Big Tobacco Says it has Turned Over New Leaf in 280-Billion-Dollar Trial

Source from:  WASHINGTON (AFP) 09/23/2004

US tobacco giants facing a lawsuit seeking a 280 billion-dollar penalty denied charges they lied about health risks, arguing that since 1998 they have warned the public smoking is dangerous. "There is no such thing as a safe cigarette, be it labeled 'low tar' or 'lights.' We sell a dangerous product," said Ted Wells, co-counsel for Philip Morris USA. [img border=0 hspace="4" vspace="4" align="left" src=http://www.tobaccochina.com/english/picture/04092303.jpg] On the second day of the tobacco trial here, lawyers for industry leaders said the companies do not aim to hide the fact cigarettes are dangerous, and they stressed that the industry must be judged on its behavior now. "As of today, each and every defendant says to the public in a clear and unambiguous way that smoking is dangerous and causes disease," Wells said. In the largest-ever US civil racketeering case, the government accuses tobacco companies of colluding for five decades to hide the health hazards of smoking, marketing directly to teenagers and lying by suggesting the relative safety of "light" cigarettes. Defendants include Philip Morris USA; RJ Reynolds Tobacco; Loews Corp's Lorillard Tobacco; Brown and Williamson, which is part of British American Tobacco PLC; and the Vector Group's Liggett Group. All are being sued under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act, often used to prevent mafia infiltration of business. To win its case, prosecutors have to deliver to Judge Gladys Kessler a preponderance of evidence that the defendants are committed fraud in the past, are doing so now, and likely would in the future. Lawyers for the defendants believe proving present and future likely fraud will be tough hurdles to cross. The tobacco industry reached a 206-billion-dollar accord with several US states in 1998. Wells said the industry has changed so much since then that it was "inappropriate to use the past" to make a judgment on its behavior now or in the future. He said most of the government allegations "are basically dated and stale." Wells said some of the tobacco companies' conduct "was wrong-headed, it was mistaken," but he insisted there was no "RICO conspiracy." Attorney Dan Webb for Philip Morris argued that the government had focused on what the industry did decades ago but did not make a solid case that behavior took place now or would later. Webb refuted the government's claim of industry-wide collusion, saying there is no vehicle in place now for such activity. He also detailed how Philip Morris had lowered its advertising profile, and denied targetting children. He noted that while Philip Morris does not acknowledge internally that there is a conclusive causal link between second-hand smoke (environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)) and disease, the company on its website warns that US public health authorities have concluded the ETS does cause disease. "The changes truly have been profound and permanent. And they have been going on for years," Webb said. "Philip Morris has acted as a responsible company ... We've done what we can to communicate with the public." David Bernick, another defense attorney, denied the tobacco industry manipulated nicotine to hook people on cigarettes. "History shows that what we do today is not deceptive to anybody, nor is it deceiving anybody," he told the hearing. The industry created light and low tar cigarettes at the urging of the health authorities, he said, and it was not clear even when the products were launched if they were potentially less hazardous. William Newbold, representing Lorillard, said that in the 1970s the public health authorities had urged smokers to switch to low tar cigarettes. "In the 1970s everyone in the public health community believed that low tar, low nicotine cigarettes were less hazardous. The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) wanted the tobacco companies to compete on the basis of tar," said Newbold. "We had no intent to defraud smokers, we were simply following the lead of the government and what the public health community was endorsing." Enditem