Comments on: The score so far . . . http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2004/09/24/the-score-so-far/ Blogging U.S. vs. Philip Morris, Inc. Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:33:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Anne Landman http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2004/09/24/the-score-so-far/#comment-23 Anne Landman Sat, 25 Sep 2004 18:30:11 +0000 http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2004/09/24/the-score-so-far/#comment-23 ABC had it only slightly wrong. There is already plenty of nicotine in tobacco to achieve the desired effects. The industry's efforts were aimed at chemically liberating more of the already-existing nicotine. The industry's documents are clear about the purpose and effects of the procedure to do this, called "ammonia technology." Perhaps the most telling document is a 1973 document by RJR. It seems like this one document alone could have helped to make the case for the DOJ about nicotine manipulation, since it links the skyrocketing sales of Marlboro in the mid-1970's to PM's new freebasing technology (or "ammonia technology") being employed at that time. RJR became concerned about the sudden skyrocketing sales of Marlboro, and undertook work to chemically deconstruct Marlboro to find out how it was different from their cigarettes. RJR soon discovered that PM had made a "deliberate and controlled" chemical change in the smoke of their cigarettes: PM was altering the smoke pH by adding ammonia to the tobacco, which made the smoke more alkaline. Why? Because in a more alkaline atmosphere, more of the nicotine "...occurs in 'free' form, which is volatile, rapidly absorbed by the smoker, and believed to be instantly perceived as nicotine 'kick'." These are the words Kessler remembered. The document links this pH change to increased sales: Title: Implications and Activities Arising from Correlation of Smoke pH with Nicotine Impact, Other Smoke Qualities and Cigarette Sales Type of Document: Report w/ graphics Author: Teague, Claude, RJR Date: Oct. 2, 1973 Bates No. 500917506 -7534 Another document (from BAT) discusses how the smoke in cigars must be made more much alkaline than cigarette smoke, so that there will be more nicotine present in freebase form, so it will be more efficiently absorbed through the oral mucosa (since cigar smokers don't inhale): Type: Report Author: Creighton, D Recipient: N/A Litigation: Minnesota trial exhibit #11,964 Company: British American Tobacco (parent company of Brown and Williamson) Document date: 19871102 Bates No.:400237344/7360 ABC had it only slightly wrong. There is already plenty of nicotine in tobacco to achieve the desired effects. The industry’s efforts were aimed at chemically liberating more of the already-existing nicotine. The industry’s documents are clear about the purpose and effects of the procedure to do this, called “ammonia technology.” Perhaps the most telling document is a 1973 document by RJR. It seems like this one document alone could have helped to make the case for the DOJ about nicotine manipulation, since it links the skyrocketing sales of Marlboro in the mid-1970’s to PM’s new freebasing technology (or “ammonia technology”) being employed at that time. RJR became concerned about the sudden skyrocketing sales of Marlboro, and undertook work to chemically deconstruct Marlboro to find out how it was different from their cigarettes. RJR soon discovered that PM had made a “deliberate and controlled” chemical change in the smoke of their cigarettes: PM was altering the smoke pH by adding ammonia to the tobacco, which made the smoke more alkaline. Why? Because in a more alkaline atmosphere, more of the nicotine “…occurs in ‘free’ form, which is volatile, rapidly absorbed by the smoker, and believed to be instantly perceived as nicotine ‘kick’.” These are the words Kessler remembered. The document links this pH change to increased sales:
Title: Implications and Activities Arising from Correlation of Smoke pH with Nicotine Impact, Other Smoke Qualities and Cigarette Sales
Type of Document: Report w/ graphics
Author: Teague, Claude, RJR
Date: Oct. 2, 1973
Bates No. 500917506 -7534

Another document (from BAT) discusses how the smoke in cigars must be made more much alkaline than cigarette smoke, so that there will be more nicotine present in freebase form, so it will be more efficiently absorbed through the oral mucosa (since cigar smokers don’t inhale):

Type: Report
Author: Creighton, D
Recipient: N/A
Litigation: Minnesota trial exhibit #11,964
Company: British American Tobacco (parent company of Brown and Williamson)
Document date: 19871102
Bates No.:400237344/7360

]]> By: krueger http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2004/09/24/the-score-so-far/#comment-18 krueger Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:08:54 +0000 http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2004/09/24/the-score-so-far/#comment-18 I'm unaware of any "TV network attack" on the tobacco industry. If you're referring to the Day One documentary, it was notable for an attack by the tobacco industry on TV: Philip Morris launched a $10 billion lawsuit against ABC, then "pursued ABC with unprecedented aggressiveness at a cost of approximately $1 million per month" Columbia Journalism Review, November 1995; http://archives.cjr.org/year/95/6/smoking.asp ABC broke the story, but the issue isn't ABC. The issue is, does the tobacco industry manipulate nicotine in its product, and if so, why does it? The evidence shows that it does, that it does so to engineer the product for addiction: http://www.rense.com/health/tobac.htm The evidence is often the industry's own words, in its internal memos, never intended for public reading: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/280/13/1173 http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/7/3/315 A related issue in this trial: did the industry disclose what it knew about nicotine and engineering product for addiction, and if not, what was the consequence of that? Here's how Joe Califano, former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, addresses that question: "Had we known then what the tobacco companies knew and had we been privy to their research on the addictive nature of nicotine, the 1979 Surgeon General's report would have found cigarettes addictive, and we would have moved to regulate them. Unfortunately, the president of the United States, the Secretary of HEW and the surgeon general were all victims of the concealment campaign of the tobacco companies." I’m unaware of any “TV network attack” on the tobacco industry. If you’re referring to the Day One documentary, it was notable for an attack by the tobacco industry on TV: Philip Morris launched a $10 billion lawsuit against ABC, then “pursued ABC with unprecedented aggressiveness at a cost of approximately $1 million per month”
Columbia Journalism Review, November 1995; http://archives.cjr.org/year/95/6/smoking.asp

ABC broke the story, but the issue isn’t ABC. The issue is, does the tobacco industry manipulate nicotine in its product, and if so, why does it?
The evidence shows that it does, that it does so to engineer the product for addiction:
http://www.rense.com/health/tobac.htm

The evidence is often the industry’s own words, in its internal memos, never intended for public reading:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/280/13/1173
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/7/3/315

A related issue in this trial: did the industry disclose what it knew about nicotine and engineering product for addiction, and if not, what was the consequence of that?

Here’s how Joe Califano, former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, addresses that question:

“Had we known then what the tobacco companies knew and had we been privy to
their research on the addictive nature of nicotine, the 1979 Surgeon General’s report would have found cigarettes addictive, and we would have moved to regulate them.

Unfortunately, the president of the United States, the Secretary of HEW and the surgeon general were all victims of the concealment campaign of the tobacco
companies.”

]]> By: Frank H. Messer http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2004/09/24/the-score-so-far/#comment-17 Frank H. Messer Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:31:30 +0000 http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2004/09/24/the-score-so-far/#comment-17 I thought the issue of nicotine manipulation was already addressed by the industry in their response to a TV network attack. The government regulated the level that must be present in the finished product. Tobacco companies needed to added nicotine in order to repace what was lost during the production process. There was no spiking or attempt to manipulate the level beyond that mentioned above! I thought the issue of nicotine manipulation was already addressed by the industry in their response to a TV network attack. The government regulated the level that must be present in the finished product. Tobacco companies needed to added nicotine in order to repace what was lost during the production process. There was no spiking or attempt to manipulate the level beyond that mentioned above!

]]>