(Appears only the Chairman speaks. Discussion on declining UK market, mainly over health issues, need to get industry point of view across with a "robust primary health statement" and literature from Bryan Simpson (INFOTAB) on passive smoking; getting a "courtesy"image between smokers and nonm-smokers; discussion on a campaign to prevent sales of tobacco to children; widening of citizens group, The Tobacco Alliance.)

Notable quotes: "Sales to Children...We are now well under way with some tactics to assist with this issue.... the main importance is in the potential leverage Greenfinch may give us with our Government negotiations. I would like to think that we do eventually go ahead with this campaign, because apart from the brownie points to be gained with Government or as a tool of negotiation with them, it will certainly bank us some public good will.... Once such a paid for campaign is mounted we can merchandise and compound our action with PR support." "The Tobacco Alliance:...I feel sure that by judicious and consistent use of the expansion of contacts...we shall see some measurable gains. I can see local pressures through Councils and groups of zealots being caught early on."

(Discussion of media campaigns, petition drive, TV appearance of industry spokesman on Granada, with help from Glen Smith..)

Notable quote: "D.J. Edelman reported that...268 petitions had been recorded with a total of 430,000 signatures. The canvassing agency had reported that in areas of lower socio-economic groups the take up rate was approximately1 in 10: in higher socio-economic areas it fell to as low as 1 in 80, with noticeably more personal abuse."

(Computer modeling of smoke swirl coming from Actron filter. The Actron filter was supposed to produce a billow of smoke inside the mouth, increasing contact with many more taste receptors, a concept called "spatial summation." Competitors said it was just smoker occlusion of vent holes.)

Notable quote: "The conference was held to develop a basic understanding of cigarette smoke swirl and how it enhances sensory response."

(The idea is to breed sheets of single tobacco cell lines to which nicotine and other compounds may be "incorporated by biotechnological means." A remarkable notion.)

Notable quotes: "Benefits. No legislative restrictions. Possibility to affect special smoke properties.... Lucrative argument for advertising.... Enhancement of satisfaction by nicotine-loaded cell material; the present results offer the free regulation of a nicotine content up to twenty percent of the cell dry weight."

(For some reason, well before "Mr. Butts," all information in any sort of medium going to B&W Had to approved by company lawyers and the research manager. Possibly related to the Chairman’s Advisory Committee of BAT-associated companies agreement to pool research results, and concern about B&W vulnerability to discovery in USA litigations. See Stanton Glantz, et al. The Cigarette Papers (Berkeley: University of California, 1996), pp. 271-84. See also BAT (File no. H222) 107468543, 16 November 1982, in which Alan Heard complains to E.E.A. Bruell in a letter about the Barclay cigarette, "I am unhappy to refer here to the second problem, i.e. B&W’s general involvement in sharing R&D findings....")

(A remarkable overview of the incredibly sophisticated "thing" a cigarette is - control of smoke, special filters, delayed release flavors, nicotine control processes, mouth fresheners, paper additives, aromatic sidestream, invisible sidestream, ventilation, shape, etc.)

(Massey wanted to present five papers at the Tobacco Chemists’ Conference and asked for clearance. Heard didn’t mind the ones on cigarette design but objected to two: one to study "Maximum Cigarette Insertion Depth Used by Canadian Smokers," i.e. compensation, and another to investigate smoking behavior with small cigars, which FDA eventually ruled were cigarettes.)

(Reports on a presentation at the Institute of Actuaries in which data were presented showing lower life expectancy in men and women smokers, 6.6 less at age 35 for men, 3.9 for women.)

(He worries that a competitor might slip into their low-delivery cigarettes an addictive analog of morphine that would be difficult to detect, but "use such a route to create brand allegiance.")

(A general review of the late 1970s scene.)

Notable quote: "There has been no change in the scientific basis for the case against smoking. Additional evidence of smoke-dose related incidence of some diseases associated with smoking has been published. But generally this has long ceased to be an area for scientific controversy [emphasis added].... The meeting affirmed that cigarettes acceptable on all counts can probably be achieved by research and, indeed, may in fact be available."

(Urges BAT to undertake research, "desperately," to remove carbon monoxide and nitrates.)

(Glantz writes, "The phenol crisis illustrates the complex environment in which the R&D scientists operated. Most important, it illustrates the fact that the tobacco companies’ scientific agenda was set by competitive and public relations needs as much as by scientific priorities.")

(A meeting on strategies and products for the medium and long term, with increasing attacks from competitors and government.

Notable quotes: "Tar Levels. When once a company has accepted the principle of an upper tar delivery limit, there is a danger that the limit can subsequently be reduced by government action.... Companies should resist any restriction, on the argument that it should be allowed to have a range of brands for all consumers. If necessary, companies should agree that no new brands be introduced over 20 mg tar but existing brands with higher deliveries be retained."

(Discusses increased number of law suits in USA.)

Notable quotes: "Two defences are still available to the industry: a) lack of proof of causation, and 2) voluntary assumption of risk, which involve the plaintiff having been made aware of the potential risks involved in smoking. US trial lawyers have suggested that...juries may be more sceptical when considering the causation defence."

(Proposal is E-liminate, M-odify, or N-eutralize toxic components of tobacco. Roe, a long-time scientific consultant to the industry, one of the "elders," says none of that can be done with current cigarettes - may need to return to non-inhalable tobacco, as in pipes.)

Notable quotes: "...alas, The Tobacco Industry has never considered any smoking product that did not look rather like a cigarette to be commercially viable." "In the case of carcinogens, smoke contains not just one carcinogen but a galaxy of them.... Elimination of carcinogens does not therefore appear feasible." "In my view, therefore, it is most unlikely that within the scope of acceptable cigarette design, it will prove possible further to reduce substantially the risk of smoking associated disease."

(At that late date, a series of tendentious, incorrect statements on why smoking does NOT cause lung cancer, what he and other BAT writers call "epidemiological anomalies." A"Compendium of Epidemiological Studies was written in 1986 based on this concept, se BAT (File no. H50) 107319135 - 141 for introduction and table of contents. I don’t know if it saw light of day.)

Notable quotes: "If we can cast doubt on the relationship between smoking and lung cancer then we have cast doubts on the entire case against smoking." "In the UK the number of deaths from lung cancer is declining fast." [NB. But see Tobacco or health: a global status report (Geneva: WHO), p. 402. A slight decline was seen in men in the 90s, women’s rates still rising. Richardson might have been confused by cohort analysis, a popular BAT argument, where younger cohorts still have lower rates, not having had the duration of exposure as older cohorts.] "Many non-smokers get lung cancer." [NB. In about a 1:10 ratio or less, some due to ETS!] "Many heavy smokers don’t get lung cancer." "Lung cancer rarely occurs in both lngs although they are equally exposed to smoke." "Lung cancer rates are lower among inhalers than among non-inhalers." [NB. Sir Richard Doll dealt with this odd comparison among heavy smokers who claimed not to inhale compared to the ordinary heavy smoker. Refer as well to the American Cancer Society study of lung cancer mortality in men, age-standardized where deep inhalers had twice the mortality as "non" or "slight"inhalers, whose respective rates were eight times that of non-smokers.]

(The conclusion could not have been good news for the "anomalists." Working with a complex age, period and cohort cancer incidence model developed by Osmond and Gardner, the author concludes that "With regard to the lung cancer/cigarette consumption relationship, is strong evidence of a close correlation between the pattern of historic [cigarette] consumption and the variation in mortality. There is also some evidence to support the idea that the change to lower tar/filter cigarettes is related to the downward trends in the U.K. data. However, the pattern of cohort values in lung cancer for U.K. women does not fit with the change in smoking habits."

In Canada, no downward trend was seen in younger cohorts, perhaps confounded by increased smoking of lower tar cigarettes, keeping total exposure stable.

(Gives credence to notion that employees were one of the more important audiences for the industry arguments, here persuasively and soothingly presented.)