Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Tobacco industry statements in the US Department of Justice lawsuit

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • * On its website, Philip Morris states that public health officials “have concluded that secondhand smoke . . .causes or increases the risk of diseases” and provides links to websites setting out the views of the public health officials. Philip Morris USA, Health issues and secondhand smoke (online at, file: Tobacco Issues). Omitted from the website statement on environmental tobacco smoke is the fact that, as can be seen from the court filings, Philip Morris actually disagrees with the public health officials that environmental tobacco smoke causes disease.

  • For example, Brown & Williamson stated that “it is able, to a degree, to vary the amount of nicotine in its cigarettes as they are manufactured, through tobacco blending, use of reconstituted tobacco, expanded tobacco and reduced tobacco weight. Brown & Williamson has used these techniques and other processes for reducing nicotine in cigarette smoke to offer smokers of cigarettes a range of nicotine values, using the FTC method.”24

  • At the request of DOJ, the court in the US lawsuit ordered British American Tobacco to turn over the Foyle memo. British American Tobacco, however, refused to provide the memo and is appealing the judge’s discovery order. See Memorandum-Opinion, U.S. v. Philip Morris Inc., No. 99-CV-2496 (D.D.C. 10 July 2002). Oral arguments on that appeal were held on September 3, 2002. BATAS recently won an appeal of the Australia decision. British American Tobacco Australia Svcs. v. Cowell, 2002 VSCA 197. 6 December 2002. That decision will be appealed. Trust fund launched to keep McCabes together, The Age (Melbourne), 8 (11 December 2002).

  • § Mr Schechter had previously explained: “The mental copy rule was to assume that everything you wrote was going to wind up in the hands of – was going to wind up on the front page of the local newspaper.” He then responded affirmatively when asked: “Would it also be to assume that documents could wind up in litigation?”44

  • Rep. Waxman gratefully acknowledges the work of Althea Gregory, JD, Joshua M Sharfstein, MD, Karen Lightfoot, MPA, and Philip S Barnett, JD, in the preparation of this report

  • This report was originally published on 17 September 2002 by the Special Investigations Division of the Democratic Staff of the US House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform. Only minor changes reflecting legal decisions have been made.

  • Additional materials related to this article can be found at: