Search

The article discusses the ruling handed down by the Court of Justice on the case R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and Others v. Commission on September 12, 2006. The case addresses the issue of admissibility in actions for annulment initiated by private parties. Specifically, it focuses on the condition that the challenged measure must entail binding legal effects capable of altering the legal position of the applicants. The ruling of the Court was an appeal against the decision of the Court of First Instance in Philip Morris and Others v. Commission. That ruling found the applications brought against the Commission's decision to bring proceedings in the U.S. courts inadmissible.

The article discusses the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. versus Shewry case which focuses on the banning of cigarette advertising filed in California. It provides an overview on the Tobacco Tax and Health Protection Act of 1998, the Tobacco Control Program and the Tobacco Education Media Campaign (TEMC). The Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the First Amendment allows the government to use funds from taxes to preserve its policies. It summarizes the influence of TEMC on U.S. legislators.

We investigated how industries use front groups to combat public health measures by analyzing tobacco industry documents, contemporaneous media reports, journal articles, and press releases regarding "Get Government Off Our Back," a coalition created by the tobacco industry. RJ Reynolds created Get Government Oft Our Back in 1994 to fight federal regulation of tobacco. By keeping its involvement secret, RJ Reynolds was able to draw public and legislative support and to avoid the tobacco industry reputation for misrepresenting evidence. The tobacco industry is not unique in its creation of such groups. Research on organizational background and funding could identify other industry front groups. Those who seek to establish measures to protect public health should be prepared to counter the argument that government should not regulate private behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Features the radio scripts from the files of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in the U.S. from 1948 to 1959. Promotion of its cigarette brands over the radio; Role of author Emily Post in marketing cigarettes; Radio hosts featured in the scripts.

Eclipse is a cigarette that primarily heats rather than burns tobacco. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJRT) has previously reported the results of in vitro toxicity studies comparing Eclipse with University of Kentucky 1R5F and 1R4F reference cigarettes. To characterize the differences between Eclipse and very low yielding/ultra low-“tar” (vULT) tobacco-burning cigarettes, RJRT conducted a comparative evaluation of the genotoxicity and cytotoxicity of mainstream cigarette smoke condensate (CSC) from Eclipse and three vULT tobacco-burning cigarettes (Now 83 Box, Merit Ultima and Carlton Soft Pack) as well as the leading ultra low-“tar” (ULT) brandstyle (Marlboro Ultra Lights) under four smoking regimens: (1) FTC—35 ml puff volume every 60 s for a 2 s duration (35/60/2); (2) 50/30/2, 0% vents blocked; (3) Massachusetts—45/30/2, 50% vents blocked; (4) Canadian—55/30/2, 100% vents blocked. Ames testing indicated that Eclipse CSC was less (P<0.05) mutagenic than CSC from the four cigarettes under all smoking regimens when compared on a revertants per mg Total Particulate Matter (TPM) basis. When mutagenicity was calculated on a revertants per cigarette basis the mutagenicity of Eclipse CSC was lower (P<0.05) than the mutagenicity of Merit Ultima, Carlton Soft Pack, and Marlboro Ultra Lights, regardless of the puffing regimen. On a per cigarette basis, the calculated mutagenicity of Eclipse was higher (P<0.05) than Now 83 Box cigarettes in the FTC and 50/30/2 regimens but lower (P<0.05) in the Massachusetts and Canadian regimens. Eclipse CSC was less (P<0.05) cytotoxic as measured in the neutral red assay (based on EC50 values—μg TPM/ml media) than the CSC from the four test cigarettes regardless of the regimen used. Collectively, these data demonstrate that the toxicity of CSC from Eclipse is significantly reduced relative to the activity of CSC from the tested vULT cigarettes and the Marlboro Ultra Lights. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

In the fall of 1995, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company engaged in a public relations advertising campaign that opposed restrictions on tobacco advertising proposed by President Clinton. This essay argues that in spite of the presence of creative and varied Burkean identification appeals in the messages of the RJR campaign, the campaign was fatally flawed by illegitimate presumptions of similarity and an oxymoron that violated Burke's "principle of the oxymoron." The essay argues that this transcendent principle is unidirectional; it must offer a rise in social status for it to provide a motive for identification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. The purpose of this study was to describe RJ Reynolds (RJR) Tobacco Company's strategy for targeting African Americans, as revealed in tobacco industry documents and magazine advertisements. Methods. The authors searched industry documents to determine RJR's strategies and analyzed magazine advertising during 2 periods: the time of the launch of the company's Uptown cigarette (1989-1990) and a decade later (1999-2000). Results. RJR's efforts to target the African American market segment existed before and after Uptown, and the company's strategy was largely implemented via other RJR brands. Advertisements featured mentholated cigarettes, fantasy/escape, expensive objects, and nightlife. Conclusions. To help all populations become tobacco-free, tobacco control practitioners must understand and counter tobacco industry strategies. (Am J Public Health. 2003:93:822-827) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine the plausibility of health claims for Eclipse, a novel smoking article being marketed by the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. (RJR) as potentially reducing the risk of cancer and other diseases compared to conventional cigarettes. Data sources: A company product website (www.eclipse.rjrt.com) summarising scientific studies of various versions of Eclipse, and the published review of these studies by an expert panel convened by RJR, an independent study comparing the smoke yields of major carcinogens from Eclipse and two low yield "ultralight" brands (Now and Canton), and an analysis of the levels of these compounds in Eclipse and Premier (its predecessor) over time. Analysis: The overall doses and effects of toxins in the aerosol from Eclipse are smaller than those from most conventional cigarettes on a per mg basis. However, two tests that compared Eclipse on a per cigarette basis revealed that Eclipse was as or more toxic than an ultralight cigarette. Studies show that consumers smoke Eclipse (like they do cigarettes) at puff volumes and puff frequencies far higher than those used for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) test. RJR's test results, which are based on aerosols generated under FTC conditions, may not reflect actual human dosing, since the operating temperature of Eclipse is highly dependent on these puffing parameters. Even under FTC/International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard measures, Eclipse smoke carcinogen yields were higher than Now, but similar to Canton. The yields of carcinogens from Premier and different versions of Eclipse have increased overtime. Furthermore, the human studies reviewed by the RJR expert panel do not offer compelling evidence of reduced harm, as they have not been conducted in smokers who have adopted Eclipse. Conclusion: There is as yet unsatisfactory evidence that Eclipse is less harmful than conventional cigarettes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mongoven Biscoe & Duchin, a specialist firm based in Washington DC, has honed a niche as expert intelligence gatherers, helping tobacco companies such as Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds to damage tobacco control efforts, including the WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is based on the 1998 testimony the author provided for In the Matter of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company as an expert witness for the Federal Trade Commission. After providing an overview of the Joe Camel campaign and the Federal Trade Commission's investigation of it, the author considers consumer protection issues that provide a perspective for assessing Reynolds's acts and practices. He then focuses on an analysis of Reynolds' s competitive position in the cigarette marketplace and why that was likely to influence subsequent marketing strategy and the development of the Joe Camel campaign. The author next discusses, the campaign at some length before returning to an explicit assessment of the campaign and the types of criteria that might be adopted for this purpose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses the ruling of the New Jersey Supreme Court on a product liability case filed against cigarette company R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Facts of the case; Reasons behind the ruling of the court; Arguments presented by the plaintiff and defendant.

Presents an account of the author's legal battle against the R.J. Reynolds (RJR) Tobacco Co. regarding his research findings on the effect of cigarette advertising on teenagers. Details on the subpoena; Resolution adopted by the Medical College of Georgia (MCG) faculty senate; Excerpts from the American Association of University Professors's (AAUP) deposition on the case.

Reports that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is considering the recommendation of its staff to sue R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. for enticing minors to smoke with its "Joe Camel" promotional campaign. Controversy over the legal issue of whether it is unfair to promote cigarettes to children too young to legally buy them; Description of the potential legal issues related to the advertising community; Need for the FTC to issue its complaint and hold trial to determine the factual question of whether the Joe Camel campaign actually targets minors.

Comments on talks in the U.S. about legislation to curtail tobacco advertising in light of growing tobacco use among teenagers. Increase in market share for R.J. Reynold's Camel brand cigarettes; Immense appeal of the brand mascot, Old Joe Camel, to teens; Advertising agency representatives' arguments against any imposition of unconstitutional restrictions on advertising.

The article presents legal developments in marketing with particular focus given to the regulation of unfair competition. One of the developments describes the findings by U.S. Federal Trade Commission Administrative Law Judge Montgomery K. Hyun that an advertisement from the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Inc. was an editorial advertisement, and as such, is protected by the First Amendment. Another development describes the case of Hu-Friedy Manufacturing Co. Inc. v. Peerless International Inc. This case shows that to prevail in a complaint that a trademark is being used to create a monopoly, the complainant must prove intent to monopolize, specific anticompetitive acts, and a dangerous probability of success in the relevant market.

The authors discuss the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., on the claims that the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) warnings on cigarette packs violated the First Amendment. Attorney General Eric Holder states that the FDA should conduct research in support of new rules pursuant to the Tobacco Control Act. They add that the Justice Department's decision provided an opportunity to discuss how FDA founded its rules.

The article recounts the decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case R.J. Reynolds v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which deemed unconstitutional FDA regulations requiring similar graphic warnings depicting the health effects of smoking. The Court found that the mandated packaging violates cigarette companies' right to free speech. It was noted that the history of tobacco-industry deception needed an innovative strategy.

The article reports on the publications by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. that targets the Hispanic youth which advertises alcohol and tobacco and has been denounced by the The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. The publications appeals to ethnic minorities in areas with a large Spanish-speaking populations. According to Patricia Sosa, vice president for Constituency Relations at the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the public health community is now speaking out to stop the advertisements. INSET: Alcohol advertising and youth.