| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
RESEARCH PAPER |
1 Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, USA
2 Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, USA
Correspondence to:
Ruth E Malone
Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, 3333 California Street, Suite 455, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA; ruth.malone{at}ucsf.edu
Objective: To analyse the implications of Philip Morris USA’s (PM’s) overtures toward tobacco control and other public health organisations, 1995–2006.
Data sources: Internal PM documents made available through multi-state US attorneys general lawsuits and other cases, and newspaper sources.
Methods: Documents were retrieved from several industry documents websites and analysed using a case study approach.
Results: PM’s Project Sunrise, initiated in 1995 and proposed to continue through 2006, was a long-term plan to address tobacco industry delegitimisation and ensure the social acceptability of smoking and of the company itself. Project Sunrise laid out an explicit divide-and-conquer strategy against the tobacco control movement, proposing the establishment of relationships with PM-identified "moderate" tobacco control individuals and organisations and the marginalisation of others. PM planned to use "carefully orchestrated efforts" to exploit existing differences of opinion within tobacco control, weakening its opponents by working with them. PM also planned to thwart tobacco industry delegitimisation by repositioning itself as "responsible". We present evidence that these plans were implemented.
Conclusion: Sunrise exposes differences within the tobacco control movement that should be further discussed. The goal should not be consensus, but a better understanding of tensions within the movement. As the successes of the last 25 years embolden advocates to think beyond passage of the next clean indoor air policy or funding of the next cessation programme, movement philosophical differences may become more important. If tobacco control advocates are not ready to address them, Project Sunrise suggests that Philip Morris is ready to exploit them.
Abbreviations: ASSIST, American Stop Smoking Intervention Study; CALA, Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse; CTFK, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; MBD, Mongoven, Biscoe, and Duchin; PM, Philip Morris USA
Keywords: tobacco industry documents; corporate social responsibility; Philip Morris; tobacco control movement; delegitimisation; advocacy; tobacco control policy
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  R. Derry and S. V. Waikar Frames and Filters: Strategic Distrust as a Legitimation Tool in the 50-Year Battle Between Public Health Activists and Big Tobacco Business Society, March 1, 2008; 47(1): 102 - 139. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. A McDaniel and R. E Malone "I always thought they were all pure tobacco": American smokers' perceptions of "natural" cigarettes and tobacco industry advertising strategies Tob. Control, December 1, 2007; 16(6): e7 - e7. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. E Malone Working to make a disease Tob. Control, December 1, 2007; 16(6): 361 - 362. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Szczypka, M. A Wakefield, S. Emery, Y. M Terry-McElrath, B. R Flay, and F. J Chaloupka Working to make an image: an analysis of three Philip Morris corporate image media campaigns Tob. Control, October 1, 2007; 16(5): 344 - 350. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Givel FDA legislation Tob. Control, August 1, 2007; 16(4): 217 - 218. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
