University of California, San Francisco.
Legacy Tobacco Documents Library.

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Tobacco Documents Research - Graphic Health Warning Labels in India

Four (4) new papers and reports using tobacco industry documents have been added to the Tobacco Documents Bibliography.  Publications include an analysis of health preemption and trade agreements, transparency as a remedy for industry fraud, graphic health warning labels in India, and the tobacco industry in Poland. 


Bibliography Highlight:


Sankaran S, Hiilamo H, Glantz SA. Implementation of graphic health warning labels on tobacco products in India: the interplay between the cigarette and the bidi industries. Tobacco Control 2014 Jun 20.


The authors examine the interaction between cigarette companies, domestic bidi companies and public health groups that eventually led to rotating graphic health warning labels on cigarettes, bidis and smokeless tobacco in December 2011. India illustrates how lobbying by multinational tobacco companies and producers of local forms of tobacco blocked these warning labels for years, and how tobacco control advocates finally overcame this barrier through innovative use of public interest litigation and the Right to Information Act.


A few key documents from LTDL:

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ras41a99/pdf

Letter from BAT's regional operations director to the British High Commission in New Delhi asking the British government to urge India to allow tobacco companies to implement voluntary health warning labels and marketing restrictions instead of binding legal requirements (BAT 1994)


In 1996, the cigarette companies proposed a voluntary code
to the Ministry of Commerce that included health warning labels and mild marketing restrictions.
In 1999, the Tobacco Institute of India, the cigarette companies’ lobbying organization, made the same proposal to the Ministry of Commerce. Neither voluntary code specified the size or content of the warnings.


http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ujs63a99/pdf
(BAT 1999)
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vjs63a99/pdf
(BAT 1996)

Monday, August 18, 2014

New Dutch Tobacco Industry Documents

Over 1100 documents were added to the Dutch Tobacco Industry Special Collection (previously known as the Joop Bouma collection).   These are documents obtained from the Dutch Government through two large Freedom of Information Act requests in 2000 and in 2011 and given to the Library by Joop Bouma and Maastricht University. The documents expose influence-peddling in the government and media by cigarette companies, as well as behind-the-scenes deals surrounding the tobacco industry in the Netherlands, the largest cigarette exporter in the European Union. See the June 2013 Maastricht University press release for further information on the analysis of the documents. Most documents are in Dutch.

In addition, 19,675 documents were added to the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library including:

Sunday, August 17, 2014

New Collection of Graphic and Pictorial Health Warning Labels posted to LTDL

A project of the University of Waterloo's Tobacco Labelling Resource Centre, the Health Warning Labels collection contains images of health warning labels from a variety of countries, including pictorial warnings that have been implemented on packs and a number of images that have been developed for pilot testing and market research.  Within the collection, you can also search by country (For example - ct:Australia) as well as by description text to narrow down your results.

Watch UCSF Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education's Stan Glantz talk about the importance of health warning labels and the evidence of their efficacy - "What the Tobacco Companies Didn't Warn you About"

Friday, July 25, 2014

Two New Collections Added to LTDL

The Legacy Tobacco Documents Library has added two new collections:


Trinkets & Trash Marketing - 8012 documents
  • A project of Rutgers School of Public Health, the Trinkets & Trash Marketing collection contains images of current and historic tobacco products and marketing materials such as advertisements, direct mailings, emails, sweepstakes, and coupon promotions.  
  • See the Trinkets & Trash website for more info on this amazing database of materials.
  • Note: Each record in this collection will link out to the corresponding record on the Trinkets & Trash website for a larger image and more information.


State of Washington Secondhand Smoke - 1517 documents
  • Contains documents from the 1998 lawsuit 'Aviation West Corp. v. Washington State Dept. of Labor and Industries' obtained through a public records request made by Lisa Bero.
  • In 1993, the State of Washington's Department of Labor and Industry filed proposed indoor air quality regulations. One of the proposed regulations was aimed at eliminating secondhand smoke exposures (referred to in the documents as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)) in private workplaces. Five major cigarette manufacturers (B&W, American Tobacco, Lorillard, Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds) and three Washington businesses brought a suit against the State arguing the regulation on smoking in private workplaces was invalidly enacted. Both trial and appellate courts upheld the regulation.

Thursday, July 3, 2014

5000 New Tobacco Documents Added

New tobacco documents were added to the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library today!  The breakdown is as follows:
  • 2009 American Tobacco documents
  • 1589 Philip Morris documents
  • 798 RJ Reynolds documents
  • 596 Brown & Williamson documents
  • 1 Lorillard document

Monday, June 30, 2014

New Documents Research - Big Tobacco and Marijuana

Seven (7) new papers and reports using tobacco industry documents have been added to the Tobacco Documents Bibliography.  Publications include an analysis of reverse engineering reports in internal documents and a report on how the tobacco industry made cigarettes more addictive. 


Bibliography Highlight:


Barry R, Hiilamo H, & Glantz SA. Waiting for the Opportune Moment: The Tobacco Industry and Marijuana Legalization. Milbank Quarterly 2014; 92(2): 207-242.


Since at least the 1970s, tobacco companies have been interested in marijuana and marijuana legalization as both a potential and a rival product. As public opinion shifted and governments began relaxing laws pertaining to marijuana criminalization, the tobacco companies modified their corporate planning strategies to prepare for future consumer demand.


A few key documents from LTDL:


http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zjd74e00/pdf"From all I can gather from the literature, from the press, and just living among young people, I can predict that marihuana smoking will have grown to immense proportions within a decade and will probably be legalized. The company that will bring out the first marihuana smoking devices, be it a cigarette or some other form, will capture the market and be in a better position than its competitors to satisfy the legal public demand for such products. I want to suggest, therefore, that you institute immediately a research program on all phases of marihuana." (PM, 1969)







http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cdf12a00/pdf


"We are in the business of relaxing people who are tense and providing a pick up for people who are bored or depressed. The human needs that our product fills will not go away. Thus, the only real threat to our business is that society will find other means of satisfying these needs. . ."
(PM 1970)











http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xly54a99/pdf
"Smoking such [a marijuana] cigarette is a natural expansion of current smoking habits which, if a more tolerant attitude were ever taken to cannabis, would be a change in habit comparable to moving over to cigars. . . The proposed research can be started off very simply, it is just to do for “cannabis-loaded” cigarettes what has already been done for normal cigarettes . . . The starting point must be to learn how to produce in quantity cigarettes loaded uniformly with a known amount of either ground cannabis or dried and cut cannabis rag."  (BAT 1970)









http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ano21c00/pdf

[Future Scenario:] "Consumption of tobacco falls drastically immediately following marijuana legalization as people experiment with the drug. Subsequent to the novelty effect, tobacco consumption again rises to near prelegalized marijuana levels. Two marijuana-containing products are highly probable: a straight marijuana cigarette and a marijuana-tobacco blend. The increase in the demand for tobacco due to the marijuana-tobacco blend counteracts the effect of the small decrease in the whole cigarette consumption."  (BW 1978)

Monday, May 5, 2014

Cocoa as a Cigarette Additive, Malawi's Tobacco Paradox, New Global Teen Campaign...

Eight (8) new papers and reports using tobacco industry documents have been added to the Tobacco Documents Bibliography.  Publications include "You're the target: New global campaign found to target teens" from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and papers covering Malawi's tobacco paradox, tobacco and direct democracy, and psychographic segments of college students, to name a few. 

Bibliography Highlight:

Sokol NA, Kennedy RD, Connolly GN. The Role of Cocoa As a Cigarette Additive: Opportunities for Product Regulation. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2014 March 08.

Chocolate and cocoa flavored cigarettes are specifically banned in the FSPTCA, yet PM lists cocoa and cocoa products as flavors in its cigarettes and RJ Reynolds and Lorillard list cocoa and cocoa products as cigarette ingredients.  The authors examined tobacco industry internal documents as a means of understanding the tobacco industry’s historical use of cocoa in cigarettes, including cocoa’s function, and if and how its chemosensory effects may serve to attract or retain nonsmokers, smokers, or specific target groups. They found that cocoa has been widely used in American cigarettes due to its influence on sensory qualities and at least two tobacco companies continue to use cocoa as a cigarette additive at levels similar to those recorded in their internal documents. While cocoa does not impart a characterizing “chocolate” flavor at levels currently in use in cigarettes, cocoa can alter cigarette flavor substantially and affect product acceptability.



A few key documents from LTDL:


http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nbg50e00/pdf"Cocoa has gained wide application in the tobacco industry since earliest times both as a sweetener and to add its own characteristic flavor. In recent years it has commonly been added to the burley tobacco of cigarette blends to enhance the cocoa-like aroma inherent in burley and, at the same time, suppress undesirable odors, thereby improving the smoking quality" (Lorillard, 1982)


http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mfw46b00/pdf
 

"The new casing incorporated higher levels of cocoa (approximately 100% greater than current CAMEL Lt), high fructose corn syrup at levels to achieve sugar/nicotine balance, and removed licorice. This casing had a very significant effect on smoothness and acceptance"
(RJ Reynolds, 1992)







http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qzh01f00/pdf

"We do, in fact, use a couple of the ingredients you suggested in our current formulations. However, their contribution to the overall flavor is at a subliminal level rather than the high level that would be needed to effect the response your suggestion includes. Our experience has shown that the smoker does not want a flavor which overpowers the tobacco taste in a cigarette (with the exception of menthol). A number of brands have been introduced by cigarette manufacturers over the years which have such a design, and all of them have been failures in the marketplace. Examples are Lyme (lime), Spring (lemon), and Chelsea (chocolate)"
(Brown and Williamson, 1992)






http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/avu46b00/pdf"RJR is underrepresented among this smoker target group [18–34 year old women], especially among the 18–24 younger adult female smoker target subsegment…priority aroma candidates have been identified on basis of smoker preference and perceived compatibility with cigarettes...Vanillin and chocolate are currently most viable candidate. These two flavors’ ability to impact a distinctive smoothness benefit may be large. However, their ability to impact pleasant aftertaste or crisp, refreshing taste is less assured" -   (RJ Reynolds, 1986)