EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: 3 p.m. (CT) Tuesday, March 4, 1997
Media Advisory:
To contact Stanton A. Glantz, Ph.D.,
call Bill Gordon at 415/476-2557.
Tobacco Litigation Best Fought at State Level Historically, Congress has been more beholden to tobacco interests than to public health concerns
America would be better off seeking compensation from tobacco companies at the state and local levels rather than at the national level, according to a commentary in this week's issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
Stanton A. Glantz, Ph.D., from the Institute for Health Policy Studies and the Department of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues write: "If the Congress is actively involved in the negotiations toward a resolution, there is a greater likelihood that the tobacco companies will sculpt the agreement to suit their interests rather than the public interest. Historically, Congress has been more beholden to tobacco interests than to states, localities, or public health concerns."
The authors explain there were reports last summer of a congressionally sanctioned national settlement with tobacco companies. The proposed settlement would have encompassed not only all litigation surrounding the tobacco industry, but also the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations finding that tobacco products were nicotine delivery devices and imposing modest restrictions on tobacco advertising and promotion.
They write: "Though never finalized or released for public review, the proposal reportedly called for the payment by the tobacco companies of $6 billion in 1997, escalating to $10 billion per year in the fourth year continuing for the next 11 years. Much of this one was to be paid to the states to reimburse them for Medicaid costs, and some was to be paid toward individual compensation for sick smokers and to fund tobacco control programs, primarily aimed at children. The tobacco companies were to voluntarily adopt most of the proscriptions in the FDA regulations, and the FDA would forfeit jurisdiction unless certain targets regarding the reduction in youth smoking were met." They continue: "In exchange, the tobacco companies were to gain protection from most lawsuits ... While this proposal was not implemented, it reemerged in a modified form in December 1996, accompanied by expressions of interest in a legislative settlement by leaders of the tobacco industry, including Steven F. Goldstone, chief executive officer of RJR Nabisco Holdings."
The authors assert that a potential global resolution of tobacco litigation raises several important issues requiring consideration by the public health community. They say that important information is coming out of the discovery process associated with litigation at the state and local levels, "and we do not even know the full extent of the industry's wrongdoing or liability. A resolution at this time would stop this important process."
They cite parallels between when the first surgeon general's report on smoking and health in the 1960s was issued in the 60s and now. Back then the tobacco industry went to Congress and for some weak concessions, obtained federal legislation preempting state action on cigarette advertising. The authors say it is important people understand the history of how the tobacco industry uses Congress and federal preemption to evade responsibility for its actions lest history repeat itself.
Global Resolution Would Be One of the Biggest Health Decisions of This Century
They explain that while the proposed settlement involved $10 billion per year, this amount is only a small fraction of the $50 billion in direct medical costs and $100 billion in total costs smoking imposes on society every year. Also, "Any global resolution of tobacco litigation would represent one of the most significant public policy decisions on a public health issue in the last half of the 20th century. This decisions calls for a broad public discussion over what things would and would not be acceptable as part of a nonjudicial resolution, including whether any such resolution would be in the public interest ... Finally, there needs to be a special awareness of the potential conflicts of interest between the private attorneys involved in this litigation and the public interest ... There is tremendous pressure on these law firms to accept an agreement that would permit them to reap substantial fees today rather than continue to incur substantial expenses as litigation drags on." Editor's Note: The full-text version of this commentary will be posted on the JAMA portion of the AMA's web site as of 3 p.m. (CT), March 4, 1997. # For more information: contact the AMA's Scot Roskelley at 312/464-4431. email: [email protected] AMA's web site: http://www.ama-assn.org
RSS