Lorillard Lambasts Flavored Editorial

Source from:  tr.itsmyiq.com Aug 29, 2008 09/01/2008

Lorillard Tobacco has taken The New York Times to task for what it said was the paper's unwillingness to present opposing viewpoints about the debate currently raging in the US over the use of menthol in cigarettes. Earlier this week it issued a copy of a letter that it had sent to the paper in response to an editorial – a letter that was rejected by the paper 'without sufficient explanation'. The letter, by Martin L. Orlowsky, the chairman, president and CEO of Lorillard Inc, is reprinted below: 'Your editorial, "Smooth and Dangerous," (August 14, 2008), more appropriately characterizes the concerted effort being undertaken to target the companies that manufacture and market menthol cigarettes. It is simply the latest example of a sophisticated campaign by paternalistic moralists to take away a smoker's choice to smoke menthol cigarettes, or to smoke at all, without regard for the facts or for sound science. It is all the more dangerous because it portends the demise of individual choice. 'It comes as no surprise that your paper advocates the regulation of the tobacco industry by the Food and Drug Administration. However, repeating unsupported allegations about menthol to justify such FDA oversight is simply irresponsible and undermines the integrity of the editorial process. You claim in the editorial that "There is ample reason to suspect that menthol may be harmful to many smokers and disproportionately harmful to black Americans," but offer no scientific support. You claim that menthol "would seem to make it easier for the tobacco industry to lure new smokers and keep chronic smokers from quitting" but provide no proof. You state that "Some experts worry that menthol cigarettes may be one reason why blacks suffer disproportionately from tobacco related diseases," only to immediately contradict yourself by noting that recent studies do not support that claim. 'The fact is that the science does not support these claims. Bottom line, and in your own words, "The [scientific] evidence [for the harmful effects of menthol] so far is not conclusive." You admit that recent scientific studies "have found no significant difference in the risk of disease for smokers who use mentholated cigarettes and those who don't," yet you nonetheless advocate for a ban on menthol. 'Your attack on menthol is nothing more than an opportunity to gain your ultimate end, the prohibition of all tobacco products and the establishment of a tobacco free society. That is the reason you are using the menthol issue to inflame passions along racial divides, and are making accusatory statements without foundation. Whether to impose Prohibition on cigarettes is a debate that we welcome, but it is a debate that needs to be waged on facts and science. It is a debate that should be settled without inflammatory and accusatory rhetoric. Editorials like yours only fan the flames of racism and do not move the cause forward. 'The American people deserve to understand that if the anti-tobacco establishment convinces Congress to first ban menthol and eventually outlaw all tobacco, other powerful groups will follow to impose their idea of what is good for us to eat, drink and think. Congress should realize that those who support a ban on menthol and the unworkable regulation of tobacco that is currently being considered are really just looking to further their real agenda, and it won't stop with tobacco.' Enditem