HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ibrahim, J K Articles by Glantz, S A Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ibrahim, J K Articles by Glantz, S A

Public health foundations and the tobacco industry: lessons from Minnesota

Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

Correspondence to:
Professor Stanton A Glantz
Box 1390, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143-1390, USA; glantz{at}medicine.ucsf.edu

Objective: To investigate whether private foundations can be created in a way that will insulate them from attacks by the tobacco industry, using the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco (MPAAT) as a case study.

Design: Information was collected from internal tobacco industry documents, court documents, newspapers, and interviews with health advocates and elected officials.

Results: The creation of MPAAT as an independent foundation did not insulate it from attacks by tobacco industry allies. During 2001–2002, MPAAT was repeatedly attacked by Attorney General Mike Hatch and major media, using standard tobacco industry rhetoric. This strategy of attack and demands for information were reminiscent of previous attacks on Minnesota’s Plan for Nonsmoking and Health and the American Stop Smoking Intervention Study (ASSIST). MPAAT was ultimately forced to restructure its programme to abandon effective community norm change interventions around smoke-free policies and replace them with less effective individual cessation interventions. Neither MPAAT nor other health advocates mounted an effective public response to these attacks, instead relying on the insider strategy of responding in court.

Conclusion: It is not possible to avoid attacks by the tobacco industry or its political allies. Like programmes administered by government agencies, tobacco control foundations must be prepared for these attacks, including a proactive plan to educate the public about the principles of community based tobacco control. Public health advocates also need to be willing to take prompt action to defend these programmes and hold public officials who attack tobacco control programmes accountable for their actions.

Abbreviations: ASSIST, American Stop Smoking Intervention Study; CID, civil investigative demand; FOIA, Freedom of Information Act; IBEW, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; MPAAT, Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco; MSA, Master Settlement Agreement; RAGA, Republican Attorneys General Association

Keywords: foundations; attorneys general; public policy; Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J K Ibrahim and S. A Glantz Tobacco industry litigation strategies to oppose tobacco control media campaigns Tob. Control, February 1, 2006; 15(1): 50 - 58. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. K. Ong and S. A. Glantz Free Nicotine Replacement Therapy Programs vs Implementing Smoke-Free Workplaces: A Cost-Effectiveness Comparison Am J Public Health, June 1, 2005; 95(6): 969 - 975. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]