AD
4 MAR 1981
FILE .......................
PASS .........
copy.
.......................
................. ......
Imperial Tbbacco Limited /Limil6e
February 27, 1981
Dr. L.C.F. Blackman
Westminster House
7 Millbank
LONDON S' .11P 3JE
England
Dear Lionel:
I'm sorry I haven't been able to get to your
letter of February 9
sooner, but I've been extremely busy (even a brief
holiday on my
return from Southampton had to be interrupted).
The comments I have about the draft employee S&H
handbook are my
own. augmented with what I consider to be very
sound views obtained
from our Personnel and Public Affairs people.
Michel Desc6teaux
expressed his thoughts in writing and this is
attached.
We have tried more than once to come up with a
similar document
for our employees but have never been satisfied
with our own efforts.
Although we sensed a certain feeling of job
insecurity in the minds
of our e=ployeas as a consequence of S&H issues,
the main concern turned
out to be with the social acceptability issue.
This is particularly
true in the case of sales representatives. 1aving
been unable to come
up with a S&H document that does not contain
admissions that perhaps
had better not be written down, we have used as
many occasions as
possible to deal frankly and openly with S&H. For
example, I have
visited all our sales branches, and we encourage
S&H discussions with
trainee groups. We have concluded that there are
certain "facts o,
life" to which employees must become reconciled if
they are to work in
our industry, and that we can do nothing to change
these "facts" in the
minds of employees. The main thing they want to
hear is that the
company is acting responsibly in the face of the
"facts" and that
their future is assured. Employees do, however,
find it hard going on
social occasions when, as so often happens,
smoking-is under attack.*
*Read RD 1783-C, Project Aries.
U-i
C~
C)
C)
L,4
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 4
November 1999


-2-
I personally take comfort in knowing our company
is acting responsibly
in the face of a difficult situation and this is
what I try to
communicate. But I never try to deny what is
believed by the
preponderance of medical authority.
Turning to the text of the "handbook" I think that
you have to ask
yourself how it would be viewed by a well informed
neutral critic.
Frankly we think it lacks credibility, and
contains inconsistencies
in logic. Furthermore there are a number of
judgmental admissions
that would be devastating if used. against
industry representatives
when appearing before municipal councils to
contest smoking restrictive
by-laws. We question the credibility of -any
medical judgment by a
tobacco company. Refutations will be ignored, and
admissions used
against us.
The early part of the booklet casts doubt on
epidemiological
evidence and says there is no scientific proof.
Later on epidemiolc,-,y
is used as evidence that filtered low tar
cigarettes are beneficial.
You can't have it both ways. I would think most
health authorities
consider well conducted epidemiology to be
"scientific," ii fact the
only kind of "science" that can be brought to bear
on disei,;es that
are multi-factored in -)rigin, whose mechanisms
are not uncV:rstood,
and take many years to develop. The credibility of
scienzists who still
challenge the epidemiology is not high, and their
views are ignored.
I think scientific ignorance and debate exists as
to mechanisms, and
as to the relative importance of the various
factors that epidemiology
relates to diseases with which smoking also is
implicated. However
the arguments in the boot-.Int do not dispose of
the epidemiology.
Hopefully, if and when mei-hanisms are understood,
the proportional
contribution of smoking may be clearly
established, and even circumvented,
but in the shorter term epidemiology won't go away
by Itself.
Still on science, how much of the E. 5 million
research money is
really spent to study the relationship between
smoking and health in
the medical sense, as is implied by the context in
which "is 5 million
into research" is used?
The question of "BAT in The Third World" is very
difficult, and one
on which we have little competence to comment.
Nevertheless I should
report a reaction here that the argument of a net
economic benefit
attributable to the tobacco industry does not
really dispose of the
S&H consequences of widespread adoption of the
smoking habit.
Although you did ask for comments as to detail I
have to say that
in our view the main themes and arguments need to
be re-examined as
to credibility, logic, and consistency, against
the objectives you have
in mind for the booklet. -One guiding principle we
would suggest is
C)
C)
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 4
November 1999


-3-
that nowhere should you express a medical
judgment. Desc6teaux has
had much experience on the firing line and behind
the scenes dealing
with provincial and city governments contemplating
restrictive
smoking regulations, and this experience is
reflected in his comments.
I'm sorry to be so negative but you did ask for
frank comment.
However, as I said earlier we have been unable to
do this job to our
satisfaction much to the disappointment of those
who worked long and
hard in the attempts.
With kind regards.
Yours sincerely,
Z
R. M. Gibb
enclosure
C)
C)
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 4
November 1999