Register for email alerts and news feeds:
This journal | BMJ Group
rss
Tobacco Control 2006;15(Supplement 4 ):iv84-iv89; doi:10.1136/tc.2004.009837
Copyright © 2006 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

RESEARCH PAPER

Consumer acceptable risk: how cigarette companies have responded to accusations that their products are defective

K Michael Cummings1, Anthony Brown1, Clifford E Douglas2

1 Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA
2 Tobacco Control Law & Policy Consulting, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
K Michael Cummings
PhD, MPH, Department of Health Behavior, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm and Carlton Streets, Buffalo, NY 14263, USA; michael.cummings{at}roswellpark.org

Objective: To describe arguments used by cigarette companies to defend themselves against charges that their cigarettes were defective and that they could and should have done more to make cigarettes less hazardous.

Methods: The data for this paper come from the opening statements made by defendants in four court cases: two class action lawsuits (Engle 1999, and Blankenship 2001) and two individual cases (Boeken 2001, and Schwarz 2002). The transcripts of opening statements were reviewed and statements about product defect claims, product testing, and safe cigarette research were excerpted and coded.

Results: Responses by cigarette companies to charges that their products were defective has been presented consistently across different cases and by different companies. Essentially the arguments made by cigarette companies boil down to three claims: (1) smoking is risky, but nothing the companies have done has made cigarettes more dangerous than might otherwise be the case; (2) nothing the companies have done or said has kept someone from stopping smoking; and (3) the companies have spent lots of money to make the safest cigarette acceptable to the smoker.

Conclusions: Cigarette companies have argued that their products are inherently dangerous but not defective, and that they have worked hard to make their products safer by lowering the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes as recommended by members of the public health community. As a counter argument, plaintiff attorneys should focus on how cigarette design changes have actually made smoking more acceptable to smokers, thereby discouraging smoking cessation.

Keywords: litigation; low tar; product testing; risk perceptions; safe cigarettes


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Blanke, D D., Humphrey, H. H III (2006). Putting truth into action: using the evidence for justice. Tobacco Control 15: iv1-iv3 [Full Text]  

This Article

Services
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Bookmark with

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.