Tobacco On Trial

Some of the most damaging testimony so far came out today as DOJ attorney Leo Wise questioned Tobacco Institute spokeswoman Brennan Dawson (1986-96) about TI efforts to:

–denigrate Surgeon General’s Reports on smoking and health and addiction (Ms. Dawson agreed that lawyers from Shook Hardy had input into the “TI Approach” to the Surgeon General’s report on addiction, which was that the idea of smoking as an addiction “contradicts common sense.”)

–undercut the Great American Smokeout to the extent that the American Cancer Society would “significantly modify or abandon the smokeout.”

–develop letters to the editor and opinion pieces that TI then sent to many news outlets and that, as published in at least one paper (Buffalo News), did not necessarily cite the TI’s involvement.

–develop and promote ETS studies without directly disclosing TI involvement with “independent” parties involved.

Mr. Wise showed that Ms. Dawson made many appearances on TV in which she denied a causal relationship between smoking and health issue, saying for example, on Good Morning America in 1989,

“I think it’s worth pointing out that all the links that have been established between smoking and certain diseases are based on statistics. What that means is that the causative relationship has not yet been established.”

When the Elmo displayed a 7/28/89 Buffalo News letter-to-the-editor from a Dr. Holcomb, Judge Kessler immediately said, “I want to see the signature. . . and how the individual identifies himself.” As the Elmo zoomed in, we saw that underneath “Larry C. Holcomb, Ph. D.” was written, “Holcomb Environmental Services, Olivet, Mich.”

Parts of the letter were nearly identical to the draft of a proposed letter-to-the-editor that Ms. Dawson had sent to John Rupp on 8/17/89, in which she wrote, “we drafted and arranged for Larry Holcomb to submit” the letter.

Ms. Dawson testified she had “worked with Dr. Holcomb” on the draft as sent to Mr. Rupp. Ms. Dawson said Mr. Rupp would have understood that, “John would have been very familiar with how Larry Holcomb and I worked together,” she said. Yet Dr. Holcomb is nowhere identified as part of the “we,” and he is even referred to in the third person–formally, with first and last name– only 4 words later in the same sentence.

Ms. Dawson also said that there could have been a cover letter that was sent that indicated TI involvement, or the newspaper may have edited out something.

Judge Kessler did not seem to be biting. She asked Ms. Dawson directly,

JUDGE KESSLER: Was Dr. Holcomb a paid TI consultant?

MS DAWSON: Yes

JUDGE KESSLER: Does the article disclose that fact?

MS DAWSON: No, it doesn’t, but again, whether Dr. Holcomb would have included that or whether it was edited out or omitted, I don’t know; it may have been there and been taken away.

It was odd that Ms. Dawson did not seem to have in mind any sort of formal disclosure policy she could refer to on this, and instead professed a kind of casual ignorance of whether Dr. Holcomb would have referenced the TI or not.

Certainly Judge Kessler’s attitude toward the witness seemed to harden a few minutes later, when Ms. Dawson was being asked if she and the TI had intended the public to rely upon the public statements she had made. Ms. Dawson had changed her Written Direct Testimony to avoid this charge, writing instead, “Our intent was to communicate the views of the Tobacco Institute on industry issues to the public.”

So in the matter of the causal relationship between smoking and disease, Mr. Wise wanted Ms. Dawson to say that the aim of her statements and PR was to “influence the debate on smoking and health.”

Ms. Dawson seemed fairly disingenuous at this point, saying that most of the TI’s PR during her tenure was about political things, taxes, etc.– not much on health.

Finally, Mr. Wise pointed out that, when asked in her Direct Written Testimony if she understood that TI’s statements would likely be disseminated to the public via newspapers and magazines, she had corrected the answer and wrote, “but many of them were not picked up by the press.”

Judge Kessler’s patience seemed to be running out. She broke in:

JUDGE KESSLER: Let’s go back to lines 5, 6, 7 of the Direct Testimony:

Q: You and the Tobacco Institute intended the public to rely upon the public statements you made on those television shows?

A: Our intent was to communicate the views of the Tobacco Institute on industry issues to the public.

JUDGE KESSLER: Is it your testimony that you did not intend the public to rely on various statements that you made that, it’s fair to say, reached millions of people?

Ms. Dawson made a side-argument, and was cut off.

JUDGE KESSLER: First answer the question, yes or no? When one goes on TV and communicates with millions of viewers, did you or did you not intend for the public to believe and rely upon the statements you made?

MS DAWSON: (saying something about an “odd context”)

JUDGE KESSLER: Did you intend them to believe you?

MS DAWSON: I intended them to listen, yes.

JUDGE KESSLER: Did you intend them to believe you?

MS DAWSON: I don’t think they did

JUDGE KESSLER: Did you intend to BELIEVE YOU? That’s the third time I’ve asked the question.

MS DAWSON: Yes

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 12th, 2005 at 1:50 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.