Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains:
Report highlighting potential electoral consequences of anti-tobacco policies. Includes appendices documenting policies, positions and statements of various officials and departments, including Surgeon General, HEW, Commerce, Justice. 36 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Report], no date
From Lee Nunn to Attorney General re: problems with tobacco lobby, states in light of administration tobacco policy, statements. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/18/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26144669
label
WHSF: Contested, 4-17
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26144669
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 4-17
description
This file contains:
Report highlighting potential electoral consequences of anti-tobacco policies. Includes appendices documenting policies, positions and statements of various officials and departments, including Surgeon General, HEW, Commerce, Justice. 36 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Report], no date
From Lee Nunn to Attorney General re: problems with tobacco lobby, states in light of administration tobacco policy, statements. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/18/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26144669
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
cd8593013a0d9de6
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
4
17
>
Domestic Policy
Report
Report highlighting potential electoral
consequences of anti-tobacco policies.
Includes appendices documenting policies,
positions and statements of various officials
and departments, including Surgeon General,
HEW, Commerce, Justice. 36 pgs.
4
17
1/18/1972
Campaign
Memo
Memo from Lee Nunn to Attorney General
re: problems with tobacco lobby, states in
light of administration tobacco policy,
statements. 1 pg.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Page 1 of 1
COMMITTEE FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT
January 18, 1972
1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. N.W
WASHINGTON D C 20006
(202) 333.0920
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUBJECT: Tobacco
In 1968 the President carried all of the principal tobacco states
with the exception of Georgia, and that went to Wallace. We should
do as well in 1972. However, the Democratic nominee will be in a
position to build a very strong case against this Administration
unless we are able to change the attitude of HEW, the Surgeon
General, and FTC toward the tobacco industry.
In most areas handled by these departments there is an indication
of moderation and fairness with everyone except tobacco. The
Surgeon General has termed it more dangerous than heroin and
marijuana - a danger to non-smokers as well as smokers - has
apparently publicized unfavorable and withheld favorable
information concerning tobacco and has committed other sins
in the eyes of the tobacco industry.
I hope something can be done to convince our tobacco friends -
from here on out more moderation will be used by our people
and that a sense of fairness will prevail.
The Tobacco Institute representing the industry in Washington
is composed of friends of this Administration even though
most of them are members of the Democratic Party. They are
having a difficult time continuing their friendship under
present day conditions. It is just about impossible to get
any funds for the campaign from the tobacco industry at this
time. My chief worry, of course, is what our opponents could
do with the anti-tobacco material that will be available unless
we can bring about a change.
for
Lee R. Nunn
President Nixon's re-election prospects are
not being advanced by the narrow and zealous anti-
smoking campaign that is being conducted by the United
States Public Health Service, under the leadership of
Surgeon General Jesse Steinfeld.
John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson carefully
kept the cigarette controversy at arm's length from the
White House. While President Nixon is personally main-
taining a hands-off posture, it is likely that his '72
campaign will be damaged by the ceaseless efforts of
career bureaucrats to eliminate cigarette smoking.
They have a willing spokesman in the Surgeon
General. His constant attacks on cigarette smoking and
the tobacco industry could easily be used by Democratic
strategists to deny President Nixon votes in the South
and nationally.
Any attacks on tobacco are counter-productive
in Kentucky, North Carolina and Virginia, where tobacco
growing and manufacturing are vital to the economy. The
same is true to a lesser, but still significant, extent
in Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida and Maryland.
- 2 -
Outside the South, the Surgeon General's
excessive campaign against smoking ---- almost to the
exclusion of every other health or environmental hazard --
gives the appearance of an Administration diversion to
protect some of the major targets of the anti-pollution
forces. This semblance of a cover up could play into the
hands of the Democrats in their efforts to portray the
Republican Party as the party of the big business pollu-
tionists. Needless to say, the effort could hurt with
the young and the suburban voter.
Apparently, the President himself is aware of
the dangers. He has personally never committed the
White House beyond his 1968 campaign statement on tobacco,
in which he said:
"It seems to me that the Federal Government
has placed the warning before the people
in an adequate manner I would say that
the job of the Federal Government here is
simply to lay it before the people and then
if people determine on their own that despite
the warnings they're going to continue to
smoke, I don't think the Federal Government
could go further than that !! (see attachment A)
Unfortunately, the bureaucracy, most notably the
Surgeon General, has gone much further than that.
On a recent broadcast, for example, he stated
that he was "in favor of all those things which will lead
to less cigarette smoking," including -- higher taxes,
- 3 -
graduated taxes based on "tar" and nicotine content,
banning all advertising, and ending tobacco price supports
for farmers. But this is not surprising for a man who
regards cigarette smoking -- not heroin addiction, marijuana,
alcoholism, or auto accidents -- as America's number one
health problem. (His obsession with tobacco and relative
unconcern with other alleged hazards is documented in
Attachment B.)
What is surprising is that a key Administration
health appointee can continue to march to the tune of a
different drummer. It is also surprising to see Cabinet
Secretaries joining in, although unwittingly. For example:
On October 20, 1969, a letter prepared by the
anti-smoking arm of HEW cleared Secretary
Finch's office without his knowledge. It
went to Senator Moss of Utah, who was facing
a strong challenge from Representative Burton,
a candidate personally selected by President
Nixon. The "Finch letter" praised the Utah
Democrat for his "successful efforts to remove
cigarette advertisements from radio and tele-
vision" and "pledged support of efforts to
have anti-smoking ads carried in print media."
Senator Moss promptly released it to the press
and later circulated it widely during his
1970 Senatorial campaign. (See Attachment C.)
On April 18, 1969, without checking with
Secretary Stans, who was out of the country,
the new General Counsel of the Commerce Depart-
ment forwarded a staff-prepared letter to the
House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee.
This letter strongly supported anti-cigarette
- 4 -
legislation. Where most of the other Depart-
ment reports deferred to HEW, the Commerce
Department report went beyond the HEW position.
However, after Secretary Stans returned and
learned what had happened, he shook up his
staff. As a result, his General Counsel sent
a supplementary letter on May 22, backing off
from its previous support of a bill which
could have effectively stopped the export
of cigarettes from the U. S. Further, the
Counsel explained that the earlier letter
was based on the assumed validity of the
Surgeon General's findings which was vigor-
ously protested at the committee hearings,
he noted. (See Attachment D.)
On November 30, 1970, the Justice Department
filed pleadings in re: Capital Broadcasting
et al V. John Mitchell et al (U. S. District
Court for the District of Columbia) which
(a) completely fail to recognize that a
scientific controversy exists regarding
smoking and health, and (b) erroneously
attribute to Congress a finding that a
causative relationship exists between smoking
and health and that smoking is an "inherent"
health hazard. (See Attachment E.)
If practical political considerations do not
provide sufficient grounds for better treatment from the
Administration, perhaps simple justice does. For the
tobacco industry has a unique record of responsible self-
regulation in an effort to resolve what is essentially
a perplexing scientific controversy.
**In 1963 the cigarette industry stopped all
advertising and promotion on college campuses
and college publications.
**In 1964 the industry established the Cig-
arette Advertising Code and named former
Governor Meyner of New Jersey as administrator.
The code effectively ended the use of young
- 5 -
persons and athletes as models and barred
advertising in programs and publications
directed at youth audiences.
**In 1969 the industry volunteered to stop
all advertising on radio and television.
**In 1970 cigarette companies voluntarily
submitted a plan to the Federal Trade
Commission to display the "tar" and
nicotine content in all print and outdoor
advertising.
**In 1971 cigarette companies volunteered
to show the side panel carrying the Congres-
sionally authorized health warning in all
advertising.
**In 1972 the industry reached agreement
with the Federal Trade Commission on making
this warning more conspicuous and clear.
Parallel with self-regulation that may well
be unique in American business, the entire industry --
growers, distributors, and manufacturers -- have maintained
an unprecedented commitment to objective scientific research.
Beginning in 1954, the tobacco industry has committed
$40 million for smoking and health research through two
independent granting agencies -- The Council for Tobacco
Research and the American Medical Association's Education
and Research Foundation.
Thus, it is spending more money on this special
field of research than any other source, public and private.
Far more than the voluntary health organizations which make
a career of attacking tobacco.
- 6 -
Great hope for cooperative government-industry
research was felt in 1969 when Secretary Finch met with
industry and HEW scientists and officials and issued a
press release stating:
"I believe that industry and government
working together offers great promise
of finding the answers we need. I am
confident our joint effort will yield
a cooperative research program which
strongly promotes the public interest."
(See Attachment F.)
Congress too in its report of the Cigarette
Advertising and Labelling Act of 1969 recognized the
need for cooperative research as the best way to identify
and close the gaps in our knowledge of tobacco and health.
Since then little innovation or initiative has
been seen at the top level of the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare. Hopefully, the Secretary can work
with industry toward resolving this scientific controversy.
It would be more beneficial to his President and the
American people than falling in line with the Surgeon
General and HEW's career anti-smoking bureaucrats, whose
present limited objective seems to be a ban on smoking
in HEW conference rooms and segregation of smokers in
HEW cafeterias. (See Attachment G.)
A
9/11/68
I don't believe that any senator really should go to the cabinet,
uh we need them there in the Senate. Un, that's my view on that.
Whitchurst: Mr. Nixon, if we may turn a bit from how you' re going
to get elected to some of your stands
on
on issues, there are some
things that are particulanyimportant in this part of the country.
And one thing is tobacco. Now in light of the knowledge between
cigarette smoking and cancer, do you feel the Federal Government has
gone too far or far enough in say, the warnings and efforts to uh,
convince people to stop smoking cigarettes?
Nixon: Well, as a non-smoker and I suppose that isn't going to win
me many votes in this great tobacco country, and of course, I spent
a lot of time in Durham, and I am well aware of how much this indus-
try means to uh, North Carolina and the rest of the South
uh, my
view on this is purely objective. Uh I can say that it seems to
me that the Federal Government probably has
has uh, placed the
warnings before the people in an adequate manner. And it seems that
no matter how many warnings are placed before the people, uh those
who are potential smokers uh, that uh, it doesn't seem to have a
a very much effect on what people do. Now, uh I've read the studies,
some of the studies on the relationship of the use of tobacco and
cancer and I know that it's quite controversial uh, but I would say
that the job of the Federal Government here is simply to lay it before
the people and then if people determine on there own that despite
those warnings they re going to continue to smoke, uh -J. don't think
the Federal Government could go further than that in protecting the
people against what they think is, uh a vice that they are willing to
pay the price for.
Whitchurst: Well of course, there is an effort now to strengthen
this warning on the cigaretta uh cigarette packages, and I was
wondering if your administration would
would support such an
effort to make that warning even more uh, frightening?
Nixon: I have no present intention to do that. Uh, no one has
recommended it from my task forces and uh, unless I get some pretty
END
strong evidence that the warning that is presently used is not
TOBACCO
adequate, I would not move in that direction.
Alvord: Do you consider the general philosophy of the type of
campaign to sell an idea on the part of the Federal Government
agencies such as the HEW's use of Post Office trucks and things of
this nature to get out the word? Do you consider that uh, good
government policy? Is there something that could be dangerous?
Nixon: It could be dangerous if it were in the hands of a
a
potential dictatorial type in the Presidency of the United States.
Uh, I just don't think we are going to elect that kind of a man
in any event. Uh I, I must say that that I am going to watch
very carefully in my administration the use of Voice of America, uh
either abroad or in those areas where it could be used at home and
the use of all government agencies with this immense power that the
Government could have over the minds of people. Uh, I think it's
very important not to let that power to be used to influence the
peole in a way that uh, would not be proper and appropriate to the
government function.
B
The Surgeon General Has Determined
Each year, 29 million packs of cigarettes warn Americans,
by Act of Congress, that "the Surgeon General has determined
that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health."
Jesse L. Steinfeld, M.D. is the man who stands behind
this official warning to consumers. Dr. Steinfeld is also
a man who takes his anti-smoking stance very seriously. He
has said, for example, that cigarette smoking is "a dirty,
smelly, foul, chronic form of suicide" and that "it is high
time to ban smoking from all confined public places."
But we live in an age of many hazards. What has Dr.
Steinfeld determined about some of the others?
DRUG ABUSE, ALCOHOLISM, AUTO ACCIDENTS
"Cigarette smoking, not drug abuse, is America's
number one public health problem," the Surgeon
General of the United States said here yesterday.
Dr. Jesse L. Steinfeld listed alcohol, auto
accidents and drug abuse as other serious public
health problems secondary to smoking."
Los Angeles Times, July 10, 1971
MARIJUANA
"Indeed, Dr. Burke, president of the American Historical
Reference Society and consultant to the Smithsonian,
reports that no less than seven U.S. Presidents smoked
marijuana, including Washington, Jefferson, Madison,
Monroe, Jackson, Taylor and Pierce.' ((Steinfeld's
testimony to National Commission on Marijuana and
Drug Abuse))
Wall Street Journal, Oct. 20, 1971
PHOSPHATES
"My adviceto housewives at this time would be to use
the phosphate detergent. It is safe for human health. =
Washington Post, Oct. 21, 1971
-2-
SUPERSONIC TRANSPORT HAZARD
"Surgeon General Jesse L. Steinfeld of the United
States Public Health Service took issue today with
reports which have appeared recently suggesting that
world-wide use of the Supersonic Transport (SST)
in the 1980's and after would result in an additional
10,000 cases of skin cancer in United States Citizens.'
HEW Press release, Dec. 1, 1970
MERCURY, LEAD, ARSENIC, CADMIUM, ETC.
"Dr. Jesse L. Steinfeld
said today that the
health effects of mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium,
and other toxic substances in the environment were
not a cause for hysteria We are not presently
faced with widespread, serious human health hazard
from these substances."
New York Times, Aug. 28, 1970
HERBICIDES AND PESTICIDES
"The evidence that is available now does not in my
judgment support a conclusion that formultions of
2,4-D as now marketed and under current use present
a hazard to public health.'
New York Times, June 19, 1970
CYCLAMATES
"There is absolutely no evidence to demonstrate in
any way that the use of cyclamates has caused cancer
in man We have no indication that human bladder
cancer from whatever cause is increasing to any
significant degree.'
HEW Press Conference, Oct. 18,
1969
NERVE GAS SHIPMENT
"Our department wishes to take this opportunity to
reassure the Congress and the American people that
the transportation involved in Operation CHASE is
less hazardous than that occurring daily in similar
mass movements of chlorine, phosgene, of LPG,
-3-
liquified petroleum gas, and anhydrous ammonia.
The appelation, 'nerve gas' conjures images that
are true enough when weapons are ready to fire,
but are not similarly appropriate when the weapons
are encased in concrete."
Senate Commerce Committee
Hearings, Aug. 5, 1970
WATER POLLUTION
"As we reduce the number of smokers in the nation
the quality of our environment could improve,
somewhat, since there would be fewer cigarette butts
to
find their way to our water sources. "
Speech to Interagency Council
on Smoking and Health,
Sept. 10, 1970
C
OCT.201969
Dear Senator Moss:
Our Department was indeed gratified at the decision of the cigarette
industry to withdraw its advertising from radio and television. You
and your Committee played a large part in helping bring this about,
and you deserve the thanks of the medical and health community for
your success.
For some five years, our Department has carried on a smoking education
program and so, for an even longer period, have the American Cancer
Society, the American Heart Association, and the National Tuberculosis
and Respiratory Disease Association. If newspapers and magazines are
now ready to give greater support to our programs, we obviously have
the responsibility to make our materials available to them, in whatever
is the most effective way. If this appears to call for an Advertising
Council compaign, we will ask the Council for this help.
As a beginning, 3 an asking staff of the National Clearinghouse for
Smoking and Health 10 meet with the voluntary agencies and later with
the Advertising Council 1.0 explore how an effective campaign in the
print media can best be mounted. We will keep you informed of our
progress. In the meantine, I would once again express my thanks to
you for your continuing support of our smoking and health programs.
Sincerely,
N AUDIAN PORERZ in " CHILD
Secretary
Honorable Frank E. Moss
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
00T201968
RSHUTCHINGS/EHOPN/non 10/8/69
cc: HSMHA, Room 3A50, NJII, Bldg. 31
and
RMPS, Room 3C-10, Wiscon Bldg.
Official file copy located in Room 808 Webb Bldg.
CC: Mrs. Byers, ROOM 5550 HEW-N
ExSec, Room 5627, BEW-N
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Health Services and Mental Realth Administration
Secretary
Through: Director, OFI
BRILFING MEMORANDUM
Chief, Health Information Section
National Cleaninghouse for Swoking and Health
Senator Hoss' Request for an Advertising Council Compaign on Smoking
The Question
Senator Hoss has recommended to you that our Department request a
full-scale Advertising Council program on smoking and health in
conjunction with the American Cancer Society, the American licart
Association, the American Public Realth Association, and the National
Tuberculosis and Respiratory Disease Association. Such a campaign,
limited to the print media, vould reinforce and eventually replace the
"anti-smoking" announcements now appearing on radio and television under
the FCC's fairness doctrine.
Background
A number of previous proposals have been made that the Council mount an
anti-smoking compaign. One vas made early in 1967 by the four voluntary
health agencies, who asked the Surgeon General to request such a campaign
and volunteered to pay $75,000 towards its cost. Another proposal was
made in 1968 by the Surgeon General's Task Force on Smoking and Health.
Neither of these proposals was acted upon; for one reason, because they
were then unnecessary inaseach as the fairness doctrine was already
providing far more exposure than the Council could have given.
The situation is, of course, now changed. Cigarette advertising will
end by September 1970, and along with it vill end the fairness doctrine
campaigns.
The smoking issue has been an embarrassment to the Advertising Council
for some years. The cigarette industry helps support the Council and,
with only a handful of exceptions, its cooperating advertising agencies
all handle cigarette advertising. Oil the other hand, many other friends
of the Council recognize cigarette smoking as 3 major health hazard
and feel it is an area in which the Council should he active. Included
among these are important publishers. (Even Joseph F. Cullman, 3rd,
Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Tobacco Institute, said
at the Senate hearings of July 22 that he would not "oppose" a compaign
at this time.)
OFFICE
SURNAME
DATE
OFFICE
SURNAME
FILE
COPY
10-76583-1 GPO
Pressures have now mounted to such a degree that, In 0:17 opinion, the
Council will new accept a compaign on swoking If requested to do
SO by the Adednistration. If night even do so if the request CARE from
the hoalth agencies alone.
Discussion
There would be important advantages in a Council campaign. It would
be a strong ackueuledgement of the hazards of smoking; 11 would extend
our educational compaigns to 1:05 media; it would tend to check advertising
excesses in the medding j.c would please those publishers willing 1:0
cooporate with the compaign, by giving then R single agency to work vith.
The most troubling question to be rained against 2 Council compaign is
whether it could be 81 effective one in view of the enbivalence 05 many
of the Council's principals. it the advertising uneds to
assert unequivocally that smoking is harmful; when it is addressed
to young people, it must advise them not to take up the hobit.
Anything less then this could encourage smoking among children rather
than discouraging it.
Recommendation
Because of the question rained imediately above, 1t to recomended that
no imedinte action be token, but that discussions be started with the
voluntary health agencies and later with the Council. Out of these
discussions, at your direction, can come either a formal Advertising
Council proposal or some satisfactory alternative nethod of meeting the
problem. A suggested letter [0 Senator Moss is submitted to this effect.
Robert S. Hutchings
Enclosure
RSHUTCHINGS/DHORL/neT 1018/09
CC: HSIMA, Room 3A-50, Bldg. 31, NIH
RIB'S, Room 30-10 Viscon Bldg.
Official file copies located In Room 003, Vebb Bldg.
ce: Hrs. Buers, "nom 5550, 1000.01
UPI-18
(SMOKING)
VASHINGTON THE UNITE HOUSE PRIVATELY EXPRESSED DISPLEASURE NT 11EU
SECRETARY FITCH'S PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED INTENTION TO PUSH FOR ANTI-
SHOKING ADVERTISEMENTS III NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES, IT UAS LEARNED
TODAY,
FXNCH DISCLOSED HIS INTENTION LAST VEEK III A LETTER TO SEW. FRAIK
E. uess, 0-0173. THE INTER INCLUDED A PARAGRAPH PRAISING MOSS' DRIVE
AGAINST RADIO AND TV CIGNETTE COMMERCIALS. THE UTAH MORNON SENT
COPIES OF THE LETTER TO NEUSMEN.
A UNITE HOUSE OFFICIAL SAW THE NEWS ITEM, A SOURCE SAID, AND
TELEPHONED FINCH'S OFFICE, COMPLAINING HI SHOULD HAVE KEPT HIS
THOUGHTS TO HINGELF.
UOSS, HEADTINE, ANNOUNCED HE GOULD SED SINATE COMMERCE COUNITTEE
APPROVAL TRURSDAY OF A MIASURE DESIGNED TO END ALL BROADCAST
CIGALETTE COMMERCIALS NEXT SUPTEMEER.
IN EFFECT, THE PROPOSAL VOULD LEGALLY DLESS A PLAN UNDER WHICH ALL
CIGARETTE HARERS SINDLTAMEOUSLY COULD STOP BROADCASTING ADVERTISING.
IN OFFERING THE DROADCAST BLACKOUT. THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY SAID IT
DOULD HEED THE LEGAL SINCTION AS INSURANCE AGAINST ANTITRUST ACTION.
BUT 11083 SATD HE UOULD OPFOSE A HOUSE-PASSED PROVISION FORBIDDING
THE FTC TO REJUIRE A HEALTH VARNING III PRINTED CIGARETTE ADS.
10/27-GE9466A
61
NEWS RECEASE
RELEASE
SECRETAR Y FINCH COMPLIMENTS AND PLEDGES SUPPORT FOR MOSS
EFFCRTS ON CIGARETTE ADVERTISEMENTS
WASHINGTON, D.C. Se cretary of Health, Education and Welfare,
Robert H. Finch, has complimented Senator Frank E. Moss and the Senate
Commerce Committee for successful efforts to remove cigarette advertisements
from radio and television.
the Secretary also pledged support for efforts to have smoking
corried in print media. Several major newspapers and magazines have
indicated to Senator Moss they would carry such ads if they were available. Some
suggested that the Advertising Council should be asked to mount such a campaign.
Following is the text of Secretary Finch's letter to Senator Moss:
Dear Senator Moss:
Our Department was indeed gratified at the decision of the cigarette
industry to withdraw its advertising from radio and television. You and your
committee played a large part in helping bring this about, and you deserve the
thanks of the medical and health community for your success.
For some five years, our Department has carried on a smoking
education program and so, for an even longer period, have the American Cancer
Society, the American Heart Association, and the National Tuberculosis and
Respiratory Disease Association. If newspapers and magazines are now ready to
give greater support to our programs, we obviously have the responsibility to make
our materials available to them, in whatever is the most effective way. If this
appear to call for an Advertising Council campaign, we will ask the Council for
this help.
As a beginning, J am asking staff of the National Clearinghouse for
Smoking and Health to meet with the voluntary agencies and later with the
Advertising Council to explore how an effective campaign in the print media can
best be mounted. We will keep you informed of our progress. In the meantime,
I would once again express my thanks 10 you for your continuing support of our
smoking and health programs.
Sincerely,
Robert IT. Finch
(Oct.20,1969)
Secretary
69-431
C
Finch
UPI-1 44
ADD 1 SMOKING, WASHINGTON (UPI-13)
ON CAPITOL HILL, IN A LETTER RELEASED TODAY BY SEN. FRANK E. MOSS,
D-UTAH, HEW SECRETARY ROBERT H. FINCH PROMISED HE WOULD TRY TO SPREAD
ANTI-SMOKING ADVERTISEMENTS TO NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES. THEY NOW ARE
BROADCAST ON TELEVISION AND RADIO.
FINCH SAID HE WAS ASKING THE NATIONAL CLEARING HOUSE FOR SMOKING AND
HEALTH, AN HEW AGENCY, TO MEET WITH THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY, THE
AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION, THE NATIONAL TUBERCULOSIS HAND RESPIRATORY
DISEASE ASSOCIATION AND THE ADVERTISING COUNCIL "TO EXPLORE HOW AN
EFFECTIVE CAMPAIGN IN THE PRINT MEDIA CAN BEST BE MOUNTED.' =
FINCH SAID HEW "WAS INDEED GRATIFIED AT THE DECISION OF THE
CIGARETTE INDUSTRY TO WITHDRAW ITS ADVERTISING FROM RADIO AND
TELEVISION.'
10/23--EG&DP359P
769
UPI -145
(CONGLOMERAT
D
7
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Washington, D.C. April 18, 1969.
IIon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representa-
tires, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further reply to your request for the views of
this Department with respect to the following bills:
II.R. 643, a bill "To amend the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act
with respect to the labeling of packages of cigarettes, and for other purposes,"
II.R. 1237, a bill "To direct the Federal Communications Commission to estab-
lish regulations prohibiting certain broadcasting of advertising of cigarettes,"
H.R. 3055, a bill "To strengthen the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising
Act," and
H.R. 6543, a bill "To extend public health protection with respect to cigarette
smoking and for other purposes."
The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act makes it unlawful for
any person to manufacture, import, or package for sale or distribution in the
United States any cigarettes unless the cigarette package bears the statement
(conspienously placed) "Caution: Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to
Your Health." The Act prohibits the requirement of (1) any other statement
relating to smoking and health on a cigarette package, and (2) any statement
relating to smoking and health in the advertising of cigarettes if the packages of
such cigarettes are labeled as required under the Act. The Act contains an exemp-
tion of packages of cigarettes manufactured, imported, or packaged for export
from the United States.
The Act also states that the provisions of the law which affect the regulation
of advertising shall terminate on July 1, 1900. Thereafter, consequently, action
could be taken by any Federal agency under other legal authority to require a
statement relating to smoking and health in the advertising of any cigarettes.
H.R. G43 would require a stronger statement on cigarette packages, reading
"Warning: Cigarette Smoking Is Dangerous to Health and May Cause Death
From Cancer and Other Diseases." The package must also state the average far
and nicotine vields per cigarette. The bill would require these statements also
in cigarette advertisements. In addition, H.R. G13 would authorize the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Federal Trade Commission to pre-
seribe rules establishing the maximum lengths for cigarettes if the Secretary
determines that longer cigarettes increase the risk to smokers.
H.R. 3055 would require a statement on cigarette packages of the quantity of
tar and nicotine in the mainstream smoke of cigarettes, and as to the identity
and quantities of any "incriminated agent" (as determined by the Federal Trade
Commission). II.R. 3053 would require this information to be stated in cigarette
advertisements involving the sale or distribution of cigarettes in interstate com-
merce. This bill would also require this information to be stated on packages
of cigarettes manufactured, imported, or packaged for sale or distribution
abroad.
H.R. 6543 would reenact the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act,
in its present form, except that it would make permanent the bar against any
requirement of a statement relating to smoking and health in the advertising
of cigarettes. H.R. 1237 would require the Federal Communications Commis-
sion to regulate broadeast advertising. to (1) prohibit such advertising between
hours and in connection with programs which the Commission determines are
most likely to influence children of elementary or secondary school age, and (2)
control the total amount of such advertising.
This Department does not object to the enactment of II.R. 013 or II.R. 3055,
with certain amendments, but recommends against the enactment of H.R. 1237
and II.R. 0513.
As demonstrated by the increased growth of filter brands as compared with
nonfilter brands, the public has become increasingly concerned with the harmful
contents of cigarettes. It is therefore desirable to further assist the consumer in
the comparison and selection of brands by providing him with a more convenient
8
and complete source of information on contents. The provision which would
require statements of tar and nicotine content to be included in the advertising
of cigarettes will contribute to informed selection of brands and provide an im-
portant inducement to the cigarette industry to develop by research and manu-
facture cigarettes with lower tar and nicotine. To give the consumer complete in-
formation, we support in particular the provision contained in H.R. 3055. alone,
which would require disclosure of any other "incriminated agent" which (as
determined by the Federal Trade Commission after consultation with the Sur-
geou General) contributes to the hazard of smoking to human health. However,
we urge the amendment of section 1 of H.R. 3055 to make clearer the authority
of the Federal Trade Commission to take into account differences among ad-
vertising media (e.g. newspaper ads. and spot radio announcements) in pre-
scribing the form of required statements as to the presence of nicotine. tar,
and other incriminated agents under the bill. We would not object to extending
these provisions to cigarettes sold abroad.
Nor would we object to requiring the stronger warning statement provided in
H.R. 613. We also do not object to the provision in II.R. 643 which would permit
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Federal Trade Com-
mission to establish rules as to the maximum lengths for cigarettes if there is
substantial evidence that the length of cigarettes is an important factor in in-
creasing the hazards to smokers.
The proposal, under H.R. 6543, to continue the existing legal bar against
requirements in cigarette advertising like those which now affect package label-
ing is objectionable. Evidence continues to mount as to the dangers of cigarette
smoking. It becomes increasingly important to make reasonable requirements
that advertisements advise the public, particularly for the benefit of potential
new smokers, of the hazards. The existing provision of the law which pre-
vented regulation of cigarette advertising through July 1, 1969 should be per-
mitted to terminate under the terms of the existing law.
We also do not favor the provisions of H.R. 1237 which seek a solution to the
problem of the impact of cigarette advertising on school children by providing
for restrictions as to the hours of broadcasting, the programs. or the total amount
of such advertising. We doubt that such statutory provisions could effectively
minimize the impact of cigarette advertising on the young. 1 more positive
approach of education to develop proper community attitudes toward cigarette
smoking appears to be a more helpful approach to the problem.
We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no
objection to the submission of this report to the Congress from the standpoint
of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
JAMES T. LYNN,
General Counsel.
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.
Washington, D.C., May 22, 1969.
Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Our letter dated April 18. 1969 set forth the views of
this Department with respect to the following bills:
H.R. 043, a bill: "To amend the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising
Act with respect to the labeling of packages of cigarettes. and for other
purposes,"
H.R. 1237. a bill: "To direct the Federal Communications Commission to estab-
lish regulations prohibiting certain broadcasting of advertising of cigarettes,"
H.R. 3055, a bill: "To strengthen the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Adver-
tising Act," and
H.R. 6543, a bill: "To extend public health protection with respect to cigarette
smoking and for other purposes."
In view of further information which has been brought to our attention, we
believe it important to supplement our prior letter insofar as it relates to
exports.
9
Our earlier lack of objection to extending the labeling requirement to export
sales was based upon the belief that such labeling would not result in dimin-
ished export sales. As a matter of striet logic the label should not affect buyer
preference inasmuch as the warning relates to cigarette smoking in general,
as opposed 10 U.S-manufactured cigarettes alone. However, The Tobacco Insti-
tute, Inc. maintains that this does NOD take into account the potency of a possible
whispering campaign abroad to the effect that only cigarettes with the label
"may be bazardons". The Institute anticipates that to avoid this possibility
U.S. manufacturers will meet foreign demaid from their plants outside the
United States in Heu of exports if the labeling requirement is extended to
exports. These views are set forth in a letter from Earle C. Clements, the
Institute's President and Executive Director, to our Department, dated May 16,
1969, a copy of which is enclosed.
We urge careful consideration of this possibility that extension of the labeling
requirement to exports will lead not to accomplishing the objectives of the export
provision of the Hill-broader publication of the warning-but rather to sub-
stitution of foreign-made cigarettes with attendant loss of exports at a time
when our Nation is marshaling every effort to increase exports.
One further point deserves mention. The views expressed in our April 18
letter assume validity of the Surgeon General's findings as to the dangers of
cigarette smoking. As indicated by the hearings before your Committee, the
tobacco industry continues to protest such findings vigorously. Accordinaly, we
welcome the announcement of the Department of Health. Education and Welfare
of April 25 that representatives of that Department and of the tobacco industry
are developing a cooperative research program on the problems of tobacco and
health.
We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no
objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Adminis-
tration's program.
Sincerely,
JAMES T. LYNN, General Counsel.
THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC.,
Washington, D.C., May 10, 1969.
E
MEMORANDUM
RE:
CAPITAL BROADCASTING CO. ET AL. V. JOHN MITCHELL ET AL.
Misleading Statements Regarding Smoking
And Health In Defendants' Pleadings
The complaint in the instant case, Civil Action No.
3495-70, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia on November 30, 1970. Cross motions for
summary judgment have been filed by the parties. Defendants
have also joined an alternative motion to dismiss.
Among the pleadings filed by the Justice Department on
behalf of the defendants are a "Memorandum of Points and Authori-
ties" in support of its motions, and a "Statement
of Material
Facts as to Which There is no Genuine Issue", filed pursuant to
Local Rule 9(h). A significant part of these pleadings is directed
toward the circumstances attending passage of the Public Health
Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969, subsequent to the expiration of
predecessor legislation enacted in 1965. The pleadings completely
fail to recognize that a scientific controversy exists regarding
the alleged health dangers of cigarette smoking, and they implic-
itly characterize the issue as closed.
Even more seriously, the pleadings misstate the Congres-
sional policy and purpose in enacting the 1969 Act. They errone-
ously attribute to Congress a determination that a causative rela-
tionship exists between smoking and disease and that smoking is
an "inherent" hazard to health. The following examples of such
misstatements appear in the pleadings:
1.
"4. Among its provisions, section 3
of the [Cigarette Labeling and Advertising]
Act (15 U.S.C. 1333) required cigarette manu-
facturers to place conspicuous cautionary
labels upon cigarette packages. Such labeling
was intended to inform the purchaser of the
health dangers found to be inherent in ciga-
rette smoking. [Par. 4 of the "Statement",
emphasis added. ]
2.
"Section 3 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1333) required
cigarette manufacturers to place conspicuous
cautionary labels upon cigarette packages
designed to inform the purchaser of the health
dangers found to be inherent in cigarette
smoking. [Pp. 3-4 of the "Memorandum",
emphasis added.]
3.
"The Congress evidently believes that
cigarette advertising by means of the electronic
media, including radio communications, presented
unique hazards to the public health
11
[P. 28 of the "Memorandum", emphasis added.]
4.
"
[T] he sole issue is whether there is a
reasonable basis for the Congressional conclusion
that the commercial promotion of cigarettes -- by
any medium of advertising -- contributes to the
baleful medical effects of cigarette smoking."
[P. 28 of the "Memorandum", emphasis added.]
5.
"This evidence is more than sufficient to
sustain the Congressional conclusion that ciga-
rette advertising directly contributes to ciga-
rette consumption and thereby endangers the public
health.
-2-
II
Congress having satisfied itself
that the commercial promotion of cigarette con-
sumption contributed to a growing public health
hazard
"
[P. 31 of the "Memorandum",
emphasis added. ]
The clear import of the foregoing statements is that
Congress, in enacting the 1969 Act, concluded that cigarette
smoking is inherently dangerous to health. Such statements of
purported Congressional conclusions, policy or intent, are wholly
inaccurate. Congress concluded only that cigarette smoking may
be hazardous to health and that the public should be advised
accordingly of the possible health hazard. In this respect,
section 2 of the 1969 Act, "Declaration of Policy", is quite
precise:
"Sec. 2. It is the policy of the Congress,
and the purpose of this Act, to establish a
comprehensive Federal program to deal with ciga-
rette labeling and advertising with respect to
any relationship between smoking and health,
whereby--
(1) the public may be adequately in-
formed that cigarette smoking may be
hazardous to health by inclusion of a
warning to that effect on each package
of cigarettes
[Emphasis added.]
Further evidence on this point is provided by the Com-
mittee Report to the House of Representatives, which, unlike
the Senate, conducted extensive hearings in 1969 on the scien-
tific evidence pertaining to the smoking and health controversy.
That report summarized the evidence as follows:
"On the basis of these hearings the com-
mittee concludes that nothing new has been
determined with respect to the relationship
between cigarette smoking and human health
since its hearings in 1964 and 1965. The argu-
ments pro and con with respect to cigarettes
-3-
are the same now as then, though supported by
a larger statistical base
"
[Report of
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, House of Representatives, No. 91-289,
June 5, 1969, p. 5.]
As Congressman Preyer, a former United States District
Judge, stated during floor debate on the Bill:
"
[T] he Public Health Cigarette Smoking
Act of 1969 is modest in what it does not attempt
to do--that is, it does not legislate the causes of
human diseases. Only qualified scientists conduct-
ing objective research can add to the state of
knowledge about cigarette smoking and human disease.
Only they can determine by research the causes of
disease and discover their cures. " [Congressional
Record 116 (42), March 18, 1970, p. H1923, emphasis
added.]
Further substantiation of the Congressional intent in
passing the 1969 Act is provided by the new warning label re-
quired by section 4 to be printed on all cigarette packages:
"Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined
That Cigarette Smoking Is Dangerous to Your
Health. "
This warning obviously does not reflect a Congressional
determination that cigarette smoking is hazardous to health.
It serves only to advise the public that there is a body of
opinion, represented by the Surgeon General, which believes
cigarette smoking to be dangerous. As Congressman Preyer stated:
"
[T] he warning label required by
the 1965 act and this act speak for themselves.
They are without hidden meaning. The declared policy
and purpose of the Congress in enacting this legis-
lation remains unchanged, that is, 'to inform the
public that cigarette smoking may be hazardous to
health. The warning label required in the 1965
-4-
act and the one required in this act are intended
to carry out this policy and purpose. " [Congres-
sional Record 116 (42), March 18, 1970, p. H1923,
emphasis added.]
Section 6 of the 1969 Act prohibits cigarette advertising
over television and radio after January 1, 1971. Several state-
ments contained in the pleadings filed by the Department of
Justice in this case conclude that the enactment of section 6
reflects a Congressional determination that cigarette advertis-
ing "endangers the public health." This conclusion is unwar-
ranted. The legislative history of this section reveals that
the Congress was concerned that advertising on the electronic
media had a unique appeal to the young. Further, Congress
apparently believed that the young should be shielded from radio
and television advertising of a product which may be hazardous.
Another factor obviously influencing the enactment of section 6
was the tobacco industry's voluntary offer made before the
United States Senate to withdraw cigarette advertising from
radio and television. The Congressional policy and purpose as
stated in the Act remain unchanged and do not include the deter-
mination as alleged in the pleadings.
The statements by the Department of Justice noted above
are not warranted by the present state of scientific knowledge
and misstate the declared policies and purposes of the Congress
in enacting the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969.
Their misleading nature reflects an underlying lack of objectivity
which is inappropriate for a Department of the United States
Government.
-5-
F
KIELEY--301-496-2241
(Home) -202-E13-6228
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Offico of the Secretary
Washington, D.C. 20201
FOR IMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, April 25, 1969
Representatives of the tobacco industry and the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare are developing a cooperative research program on the
problems of tobacco and health, HEW Secretary Robert H. Finch announced today.
Discussions between the industry and the Department were initiated
last summer to identify gaps in knowledge about tobacco and health, and to
recommend the research activity needed to fill these gaps.
Aftor a meeting last week with officials of the Tobacco Institute,
The Council for Tobacco Research USA, and his own Department, Secretary Finch
said:
"I believe that industry and government working together offers great
promise of finding the answers we need. I am confident our joint effort will
yield a cooperative research program which strongly promotes the public
interest.
$2
Participants in the ongoing industry-government discussions include
representatives of the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes
of Health, the Scientific Advisory Board to The Council for Tobacco Research
USA, and the Committee for Research on Tobacco and Health of the American
Medical Association's Education and Research Foundation.
0
###
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20201
July 26, 1969
Dear Mr. President:
I am pleased to transmit herewith a report concerning
current information on the health consequences of smoking
as directed by Section 5 (a) (1) of the Federal Cigarette
Labeling and Advertising Act.
As you will see, the information presented in the report
strengthens the conclusions of previous studies published
by this Department. Cigarette smoking continues to be
confirmed as a serious health hazard to the people of
this country, one which is the cause of much unnecessary
disease and death.
It would appear that the July 20 announcement by the cigarette
industry, to the effect that it is prepared to discontinue
its broadcast advertising in the near future, is of major
significance. As you know, the Department has long felt,
and I personally have shared the opinion, that television
and radio advertising of cigarettes has a special impact
upon young people.
We believe that this forthright response by the industry
to a very serious problem should be commended.
In an announcement issued by this Department on April 25,
1969, I pointed out that discussions between officials of
the cigarette industry and of the Department had led to the
establishment of a group of scientific experts whose purpose
is to furnish a report at an early date identifying the gaps
in our knowledge of the relationships between smoking and
health.
-2-
It had been my hope that the preliminary report of the
scientific group might be available for reference in the
report which I now transmit to you. I am advised that
they have made substantial progress. Their report has
not been completed, but it is my hope that it will be at
an early date.
Sincerely,
Secretary
Enclosure
The Honorable Spiro T. Agnew
President of the Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
G
WASHINGTON POST, October 15, 1971, P. a-5
HEW to Ban
Smoking in
Some Areas
United Press International
The Health. Education and
Welfare Department. govern-
ment's second largest em-
ployer, announced yesterday
it would call a halt to smoke-
filled conference rooms and
would segregate smokers in its
cafeterias.
The announcement was
made by pipe and cigar-smok-
ing HEW Secretary Elliot L.
Richardson in a letter to John
F. Banzhaf 111, head of an
anti-smoking organization.
"I am anxious that this de-
partment protect its non-smok-
ing employees from this haz-
ard," Richardson wrote. He
said he expected certain "ad-
ministrative problems" in
pursuing an aggressive anti-
smoking policy at HEW, but
said there were "limited ac-
tions" he will take soon.
They include establishment
of no-smoking areas in HEW
cafeterias, no-smoking policies
for HEW conference rooms
and auditoriums and no-smok-
king work areas "wherever
possible."
HEW, which employs 107,000
workers across the country
and is second in size only to
the Defense Department, has
been government's foremost
agency in attempts to curb cig-
arette smoking. The Surgeon
General, non-smoking Dr.
Jesse L. Steinfeld, has signs,
posted in his offices: "Thank
you for not smoking."