Op-Ed: Tobacco Company Disagrees With Harvard Report

Philip Morris company's response to the "Cigarette Tax Buys Back A Healthy Future for Oregon Kids, Eases Pain For Those-Addicted" Op-Ed that ran on Salem-News.com in February.

(RICHMOND, Va.) - The recent report by Harvard University that concluded Philip Morris USA and other tobacco companies have deliberately increased the amount of nicotine that smokers get from cigarettes over the past seven years, if true, raises legitimate public and scientific concerns.

News of this report has increased the volume of those voices that favor regulation of cigarettes by the federal Food and Drug Administration. Philip Morris USA continues to support the legislation introduced in 2005 to grant the FDA authority over the product including the regulation of tar and nicotine. Such authority would directly address the concerns raised in the Harvard report. It’s a comprehensive bill, and currently Philip Morris USA is the only major cigarette manufacturer that supports it.

Cigarettes are addictive and cause serious diseases. The nicotine in cigarette smoke is addictive and an important health issue. But the conclusion from the report, that there was a trend of more and more nicotine in cigarettes between 1997 and 2005, and that the cigarettes were designed to yield greater amounts year after year, is not true for Philip Morris USA. We recognize that is a strong statement. And we understand it is important for us to demonstrate why and in what ways this conclusion is not accurate.

Contrary to the implications of the report, we have not changed the design of our cigarettes with the intention of increasing nicotine yields in order to make the product more addictive. The Harvard report itself also found no upward trends in Marlboro cigarettes for measures that the authors concluded were related to cigarette design and increased nicotine yield, including puffs per cigarette, nicotine content per cigarette or nicotine concentration in the tobacco rod.

In fact, the machine test data we submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health shows that year-to-year variations in nicotine occur. These year-to-year variations occur as part of the normal processes of growing tobacco and manufacturing cigarettes, but the nicotine yields in Marlboro cigarettes were the same in 1997 as in 2006: 1.86 milligrams per cigarette. That’s not a trend up or down.

We understand that many are skeptical of what we say and do, but our actions and the data are transparent.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Hank Ruark February 21, 2007 11:21 am (Pacific time)

Full-explanation and update Op Ed coming up later today, so check frequently for reality statement-coming !!

JAFO; February 20, 2007 8:15 pm (Pacific time)

BATF,(as in Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms), is a dept. of the "Treasury", and Henry is right, the powers that be don't care what the substance does to people, or the lawsuits, but the bottom line is regulated capitol gain for the minute rich at the top of the pyramid who may not smoke themselves but know how to kiss the shreholders asses with "bold new marketing tecniques" designed to "inform" the public while profiting from "legal" Poison! Let the populace grow their own!, if they want a cigar or?,. Why is the government involved at all?.., MONEY.

Henry Clay Ruark February 20, 2007 3:36 pm (Pacific time)

C-M: Appreciate your insights but long, solid communications research shows heavy influence on youth of propaganda shaping lifestyle influence. That's where your "peer pressure" comes from ! The "surround" is complete for our youth because we permitted it, carried over from slave-trade built on it, with huge capital pressures ever since. Communication research is replete with studies of how this has been accomplished, with emphasis on dollar sales over all else. If personal choice is thus sole criterion, how do we control other addictive drugs and protect incompetent or immature vs what society now recognizes as deadly, poisonous, costly, threatening --and growing constantly as new addicts are "persuaded", even though totals-involved may be smaller in number ? Do we abandon alcohol as impossible to control, too, on same principle "no way ever to change people ?" Does society then have NO responsibility except to biz-interests to make $$$$$ ? If insurance refused to smokers, who then pays health costs ? If kids still seduced, who pays for lost-costs to society of all they lose over lifetime now shortened and curtailed by smoking ? If ALL losses added, would they overwhelm what industry adds via jobs, marketing, ads, transportation, et al, et al ? That MUST include death losses for those killed by NON-smoking but ONLY to polluted air That is why cig-tax is 1st step; wise, workable, pays off on costs protecting addicted, slowing suicide for others by hampering too-easy supply. YOU are too smart just to stand by and do NOTHING !!

Curmudgeon February 20, 2007 2:16 pm (Pacific time)

Hank, although I have to agree with some of your specifics, I strongly disagree with your basic position. Call it what you will, - addiction, compulsion, illness, disease - but smoking is a choice. Calling it anything else is a "smoke screen." Been there, done that, and I quit doing that over 20 years ago. Only a moron, living in a vacuum, could possibly believe it is not harmful. Everyone knows it is harmful, and anyone claiming otherwise is a liar. I'm sure we agree on that. Even the writer of this article, who works for P/M, says "Cigarettes are addictive and cause serious diseases." But people are going to smoke, no matter how harmful it may be. I think it's immaterial whether the nicotine content is 1.86 or 1.92 or any other number, as long as the content is above the threshold for causing some effect and a desire for more, and every cigarette on the market is above that threshold. Years of market experience prove that low nicotine cigarettes are no less addicting than regular cigarettes. Suggesting that at some level it absolves the user of responsibility for their own choice is disingenuous and unrealistic. When I go to the liquor store I see whiskey of 80, 86, 90, 100, and 101 proof. Is one more "addictive" than the other? I doubt it, I don't care, and I choose the one that suits my taste, regardless of alcohol content. All the slick advertising conducted by the tobacco companies does not force anyone to make the choice to smoke. In the case of young people, advertising has only a very miniscule effect compared to peer pressure from those around them. If tobacco advertising were entirely banned, I doubt we would see much of a decrease in smoking. Health care is a huge concern. It is well known that smoking puts people at higher risk for all kinds of health problems, not just lung cancer. Insurance companies could very easily charge smokers a higher premium than non-smokers, or refuse to insure them at all. The cost of health care for a smoker should not be passed on to anyone else. My main point is that tobacco companies exist because there are people out there demanding the product, not the other way around. The percentage of the population who smoke is significantly smaller than it was years ago. I have little doubt that advertising will tempt a few people to start smoking, but I believe tobacco advertising is more about market share than attracting new smokers.

Henry Clay Ruark February 20, 2007 11:02 am (Pacific time)

Please note that P/M is the ONLY company yet to deny the Harvard report on additional nicotine with documented test. Theirs stabilized at 1.86 mg from '97 to '06. That proves ONLY that real stabilization is possible, done by them for those years. WHY ? Death-dealing final results are NOT denied; full credit is sought simply for maintaining SAME product/poison-level ! PR-arrogance can go no further than that. True corporate remorse is UN-demonstrated here while $$ motivation remains dominant, per "we understand that many are skeptical of what we say and do"...with strong reasons. PR-moguls get paid for this with poison-earned $$$, while ads hook more kids every day, and addicts die every day,too, while we all pay healthcare costs multiplied by "the product." BUT now "they" must DENY at every level they can reach, again with poison-product $$$.

[Return to Top]