Tobacco On Trial

Pharmacologist Sorell Schwartz, Professor Emeritus at Georgetown University and a part of the tobacco industry’s campaign against secondhand smoke in the 80s-90s, has said in pre-trial Direct Examination that he concluded in the late 80s that secondhand smoke was harmful to children.

In the Adverse Witness’ corrected testimony, placed on the government’s PACER website Friday afternoon, Schwartz describes his time with the industry thus:

“To the best of my recollection, I served as a consultant to Tl from 1984 to 1988. I was a grant recipient from the Philip Morris Neuchatel research component until about 1992.”

Professor Schwartz says that he founded the Center for Environmental Health and Human Toxicology (CEHHT) in 1982 with Dr. Phillip Witorsch.

During the years the Center did work for the Tobacco Institute, the bills were paid for by Covington and Burling, which Schwartz preferred. As time went on, Schwartz felt the TI was using CEHHT’s work for PR purposes.

On the work CEHHT did for the TI, Schwartz’s testimony reads,


“As our invoices reflect, we reviewed, evaluated and critiqued scientific literature, updated the database, educated and prepared scientific witnesses, coordinated their interaction with the EPA, prepared scientific papers, and participated in meetings.”

CEHHT worked to identify scientists who could be consultants to the industry on secondhand smoke, and maintained a database on them. Schwartz claims, however, that “[t]he dissentient view (ie, that secondhand smoke was _not_ harmful) was not a prerequisite” for consideration.

Schwartz testifies that he founded the “Indoor Air Pollution Advisory Group” in 1985:

“IAPAG, as it was commonly known, was a group of scientists that was established by me after having received a go-ahead from John Rupp and, I believe, Ed Dunlelberger (sic). I was the chairman of IAPAG. The purpose of the group was to evaluate the science on ETS and to advise the tobacco industry on this science, to provide testimony at legislative hearings and attend and participate in meetings. In addition, we provided a scientific literature database service (that I mentioned a little earlier) which meant that we maintained a database and sent materials to people at the request of the Tobacco Institute.”

A DOJ exhibit lists the IAPAG members as:

“Ahmed E. Ahmed, Nancy Balter, Vincent Castranova, Salvatore DirNardi, James Kilpatrick, Guenter Oberdoerster, Jack Peterson, Mark Reasor, Gray Robertson, Sorell Schwartz, Kingsley Stevens, David Weeks, Myron Weinberg, Philip Witorsch.”

In response to a DOJ question on whether the industry’s viewpoint was promulgated in educating the scientists, Schwartz says,

“Pushing the company line was not in our job description. However, among all the scientific data discussed, we did include the scientific studies that were generated by tobacco company scientists.”

On the deployment of IAPAG scientists “to respond to reports from various governmental bodies about the risks associated with secondhand smoke,” Schwartz’ testimony reads:

“Q. So, members of IAPAG were flown around the United States at the behest and expense of the Tobacco Institute, correct?

“A. Members were asked to testify at specified venues in different parts of the country, generally getting to those venues by air transportation. They did so at the expense of TI.”

IAPAG split with TI in 1988, apparently over an aborted ETS conference at Georgetown University. In the brouhaha that erupted when health groups found out the industry was supporting the conference, Schwartz felt “the public relations people at TI wanted to control us; they wanted to run the show.” The TI wanted to run PR about the loss of “academic freedom,” and that Schwartz felt, was “unacceptable advocacy.”

Schwartz also describes other connections with the industry, ie, his work for Philip Morris and his contacts with RJR scientists and events. When asked his opinion of Shook Hardy Bacon’s Don Hoel, he says:

” I saw him as a major player in the ETS issue. My impression was that he was the most powerful person in the whole group. . . . Everyone seemed to defer to Hoel. He seemed to be in charge of the entire industry, not just the Tobacco Institute.”

Schwartz’s position on his part of the industry’s campaign seems to be summed up in these two passages:

“Corporate strategy was not part of my job description. I cannot testify as to the formal strategy, only what I observed. I never attended a meeting with the explicit or implicit purpose of disseminating views that ETS did not cause disease. As stated earlier, we proffered a more comprehensive look at data and assumptions. And, to be sure, we viewed the data as not revealing as serious a health problem as had been concluded in some quarters. I have no doubt that the industry strategy was to cast doubt on the dangers of ETS. It had been a strategy pursued for years with active smoking. For that very reason, we were acutely aware of the potential for misrepresentation, and conducted ourselves accordingly. . .

“There can be a strategy that relies on getting on the record what is considered a more balanced view of the scientific data, participating in mainstream scientific discourse. As with any such scientific discourse, controversy is a natural product. There is also a strategy that relies on deception and creating controversy as a ’smoke screen.’ But the latter is not an essential condition of the first. On the contrary it is not an acceptable condition of the first. In my view, both conditions existed separately concerning tobacco industry strategy, as I observed it.”

The final part of Schwartz’ corrected testimony reads:

“Do you regard smoking as harmful to the smoker?

“A. Yes.

“Q. Do you consider secondhand smoke harmful to children?

“A. Yes.

“Q. Have you always believed that secondhand smoke is harmful to children?

“A. No. That is one position that I changed in the late 1980s.

“Q. Why did you conclude that secondhand smoke harms children?

“A. I saw more and more data that indicated that secondhand smoke caused increased respiratory disease in children under two years of age.

“Q. Do you think children should he exposed to secondhand smoke?

“A. No, children should avoid secondhand smoke exposure.”

Professor Sorell will probably appear for cross-examination next week. According to a recent DOJ filing, these are the next few witnesses:

77 Donald Hoel Fact Live – Adverse

78 Sorell Schwartz Fact Live – Adverse

79 John Gray Robertson Fact Live – Adverse

80 Reginald Simmons Fact Live

proposed first interim summation

(More on this unusual “interim summation” procedure later)

This entry was posted on Friday, October 15th, 2004 at 10:10 pm and is filed under Notes. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.