):1742-3.48. Barnes DE, Bero LA. Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions.

JAMA 1998;279(19):1566-70.49. Romanens Y. Projet de rapport à soumettre à l'assemblée générale de la CISC (Project to be submitted to the general

assembly of CISC). CISC; 1994.08.16. Accessed: 2000.08.03. Bates Number: 2028369621_9622. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

50. Isenring P. Switzerland - Smoking and Health. Lausanne, Switzerland: Philip Morris Europe SA; 1974.03.21. BatesNumber: 2501443830_3832. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

51. Romanens Y. La recherche financée par l'ASFC 1964-1992. ASFC - Association Suisse des Fabriquants deCigarettes (Swiss Cigarette Manufacturers Association); 1992.August. Accessed: 2000.08.27. Bates Number:2028369548_9548. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

52. Isenring P. Summary of the symposium "Smoking in focus" on April 29/30th, 1976, in Zurich/Switzerland. Zurich:Gottlieb Duttweiler-Institute; 1976.04.29.-30. Bates Number: 1005145688_5689. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

53. Isenring P. Symposium on "Smoking and Health", at the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute, Zurich on April 29/30th,1976, organized by the Cigarette Manufacturers' Associations of Germany, Switzerland and the AustriaTabakwerke. Lausanne: Philip Morris Europe SA; 1976.05.13. Bates Number: 2501001961_1962. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

54. USDHHS. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General: U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control; 1986. Report No.: DHHSPublication No. (CDC) 87-8398.

55. Environmental Tobacco Smoke Workshops 1983-1984. Tobacco Institute; 1984.05. Accessed: 2000.08.03. BatesNumber: 2015042103_2120. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

56. Second workshop on environmental tobacco smoke: a workshop on effects and exposure levels. Philip Morris;1984.05. Accessed: 1999.12.28. Bates Number: 2015042108_2110. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

57. Philip Morris Research Meeting. May 20, 1992. Philip Morris; 1992.05.14. Accessed: 2000.08.27. Bates Number:2023132493_2588. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

58. Ong E. Tobacco industry efforts to subvert the International Agency for Research on Cancer's Secondhand SmokeStudy. Thesis. San Francisco: University of California, San Francisco; 1999.November 1999.

59. Besques J. Minutes of EEMA/EEC ETS strategy meeting held on May 11, 1987. Lausanne, Switzerland: PhilipMorris, EEMA; 1987.05.26. Accessed: 2000.01.03. Bates Number: 2046754737_4740. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

60. Glantz SA, Balbach ED. Tobacco War. Inside the California battles. 1st ed. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress; 2000.

61. Molina C, Pickering CAC, Valbjørn O, Bortoli Md. European concerted action. Indoor air quality & its impact onman. COST project 613. Environment and quality of life. Report No. 4. Sick building syndrome. A practical guide.Luxemburg: Commission of the European Communities. Directorate General for Science, Research andDevelopment. Joint Research Centre - Institute for the Environment; 1989.08. Accessed: 2000.05.22. Report No.:EUR 12294 EN. Bates Number: 2501051091_1114. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

62. Schlatter J, Wanner HU. Publication of the Swiss Office for Energy Economics Study No. 44. The quality of air andthe ventilation in Swiss buildings. Report for the attention of architects and ventilation engineers. Swiss Office forEnergy Economics; 1988.Accessed: 2000.05.22. Report No.: 44. Bates Number: 2046543547_3608. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

63. Theubet J-M. S. + H. Press Relations, Switzerland. Lausanne: Philip Morris Europe SA; 1974.11.12. Accessed:1999.12.01. Bates Number: 2015041471_1475. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

64. Gaisch HW. Highlight August 1989. 1989.08.31. Accessed: 2000.01.08. Bates Number: 2021599008_9022. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

65. Switzerland. Long Range Plan 1993-1995. Philip Morris, Switzerland; 1993.Accessed: 1999.12.20. Bates Number:2501145890_5973. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

118

66. Wirz G. April 30 in London - Communications experts meet. 1993.04.07. Bates Number: 2501187887_7889. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

67. Corporate Affairs Plan (Draft). Philip Morris EEMA; 1987.11.25. Accessed: 2000.08.27. Bates Number:2501254715_4723. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

68. Zumbühl U. Stellungnahme der "Schirmbild"-Redaktion des Fernsehens DRS (Response of the the editors of"Schirmbild", DRS). Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Zürich: 1988.10.04. Bates Number: 2028364797. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

69. Abelin T. Passivrauchen und die Tabakindustrie (passive smoking and the tobacco industry). Neue Zürcher Zeitung.Zürich: 1988.10.04. Bates Number: 2028364797. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

70. Spillmann-Thulin I. Passivrachen und die Tabakindustrie (passive smoking and the tobacco industry). Neue ZürcherZeitung. Zürich: 1988.10.04. Bates Number: 2028364797. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

71. Roos B, Vernet J, Abelin T, (ed.). Rauchen und Sterblichkeit in der Schweiz (Smoking and Mortality inSwitzerland). Swiss Federal Office of Public Health; Swiss Conference of Cantonal Directors of Health Affairs;Swiss Association for Tobacco Prevention; 1989.01. Accessed: 1999.12.20. Bates Number: 2501455162_5177.URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

72. Überla K. Stellungnahme zur Kontroverse um "Rauchen und Sterblichkeit". München: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Institut für Medizinische Informationsverarbeitung, Biometrie u. Epidemiologie, München.;1990.08.06. Accessed: 2000.03.04. Bates Number: 2028375049_5056. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

73. Wynder EL. Response to Roos' request to comment on controversy about "Smoking and Mortality". AmericanHealth Foundation, New York, NY; 1990.05.22. Accessed: 2000.03.04. Bates Number: 2028375047_5048. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

74. Ita M. Kontroverse um Broschüre "Rauchen und Sterblichkeit in der Schweiz". Stellungnahme von E. Wynder,M.D. und Prof. K. Überla. Swiss Federal Office of Public Health; 1990.08.15. Accessed: 1999.12.02. BatesNumber: 2028375046. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

75. Besques J, Robinson JB. Countering Swiss Federal Office of Public Health anti-tobacco brochure. Philip MorrisEEMA, Lausanne; 1989.03.11. Accessed: 2000.01.08. Bates Number: 2025040823_0824. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

76. Besques J. Swiss brochure. Philip Morris, EEMA; 1989.03.17. Accessed: 2000.01.08. Bates Number:2025040827_0828. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

77. Besques J. Communicating with the public on smoking and health. Philip Morris, EEMA; 1989.05.03. Accessed:2000.01.08. Bates Number: 2025040642_0643. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

78. Besques J. Switzerland - OFSP Brochure. Philip Morris, EEMA; 1989.06.01. Accessed: 2000.01.08. Bates Number:2025040563. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

79. Schneider B. Comment on the brochure: "Smoking and mortality rate in Switzerland" (Translation of Schneidercommentary). Institute of Biometry, Hannover School of Medicine, Germany; 1989.05.02. Bates Number:2501254360_4366. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

80. Atteslander P. Smoking and mortality in Switzerland. A scientific analysis of the publication under the same title bythe Bundesamt für Gesundheitswesen (Federal Health Office), the Schweizerische Sanitätsdirektorenkonferenz(Conference of Swiss Health Authority Directors) and the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Tabakmissbrauch (SwissAssociation for Tobacco Prevention). Port, Switzerland: AGEF - Arbeitsgruppe Gesundheitsforschung (HealthResearch Working Group); 1989.05. Accessed: 1999.12.20. Bates Number: 2501455517_5546. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

81. Besques J. Swiss OFSP Brochure. Lausanne: Philip Morris EEMA, Lausanne, Switzerland; 1989.06.20. BatesNumber: 2025040503_0507. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

82. Bardy J-C. Rauchen und Sterblichkeit in der Schweiz. Aussprache mit dem Bundesamt für Gesundheitswesen undder schweizerischen Sanitätsdirektorenkonferenz. FIST (Fédération de L'Industrie Suisse du Tabac); 1990.01.17.Accessed: 2000.01.09. Bates Number: 2028400622_0626. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

83. HER. Monthly activities 05.1989. S&T, FTR/PM Neuchâtel; 1989.05.25. Bates Number: 2028404367. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

84. LaVecchia C, Gutzwiller F, Paccaud F. Etude des données scientifiques concernant les effets du en particulier la mortalité (Study on scientific data regarding effects of tobacco on health, in particular on mortality).Institut universitaire de médecine sociale et préventive, Lausanne; Institut für Sozial- und Präventivmedizin derUniversität Zürich; 1989.09. Bates Number: 2028400536_0545. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

85. Farnel FJ. EEMA Region Annual Report Regarding PMI Corporate Affairs Action Plan. 1989.10.16. Accessed:1999.12.29. Bates Number: 2500019962_9976. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

119

86. Bero L, Barnes DE, Hanauer P, Slade J, Glantz SA. Lawyer control of the tobacco industry's external researchprogram. JAMA 1995;274(3):241-7.

87. Cotti F. La mortalité due au tabac en Suisse. Analyse Atteslander. Department of Internal Affairs, Switzerland;1989.07.10. Accessed: 1999.12.23. Bates Number: 2028400451. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

88. Atteslander P. AGEF - Arbeitsgruppe Gesundheitsforschung (Health Research Working Group); 1990.06.19.Accessed: 1999.12.28. Bates Number: 2028375072_5073. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

89. Atteslander P. Port: AGEF - Arbeitsgruppe Gesundheitsforschung; 1993.06.22. Bates Number: 2501247886_7891.URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

90. Atteslander P. Kongressbericht. Internationale Konferenz über "Public Health in the Year 2000". Kiel, 18.-21.November 1991. (Congress report. International conference on "Public health in the year 2000"). Port, Switzerland:AGEF - Arbeitsgruppe Gesundheitsforschung; 1991.12.09. Accessed: 1999.12.28. Bates Number:2028381020_1025. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

91. Atteslander P. Gemeinsame Tagung in Kiel des Europäischen Büro der Weltgesundheitsorganisation inKopenhagen und dem Institut für Gesundheitsystemforschung in Kiel. Port, Switzerland: AGEF - ArbeitsgruppeGesundheitsforschung; 1993.01. Accessed: 1999.12.28. Bates Number: 2028374992_4993. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

92. Atteslander P. VR China - Erhebung Public Health 1993. Port, Switzerland: AGEF - ArbeitsgruppeGesundheitsforschung; 1993.07.12. Accessed: 1999.12.28. Bates Number: 2028380912_0930. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

93. Atteslander P. Untersuchung "Verlust der Repräsentativität". (Study "Loss of representativeness"). Port,Switzerland: AGEF - Arbeitsgruppe Gesundheitsforschung; 1992.09.18. Accessed: 1999.12.28. Bates Number:2028375145. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

94. Atteslander P. WHO-Unterschung in VR China 1993/95. Port: AGEF - Arbeitsgruppe Gesundheitsforschung;1993.04.19. Bates Number: 2028380929_0930. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

95. 1994 original budget. Neuchatel, Switzerland: FTR/Philip Morris Switzerland; 1993.08.20. Accessed: 2000.08.27.Bates Number: 2025602154_2161. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

96. Budget position 387 (CHF). 1991 consultants - paid directly - 387 - (CHF). Status end July 91. FTR/Philip MorrisSwitzerland; 1991.Accessed: 2000.08.27. Bates Number: 2023856133. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

97. 1992 S&T, Neuchatel revised budget. FTR/Phlip Morris Switzerland; 1992.Accessed: 2000.08.27. Bates Number:2022889459. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

98. Outside contracts for professional services and consultants January-December, 1994. FTR/Philip MorrisSwitzerland; 1994.08.23. Accessed: 2000.08.27. Bates Number: 2048396145_6147. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

99. Scientific Affairs EU/EEMA Regions. 1998 OB Consulting Services (Exhibit F). Philip Morris USA; 1997.02.12.Accessed: 2000.08.27. Bates Number: 2060570800. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

100. 1992 research projects and consultants (paid directly). FTR/Philip Morris Switzerland; 1992.Accessed: 2000.08.27.Bates Number: 2028395861_5863. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

101. Atteslander P. The tobacco industry and the social policy environment. Concept for an offensive strategy. AGEF -Arbeitsgruppe Gesundheitsforschung; 1990.01. Bates Number: 2500120693_0743. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

102. U.S. EPA. Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: Lung cancer and other disorders. Washington, D. C.: U.S.Environmental Protection Agency; 1992.05.31. Accessed: 2000.03.05. Report No.: EPA/600/6-90/006B. BatesNumber: 2501248577_8605. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

103. ASFC. La fumée de tabac ambiante. Un jugement hâtif. (Environmental Tobacco Smoke. A premature judgement).Fribourg, Switzerland: Association suisse des fabriquants de cigarettes, ASFC (Swiss Association of CigarettesManufacturers); 1992.03.1992. Accessed: 2000.03.05. Bates Number: 2501248606_8611. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

104. Bardy J-C. Envoi de divers documents aux membres de la commission fédérale pour les problèmes liées au tabc.Fribourg, Switzerland: CISC; 1993.02.25. Accessed: 2000.01.09. Bates Number: 2501248576. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

105. CISC. Prise de position de l'industrie suisse de la cigarette concernant l'étude des autorités américaines de laprotection de l'environnement relative à la fumée ambiante (étude EPA). Artefacts statistiques en matière de

(Position paper of the Swiss cigarette industry on the ETS study by the U.S. EPA. Statisticalartefacts in health policy). Communauté de l'industrie suisse de la cigarette, CISC (Swiss Community of Cigarettee

120

Industry); 1993.01.08. Accessed: 2000.03.05. Bates Number: 2501248613. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

106. CISC. Prise de position de l'industrie suisse de la cigarette concernant l'étude des autorités américaines de laprotection de l'environnement relative à la fumée ambiante (Position paper of the Swiss cigarette industry on theETS study by the U.S. EPA). Communauté de l'industrie suisse de la cigarette, CISC (Swiss Community ofCigarette Industry); 1993.Accessed: 2000.03.05. Bates Number: 2501248612. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

107. Reardon MJ. Project SIDESTREAM. Lausanne, Switzerland: Philip Morris EEMA; 1985.01.10. Accessed:1999.12.27. Bates Number: 25010049368_9369. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

108. Switzerland. Presentation to CPC. New York, May 23, 1988. FTR, Switzerland; 1988.05.23. Accessed: 1999.12.27.Bates Number: 2501242877_2883. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

109. Leuenberger P, Schwartz J, Ackermann-Liebrich U, Blaser K, Bolognini G, Bongard JP. Passive smoking exposurein adults and chronic respiratory symptoms (SAPALDIA study). American Journal of Respiratory and Critical CareMedicine 1994;150:1222-8.

110. ap. Mehr Atemwegserkrankungen durch Passivrauchen. Rauchbelastung am Arbeitsplatz wichtig (More respiratoryillnesses due to passive smoking. Important role of smoke at the workplace). Neue Zürcher Zeitung 1993.05.13.

111. Broccard N. Wenn auch Gesunde ins Schnaufen kommen. Luftschadstoffe machen einem Viertel der Bevölkerungzu schaffen (When even healthy people start to breath heavily. Air pollution bothers a quarter of the population).Tages Anzeiger 1993.03.02.19994.

112. Bardy J-C. SAPALDIA. Fribourg: CISC - Communauté de l'Industrie Suisse de la Cigarette (Swiss Coommunity ofCigarette Industry); 1993.05.18. Bates Number: 2028446762. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

113. Atteslander P, Schneider B. SAPALDIA study. Swiss study on air polllution and respiratory diseases in adults[letter; comment]. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 1996;153(1):462-3.

114. Leuenberger P, Schwartz J, Ackermann-Liebrich U. SAPALDIA study. Swiss study on air polllution andrespiratory diseases in adults [letter; comment]. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine1996;153(1):462-3.

115. McKee M. Smoke and mirrors: clearing the air to expose the tactics of the tobacco industry [editorial]. EuropeanJournal of Public Health 2000;10(2).

116. Ackermann-Liebrich U. Kassensturzsendung zum Thema Passivrauchen vom 27. September 1994. Basle: Institutfür Sozial- und Präventivmedizin, Basel; 1994.11.01. Accessed: 2000.03.05. Bates Number: 2028339786. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

117. Gutzwiller F. Kassensturzsendung zum Thema Passivrauchen vom 27. September 1994. Zurich: Institut für Sozial-und Präventivmedizin der Universität Zürich; 1994.11.01. Accessed: 1999.12.20. Bates Number: 2028339789.URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

118. Gutzwiller F, Ackermann-Liebrich U. Letters concerning the SAPALDIA debate 1993 to 1996. In.; 2000.119. Bardy J-C. SAPALDIA. In: Hütter R, editor. Fribourg; 1996.120. Atteslander P. Letter to the Editor im "American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine". In: Bardy J-C,

editor.; 1996.121. Samuels B, Glantz SA. The politics of local tobacco control. JAMA 1991;266(15):2110-7.122. Traynor MP, Begay ME, Glantz SA. New tobacco industry strategy to prevent local tobacco control. JAMA

1993;270(4):479-86.123. Dearlove JV, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry political influence and tobacco policy making in New York 1983-1999.

San Francisco, CA: Institute for Health Policy Studies, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco,CA; 2000.February.

124. Ritch WA, Begay ME. Strange bedfellows: The history of collaboration between the tobacco industry and theMassachusetts Restaurant Association. Amherst, MA: Department of Community Health Studies, School of PublicHealth and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, MA, USA; 1999.December.

125. Market Research Report 1994-1996. Philip Morris EEMA Region; 1994.Accessed: 2000.05.22. Bates Number:2500065376_5433. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

126. Switzerland - 1987 Objectives. Philip Morris, Switzerland; 1987.Accessed: 1999.12.22. Bates Number:2501240585_0599. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

127. Pantet R. Subject: Canton of Lucerne. Philip Morris; 1990.07.12. Accessed: 1999.12.29. Bates Number:2024195742. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

128. No obligatory non-smoking tables in the Canton of Lucerne. NZZ; 1990.07.02. Accessed: 1999.12.29. BatesNumber: 2024195747. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

121

129. Koepp J, Frei X. Hospitality, Courtesy, Conviviality. Zürich: International HoReCa; 1991.04.15. Accessed:1999.12.29. Bates Number: 2025477408_7438. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

130. Philip Morris and the Hospitality Industry. Philip Morris; Accessed: 1999.06.01. Bates Number: 2045517337_7347.URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

131. Seckler J, Pires AJ. United States District Court for the District of Columbia. United States of America, EX REL.,Jeffrey Seckler Plaintiff, vs. Healthy Buildings International, Inc. Defendant. Civil Action #93-0710 Demand forJury Trial. Washington, D.C.: United States District Court for the District of Columbia; 1994.11.07. Accessed:2000.05.22. Bates Number: 2050743829_3868. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

132. Waxman HA. Washington D.C.: U.S. House of Representatives. Committee on Energy and Commerce.Subcommittee on Health and the Environment; 1994.08.23. Accessed: 2000.05.22. Bates Number:2050742751_2752. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

133. Mintz M. Secondhand Money. The Washington Post 1996.03.24;Sect.W12.134. Horowitz M, Stapf S. Study of air quality in 100 N.Y.C. restaurants, offices shows tobacco smoke is insignificant

factor. Report is evidence that smoking restriction proposals unneeded. Washington, DC: The Tobacco Institute;1986.12.10. Accessed: 2000.05.22. Bates Number: 2501357773_7774. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

135. Robertson G. Indoor and ambient air quality. Source, nature and symptomatology of indoor air pollutants. London:(Edited by R. Perry and P.W. Kirk); 1988.Accessed: 2000.05.22. Bates Number: 2501156058_6068. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

136. Pottorf M. New York: Philip Morris Management Corporation; 1991.09.24. Accessed: 2000.08.27. Bates Number:2023131668_1673. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

137. ETS project management. Role of PMUSA Science & Technology: This department can design and implement aproject control system for company-wide management of ETS activities. Philip Morris, USA; not dated. Accessed:2000.05.22. Bates Number: 2025800301_0307. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

138. House of Commons Environment Committee Enquiry on Indoor Air Pollution. 1990.12.21. Accessed: 2000.08.27.Bates Number: 2501051130_1144. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

139. Robertson G. "Sick Building Syndrome". Letter to Guy L. Smith, Vice President of Corporate Affairs, PhilipMorris, New York, USA; faxed by Covington & Burling. Fairfax Virginia: 1987.08.11. Accessed: 2000.5.22. BatesNumber: 2061692011_2012. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

140. Crettaz U. Working paper. Merchandising ACVA/LINK study. Action plan. 1989.09.20. Accessed: 2000.05.22.Bates Number: 2028404047_4049. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

141. Pressemitteilung (press release). Berne, Switzlerland: Raucher-Club (CH); 1990.08.07. Accessed: 2000.12.29.Bates Number: 2028449695. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

142. Tronke PA. Mainz, Germany: International Flight Attendants Association; 1988.10.18. Accessed: 2000.01.03.Bates Number: 2501458483_8484. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

143. Buschor U. Die Aggression gegen Raucher muss gestoppt werden (the aggression against the smoker has to bestopped). Blick 1988.03.25;Sect.3.

144. Raucherclub gegen Sündenbockrolle (smokers' Club against role of scapegoat). Tages-Anzeiger 1988.03.24.145. Raucher wehren sich (smokers defend themselves). Neue Zürcher Zeitung 1988.03.24.146. Raucher wehren sich (smokers defend themselves). Basler Zeitung 1988.03.24.147. Sennhauser P. Gegen Genussfeindlichkeit (against anti-enjoyment). Bund 1997.08.12. URL: www.smd.ch/cgi-

bin/bund/smd_dok.cgi?RA1997081300142.148. Wüthrich B. Die fliegenden Raucher haben die Bevormundung satt (the flying smokers are fed up with

paternalism). Weltwoche 1997.03.13. URL: www.weltwoche.ch/archiv/leben/11.97.wuethrich.html.149. Pauli C. Wenn auch Raucher Hilf brauchen. Der Bund 1996.09.25.150. Baeriswyl O. Raucher: Verteufelt und gebeutelt (smokers: demonised and deprived). Neue Luzerner Zeitung

1997.07.08;Sect.2.151. Baeriswyl O. Was wäre wenn... (what if...). Basler Zeitung 1997.07.14;Sect.13.152. Baeriswyl O. Raucher - Verteufelt und gebeutelt (smokers - demonised and deprived). Solothurner Zeitung

1997.07.15;Sect.29.153. Baeriswyl O. Verteufelt und gebeutelt (demonised and deprived). Der Bund 1997.07.19;Sect.7.154. Crettaz U. Lausanne, Switzerland: Fabriques de Tabac Reunies; 1992.01.17. Accessed: 1999.12.23. Bates Number:

2028403935. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.155. Goodheart J. Corporate Affairs Weekly Highlights March 28 - April 1, 1994. Philip Morris; 1994.04.08. Accessed:

2000.08.27. Bates Number: 2025840476_0481. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

122

156. Besques J. Switzerland - Workplace smoking. Lausanne, Switzerland: Philip Morris EEMA; 1988.12.16. Accessed:2000.01.08. Bates Number: 2028402580_2582. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

157. Bardy J-C. Revision der Verordnung III zum Arbeitsgesetz (revision of ordinance III of labor law). Verband derSchweizerischen Tabakindustrie (Swiss Association of Tobacco Industry); 1990.12. Accessed: 2000.01.09. BatesNumber: 2028403300_4348. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

158. Taylor PR. The smoke ring. New York: Pantheon Books; 1984.159. The situation in Germany. From "voluntary" to "legislation" in less than a year. 1975.04.01. Accessed: 2000.06.29.

Bates Number: 2024258879_8882. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.160. General briefing. 1976.Accessed: 2000.01.02. Bates Number: 2025024756_4760. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-

bin/rsasearch.asp.161. Isenring P. Switzerland - Initiative by the Templerence Society for total advertising ban on alcohol and tobacco

products. Inter-office correspondence. Lausanne: Philip Morris Europe, Middle East, Africa; 1976.07.09. Accessed:2000.01.05. Bates Number: 2024273392_3393. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

162. Isenring P. SWITZERLAND: Smoking and Health/Advertising Restrictions. Discussion with Mr. Blöchlinger,President of the Editors of Swiss Dailies, in Lucerne on June 7, 1974. Inter-office correspondence. Lausanne: PhilipMorris Europe SA; 1974.06.10. Accessed: 1999.12.01. Bates Number: 1005123117_3127. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

163. Third Meeting of the International Committee on Smoking Issues. Hamburg, March 9/10, 1978. Conclusions andRecommendations. Hamburg: ICOSI; 1978.03.09.-10. Accessed: 2000.01.03. Bates Number: 2501020335_0433.URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

164. INBIFO. Switzerland - Guttempler Initiative. Market research report. Philip Morris; 1978.06.27. Accessed:2000.01.03. Bates Number: 2501024366_4372. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

165. Report from the Secretary General. INFOTAB; 1980.Accessed: 2000.07.02. Bates Number: 2025049270_9278.URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

166. Covington MW. ICOSI; 1979.02.20. Accessed: 2000.01.14. Bates Number: 2025877368. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

167. Weinbrenner JT. Hong Kong: R. J. Reynolds; 1981.08.14. Accessed: 2000.01.14. Bates Number:2504012998_3009. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

168. Hartogh JM. EAAA Meeting with the European Committee on Tobacco Advertising. Frankfurt, January 29, 1980.Frankfurt: Philip Morris EEMA; 1980.01.31. Accessed: 2000.01.05. Bates Number: 2025015897_5898. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

169. Wells TL. Corporate Affairs for information. Subject: Advertising. 1983.06.22. Accessed: 2000.07.20. BatesNumber: 2024950376_0377. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

170. Tobacco advertising. Five arguments against sponsorship. New York: International Advertising Association;1984.Accessed: 2000.01.06. Bates Number: 2024268452_8483. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

171. European advertising industry plans to oppose advertising censorship. Notes for national coordinators. Philip MorrisEEMA; 1983.June. Accessed: 2000.07.20. Bates Number: 2024950381_0385. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

172. Beatson R. The importance of defending advertising. EAAA/Philip Morris EEMA; 1983.06.16. Accessed:2000.01.05. Bates Number: 2024950386_0396. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

173. Neue Tabakkommission: mehr als nur ein Papiertiger? (New Tobacco Commission: More than just a paper tiger?).Pro Aere. 1998. Accessed: 1999.12.29. URL: www.proaere.ch/d/info/1998/3/p03.html.

174. Fehervary A. Swiss ad ban case story. Philip Morris Services Budapest; 1994.03.16. Accessed: 2000.03.05. BatesNumber: 2046312818_2823. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

175. Wirtz G. Werber fürchten EG-Gängelung (Advertisers fear EC tutelage). Basler Zeitung 1991.06.19.176. Bardy J-C. Artikel "Wenn die Gesundheit das Geschäft beeinträchtigt" von Verena Thalmann (TA: 24.11.1989, S.9)

(Article "When health impairs business", by Verena Thalmann (Tages-Anzeiger: November 24, 1989). Letter.Fribourg, Switzerland: ASFC (Association Suisse des Fabriquants de Cigarettes, Swiss Association of CigarettesManufacturers); 1989.12.12. Accessed: 2000.01.08. Bates Number: 2028450177_0178. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

177. Diserens G. Switzerland. Federal Council Indirect Counter-Project. Philip Morris EEMA; 1992.01.27. Accessed:1999.12.28. Bates Number: 2501009033. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

178. 1993-1995 three year plan. EEMA region. Situation assessment. Philip Morris; 1992.Accessed: 2000.07.30. BatesNumber: 2500108232_8304. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

123

179. Diserens G. Weekly highlights: week ending June 19, 1992. Switzerland. Industry advertising self limitation code.Philip Morris EEMA; 1992.06.19. Accessed: 1999.12.28. Bates Number: 2501128543_8547. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

180. Philip Morris International Cigarette Marketing Code. Philip Morris International; 1991.08.06. Accessed:2000.08.27. Bates Number: 2501285249_5251. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

181. Paschoud J-P. PMI Marketing Code. Inter-Office Correspondence. Lausanne: Philip Morris S.A.; 1993.05.03.Accessed: 1999.12.26. Bates Number: 2500114682. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

182. Furrer P. Une publicite retorse pour le tabac. (A sly ad for tobacco). L'Express 1996.08.10.183. Keller P. Werbeagenturen spüren die Rezession (Advertising agencies feel the economic recession). Tages-

Anzeiger 1993.02.17.184. Chouet D. Les publicitaires défendent la cigarette. Les recettes des agences de pub ont faiblement progressé en

1992. Leur association craint les initiatives sur l’interdiction de la publicité pour le tabac et l’alcool. (The income ofthe ad agencies have increased only slightly in 1992. Their association fears the initiatives on the advertising banson tobacco and alcohol). Tribune de Geneve 1993.02.17.

185. Garessus E. La pub pour le tabac et l’alcool en baisse en 1992. Les agences dénoncent l’hypocrisie ambiante(Downward trend of tobacco and alcohol advertising in 1992. The agencies denounce the surrounding hypocrisy.L'Agefi 1993.02.17.

186. ptk. 300 Arbeitsplätze und 24 Mio Zigaretten pro Tag. Auch für Grosse der Schweizer Tabakindustrie steht viel aufdem Spiel (300 jobs and 24 cigarettes a day. Also for the big ones of the Swiss tobacco industry there is much to belost). Sonntagsblick 1993.11.07;Sect.41.

187. mn. So gefährdet ein Ja zur Zwillingsinitiative Festivals und Rockkonzerte. Wer Kultur sagt, muss auch Sponsoringsagen. (This is how a yes to the twin initiative [for a total ban on alcohol and tobacco advertising] puts at riskfestivals and rock concerts. Who says culture must also say sponsoring.). Sonntagsblick 1993.11.14;Sect.39.

188. Press release. Proposed ban on alcohol and tobacco advertising in Switzerland rejected by huge majority. pressrelease. European Association of Advertising Agencies; 1993.11.27. Accessed: 1999.12.28. Bates Number:2501476534. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

189. Cornuz J, Burnand B, Kawachi I, Gutzwiller F, Paccaud F. Why did Swiss citizens refuse to ban tobaccoadvertising? Tobacco Control 1996;5:149-53.

190. Diserens G. Switzerland. Long Range Plan 1994-1996. Philip Morris, Switzerland; 1993.06. Accessed: 1999.12.20.Bates Number: 2501145974_6076. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

191. Givel MS, Glantz SA. Tobacco control and direct democracy in Dade County, Florida: future implications forhealth advocates. Journal of Public Health Policy 2000;21(3):268-96.

192. El Fehri V. Interdiction de la publicité pour le tabac. Les causes des mauvais résultats de la votation populaire surl'interdiction de la publicité pour l'alcool et le tabac en Suisse. (Advertising ban on tobacco. The causes of the badresults of the referendum on advertising ban on alcohol and tobacco.). Berne, Switzerland: Association Suisse pourla Prévention du Tabagisme (Swiss Association for Smoking Prevention).

193. El Fehri V. Ablehnung der Zwillingsinitiativen - Wie weiter? Erste Elemente und einige partielle Gedanken über dieZukunft. (Rejection of the twin initiatives - what now? First elements and some partial thoughts about the future.).Berne, Switzerland: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Tabakprävention (Swiss Association for Smoking Prevention).

194. Bardy J-C. Treffen Tabakindustrie/Spitze der FDP (meeting tobacco industry/leadership of FDP). Communauté del'Industrie Suisse de la Cigarette (Swiss Association of Cigarette Manufacturers); 1993.11.19. Accessed:2000.01.09. Bates Number: 2028381800_802. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

195. Bardy J-C. Séance avec les partis politiques (meeting with the political parties). Communauté de l'Industrie Suissede la Cigarette (Swiss Association of Cigarette Manufacturers); 1993.11.19. Accessed: 2000.01.09. Bates Number:2028381796_1797. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

196. Aeby C. Note relative à la séance avec le Parti des automobilistes du 11 novembre 1993, à 14 heuBellevue, à Berne (note concerning the meeting with the car party on November 11, 1993, at 2 PM, in the HotelBellevue, Berne). Communauté de l'Industrie Suisse de la Cigarette (Swiss Association of Cigarette Manufacturers);1993.11.11. Accessed: 2000.01.09. Bates Number: 2028381811_1812. URL: www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

197. Leu RE, Bernasconi D. Werbung und Tabakkonsum (advertising and cigarette consumption): SGGP; 1991.198. AT. Zusammensetzung des Zigarettenpreises 1999. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Tabakprävention Schweiz, AT (Swiss

Association for Smoking Prevention). 1999. Accessed: 1999.11.16. URL: www.at-schweiz.ch/preis.htm.199. Rochat J. Cigarettes. Un impôt pour tousse. Le prix du paquet passera de 4 fr. à 4 fr. 50. Pour la Sant

n'est pas suffisant. 1998. Accessed: 1999.11.17. Last updated: 10.01.1998. URL: www.prevention.ch/hebdota.jpg.

124

200. Two regions created at Philip Morris in Lausanne. 1982.02.11. Bates Number: 2024950715_0718. URL:www.pmdocs.com/cgi-bin/rsasearch.asp.

201. Holly A, Gardiol L, Zurn P, Levi FG. Die Beziehung(en) zwischen Tabakkonsum und Tabaksteuer - VerschiedeneSzenarien. Zusammenfassung des Endberichts. (The relationship(s) between tobacco consumption and tobacco tax -various scenarios. Summary of the final report). Lausanne, Switzerland: Institut d'économie et management de lasanté (IEMS). Université de Lausanne; 1999.08.20.202. Leutwyler C. 5 Franken fürs Päckli Zigaretten? Höhere Tabaksteuern dämpfen den Zigarettenkonsum.

Zahlen zu diesem Argument liefert eine Studie der Uni Lausanne. (5 francs for a pack of cigarettes? Highercigarette taxes lower the consumption. A study from the University of Lausanne support this argument.).Tages-Anzeiger 1999.08.25;Sect.9.

125

Appendix 1:Selection of abbreviations and names

ACVA Atlantic, Inc. Synonymous with HBI (Healthy Buildings International), acompany specializing in IAQ with very close and secretties to the tobacco industry via the Tobacco Institute

ASFC Assciation Suisse des Fabricants de Cigarettes(Swiss Association of Cigarette Manufacturers)

BSW Bund Schweizerischer Werbeagenturen (Union of SwissAdvertising Agencies)

CA Corporate Affairs

CATAC Campaign Against Tobacco Advertising Censorship(cooperation between the European advertising industryand the tobacco industry, sponsored by INFOTAB)

CISC Communauté de l’Industrie Suisse de Cigarette (SwissAssociation of Cigarette Manufacturers, formerly ASFC –see above)

EAAA European Association of Advertising Agencies

EAT European Advertising Tripartite (senior executives of theofficial bodies representing all three sides of the Europeanadvertising business, Advertisers, Agencies and the Media)

EEC European Economic Community (later EU – EuropeanUnion)

EEMA EFTA, Eastern Europe, Middle East, Africa

EFTA European Free Trade Association

ETS Environmental Tobacco Smoke (secondhand smoke)

HBI, Inc. See ACVA Atlantic, Inc.

HVAC Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning

IAQ Indoor air quality

IEA International Energy Agency

126

INFOTAB International Tobacco Information Centre, formerly calledICOSI, International Committee on Smoking Issues (anorganization founded in the late 1970’s by seven majorinternational tobacco firms, including Philip Morris,British American Tobacco, and RJ Reynolds in order tobetter coordinate their activities in defending theirinterests). Based in Brussels.

International HoReCa International Hotels, Restaurants, and Cafes Association

NMA National Manufacturers Association

TI The Tobacco Institute, a front organization

USAM Union Suisse des Arts et Métiers (Swiss Federation ofTrade Associations)

Vorort SHIV-Schweizerischer Handels- und Industrieverein(Swiss Federation of Commerce and Industry)

127

Appendix 2:Selection of tobacco industry people that appear in the report

Anthony Andrade Legal department PME, Lausanne, (and Shook, Hardy & Bacon)Vice President Philip Morris Worldwide Regulatory Affairs (1995, reporting to StevenParrish)

Jean Besques Manager, Industry Issues, Corporate affairs, Philip Morris EEMA (July 1985)

Stig Carlson Director Corporate Affairs, Philip Morris EEMA (1993, reporting to Andreas Gembler,President Philip Morris EEMA), formerly Manager Corporate Affairs, Philip MorrisEEMA (May 1990, reporting to Mats Sjoeblom, Area Director Scandinavia/Finland,reporting to Georges Diserens)

Ulrich Crettaz Manager, industry and economics affairs, FTR

Stephen C. Darrah Vice President, Operations, Philip Morris EEC Region (1989)Senior Vice President, Manufacturing, Philip Morris USA (1993)

Georges Diserens Vice President Switzerland, Scandinavia/Finland, Duty Free, Philip Morris EEMA (May1990, reporting to Andreas Gembler), formerly Director Finance and Administration(January 1982, reporting to J. Gibson, Executive Vice President reporting to WalterThoma, President, Philip Morris, EEMA, later in 1993, President Philip Morris EEC)

Helmut Gaisch (HGA) Head, Research & Development (R&D), Philip Morris Europe (PME)Director, Science & Technology (S&T), Fabriques de Tabac Réunies (FTR) / PhilipMorris EEC (October 1986, May 1990, reporting to Ronald A. Lively, Vice PresidentOperations, Philip Morris EEC Headquarters)

Michael Horst Vice President, External Affairs, Philip Morris EEC (1992, reporting to D. Greenberg,Vice President of Corporate Affairs, Philip Morris Europe, Brussels)

Max Häusermann Scientist with the FTR laboratory in the 60’s, later Vice President for Research andDevelopment (January 1981, reporting to J. Gibson, Vice President of Operations andEastern European Markets, Philip Morris International, Europe/Middle East/Africa)

Andreas Gembler President EEMA Region (May 1990)

P. Glasson President, Scientific Commission of ASFC in 1964.

David I. Greenberg Vice President, Corporate Affairs, Philip Morris Europe, Brussels (1992)

J. M. Hartogh Vice President, Corporate Affairs & Head Quarters Marketing, PM EEC

Ronald A. Lively Vice President, Operations, Philip Morris EEC Headquarters (1990, reporting to WalterThoma, President, EEC Headquarters)

Paul Maglione Director, Corporate Communications & Issues Management, Philip Morris EEC (June1991, reporting to Micahel Horst, President, Philip Morris Corporate Services Inc. andVice President, Corporate Affairs, Philip Morris EEC Headquarters)Director Public Affairs, Philip Morris EEC (1992, reporting to O. Buschong, VicePresident, European Affairs, Corporate Affairs Europe, Brussels, reporting to D.Greenberg)

128

Raymond Pantet Director Public Affairs & Relations FTR, Phillip Morris EEMA (May 1990, reporting toGeorges Diserens)

Steven Parrish General Counsel and Senior Vice President of External Affairs, formerly Head ofWorldwide Regulatory Affairs (1995)

Jean-Pierre Paschoud Director Marketing FTR, Philip Morris EEMA (March 1986, reporting to GeorgesDiserens)Director Industry Policy, FTR, Philip Morris EEMA (May 1990, reporting to GeorgesDiserens)

Yves Romanens Scientific Attaché of CISC (Communauté d’Industrie Suisse de Cigarette, SwissAssociation of Cigarette Industry)

Helmut Reif Principal scientist, Science and Technology, FTR/Philip Morris Eec (April 1987,reporting to Helmut Gaisch, Director Science and Technology, FTR/Philip Morris EEC)

Keith Ware Director Planning and Business Development (May 1990, formerly Director PlanningPhilip Morris EEMA; reporting to Roger Thomas, Vice President, Philip Morris EEC)

T. (Tana) L. Wells Manager public affairs, corporate affairs EEMA

Matthew Winokur Director Corporate Affairs, Philip Morris International (April 1993)Director Philip Morris Worldwide Regulatory Affairs, Europe (1995, reporting toAnthony Andrade)

Gérard Wirz Issues Coordinator, Corporate Communications and Issues Management, Philip MorrisEEC Headquarters, Brussels (June 1991, reporting to Paul maglione, Director, CorporateCommunications and Issues Management, Philip Morris EEC Headquarters, reporting toMichael Horst, President, Philip Morris Corporate Services Inc. and Vice President,Corporate Affairs, Philip Morris EEC Headquarters, Brussels)

(PDF) The Tobacco Industrys Successful Efforts to Control Tobacco … · The Tobacco Industry=s Successful Efforts to Control Tobacco Policy Making in Switzerland Chung-Yol Lee, MD MPH - PDFSLIDE.NET (2024)