Notes edit
The source of this transcript is CNN which was covering the hearing. It appears to be partial. I believe it to be in the public domain since the remarks were uttered before a commmittee of Congress; the act of transcribing them does not render a copyright to CNN.
Date:June 23, 1994
Transcript edit
THOMAS SANDEFUR, CEO, Brown & Williamson (LIVE): --that -- and I quote 'Knowingly deceived,' this subcommittee because I stated my belief. I repeat -- I do not believe that nicotine is addictive. I certainly believe that I'm entitled to express my views even though they may differ from the opinions of others. My opinion is based on my common sense understanding of the major differences between tobacco and drugs in terms of the way people behave and how many people have been able to quit smoking. You know, people use the addiction term very loosely. I'm sure I have people in my company that use the addiction term, much as I believe the surgeon general did in 1988 -- his report addressing this particular subject.
Based on that definition in 1988, I would submit that the enjoyment derived from drinking coffee or cola could also be considered addictive. In addition, if we were to rely on the scientific definition applied by the surgeon general in his report of 1964, cigarettes would not be addictive. The surgeon general at that time labeled cigarettes as a habit and I certainly agree with that.
To put the enjoyment of smoking cigarettes in the same level as addiction to drugs in my opinion defies common sense -- if cigarettes were, in fact, addictive, like cocaine and heroine, as is currently being asserted, there would be no way that 40 million American smokers would have been able to quit smoking. Ninety percent of them, with very little help at all, if any.
I might add that the mere existence of old documents in the files of the tobacco company doesn't prove addiction either. Scientific advisers, working in Brown & Williamson today, advise me that none of the research -- I repeat none of the research which apparently prompted the allegations that I see-- that have deceived this subcommittee, establishes that nicotine is addictive.
I've learned nothing -- nothing that would change my view. One final point relating to nicotine. And that is the allegation that the level of nicotine in the cigarettes that we produce or our competitors produce are manipulated or that the cigarettes are somehow spiked.
I want to assure this subcommittee that we do not spike our products; nor do we manipulate the nicotine in our cigarettes to keep people hooked as the FDA alleges. In fact, over the last 40 years, the nicotine levels have been reduced substantially. Why? Because that's what the marketplace wanted -- that's what the consumers said. Unlike drug addicts who require higher and higher levels of the drug to attain satisfaction, smokers require less -- they ask for less and we responded and that's a fact.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to briefly address three other issues -- the relationship of smoking to health; the regulation of the tobacco industry and the accusations of Dr. Kessler and the FDA.
First, smoking and health. I and other chief executives of tobacco companies have somehow been cast as living in the dark ages when it comes to being aware of studies on smoking and health. I state for the record that I believe there are health risks statistically associated with smoking and that the same illnesses statistically associated with cigarette smoking also have been tied to other human conditions including lifestyle, diet, and heredity. And the public has certainly been aware of the risks of smoking for a long, long time.
That leads me to my next point. And that's the regulation of the tobacco industry and, to be more precise, in my opinion, back-door prohibition of tobacco sales because, again, in my opinion, that seems to be where we're headed. It has been contended and I quote 'tobacco products are the nation's least-regulated consumer products, with tobacco products being exempt from every major health and safety law.'
Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, our industry is probably the most regulated in U.S. commerce. From the sowing of the seed in the seed-bed to the sale of the finished product at retail. The following agencies regulate tobacco products or have issued reports that have the same impact as regulation.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Federal Trade Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, OSHA, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources-- pardon me, Health and Human Services, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, including the National Institute of Standards and Technology as well as the surgeon general.
In addition to these federal agencies, various states -- or every state and various counties and local municipalities have laws on the books regulating the sale, the distribution, and the marketing of cigarettes. There are literally thousands of regulations. Therefore I believe it is totally misleading to paint the tobacco industry as a business that is run unbridled.
And given the fact that we're already heavily regulated, I have concern that we now are headed down a road of putting this industry out of business. There's certainly no doubt about it in my mind. That's clear-- that's clearly the intent of giving the FDA superpower jurisdiction.
I recognize that the legislation proposed by Congress [unintelligible] purports to prohibit the FDA from banning cigarettes outright. The words in that legislation make it perfectly clear. My concern is that we need to keep an eye on the back door. Let me explain why -- because the FDA's jurisdiction -- because of the FDA's jurisdiction, the agency could make it absolutely impossible for us to sell cigarettes because of the reach of their regulatory powers.
For example, the FDA could say you could sell a cigarette, but it can't have any nicotine or they could say it's OK to sell cigarettes, but they can't emit any second-hand smoke. I think you understand my point. It's like telling a company it's OK to sell a beer as long as it doesn't contain any alcohol. The pathway to FDA regulation is a pathway to prohibition and we need only to look to the past to understand the consequences.
Over the course of 1895 to 1921, more than a dozen states enacted legislation banning tobacco products -- banning the sale of tobacco. It was not until 1925 that the last of these prohibition laws against cigarettes was repealed. People in this country -- in our country -- are against banning cigarettes. In a recent CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, 86 percent of the people interviewed said smoking should not be made illegal.
One final note -- and this is more of a personal nature. I've been in the tobacco business for more than 30 years. I'm proud of the quality of the products that we make. I'm proud of the thousands of people we employ and I'm proud of the livelihoods we provide to hundreds of thousands of others -- from the farm families to the mom and pop stores around the corner.
Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee. If I sound concerned or even alarmed, it's because I am. Not because of the information being brought before this committee. The issues being resurrected here relate to nicotine and so-called safety cigarettes and health risks associated with smoking are new issues. These issues have been played out in courts over and over again and when we're given a forum [unintelligible], judges, juries and equitable rules -- common sense has prevailed. Juries have always decided these issues in our favor when the facts are presented in a fair forum.
No, I'm not concerned with the information itself. I'm concerned about the process. Saying it's OK to steal; saying it's OK to accept stolen property; saying it's OK to violate the rights of confidentiality with legal counsel. Saying it's OK to return to an age of McCarthyism, when black-listing and vilification of honest and respectable people were sanctioned for the sake of advancing a political agenda.
I'm concerned about our government regulating the lives and lifestyles of the American citizen. I'm not alone in my concern. Columnist Richard Baker-- Russell Baker -- writing about this congressional proceeding, said, and I quote -- 'We have here a crusade in its second phase. Crusades typically start by being admirable; proceed to being foolish; and end by being dangerous. The crusade against smoking is now clearly into the second stage, where foolishness abounds.'
Mr. Baker later adds, and I quote again 'This is an illustration of a crusade entering the dangerous stage.' Dr. Kessler's efforts are a perfect example of a crusade by the FDA which is clearly in its dangerous stage.
I would now like to respond to the false allegations made against Brown & Williamson last Tuesday by Dr. Kessler and his staff concerning Y-1. First, the testimony implies -- or implied -- that Brown & Williamson developed some new variety of the tobacco plant which we didn't want the government to know about. In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture actually developed the breeding line which became Y-1. Three federal agencies responsible or having the responsibility for public health issues -- the surgeon general, along with the USDA and the National Cancer Institute all recognize that it was appropriate to consider the design of cigarettes which would deliver lower levels of tar and moderate levels of nicotine.
The development of Y-1 was consistent with this approach. Second, it was suggested that there was something sinister or secretive about Y-1 because it was patented in Brazil, using the language of Brazil, which is Portuguese. In fact, it was grown in Brazil to prevent our competition from using it and because the growing conditions in Brazil were very good.
I'm told that the Brazilian patent application file contained a certified copy of the American patent application in English, so Dr. Kessler didn't have to go to the trouble of obtaining an English translation as he asserted.
For Dr. Kessler to suggest that we-- that they had to uncover this secret by translating Portuguese into English in my opinion is nothing more than grandstanding. B&W has never attempted to hide the existence of Y-1 and, in fact, we sought to have a U.S. patent issued which would have made the existence of Y-1 a matter of public record. Third, Dr. Kessler not only misled, in my opinion, this committee by what he said, but by why he failed to say. He made absolutely no reference to the actual nicotine deliveries in the B&W brands which use Y-1 in the blend. In fact, as we told the FDA, the brands that use Y-1 delivered essentially the same nicotine as the products they replaced. Some of the brands containing Y-1 actually delivered less nicotine than the non-Y-1 blends for those same products and some delivered a little higher nicotine.