THE EMBATTLED MR. LEBOW
February 8, 2005 9:50 pm by Gene BorioThe most contentious “friendly” cross examination yet occurred Monday afternoon, when Philip Morris’ Dan Webb questioned Vector CEO and Liggett head Bennett LeBow. (It was surprising that Mr. Webb should be his first and main cross-examiner, as opposed to Liggett’s own attorney, Aaron Marks.)
Mr. LeBow, with grey hair and a neatly trimmed grey beard, took on all comers, looking like a smaller but fiercer Sigmund Freud, saying, in effect, sometimes a cigarette is a lot more complex than I thought at first. He had a cantakerous examination with the DOJ’s Frank Marine and also with Mr. Webb. Mr. LeBow showed the most anger under questioning of any witness yet, and would turn his head and wave his hand deprecatingly when Mr. Marine refused to let him elaborate on his answer. During Mr. Webb’s cross, at times I thought I’d hear an objection from Mr. Marks.
His new-found ignorance of Liggett’s and the Tobacco Institute’s past actions–ie, before and even after he bought the company in 1986–certainly seemed to nestle him back into the industry’s fold.
But his new-found denial of smoking as a cause of lung cancer was more problematic. Applying ultra-strict requirements for the term “causation,” he said he had changed his mind since 1996, when he made headlines by being the first tobacco company executive to publicly join the medical and scientific communities in stating that cigarettes cause disease and are addicting. He gave similar testimony in various liability and state lawsuits even as late as 2002. Mr. LeBow said he had come to his revised conclusion once the company started hiring its own scientists in the development of new products.
Though he seems to be wearing a turncoat of many colors, his testimony may actually help the DOJ’s case in regards to likely future conduct. Liggett has seemingly retreated into the past, once again returning to the days of denying disease causation even of primary smoking, and the days of relying almost exclusively upon the advice of a tobacco company’s own hired scientists.
Mr. LeBow’s new position is a seeming departure from the industry’s “unambiguous and clear message that we sell a dangerous product,” which Philip Morris attorney Ted Wells referred to in this trial’s opening statements. Mr. Wells said the industry’s message showed there was no possibility of future wrongdoing. But now, after Mr. LeBow’s statements, the industry’s message on smoking and health seems a little less unambiguous, and certainly much less “of a permanent, irreversible and everlasting nature.” In fact, it’s been diluted even before the trial has ended.
February 8th, 2005 at 11:02 pm
This Lebow character does himself no good with his flip-floppery. But let’s not mischaracterize what he actually said. This is from yesterdays post on this blog:
”He feels now that causation of lung cancer by smoking has been “proven by the epidemiological view,” and he believes causation will be proven in the future by other methods–but that for now, “I’m hesitating on the direct link.”
Seems to me like he both knows and admits that smoking causes lung cancer, despite the apparent weaseling about standards of proof. Despite that, the real issue isn’t what he believes. Lebow is entitled to his beliefs, no matter how crackpot they might be, and he’s also entitled to change them. But his personal belief is frankly irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is what kind of information has HIS COMPANY been putting out to the general public about the health risks of smoking. Did HIS COMPANY ever publically deny the link between smoking and cancer? Let’s hear that evidence, rather than his amusing (but irrelevant) personal opinions on the matter.
In sharp contrast, this is Philip Morris’ take on the subject. Hard to sense any equivocation here:
http://pmusa.com/en/health_issues/cigarette_smoking_and_disease.asp
“Philip Morris USA (PM USA) agrees with the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other serious diseases in smokers. Smokers are far more likely to develop serious diseases, like lung cancer, than non-smokers. There is no safe cigarette. ”
Conspiracy to defraud the public? Tough to get there based on that!
February 9th, 2005 at 11:26 am
Again, Philip Morris’s “disclosure” on its corporate website and advertising inserts is more PR than any attempt to inform. The American Council on Science and Health took a look and came away underwhelmed:
“Has Has Philip Morris Finally Come Clean?”
“During the past couple of weeks, newspapers around the country have carried a colorful, glossy insert, prepared by Philip Morris, which purports, among other things to offer ‘information on…the serious health effects of smoking, quitting smoking, and cigarette ingredients.’”
“Is this effort on behalf of the world’s largest cigarette manufacturer evidence that the tobacco industry is doing an about-face on questions related to smoking and health and is finally ‘fessing up to the health consequences of using their products?”
“The answer here is a mixed one, about 5% ‘yes’ and 95% ‘no.’ . . .”
“Philip Morris was very careful not to give an overview of the horrors of cigarette-related disease in the United States. For example:”
“Nowhere did they mention the fact that cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, causally linked to one in every four deaths daily — one in every two premature deaths . . .”
“The publication didn’t address the concept of relative risk, ignoring the unique status of cigarettes as the only legally available product that is hazardous when used as intended . . . For Philip Morris to say that ‘cigarettes cause cancer’ is hollow unless they note that it is the leading preventable cause of cancer death in the United States . . .”
“The text completely omitted reference to the grim reality that some effects of smoking are irreversible. For example, after decades of smoking, an ex -smoker will continue to have a substantially elevated risk of lung cancer compared to a never-smoker.”
“This minimalist disclosure attempt is further proof that cigarette companies are subject to different legal standards than are any other companies . . .”
“In their ‘educational insert,’ Philip Morris did not even attempt to describe the totality of the health consequences of smoking. And it obfuscated further by including links to hard-to-access supplementary material . . .”
“When an industry has been lying for more than half a century, then announces it is going to tell the truth but only tells a fraction of the truth, the impact can be as bad as or worse than the original lie. Philip Morris wants you to believe that it is now open and candid, allowing customers to make fully informed decisions, but in reality they have cleverly muddied the waters further. This advertising insert communicates the barest minimum of information about the negative health effects of smoking and contains misleading, ambiguous references . . .”
http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.461/healthissue_detail.asp