Tobacco Companies Have Hidden the Dangers of Smoking For Years
Mark Hester asked:
Toward the end of 2006 you may have noticed that ads detailing smoking’s adverse health effects started appearing in newspapers across the country. This was in response to an August of 2006 ruling by a federal judge that the tobacco industry had actively engaged in racketeering practices. The judge stated that the industry had engaged in a decades-long conspiracy to hide the dangers of smoking from their users. Tobacco companies were actually ordered to take out newspaper ads criticizing their own product.
The judge ruled that the conspiracy started as early as 1953, when a group of tobacco company executives met together at the Plaza Hotel in New York City and developed a plan to counter the public’s health concerns about smoking. The judge also ruled that even after the 1964 Surgeon General’s report linked smoking to lung cancer, tobacco companies continued to deny and purposely distort many serious dangers of smoking their products.
Shockingly it was also ruled that the tobacco industry actively marketed their products to youth. That even though the tobacco industry claims it does not want children to smoke, the companies were caught tracking youth behavior and preferences, thereby ensuring that “marketing and promotion reaches youth,” even hiding from them the serious dangers of smoking while their young bodies were still developing.
The tobacco industry was also faulted for publicly denying that second-hand smoke is dangerous. The judge cited internal acknowledgment that this indeed was the case. In 1999, the Clinton administration accused the tobacco industry of racketeering as part of a coordinated plan to deceive the public about the dangers of smoking, and to cover up the knowledge they had to the contrary.
Under the ruling, the tobacco companies were also ordered to stop using such descriptions as “low tar,” “light,” “ultra light,” “mild,” or “natural,” or any other descriptions that might seem as if these cigarettes posed less of a health hazard or in any way were an attempt to downplay the dangers of smoking them.
While this ruling was a victory for many anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns, many commented on how long it took for the government to respond to tobacco’s use and on how long the actual case itself took as well. Others felt that perhaps the court was not punitive enough with the industry. “We are pleased with the court’s finding of liability on the part of the defendants, but disappointed that the court did not impose all of the remedies sought by the government,” the Justice Department said in a written statement. “Nevertheless, we are hopeful that the remedies that were imposed by the court can have a significant, positive impact on the health of the American public.”
To many it seemed to be a hollow victory, but it still did some good in highlighting the real dangers of smoking that even the tobacco industry itself could not - or was no longer allowed to - deny.
Toward the end of 2006 you may have noticed that ads detailing smoking’s adverse health effects started appearing in newspapers across the country. This was in response to an August of 2006 ruling by a federal judge that the tobacco industry had actively engaged in racketeering practices. The judge stated that the industry had engaged in a decades-long conspiracy to hide the dangers of smoking from their users. Tobacco companies were actually ordered to take out newspaper ads criticizing their own product.
The judge ruled that the conspiracy started as early as 1953, when a group of tobacco company executives met together at the Plaza Hotel in New York City and developed a plan to counter the public’s health concerns about smoking. The judge also ruled that even after the 1964 Surgeon General’s report linked smoking to lung cancer, tobacco companies continued to deny and purposely distort many serious dangers of smoking their products.
Shockingly it was also ruled that the tobacco industry actively marketed their products to youth. That even though the tobacco industry claims it does not want children to smoke, the companies were caught tracking youth behavior and preferences, thereby ensuring that “marketing and promotion reaches youth,” even hiding from them the serious dangers of smoking while their young bodies were still developing.
The tobacco industry was also faulted for publicly denying that second-hand smoke is dangerous. The judge cited internal acknowledgment that this indeed was the case. In 1999, the Clinton administration accused the tobacco industry of racketeering as part of a coordinated plan to deceive the public about the dangers of smoking, and to cover up the knowledge they had to the contrary.
Under the ruling, the tobacco companies were also ordered to stop using such descriptions as “low tar,” “light,” “ultra light,” “mild,” or “natural,” or any other descriptions that might seem as if these cigarettes posed less of a health hazard or in any way were an attempt to downplay the dangers of smoking them.
While this ruling was a victory for many anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns, many commented on how long it took for the government to respond to tobacco’s use and on how long the actual case itself took as well. Others felt that perhaps the court was not punitive enough with the industry. “We are pleased with the court’s finding of liability on the part of the defendants, but disappointed that the court did not impose all of the remedies sought by the government,” the Justice Department said in a written statement. “Nevertheless, we are hopeful that the remedies that were imposed by the court can have a significant, positive impact on the health of the American public.”
To many it seemed to be a hollow victory, but it still did some good in highlighting the real dangers of smoking that even the tobacco industry itself could not - or was no longer allowed to - deny.