A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z |     Dates
CREATED 8/17/2013

WARNING: This site deals only with the corporate corruption of science, and makes no inference about the motives or activities of individuals involved.
    There are many reasons why individuals become embroiled in corporate corruption activities - from political zealotry to over-enthusiastic activism; from gullibility to greed.
    Please read the OVERVIEW carefully, and make up your own mind.


Smoking-Gun docs.


Cash-for-comment economists' network
General TI networks
James E Long
George Berman
James Savarese
Ctr.Study Pub.Choice
James Buchanan
Robert Tollison
Anna Tollison
Richard Wagner
James C Miller III
Carol M Robert
Elizabeth A Masaitis
Committee on Tax & Economic Growth
Harold Hochman
Fred McChesney
Thomas Borcherding
Delores T Martin
Dennis Dyer
George Minshew
Fred Panzer
Susan Stuntz
Peter Sparber
Carol Hrycaj
Debra Schoonmaker
Jeff Ross
Cal George
William Prendergast
Bill Orzechowski

Dominick Armentano
Burton A Abrams
Lee Alston
Ryan C Amacher
Gary Anderson
Lee Anderson
William Anderson
Terry Anderson
Scott E Atkinson
Roger Arnold
Richard W Ault
Michael Babcock
Joe A Bell
Bruce L Benson
Jean J Boddewyn
Peter Boettke
Thomas Borcherding
William J Boyes
Charles Breeden
Lawrence Brunner
Henry N Butler
Bill Bryan
Cecil Bohanon
John H Bowman
Dennis L Chinn
Morris Coates
Roger Congleton
Jeffrey R Clark
Michael Crew
Allan Dalton
John David
Michael Davis
Arthur T Denzau
Clifford Dobitz
John Dobra
Robert Ebel
Randall Eberts
Robert B Ekelund
Roger L Faith
David Fand
Susan Feigenbaum
Clifford Fry
Lowell Gallaway
Celeste Gaspari
David ER Gay
Kenneth V Greene
Kevin B Grier
Brian Goff
James D Gwartney
Sherman Hanna
Anne Harper-Fender
Kathy Hayes
Dennis Hein
James Heins
Robert Higgs
Richard Higgins
F Steb Hipple
Harold M Hochman
George E Hoffer
John Howe
Randall G Holcombe
William Hunter
Stephen Huxley
John D Jackson
Joseph M Jadlow
Cecil Johnson
Samson Kimenyi
David Klingaman
Roger Kormendi
Michael Kurth
David Laband
Sumner La Croix
Dwight R Lee
Dennis Logue
James E Long
C. Matt Lindsay
Donald P Lyden
Craig MacPhee
Mike Maloney
Michael L Marlow
Dolores Martin
Chuck Mason
Charles Maurice
Fred McChesney
James E McClure
Robert McCormick
William McEachern
Richard McKenzie
Robert McMahon
Arthur Mead
Paul L Menchik
John F Militello
William C Mitchell
Greg Neihaus
James A Papke
Allen Parkman
Mark Pauly
William Peterson
Harlan Platt
Michael D Pratt
Thomas Pogue
Barry W Poulson
Edward Price
Robert Pulsinelli
Raymond Raab
Roger Riefler
Terry Ridgeway
Mario Rizzo
Morgan Reynolds
Simon Rottenberg
Randy Rucker
Richard Saba
Todd Sandler
David Saurman
Mark Schmitz
Robert Sexton
Gordon O Shuford
William Shughart
Robert J Staaf
Thomas Stimson
Wendell Sweetser
Mark Thornton
Robert Tollison
Mark Toma
David G Tuerck
Gordon Tullock
Richard Vedder
Bruce Vermeullen
Richard Wagner
J Keith Watson
Burton Weisbrod
Walter E Williams
Daniel ('Dan') Williamson
Paul W Wilson
Thomas Wyrick
Bruce Yandle
Boon Yoon
Richard O Zerbe
Benjamin Zycher




Jean JL Boddewyn     [ PhD Prof.]    

— A notorious cash-for-comments academic in advertising and marketing at Baruch College, City University of New York who said that tobacco advertising had no effects on children. —  

Jean Boddewyn (a man) was one of the tobacco industry's major academic supporters, who must have earned a small fortune by providing them with op-ed articles for newspapers and appearing as a witness for the industry at legislative hearings.

The tobacco archives holds 5,528 documents which mention Boddewyn and his activities. And we know from his own evidence that he also worked for the pharmacology industry.

Jean Boddewyn was a Belgium-American academic who has had a life-long record as a consultant and lobbyist for the advertising industry — and later, specifically for the tobacco industry to help them retain the right to advertise.

While he systematically abused the public trust inherent in his position, he needed to retain the image of an independent consultant, and so was retained by the tobacco industry through an arm's length relationship via Covington & Burling, the industry's main Washington DC law firm which laundered payments and channeled industry project requests. When used as a witness in litigation, he was handled by Allen Purvis of the other main tobacco law-firm, Shook, Hardy & Bacon. Later, he was paid via a private Belgium bank account or through his wife's company, Bodner Inc. in New York City.

He provided services to the Tobacco Institute both as an expert on advertising (especially on the use of advertising to recruit teenage smokers) and also on economic matter. When his mantra of "advertising has no effect on teenage smoking recruitment" wore thin through constant repetition in the USA, he was handed over to Sharon Boyse at British-American Tobacco in London, who used his services at journalistic media conferences in Latin America, New Zealand, South America and the Indian and South-Aast Asian regions. It was a fianancially profitable relationship since he was also on a quarterly retainer from BAT.

Abusing the Public Trust:

Boddewyn was a Professor of Business at Baruch College, CUNY, but he was not really an economist. He specialised in the analysis of advertising and its effects on the recruitment of customers (particularly children). So he was both able to advise the cigarette companies as to how they could make smoking more attractive to teenagers, and simultaneously provide convoluted arguments to explain to Congress and the media why advertising had no effect on recruiting new smokers. Therefore, he maintained, advertising bans would serve no purpose. [And implicit in this claim was the corollary that advertising had no benefits for the tobacco industry!]

Since he was willing to write on economic matters as well as on advertising, he was enlisted as a member of the cash-for-comments economists network run secretly for the Tobacco Institute by lobbyists James Savarese and Professor Robert Tollison through an academic libertarian think-tank ( Center for the Study of Public Choice) at George Mason University.

When required, he also performed many other services for the tobacco industry — appearing as a witness at Congressional hearings, writing op-eds, travelling the world to lecture at journalist briefings, advertising seminars, etc. In return, the tobacco industry paid him generously and boosted his reputation as the preeminent 'independent academic' expert on advertising's effects on children.

He was most useful to the tobacco industry over many decades of faithful service when he was coupled with Glen Smith of the Children's Research Unit (based in Australia, then in London) which was paid by the industry to conduct slanted surveys of childhood smoking practices in many countries. Smith provided the data and Boddewyn the analysis, resulting in regular claims that tobacco advertising had no appreciable influence on the young — which frankly defied any logic, but proved to be valuable anyway.

Providing rationalizations, not reasons.

The key to Boddewyn's usefulness was not in the likelihood that he could actually persuade anyone that advertising was not effective — when the clear evidence of the enormous tobacco company expenditures proved otherwise. His value was in providing the pro-tobacco lobbyists and the legislators with an expert-supported argument they could use to explain the scarcity of political action. Politicians could always defer to his political expertise in support of their own views about the unfettered free-market and the legal-construction known as the right to Commercial Free Speech — provided tobacco continued to fund their political campaigns.

Boddewyn's value lay in his ability to exploit his academic credentials from CUNY. In return the tobacco industry boosted his personal standing among the advertising fraternity: hailing him as the guru of advertising research,

He was very clever at spouting pseudo-scientific jargon to prop up the very shaky claim that advertising only made smokers switch brands — and played no role in initiation or increase in consumption. And he had boilerplate research material that could be quickly cobbled together to generate another report or op-ed when needed. It provided him with a comfortable and wealthy life-style, without needing much effort.

It is doubtful even then that anyone in politics actually believe him about the ineffectiveness of advertising as they were also professionals in the persuasion buisness. But that wasn't the point. He provided them with the pseudo-rationale arguments they needed.

Journalists, editors and publishers alos needed to justify their desire to retain the financial income from cigarette advertising against clear daily evidence that cigarettes were killing their readers. Politician needed to justify their votes in support of an industry which globally killed millions of people annually.

Boddewyn was a very useful man to have on-side.

The Economists Cash-for-Comments Network:

Professional tobacco lobbyist James Savarese and Public Choice economist Professor Robert Tollison of George Mason University collaborated in the 1980s and '90s to provide the tobacco industry (through the Tobacco Institute) with networks of academics in various disciplines who would be willing to write and sprout propaganda material ... provided the payments for these services were not directly tracealble back to the Institute or to any of the cigarette companies.

The idea was simply that these academic 'sleepers' would be available on a cash-for-services basis when needed to counter attempts to increase excise taxes or to ban public smoking. They were also recruited to appear as 'independent experts' at Congressional hearings and promote the industry causes while being legally able to deny any direct connections. ["I am a non-smoker. I have never worked for a tobacco company!"]

Economist were by far the most useful of the acolyte academics because the distinction between economics and politics was never clear: so support of the cigarette companies could always be portrayed as support for extreme free-market economics, including the rights of individuals to make public choices ... the promotion of small government ... or even nationalistic support for the first Amendment to the Constitution ('Commercial Free Speech').

The academic economist recruited to work for Savarese and Tollison, always claim to be 'independent professionals' and the opinions they expressed were "always my own". They openly exploited the fact that they came from some credible university, and never revealed the source of their funding in their op-eds or letters-to-the-editor.

If ever put under cross-examination, they must be able to claim (with weasel-word imprecision) that they had "never received a penny from the tobacco industry": therefore all payments were laundered through tobacco industry lawyers (usually Covington & Burling),), the principle network organisers James Savarese & Associates, or through Bob Tollison's Center for the Study of Public Choice at George Mason University.

The aim was to have, in each State, at least

  • two academic economists,
  • one academic lawyer, and
  • one academic from a business management, business law, marketing or advertising discipline
All of these academics must be willing to jump into action and write op-ed articles for their local newspaper, or to appear at local ordinance or legislative hearings in support of the industry. Copies of their op-eds were to be sent personally to any local Congressman — especially if they sat on some committee which was important to the tobacco industry.

The academics were always expected to wave their own and their university's credentials vigorously, and loudly proclaim their "independence' from any crass-commercial motives. And those who could boast of being 'non-smokers' were especially prized — since, without nicotine addiction, their non-dependent-on-tobacco status was thought to be established beyond any doubt!

Unfortunately, it worked. Not because they were convincing to politicians — but because their letters, op-eds and witness statements gave politicians a credible reason for inaction.

Jean Boddewyn was one of the more successful academics in this regard. He was a life-long supporter of the tobacco industry, and the industry in return supplemented his salary at the Baruch College at the City University of New York (CUNY), and promoted him as a top guru in the field of advertising. He probably made more from tobacco than he ever did from teaching.

Particularly pernicious was his insistence that tobacco advertising had no effect on children; nor he claimed, did it help initiate smoking in teenagers. These blatant lies involved him collaborations with Glen Smith of the London-based Children's Research Unit, a research-lobby group which conducted fake research in various countries which could be used as local propaganda to block attempts at banning cigarette advertising. Boddewyn provided the 'academic' facade for this research.

Note the University of California at San Francisco has made available a video clip of Boddewyn giving evidence at a House Commitee hearing on HR 4972.

Professor of Marketing and International Business, and Coordinator of International Business Programs at the Baruch College of the City University of New York.

      He holds a Commercial Engineer degree from the University of Louvain (Belgium), a MBA from the University of Oregon, and a PhD in Business Administration from the University of Washington (Seattle).
      Among many other publications, he is the author of a series of international surveys of the regulation and self-regulation of advertising around the world

      Oct 2011: He received the 2002 Academy of Management's Distinguished Service Award in recognition of his service as Editor of International Studies of Management & Organization since 1971, his pioneering research on comparative management, foreign divestment and international business-government relations, and his leadership roles as an early Chair (1974) of the AOM's International Management Division as well as Vice President (1975-1976) and President (1993-1994) of the Academy of International Business (AIB).
      He is a Fellow of the Academy of International Business (1980), the Academy of Management (1974) and the International Academy of Management (1984). He recently (2005-2008) served as Dean of the AIB Fellows.

Some key documents

• A Belgian-American consultant to the tobacco industry from Baruch College, City University of New York who proved to be immensely useful to the tobacco industry — mainly for his denial of the recruiting effects of advertising on the impressionable young.

    He was primarily run for the tobacco industry through the Washington DC law-firm Covington & Burling (for general advertising propaganda purposes,) but was also used by the Tobacco Institute via the Savarese/Tollison economists cash-for-comments network.

• His wife, [artist] Marilyn Bodner, appears to have run the family consulting business.

• Boddewyn was also a tobacco consultant in Belgium. Philip Morris funded a chair and a visiting lecturer at Baruch college.

• Educated Washington State University

Marilyn S Bodner/Boddewyn
Jean J Boddewyn's wife is Marilyn S Bodner, a lawyer and minor New York artist (using the name Marilyn Boddewyn). In addition to her other activities she runs the financial recruiting firm, Bodner Inc, from their Fifth Ave., New York apartment.
Specialists in placement of Accounting/Financial professionals, celebrating 24 years of service. Known for high ratio of placement to referrals and quality vs. quantity practice for corporations and candidates in the tri-state area serving diversified industries.
She also works as Contract Manager for the New York City Comproller.
"Lawyering is Marilyn Bodner's third career. After graduating from Queens College with a degree in Latin American Studies, Ms. Bodner worked in public relations, fund raising and event planning in the not-for-profit sector. She then worked for the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in its Group Insurance Department as a sales promotion and marketing specialist.

    Since graduation [in Law from Cardoza School of Law, Yeshiva University 1995], she has been with the New York City Comptroller's Office, initially in the Contracts Bureau and then, for eleven years, in the General Counsel's Office.

    Since May 2005, she has worked in the Comptroller's Bureau of Law & Adjustment. With a staff of five, she manages 14 contracts with outside counsel and providers of independent medical exams and investigatory services."
[This is relevant mainly because Jean Boddewyn has many payments made via Belgian banks and through his wife's company accounts. We make no comment about her dual role with the city and her placement clients.

    Elizabeth Holtzman, the wife of Philip Morris in-house executive lawyer Alex Holtzman, was Comptroller in the 1990-94 period, probably before her time.]

1929 Feb 3: Born in Brussels, Belgium

1959–64: At the University of Washington.

1964: PhD from University of Washington

1967: Became a Professor of Marketing and International Business.

1971: Became Editor of International Studies of Management and Organization

1973: Joined Baruch College, City University of New York.

PM's Corporate Generousity to Boddewyn's Baruch College CUNY
1982 -91: This listing shows that Philip Morris made an extraordinary number of donations (46) to the Bernard M Baruch College and three to Baruch College at the City University of New York,

    One donation on 10 April 1985 was for $175,000, another on 10 April 1986 (exactly a year later) was for $100,000, and 25 Jan 1988 for $135,000. A number of these donarions were for round figures like $25,000 or $10,000, many were for $6,500 and $7,000, while others were in many small $30 or $50 amounts. Some look like expenses payments — being for amounts of $1040.

See page 29

1983 Dec 6: Boddewyn & the CRU: The UK Tobacco Advisory Council has noticed the potential value of both Boddewyn and Glen Smith of the Children's Resarch Unit. Discussion items listed to TAC members are:

  • Correspondence from Imperial about Glen Smith of the Children's Research Unit, London, who has been assisting the Australian Advertising Industry. I will be attempting to make contact with Mr. Smith in the next few days.

  • International Advertising Association: INFOTAB have sent us a couple of copies of this booklet entitled "Tobacco Advertising Bans and Consumption in 16 Countries" by Prof. JJ Boddewyn , with the suggestion that it would be useful ammunition for us to use on MPs. I can obtain further bulk copies from Infotab for anyone who wants them.
    [The booklets had been produced for both the IAA and INFOTAB — the tobacco industry's international lobby organiser.]

[Glen Smith, an Australian pollster, set up the Children's Research Unit in London, and began to work for the tobacco industry around the world doing country-by-country research which inevitably showed that the children in each region were never effected by tobacco advertising in any significant way... so advertising couldn't be considered a recruiting tool for the cigarette industry. Smith was inevitably supported in this ridiculous conclusion by Boddewyn.]

1984 Feb 16: Draft outline of the book derived from the Smoking and Society conference run on behalf of the tobacco industry (held in June 1984 in New York). The book was being edited by Professor Robert Tollison and the INFOTAB organisation was to distribute it. Chapters included:

Advertising in a Free Economy, Polity and Society (Boddewyn)
This section analyzes the role of tobacco advertising: what it accomplishes, what it cannot accomplish, and its benefits.

    The chapter also considers the appropriate role of government with respect to advertising of tobacco products, including a discussion of the legal basis for advertising in various jurisdictions. Finally, this section considers the dangers to a free society presented by single issue pressure groups, including-anti-tobacco groups.

1984 May 16: Jean and his wife (an artist) Marilyn set up as a Business Consultancy and Employment Agency, Bodner Inc. in Fifth Avenue New York.

1984 Oct: RJ Reynolds report on "Advertising & Sponsorship" cites a childhood smoking study not done by the tobacco industry, but funded by the IAA.

Tobacco Advertising Bans and Consumption in 16 Countries (1983), Boddewyn, J.J International Advertising Association, 32 pp. An examination of the evidence on the impact, if any, of tobacco advertising bans.

[If tobacco advertising bans are ineffective, then it is logical to assume that tobacco advertising is also ineffective.]

1984 Oct 19: Another Tollison project — a book "Free To Smoke" is circulated. The full list of the tobacco lackeys who participated in this piece of garbage are:

    Tollison, Aviado, Berger, Bodewyn (sic), Buchanan, Den Uyl, Eysenck, Feinhandler, Peter Gray, Littlechild, Spielberger, Savarese, Shughart, and Ingo Walter.
[Every one a well-paid tobacco lobbyist.]

Contents More on authors

BODDEWYN, J.J. is Professor of Marketing and International Business, and Coordinator of International Business Programs at the Baruch College of the City University of New York. He holds a Commercial Engineer degree from the University of Louvain (Belgium), a MBA from the University of Oregon, and a Ph.D. in Business Administration from the University of Washington (Seattle).

    He is a Fellow of the Academy of International Business, the Academy of Management and the International Academy of Management. Among many other publications, he is the author of a series of international surveys of the regulation and self-regulation of advertising around the world.

1984 Oct 31: [Contained in the 447 page Final Opinion in the case USA and others vs Philip Morris et al]

During 1984, the Tobacco Institute paid $70,000 for one half the cost of a monograph commissioned by INFOTAB, edited by Robert Tollison, Professor of Economics at Virginia's George Mason University, titled "Smoking in Society."
It was designed to enlist many known tobacco-friendly academics to write chapters.
  • Robert Tollison. George Mason University — professor of libertarian economics and organiser of the cash-for-comments economists network,
  • Hans Eysenck, University of London — famous behavioral psychologist, and tobacco consultant,
  • Charles D Spielberger, Uni of Southern Florida — a psychologist who never used the term 'addiction'.
  • Domingo Aviado, Atmospheric Health Sciences — a tobacco pharmacologist who also worked for pharmacuetical industry.
  • Sherwin J Feinhandler, Social Systems Analysts — a Yale sociologist and life-long tobacco lobbyist,
  • Douglas Den Uyl, Bellarmine College — a philosopher and political scientist who specialized in ethics!,
  • William Shughart II, Clemson University — an extreme libertarian economist, and a close associate of Tollison and Buchanan.
  • Peter Berger, Boston University — sociologist. He and his wife both worked for the tobacco industry.
  • Ingo Walters, New York University (also HP Grant - Business Administration lecturers
  • Stephen Littlechild, Uni of Birmingham — Professor of Commerce in the UK; popular witness for the tobacco industry.
  • James Savarese [Later Tollison's partner] professional lobbyist with economics and labor connections
  • Jean Boddewyn, Baruch College, CUNY — marketing/advertising and children guru.
  • James Buchanan, George Mason University. — Nobel Prize winning founder of Public Choice Economics and partner of Tollison.

Tobacco Institute Memo
Tollison's Project Outline
Final Court Opinion page 297

1984 Dec 28: The Secretariat Interim Report and budget for INFOTAB :

  • Four senior executives - Antoniette Corti, Hans R Verkerk, Richard Corner, and Bryan Simpson [Sec-General]
  • Professors [Stephen C] Littlechild and [Jack] Wiseman have completed "The Political Economy of Restrictions and Choice" [paper and invoice enclosed]
  • Bernard 'Niki' Hauser is consultant to FAO (project for DCSG)
  • Ingo Walter, Edmund Knight and John Clutterbuck - have done an 18 country study on economic impact of tobacco in Europe. Also videotape.
  • IAA has new chairman AE Pitcher of Ogilvy & Mather UK. Continuting support. Will sponsor INFOTAB publications
  • Jean Boddewyn [CUNY], Paul de Win (Fed.World Advertisers) and Glen Smith (CRU) will be witnesses in HK at a Jan 8th hearing on advertising.
  • News International [Rupert Murdoch] is organizing a meeting of selected company chairmen and advertising principals on cigarette advertising in late April or May
Also budgets and consultants payments for the year (Boddewyn's is not identified however)

1985 April: Fred Panzer at the Tobacco Institute writes to Bill Kloepfer about JJ Boddewyn. He has learned via the grapevine that Boddewyn is 'planning' two conferences, one of which is dealing with the impact of deregulation and self-regulating systems.

    They haven't been advised of these activities which will be run under the auspicies of the International Advertising Association in Chicago, May 27-30

Dick Marcotullio and someone from Andrew Whist's shop are said to be involved with the IAA meeting.

[Marcotullio (RJR) and Whist (PMI) were the most active US executives involved with INFOTAB an close friends of Bryan Simpson. This is a statement that the IAA was merely fronting for INFOTAB and yet the TI hadn't been notified.] I have seen neither hide nor hair of any correspondence. Nor have folks at DISCUS to whom he had been referred same as me.

[DISCUS was the Distilled Spirit lobby, run by a future tobacco lawyer-lobbyist Sam Witt. DISCUS and TI worked together on common problems.] Attached are two of his [Boddewyn's] brochures which INFOTAB may have commissioned.
[Clearly the TI is being kept out of the loop. INFOTAB, which is the global lobbyist for the industry based in Europe, is dealing directly with Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds and bypassing the US tobacco lobbyists at the Tobacco Institute.]

1985 May 5: A Tobacco Institute summary of "Smoking and Society" edited by Robert Tollison. It gives details of the main speakers enlisted for a New York City Workshop which was run to benefit the industry, and it outlines the ideas which were translated into chapters for this book "Smoking and Society".

    Robert Tollison, Hans Eysenck, Charles D Spielberger, Domingo Aviado, Sherwin Feinhandler, Douglas J Den-Uyl, William F Shughart, Peter Berger, HP Grant & Ingo Walter, Stephen C Littlechild, James Savarese, Jean J Boddewyn, James Buchanan.

    This document also has notes on Glen Loury (economist), Walter Williams (economist), Amitai Etzioni (sociologist), Richard Wagner (Public Choice economist) Dwight Lee (Public Choice economist), Peter Blau (psychologist), Terry Anderson (Public Choice economist), and Theodore Sterling (computers/stats and professional lobbyist.).

[Every one on these listed are well-known, well-document tobacco lobbyists with academic background who were willing to support the industry if paid for their services. Most held academic posts as professor at a university.]

    The summary of Boddewyn's commentary is:

J.J. Boddewyn finds that econometric evidence suggests that advertising does not expand the total demand for cigarettes, but mainly the market shares. The role of advertising is limited as a market factor.

    Government also has limited resources, and the policing of advertising is not a top priority in most countries. Further, attacking advertising has some serious implications for a free society, and for the producers and consumers of other products.

1985 May 29: The tobacco industry, via the lawfirms Shook Hardy & Bacon and Chadboune Parke. have put together a STIC [ Special Trial Issues Committee] for the Cippolone case. This group of lawyers exists

to identify and develop potential witnesses in a variety of non-medical and non-fact areas which could possibly be utilized in one or more trials across the country. It continues to be the consensus of the group that these witnesses should be developed so that they are available in the event litigating attorneys in a particular 'jurisdiction or a particular casa desire,to rebutt. certain issues

Minutes record that
  • Pat Sirridge [lawyer] of SHB is collecting 'causation' information.
  • Bob Golden of Karch & Associates specialise in cancer causation litigation [Agent Orange]
  • They used to argue that "nobody knew" smoking might be harmful. Now they are considering taking the opposite approach and arguing "everyone knew."
  • Prof [John] Ettling at Uni of Houston is accumulating "free choice" material, but is trouble by the question of the plaintiff being "aware." They are shipping old TMA material to him after removing all identification because of the risk of accidental or legal disclosure.
  • Experts on warning labels - Prof Roger McCarthy of Failure Analysis Associates, et al.
  • [Prof. Robert] Sobel [Hofstra Uni] is a witness. He is being told to alter his presentation, He will be invited to the next STIC meeting for evaluation.
  • Advertising witnesses:
    It is the group's consensus that when more definitive information is learned from plaintiffs as to their advertising theories, they will generally fall in two categories - advertising caused people to begin smoking and advertising created assurances of safety and diluted subsequent warnings which helped people rationalize continuing their smoking habits and, to a lesser extent, resulting in initiation of new smokers.

        In the 1940s the theme was "glamour: with the use of movie stars, primarily by Liggett for Chesterfield. In the early 50s express statements about removing the "fear" of smoking and "safe" smoking appeared. In the late 1950's was the 'tar derby; and thereafter was the age of "young healthy and happy" advertising.

        Tom and I reported to the group on our meeting with Professor Boddewyn and our assessment that he has an extremely limited role to play in showing that foreign advertising bans have had no effect.

1985 Aug 15: A Philip Morris report on "Better Science Reporting" (following a lunch with media lobbyist Leonard Zahn). Chris Cory is reporting to Tom Ricke.
[This is an early example of their "junk-science' projects.]

    They are planning a speaker's bureau... "to raise public skepticism about science reporting." They want to encourage "muckraking" and encourage journalists to report scientific errors.

    They also want to "make common cause" (enlist) chemical and drug companies into this anti-science movement. The Tobacco Institute already has some compiled material. Zahn knows Victor Cohn, a veteran science reporter for the Washington Post who may be able to help. Another possibility is to recruit The Scientists Institute for Public Information co-founded by Margaret Mead and Barry Commoner (run by Fred Jerome)

    They will make contact via Peter Cawes who was the first Philip Morris Business and Society Professor at Baruch College.
[Philip Morris had endowed a chair at the Boddewyn's Baruch College]

They're looking for corporate grants, and might be helpful or a potential co-sponsor of a project. I'd be happy to call my contacts and see if they've done anything on tobacco science. Their official position on all controversies is supposed to be neutrality.

1985 Dec: /E President Ronald Reagan asked Senator Bob Packwood, chairman of the US Senate Finance Committee, to design a proposal for comprehensive tax reform

which would reduce the highest individual income tax rate down to 35% from its current 50% level, but retain adequate incentives for business investment, and avoid inclusion of any new taxes.

    In an attempt to do this without reducing the total amount of tax revenue that is currently collected, the Packwood plan proposes to offset reduced revenues from income taxes by what the Wall Street Journal has referred to as a "backdoor increase in excise taxes."

    The Packwood plan proposes to eliminate the income tax deductibility of excise taxes and import tariffs paid by businesses [and it] would increase federal excise tax receipts by an estimated $75 billion over five years. Approximately $13 billion of this would be a result of a direct increase in excise taxes on motor fuel, wine, distilled spirits, and tobacco.

    See also in this document James Savarese's report to Fred Panzer at the Tobacco Institute on the progress of his Packwood Excise Tax/Op-Ed project. This economist and 18 others are writing opinion pieces for their local newspapers objecting to the plan, and sending critical letters to their congressmen.

[The Packwood Plan triggered a substantial increase in the activities of the cash-for-comments economists already employed by the tobacco industry and led to the creation of the very substantial network of academic economists in every state who could be called upon to help fight tax increases on cigarettes — and later public smoking bans.]

1985 Dec 13: Boddewyn & the CRU: Glen Smith of the Children's Research Unit in London has sent a telex to Anne Duffin at the Tobacco Institute. They are proposing to move ahead with the US Juvenile Smoking Study and planning to publish via INFOTAB in May 1986. He writes:

Given that TI owns and has the right of veto over any section of the results, it may be prudent to consider a joint publication by CRU and a 3rd party such as an academic institution.
[He is proposing that they keep the Tobacco Institute's name out of it.]

1986: [In the 1994 Nov report] The WHO/PAHO has published "Tobacco Or Health: Status in the Americas" It lists "Behavioral surveys on tobacco use in Argentina 1971-1990" [15 different studies]

1986 Boddewyn — Children in 7 to 15 age group with only 1% of the 1008 subjects found to be smokers.
Other surveys listed in this chart found among their sample groups (mostly slightly older) between 8.5% and 58% were smokers, with the mean smoking rate in the vicinity of 25-30%. Another comparable study of the younger 12-15 age group found 12.6% were smokers.

[Boddewyn's figure of only1% came from the CRU research. It must have taken careful selection and exclusion to get this figure.]

Packwood's Dilemma
The Reagan Administration had gone on a spending spree while promising to rein in the bureaucracy and cut taxes. Under Reagan the national debt was skyrocketing, so Oregon Republican Bob Packwood was given the job of designing a new tax plan. However President Reagan insisted that it must:
  • avoid inclusion of any new taxes.
  • retain adequate incentives for business investment
  • reduce the top individual income tax rate from the current 50% to 35%.
This left Packwood with only one alternative — to use a "back-door increase in excise tax." His scheme was estimated to raise $75 billion over five years from increasing excise taxes on fuel, alcohol and tobacco — and eliminating tax-deducibility for businesses of both excises and import tariffs.

    So while actively supporting the Reagan Administration's anti-agency (FDA, EPA, OSHA) activities and the Republican attempts to limit product-liability, class actions, etc. the tobacco companies (who also owned beer, wine and spirit businesses) took a prominent stand against Packwood — but kept themselves in the background through hiring academic economists to promote their propaganda.

1986 March: Copies of the letters that the cash-for-comments economists wrote to various newspapers editors, and also the ones they wrote to their Senators — none of which mentioned that they'd been paid by the Tobacco Institute to write both the op-eds and the Congressional letters. These were sent to the Tobacco Institute as proof of their activities:

    Newspaper clippings of some of the network members' published articles for this project are grouped here:

[Printed versions]

  • Joseph Jadlow, Tax reform Hidden excise boost hurt consumers...
  • Allen Dalton, Hidden taxes gut Reagan reform plan.
  • Charles Maurice, Packwood proposal picks our pockets.
  • Scott Atkinson, Packwood Tax Reform Bill Threatens Wyoming Economy.

[Typewritten draft versions]
  • Allen Dalton, Tax Revision: Reform or Fraud.
  • Thomas F Pogue, Senator Packwood's Proposal is Not Tax Reform.
  • Richard B McKenzie, Excise Taxation: A Misguided Soultion to the Federal Governments Fiscal Woes.
  • Terry Anderson, Tax Reform We Don't Need.
  • Michael Crew, Tax Reform Hides Massive Excise Tax Increases: Senator Packwood Is Too Clever by Half.
  • JJ Bodewyn, Taxwise, We are going to be had.
  • Anne Harper-Fender, The Packwood Tax Plan: Reform or Expediency.
  • Scot Atkinson, Packwood Tax Reform Bill Threatens Wyoming Economy.

These draft articles have all been freshly retyped on two different typewriters. This confirms that they are the final output after they've passed the Tobacco Institute's vetting, clearance, and 'improvement' stages.

1986 Mar 20: Tobacco Institute document: Background Update Of the Estimated Effect of the Packwood Tax Plan On the Price Increase Necessary For Cigarettes

If the deductibility of the excise taxes is eliminated, then most, if not all, of this tax increase will be passed on to tobacco consumers as price increases to cover the additional corporate taxes they will be required to pay, plus the indexed excise tax requirement.

    On the basis of 1985 sales, and the level of federal excise taxes paid on cigarettes, the level of taxable sales would be: $4.5 billion / $0.16 = 28.125 billion packs — the remainder are either sent overseas as exports or to armed services, or to government institutions.

    If the Packwood plan is adopted, and if the effective tax rate on tobacco corporations is 35 percent as in 1983, the increase in corporate income taxes would be about $1.83 billion.

    It must be assumed that this tax increase will be passed on to consumers in order to maintain net income. This will cause a decline in demand on the base level of 28.125 billion packs.

1986 Mar 21: He has been enlisted to write on Baruch College letterhead to his local Senators (Moynihan and D'Amato) objecting to the Packwood tax-reform proposal.

  • For Moynihan he encloses a copy of the op-ed he is sending to the New York Times.
  • For D'Amato he encloses a copy of a letter he is sending to the New York Post.
In none of the letters or the op-ed does he admit that he is working as a lobbyist for the tobacco industry.

1986 Apr: /E James Savarese has circulated these instructions to his stable of cash-for-comment economists. He is asking them to write to the House Ways and Means Committee members in their states, and include a copy of their op-ed articles.

    He provides stamped and addressed envelopes, and strict instructions for what the letter should say:

Contents of your letter to the member
  • Opposition to consumption taxes, especially federal excise taxes, and in particular alcohol and cigarettes (you may list others if you wish).
  • Opposition to any tax increase as part of the budget reconciliation process; i.e., the need to comply with Gramm-Rudman target of $145 billion deficit limit. This deficit target should be reached with spending reductions.
  • However, if the tax reform package that ultimately emerges generates some windfall tax revenues during the first year, FY 1987, these should take the place of any other tax increase that might be considered. (For your information, most analysts believe that the Packwood version of the tax bill is revenue neutral over a five year period, but that it raises between $15-$20 billion during the first year.
  • One tax bill per year is more than enough. Whatever tax bill (if any) passed will create enormous uncertainty among the taxpaying public. The last thing that taxpayers — as investors, consumers, etc. — need is another tax bill one month after the major reform bill is passed.
Jean Boddewyn was one on the list of "Economists asked to write letters to Congressmen."
[This is lobbying in any sense of the word. The economists were exploiting their university credentials for personal and tobacco industry financial gain.]

1986 April: Professors Joseph M Jadlow (Oklahoma) and Charles Maurice (Texas A&M) have prepared draft articles attacking the Packwood Tax Plan. James Saverese has sent them, together with clippings of articles already published, along to Fred Panzer at the Tobacco Institute for correction and clearance. (See page 10)

    It lists many dozens of articles which the cash-for-comment economist on the network have now written, including one:

Prof JJ Boddewyn
Submitted to Paper: 3/21/86, New York Times, New York Post
Current Status: [N/A]
Letters have been sent on 3/21/86 to Senators D'Amato and Moynihan

    The Tobacco Institute also keeps a record of his submissions and letters to his State Senators, which is circulated to the tobacco companies (here Lorillard).

    One of the network economists, William Mitchell, has also written an "Open Letter to Senator Packwood" attacking his plan, and this is being circulated along with a letter from "Opportunities Industrialization Centers of America, Inc."

1986 Apr: The Tobacco Institute was shopping for witnesses willing to appear before the Senate Finance Committee to testify against the Packwood tax plan. Along with industry people and a few professional lobbyists, they had managed to get

"some 17 economists in states with Members on the Senate Finance Committee are now in the process of requesting to be heard"

The Institute's list included the network economists
  • Barry Poulson, Uni of Colorado
  • Richard McKenzie, Washington Uni - St Louis
  • Michael Crew, Rutgers Uni
  • JJ Boddewyn, City Uni of NY
  • Joseph Jadlow, Oklahoma State Uni
  • William Mitchell, Uni of Oregon
  • Ann Harper-Fender, Gettysburg College
  • Robert Tollison, George Mason Uni

1986 Apr 1: An Open Letter to Senator Robert Packwood (by Wm Mitchell) has been sent to the network economists to help them write their articles. This is a checklist of those in the 1) Writing Stage 2) Submitted to Newspapers 3) Letters Written to Senators.

    This cash-for-comments participant has written the article but not sent the letters to Senators. He has attached a copy of the article which has been sent back to the Tobacco Institute.

1986 Apr 3: This appears to be the approved copy of the letter on "New Research Proposals" that Jim Savarese sent to his long list of network economists. This letter leaves no doubt that these academic economist knew that they were being paid to protect the interests of the tobacco industry.

    The economist were also being given outline "rebuttals" developed by Tollison and Wagner to help them in writing their counter-attacks to an an Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) anti-smoking report.

I would like to thank you for all of your cooperation and diligence in handling the projects we have worked on together. I am taking this opportunity to alert you to some new research opportunities that may be available in the upcoming weeks.

As you know, the tobacco industry is exposed continuously to a barrage of attacks on economic issues. Many of these attacks involve a serious perversion of the concept of social cost. The Tobacco Institute is interested in considering research proposals which would establish a much more realistic examination of the social cost issue as it relates to the smoking issue.

I have attached a report prepared by the staff of the Office of Technology Assessment which is representative of the kind of "research" being put forth by anti-tobacco activists. I have also included the rebuttals developed by Bob Tollison and Richard Wagner to the OTA report.

The Institute would like to examine proposals for research that test, in a quantitative way, a number of propositions on the relevant cost considerations that apply to the smoking issue.
This went out to the long list of cash-for-comments economist on the network.

1986 Apr 11: The Tobacco Institute plans for State-by-State actions to generate opposition to the Packwood Tax Plan.

1986 Apr 15: Jim Savarese is reporting to Fred Panzer at the Tobacco Institute about the tobacco industry's anti- Packwood Tax Plan project. He includes numerous letters sent to Senators, copies of published op-eds, and a revised op-ed for Maine and one for Minnesota, He lists the successes of the network economists, including:

NEW YORK, Prof JJ Boddewyn
[Submitted to] New York Times, New York Post 3/21/86
[Letters sent to Senators] D'Amato and Moynichan 3/21/86

1986 Apr 15: Jim Savarese is reporting to Fred Panzer at the TI about the [anti] Packwood Tax Plan project.

We have contacted the following people and have asked them to request to testify before the Senate Finance Committee on April 21, 1986. As of today, no one has been asked to testify, but here is the current status.
  • J.J. Boddewyn, New York - called and wrote [CUNY]
  • B. Poulson, Colorado - called and wrote
  • Michael Crew, New Jersey - called and wrote [Rutgers]
  • William Mitchell, Oregon - called and wrote [Uni of Oregon]
  • Richard McKenzie, Missouri - called and wrote [Washington Uni, St Louis]
  • Ann Harper-Fender, Pennsylvania - called and wrote [Gettysburg College]
  • Joseph Jadlow, Oklahoma - called and wrote [Oklahoma State]
  • Robert Tollison, Virginia and D.C. - called and wrote [George Mason]
  • John Howe, Kansas - previous commitment
  • Terry Anderson, Montana - previous commitment
  • Lee Anderson, Delaware - previous commitment
We will check back with these people daily to see if they have heard anything and I'll let you know as soon as we are successful.

1986 Apr 17: The Tobacco Institute's Washington Working Group [company and independent lobbyists in DC] was convened to discuss "Citizens Requesting to Testify before the Senate Finance Committee" [on the Packwoord Tax Plan]

    Along with the normal parade of industry executive, grocery purveyors, ethnic-minorities grocery-store lobbyists, candy/tobacco distributors, tobacco unions, etc. were:

  • Barry Poulson, (economist) University of Colorado
  • David Wilhelm, Citizens for Tax Justice
  • Norman Ture, Institute for Research into the Economics of Taxation
  • Richard McKenzie (economist), Washington University at St. Louis
  • Michael Crew (economist), Rutgers University
  • J. J. Boddewyn (economist), City University of New York
  • Joseph Jadlow (economist), Oklahoma State University
  • William Mitchell (economist) University of Oregon
  • Ann Harper-Fender (economist) Gettysburg College
  • Robert Tollison (economist) George Mason University

1987 Apr 17: Savarese to Panzer re Senate Finance Committee Testimony:

I have enclosed a copy of the letter that Bob Tollison received from the Senate Finance Committee in regard to his request to testify before the committee on April 21.

    Most of our economists have received the same letter. Here's the way it looks now
  • B. Poulson, Colorado — no word as yet
  • R. McKenzie, Missouri — rejected
  • M. Crew, New Jersey — rejected
  • J.J. Boddewyn, New York — no word as yet
  • J. Jadlow, Oklahoma — no word as yet
  • W. Mitchell, Oregon — rejected
  • A. Harper-Fender, Pennsylvania — rejected
  • R. Tollison, Virginia and D.C. — rejected

1986 May: The cash-for-comments network has been busy writing to Senators and Representatives opposing the Packwood Tax Plan. Copies of these letters are then sent to Savarese, who bundles them up and sends them on to the Tobacco Institute. There are letters here from:

  • Two from Jean J Boddewyn, (with op-ed and letter sent to the Senate Finance Commitee)
  • One from Joseph Jadlow (with op-ed published in Tulsa Tribune)
  • One from Michael Crew (with op-ed submitted to the Jersey Journal)
  • Published op-ed by Charles Maurice.

1986 May 1: Jean Boddewyn submitted a written statement to the Committee on Finance, using CUNY letterhead.

1986 May 22: James Savarese has written to his cash-for-comments economists requesting that they now...

... produce a follow up letter to the members of the House Ways and Means Committee in your state. You will note that we are asking that you send this correspondence by Tuesday, May 27, to the home district offices of these members.

    You should refer to your correspondence with the state's Senators and attach copies of your OP-EDs that were placed. In the event that your OP-ED has not yet been placed, please attach it and mention one newspaper to which it has been sent.

Contents of your letter to the member:
  • Opposition to consumption taxes,
  • Opposition to any tax increase as part of the budget reconciliation process;
  • One tax bill per year is more than enough.
He also enclosed the target list of the Members of the House Ways and Means Committee, and (to the Tobacco Institute) the list of economists.

1986 May 22: Boddewyn & the CRU: Duffin has reservations about Glen Smith's CRU research.

  • With only 1,000 interviews, nothing much is added to existing.
  • Should check first with Scott Ward (Wharton) and Hal Mendelsohn, a psychologist at the University of Denver, Institute of Policy Studies, who has done an excellent critique of Helping Youth Decide (HYD) program.
    I had thought at the same time to ask him just how do we go about trying to prove that cigarette advertising doesn't cause kids to smoke? Just as no one can establish for sure that it does, we probably can't establish conclusively that it doesn't.
  • Only inferences can be drawn about the influence of parents', siblings' and peers' smoking habits. Also queries "Regular Smoking = 1 to 40 cigs a week"
  • Need to cover ages 11 to 17.
  • Smith can rationalize about the advantage of personal interviews in the home, as opposed to questionnaires either administered or self-reported in school. But he still has what amounts to opinion research when he asks, with prompted reasons, why youngsters started to smoke. Up to 75 percent replied "to see what it was like." Only 1% named advertising.
  • In the past Smith has mainly recorded laboratory interviews. Then he stressed personalized home interviews. Now he wants to do mall intercepts. [Inconsistent]
These are only a few of my trepidations. I have the feeling in studying Smith's tables that he has mixed apples and oranges to create a fruit salad for Brian Simpson, who had had the idea of combining the work Smith had done in four nations and then convinced IAA that the industry desperately needed its imprimatur on the subsequent patched together research.

Only Infotab and Don Hoel were familiar with both methodology and the draft manuscript when we permitted Boddewyn to testify about the study. In trying to put together something from the draft manuscript in advance of Boddewyn's arrival here, Fred voiced concerns about the methodology and the quality of the data.

    Reviewing Smith's proposal for us last winter, [John] Rupp commented it was poorly thought out and that he had concerns about Smith's basic competence. Much as I find Glen Smith a personable guy, me too.

1986 Jun: /E Newsclipping in Tobacco Institute files: The Waxman Congressional hearings mid-year:

"Bans do not work," said Jean Bodttewyn, marketing professor from City Univ. of New York, of international surveys he has edited on regulation of advertising in up to 54 countries. When questioned about the opposite view of Surgeon General Koop, Boddewyn quipped, "The Surgeon General is not the ad man general."

1986 June 3: Bill Klopfer of the TI has sent this memo re a meeting of the Communications Committee of the Tobacco Institute. The AMA has taken an anti-cigarette advertising 'prohibition' stance.

Our media team is working briskly on this issue. The stops were pulled a year ago December when AMA announced its prohibition stance. We said then we didn't trust their board's expertise on advertising any more than we trusted our own to do surgery.

    We rode the spot news through Congressman Synar's introduction of the AMA's bill and Waxman's two hearings on it, merchandising our testimony. One payoff was the Wall Street Journal's recognition of our witness, Jean Boddewyn, as an expert worthy of authoring an op-ed column.

    There were other op-eds — [Prof Burt] Newborne's in the Washington Post, which we circulated to media everywhere; a piece we did ourselves for the Scripps-Howard chain and another for USA Today

[Neuborne was a life-long tobacco lobbyist, Scripps-Howard and their news syndicate had some sort of special relationship with the tobacco industry to circulate material.]

1986 June 24: Sam Chilcote advises the Tobacco Institute's Executive Committee that

Chairman Henry Waxman of the House Health and Environment Subcommittee has scheduled oversight hearings July 21 on tobacco advertising and promotional practices.
The tactics he proposes to counter Waxman include the use of:
  • Advertising Industry. Over the past year, our strategy has been to encourage the advertising industry to take the visible lead on this issue.

  • Members of Congress. We are now attempting to recruit Members willing to testify. As with all other friendly witnesses, we will offer assistance in drafting testimony.

  • Constitutional law expert, Prof. Burton Neuborne, New York University.

  • Prof. J. J. Boddewyn, Baruch College, City University of New York; who recently edited two studies for the International Advertising Association. (IAA).

  • Sports Promotion. Two years ago, with assistance from staff at RJ Reynolds, we helped form the Coalition for Affordable Sports and Entertainment (CASE). This organization is prepared to testify and assist in lobbying.

  • Both the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom of Expression Foundation have already asked to testify and the latter will urge its members to contact the Subcommittee.

    [CASE was put together and controlled by RJ Reynolds. Barry Lynn of the ACLU was a paid lobbyist. The Freedom of Expression Foundation, run by Dr Craig R Smith, was actually a front for Packwood himself — but claiming to be a think tank promoting "Commercial free speech". This was standover tactics. Packwood used this think-tank to lever cash donations out of the tobacco companies without putting his own name out in front.

1986 Aug 1: Boddewyn gave evidence before the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment (Committee on Commerce and Energy). The transcript reads:

I would like to share with you the findings of an international survey of why children start to smoke. The research covered five countries that differ in the degree of restrictions imposed on tobacco advertising, up to and including a total advertising ban. This study is in press and will soon be published by the International Advertising Association.

    The investigation of why juveniles start to smoke is based on surveys conducted by the Children's Research Unit (CRU, London) in Australia, Hong Kong, Norway and Spain, and also draws on statistical data from the United Kingdom.

    In designing the survey, the Children's Research Unit took special care to avoid some of the methodological pitfalls associated with comparable studies of juvenile smoking initiation.
[The solution to avoiding methodological pitfalls which result in the wrong answers, was probably to make up the data themselves, beforehand! Boddewyn trots out the much-repeated claims that advertising bans led to increased rates of teenage smoking in Scandinavia etc.]

1986 Aug 10: /E Boddewyn & the CRU: Releasse of the Booklet "Why Do Juvenies Start Smoking" edited and introduced by Prof JJ Boddewyn and published by the International Advertising Association, New York. An international study of the role of advertising & other contributory factors in Australia, Hong Kong, Norway, Spain & the United Kingdom (A 5 nation study)

The IAA is most interested in the effects of advertising on children, a so-called vulnerable group. For this reason, we publish this study as a valuable addition to the literature. It is based on very careful research by a most qualified organization employing methodology which we have examined thoroughly and found to be of the highest standards. It is also research which has generated a comparable international data base.

    The IAA believes in the freedom to advertise all products and services which are legally sold and legally consumed. Further, the IAA believes that this freedom is indivisible in the sense that restrictions applied to one group of products inevitably lead to erosion of the freedom to advertise other products.

    These beliefs led us to publish "Tobacco Advertising Bans and Consumption in 16 Countries" (in 1983 and 1986), which clearly showed that the implementation of advertising bans was generally not followed by decreases in overall tobacco consumption.
Is the Evidence Believable?
This study was initiated and financed by the tobacco industry. No one should question its right to engage in research any more than research by the antismoking movement should be considered suspicious a priori. The test, instead, should be: "Is it good research?"

[Could anyone be more gullible or more mendacious? All such research rests on the general public and the politicos being able to trust the expressed opinions of academics like himself, especially when the health and wellbeing of youth are involved. When academic opinion is corrupted by cash payments, then the effect flows on throughout the system.]

    The findings reported here were provided by the London-based Children's Research Unit (CRU), which is an experienced research house that has been employed by both business and government (see Appendix A). CRU relied in part on the methods and findings of studies commissioned by the British Government in 1982 and 1984, but it also drew on its own extensive international research experience to improve on the British Government study's methodology, as was explained above (Appendices B and C detail the research methodology used in the five country studies).
[The CRU was, if anything, less ethical and trustworth than Boddewyn.

PM advertising guide.

1986 Nov 21: Boddewyn publishes an article "Smoking Ads Don't Get People Hooked" in the Wall Street Journal. He is Professor of International Marketing at Baruch College, City University of New York.

1986 Dec 1: Anne Duffin advises Kloepfer about their Ad-ban projects and the need for witnesses at a coming Congressional hearing.

  • Prof. Boddewyn, who will edit a study now in progress by the Children's Research Unit investigating the role of advertising in juvenile smoking
Status: Final draft of CRU research report due here Jan. 15 for editing and production in booklet form with International Advertising Assn. imprimatur.

    Prof. Boddewyn has agreed to testify as needed, if necessary on unpublished results. (TI will require a punchier, more readable editing job than was done on the five-nation predecessor study for Infotab.)

1986 Dec 11: James Savarese sends Fred Panzer at the Tobacco Institute a summary of the activities of his network of economists. This is effectively the beginning of the main cash-for-comments economists network.

Dear Fred,
    I have attached a list of all the economists we have used along with the projects they have worked on in behalf of the Tobacco Institute.
There are now 62 names on the list (Some states have 4 or 5) not counting himself and Bob Tollison. The details given for each consist of State, Regional Division [of the TI], Name, Address and Telephone number. Added to this is a list of the 'Projects' they have completed (in later lists, also the names of Congressmen they have contacted.)

    Virtually all of these cash-for-comment academics have been generating op-ed articles for newspapers, or have, in some unspecified way, opposed the Packwood Excise Tax plan — or perhaps helped fake up one of the 'Chase' [Econometrics studies]. A few participants have attended Congressional or government inquiries ['Treasury I') or local ordinance hearings as 'independent witnesses' while secretly acting for the tobacco industry. Two of the 64 members (Ann Harper-Fender and Gary Anderson) were acting termporarily as advisors to Ronald Reagan's Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations— which sought to bring pressure on the FDA, EPA and OSHA and stop them being pro-active with smoking bans.

    Other participants have been promoting the industry line at various academic conferences and fora [mainly as keynote speakers at economic society meetings] , and a few of the core-team were involved in brianstorming sessions with members of the tobacco industry looking for new angles for their PR, and for possible research project which might generate some economic propaganda for the industry.

    Many of them have joined in with the industry's orchestrated letter-writing campaigns opposing workplace smoking bans.
  • GSA = Government Services Administration.
  • 'Ways & Means' = Congressional committee on finances
  • ALEC = American Legislative Exchange Council (a formalised way for big business to directly influence Congressional and State politicians)
  • Chase Econometrics = A company that did economic impact studies for the tobacco industry in various locations to 'prove' that smoking bans would destroy local economies.

        The references for this network member were:
New York [ Region II ]

Professor J. J. Boddewyn

    Box 508, Baruch College , City University of New York , 17 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10010, 212-725-3304

    Services rendered:
    • Packwood
    • Ways and Means letter writing campaign
    • GSA letter writing campaign

1987: The Philip Morris magazine published a profile of Boddewyn under the lable "Fact and Fiction" Smoking Ads Don't Get People Hooked" which had originally appeared in the WSJ. See page 142 of 165 pages

1987: Hearings [Recorded in 1989 Covington & Burling "A Consitutional Analysis of Proposed Content-Control Requirements for Tobacco Product Advertising" This was prepared in opposition to the Luken and Synar Bills designed to eliminate tobacco product advertising and promotion.]

    Boddewyn gave evidence based on his International Advertising Association book, Why Do Juveniles Start Smoking? (J. Boddewyn ed. 1986).

In Norway, for example, 11 years after a total advertising ban was imposed, the proportion of 7-15 year-olds who smoke regularly (13 percent) was nearly twice as high as in Spain (7 percent), where only minor advertising restrictions were in effect, and more than four times as high as in Hong Kong (3 percent), where no advertising controls existed.

    In Norway, 36 percent of all 15 year-olds smoked in 1986, while in Spain the figure was 27 percent and in Hong Kong the figure was 11 percent.

Such simplistic comparisons don't take into consideration the cost of cigarettes, the wealth and sex of teenagers, and many other social factors. So his 'no-initiation effects' interpretation is highly disputable:
  • Norway, where tobacco product advertising was completely banned in 1975, it has been asserted that daily smoking among 13-15 year-old schoolchildren declined sharply after the ban was imposed.
  • Finland, tobacco product advertising has been banned completely since 1978. The researchers noted that the increase had been greatest among girls aged 16-18 — from 25 percent in 1979–1985 to 32 percent in 1985–1987
  • Sweden, where tobacco advertising on billboards and in most other media was banned in 1979, the incidence of smoking among minors, which had been decreasing before the ban was imposed, increased between 1979 and 1982. It then resumed its decline — only to begin increasing again in 1984.

1987: A privileged document from the RJ Reynolds Legal Department files has been prepared by JJ Boddewyn. Privilege has been claimed because he is expressing opinions as an expert witness and as a RJR scientific consultant dealing with ongoing litigation.

1987 Jan: Juvenile Smoking "Methodological Approach to Obtain Data on Prevalence and Contributory Factors to Child and Adolescent Smoking."

1987 Jan 19: Boddewyn visits the Tobacco Institute to talk about his lobbying consultancy.

1987 Jan 20: Susan Stuntz, as head of the Public Affairs Division (PAD) of the Tobacco Institute has put together an overview of their 'readiness' for Federal Hearings on tax, advertising and public smoking bans. They are concerned about the recent GSA (Government Service Administration) ban on smoking in Federal buildings.

    This is a 21 page detailed document worth reading. It includes many items related to the cash-for-comments economists network:

  • Identification of witnesses from among appropriate ally and coalition groups.
  • Development of arguments and identification of experts and coalitions to argue that excise tax increases are not an appropriate means of financing health care costs.
  • Op-ed articles, letters to the editor, etc., from academic resources.
  • Continue efforts to obtain copies of GSA comments, via Freedom of Information request.
  • Identification of potential Congressional witnesses, and Congressmen who would be amenable to invite other scientists who support the industry's view on ETS to testify.
  • Approval to proceed with economic impact studies and/or voter surveys. One-month lead time is requested on both. On the former, decision will be needed as to whether to seek labor sponsorship.
Tax Hearing Readiness: They have five 'basic arguments' that cigarette excise taxes are:
  • Regressive
  • Unfair
  • Inefficient
  • Inadequate
  • Unconstitutional
and they intend to mobilize their Core Witness List to promote different aspects of the argument, including the economists:
  • Robert Tollison, Professor at George Mason University and director of the Center for Public Choice.
  • Richard Wagner, Professor of Economics, University of Florida.
  • Darwin Johnson of Policy Economic Group to discuss his study of the excise tax burden on five specific demographic groups.
  • Jim Savarese network organiser and labor union witness.
Also listed under different themes they were believed likely to promote were favourite witnesses
  • Jolly Ann Davidson of the NASBE (education)
  • Bert Neuborne, law professor NY Uni and ACLU
  • Prof Scott Ward, Wharton School, PA
  • Philip Kurland, Law Professor, Uni of Chicago
  • Barry Lynn, ACLU
  • Craig R Smith, Freedom of Expression Foundation
  • Prof Roger Blackwell. Ohio State Uni
  • Prof Jean Boddewyn, Baruch College CUNY
  • John O'Toole and Charlotte Beers of AAAA.
  • Michael Waterson, UK Ad Assoc.
  • Ronald Beatson, European Ass. of Ad Agencies
  • Gray Robertson, ACVA (HBI)
  • Sal DiNardi (Uni of Mass & IAPAG)
  • IAPAG second witness
  • Lew Solmon (UCLA)
  • Tom Burch, National Coalition of Vietnam Veterans
  • IAC-AAF (Advertising-Media Coalition)
  • FAC (Freedom to Advertise Coalition - Patton Boggs Blow)
  • CASE (Comm. on Affordable Sports & Entertainment)
  • LULAC (Hispanic astroturf)

1987 Jan 23: Anne Duffin at the Tobacco Institute has written to her superior, Fred Panzer. He wants to attack the anti-smoking Surgeon General C Everett Koop.

Jean Boddewyn, who will be away all next week, has requested materials for some op-ed pieces he wants to write and place when he gets back.

    He's interested in derivation and definition of the [Surgeon General's] SG's smokeless generation by year 2000 and [C Everett] Koop's background in research, both of which I've tried to explain.

    I'm not sure I convinced him Koop is not a career Navy man! I have convinced him, however, that you're the ad issue manager now and suggest you may want to drop copies of the attached to him with a note about how sorry you were that you couldn't spend some time with him during his TI visit on the 19th.

[He is at home most mornings "before 2pm". Life can be tough for an academic.]

1987 May: The tobacco industry front organisation "Freedom to Advertise Coalition" has funded a documentary to be made by Ogilvy & Mather, promoting the so-called right to "Commercial Free Speech". The script has been revised by tobacco lawyer John Rupp of Covington & Burling, and they are shooting interviews with their favorite advertising lobbyists:

  • Barry Lynn of the American Civil Liberties Union (well-paid tobacco lobbyist)
  • John O'Toole of the American Advertising Agencies Association
  • Fred McChesney, Chicago/Northwestern Uni, and a tobacco industry 'cash-for-comment economist'
  • Burton Neuborne, ex-legal advisor to the ACLU and FAC lobbyist
  • Martin Reddish, Chicago/Northwestern University, Constitutional consultant for tobacco
  • JJ Boddewyn
    The available data shows that cigarette advertisting has little, if any, effect on sales by young people. Other factors — most importantly, what your parents do, and what your peers do — are much more up.
Fred Panzer of the Tobacco Institute has also checked the revised script before shooting.

1987 May 4: In a memo to his Executive Committee, the President of the Tobacco Institute, Sam Chilcote outlines their allies in the fight to preserve advertising of cigarettes.

The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the legislative situation, our strategies and resources.
A variety of Tobacco Institute consultants have been and will continue to be used as witnesses and media spokesmen by the above coalitions. They include: — First Amendment attorneys including Prof. Bert Neuborne, New York University Law School; Prof. Philip Kurland, University of Chicago Law School;

    — Marketing experts such as Prof. Roger Blackwell, Ohio State University; Prof. Scott Ward, Wharton School of Business; Prof. Jean Boddewyn, Baruch College, City University of New York; Michael Waterson, research director, Advertising Association of Great Britain; and Ronald Beatson, European Association of Advertising Agencies.

1987 May 5: Sam Chilcote (head of Tobacco Institute) memo to the Executive Committee re. tobacco advertising ban in Canada and the US and the Strategies and Programs that the TI have implemented to block them, He notes:

Coalitions and Expert Witnesses =
  • Prof Bert Neuborne, New York University Law School — a First Amendment attorney.
  • Prof Philip Kurland , University of Chicago Law School — a First Amendment attorney
  • Prof Roger Blackwell, Ohio State University - marketing expert
  • Prof Scott Ward, Wharton School of Business - marketing expert
  • Prof Jean Boddewyn, Baruch College, City Uni of New York - marketing expert
  • Michael Waterson, research director, Advertising Association of Great Britain - marketing expert
  • Roger Beatson, European Association of Advertising Agencies. - marketing expert
  • Darwin Johnson, Peat Marwick's Policy Economic Group on the economic impact of an ad ban. (Economist writing op-ed articles - for lobbying congressmen)
  • Prof Fred McChesney, University of Chicago Law School (Economist writing op-ed articles - for lobbying congressmen)
  • Vernon Dempsey , Phoenix Marketing, on cigarette sampling practices.

1987 July 23: Sam Chilcote of the Tobacco Institute is reporting to his Executive Committee. He is lining up witnesses for a Waxman hearing on both the Synar Bill and Whittaker Bill (ad ban legislation). The advertising industry has lined up:

  • Scott Ward, Ph.D., Professor of Marketing, the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
  • Barry Lynn, Esq., Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union
  • Richard E. Wiley, Esq. Wiley, Rein, & Fielding, sponsored by the Washington Legal Foundation
  • Professor Burt Neuborne, New York University Law School, on behalf of the Association of National Advertisers
  • David Starr, Publisher, the Union News & Republic, Springfield, MA, on behalf of the American Newspaper Publishers Association
  • Professor Philip Kurland, University of Chicago Law School, on behalf of the Magazine Publishers Association
  • Leonard Matthews, President, the American Association of Advertising Agencies
  • Michael J. Waterson, Director of Research, Advertising Association of Great Britain,, on behalf of the American Advertising Federation
The Tobacco Institute has lined up:
  • Charles Whitley. Mr. Whitley will also submit for the record statements of Professor Martin Redish, Northwestern University Law School, and Wallace D. Riley, former President of the American Bar Association.
  • Jean J Boddewyn, Prof of Marketing and Intl Business, Baruch College, City University of New York

1987 Oct 12: -15 INFOTAB International Workshop in Washington DC [Note 375 pages]

Guest Speakers were
  • Prof Jean Boddewyn (Baruch College CUNY),
  • Stephen Eyres (FOREST),
  • Senator Jesse Helms,
  • Susan Stuntz (TI)
  • Prof Ingo Walter, (France).

1987 Nov: Book "Why Do Juveniles Start Smoking?" (J. Boddewyn ed ) International Advertising Association.

In a ten-country study published by the International Advertising Association in November 1987, research by the CRU established that, whatever the nature of the tobacco advertising controls in the countries studied, "family and peer influences appear to be the determining factors."

1988 May 23: The Tobacco Institute has given Boddewyn $500 by way of a check paid through his wife's company account, Bodner Inc.

    They have also paid $124 to his own personal account on the same day.

1988 June: /E New Zealand advertising researcher Jane Chetwynd and her associates have published in the British Journal of Addiction a study on the "Impact of Cigarette Advertising on Aggregate Demand for Cigarettes in New Zealand."
[Previsously another cash-for-comment economist Robert Ekelund had been funded to produce a critique of the study.]

According to Chetwynd et al., their results suggest that print media advertising of cigarettes does have an impact on tobacco industry sales in New Zealand. They calculate that an increase of expenditure on print media advertising of 10 per cent would result in an increase of 0,7 per cent in aggregate sales.

    Their findings show that cigarette consumption is effected by advertising and
"suggest support for the proposal that bans on cigarette advertising would result in a reduction in overall cigarette consumption."
This is in direct contradiction to the Boddewyn/tobacco industry cooperative relationship which rests partly on his constant claims that the evidence supports his claim that advertising has no effect on the amount of smoking, or the age of initiation.

1988 Sep 26:

1988 Sep 26: The Tobacco Institute has paid Boddewyn another $420.00 by way of two checks paid into his wife's Bodner Inc company account.

1988 Oct 4: A privileged document from the Jones Day lawfirm/RJ Reynolds files has been prepared by JJ Boddewyn. Privilege has been claimed because he is expressing opinions as an expert witness and as a RJR scientific consultant dealing with anticipated litigation.

1988 Oct 19: Boddewyn produces for the Tobacco Institute a revised draft of his comments on Jane Chetwynd's study "Impact of Cigarette Advertising on Aggregate Demand for Cigarettes in New Zealand" (published in British Journal of Addiction)

    This is labelled as a 3rd Draft.

    He accuses the authors of bias because:

Chetwynd, Coope, Brodie and Wells immediately cast aspersion on research funded by the tobacco industry (p. 410). This is a cheap shot because no research is value-free, and we are all prone to subjectivity. [If not outright greed!]

    Besides, it is hard to imagine that researchers mainly based in a school of medicine would not be presently biased toward the currently received medical wisdom that smoking is bad (the Surgeon General of the United States keeps saying that 'the scientific controversy over the negative health effects of smoking is over"), and would not be eager to prove that smoking initiation and incidence are positively related to tobacco advertising.
There are many more pages of pseudo-technical objections... accusations of bias... and convoluted argument. These are all decorated with Tobacco Institute corrections and additions.
[One attached note recommend that he use as an example "Watson's milk study."

    They have also scrubbed out one of his cited references to a US Department of Health Education and Welfare paper in 1972 on Adolescent Smoking.]

1988 Oct 26: Boddewyn must now be firmly on the Tobacco Institute payroll as a consultant. He is available to field press calls directed to him via an Institute press release which is critical of a Ledwith study. They give his schedule of availability to take press calls:

  • He is at home until 9.30 AM
  • At the International Advertising Association offices from 10 to 11 AM
  • With Philip Morris International with Wendy Burrell from 11.30 to 2 PM
  • Back Home from 2 to 4 PM
  • He then flies to Europe, returning Nov 1.

1989: Boddewyn & the CRU: "Tobacco Advertising.... And why kids smoke."

In 1989, Jean Boddewyn, professor of marketing at Baruch College (City University of New York), edited an international survey on juvenile smoking conducted by The Children's Research Unit in London, England.
[Run for the tobacco industry by Glen Smith]

    He concluded, "(The study) provides strong evidence that advertising plays a minuscule role in the initiation of smoking by the young..family and peer influences appear to be the determining factors in juvenile smoking initiation."

PM advertising guide.

Boddewyn begins using the incorporated private business consultancy
Bodner Inc. which is run by his wife Marilyn S Boddewyn (nee Bodner) out of their Fifth Avenue, New York apartment.

1989 Jan 24: The British Journal of Addiction has rejected Boddewyn's critique of the Chetwynd (NZ) article. He tells Philip Morris:

"It is rather encouraging, but some revisions are in order, according to the editor and reviewer.

    May I have your suggestions in the near future?

    Besides the detailed/specific questions of the reviewer, it is not clear if we have the time series and other data to test alternative hypotheses, since the Chtewynd article includes very few data.

    I assume you have a copy of my paper to BJA. Otherwise let me know right away.

    PS Thank you for the European data from EEC Conference in Madrid.

[So the tobacco industry are now collecting or supplying his data, editing and supplementing his studies, 'adjusting' his citations, and providing answers for his critics. So why not have them write their own critique?]

1989 Jan 26: A memo from Jean Besques (PM EEMA) to Jack Nelson (Philip Morris NY) (ccd to Keith Ware) says that he has just received from Jean Boddewyn comments from an unknown peer-reviewer for the British Jounal of Addiction, on the Ekelund attack on the Chetwynd Study.
[Ekelund and Boddewyne were both commissioned to attack the Chetwynd Study]

This is to

allow you to give Ekelund & Jackson the benefit of the remarks and criticisms on Jean's draft (to spare your time, I also include a copy) since the same points are found, among others, in both Jean's and Ekelund & Jackson's papers.

    [Boddewyn had had his own critique rejected.]

1989 Jan 27: The Freedom to Advertise Coalition (run by the tobacco industry with newspaper and advertising members) has attacked an AMA conference on "Tobacco Use in America. It does not publish its tobacco connections.

The Freedom to Advertise Coalition is composed of the American Association of Advertising Agencies, The American Advertising Federation, The Association of National Advertisers, The Magazine Publishers Association, and The Outdoor Advertising Association of America.

    The Coalition was formed out of concern for the protection of the constitutional right to truthfully and non-deceptively advertise all legal products. The Coalition's concerns are not limited to restrictions or prohibitions on the advertising of specific products like tobacco. Our concerns are more fundamental. We are opposed to any encroachment on our First Amendment rights of commercial free speech.
They were also focussing on the Surgeon General
On January 11, 1989, the US Department of Health and Human Services released Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who has called for a tobacco-free society by the year 2000, is well known for his anti-tobacco position.
[Maybe because that is his job!]

1989 July 24: The day before Boddewyn is to appear at a Congressional hearing the IAA puts out a press release saying "Advertising is an insignificant factor in smoking initiation among juveniles." Boddewyn is one of the contacts, and the other is Richard Corner, supposedly of the IAA, but actually a

1989 July 24: Boddewyn & the CRU: Richard Corner (of Philip Morris) is listed as the contact and spokesperson for an International Advertising Association (IAA) press release, along with Professor Jean J Boddewyn. This news release is on IAA letterhead.

Advertising is an insignificant factor in the initiation of smoking among juveniles, according to a new study of 16 nations, Juvenile Smoking Initiation and Advertising, published by the International Advertising Association.
The basis for this amazingly counter-intuitive finding was that:
Over 15,000 juveniles were asked through personal interviews about the conditions, motivations, and circumstances of their first smoke. Personal curiosity and social influences surrounding thes potential smoker were found to be overwhelming factors for a juvenile's first smoke, while advertising was hardly mentioned.

    The study was edited by Professor JJ Boddewyn, PhD, affiliated with the Baruch College of the City University of New York, and it was conducted by the Childrens Research Unit based in London, under the supervision of Its Chairman, Glen Smith. [Smith was a long-term tobacco industry lackey and an expatriate Australian associate of Bryan Simpson and Andrew Whist]

    "The study demonstrates that advertising plays a negligible role, if any, in the Initiation of smoking by the young compared with that of personal and social factors," commented Professor Boddewyn in New York.

1989 Jul 27: Boddewyn (via Bodner Inc.) has sent a faxed copy of a WHO booklet "Pushing Smoke: Tobacco Advertising and Promotion" to the Tobacco Institute for information.

1989 Aug 16: Boddewyn has given evidence at some Congressional Subcommittee, and has then written a 'post-hearing' submission (answereing questions, or correcting mistakes) as has Scott Ward of Wharton. Covington & Burling, who handle such matters, has refered these statements to the Tobacco Institute for clearance before sending them to Congress for inclusion in the records.

1989 Aug 16: Professor JB Cohen of the University of Florida challenged statements Boddewyn had made at a Subcommittee on Transportation hearing, about the lack of effectiveness of tobacco advertising bans in various countries.

    Cohen had pointed out that they had proved to be effective in New Zealand, and said Boddewyn's 1986 work for the IAA

"were deficient and the conclusions simplistic, unjustified, erroneous and misleading."
They also questioned the sources of the data used in his IAA study.

Boddewyn statement

    In his response, he completely ignores his regular use of fallacious data derived from Glen Smith's Children's Research Unit, and tries to pretend that he only uses existing legitimate research.

    He then accuses Cohen of taking a
"cheap ad hominem shot because my scholarly record is extensive" [and because of] my employment by the World Health Organization as a consultant after the 1986 study.

    It is a measure of their inability to persuade on the merits of the case that they have now added personal attacks to their repertory.

He had previously sent the first draft of the letter to David Remes (a key tobacco lawyer at Covington & Burling) and Fred Panzer at the Tobacco Institute and they have made a few changes.
  • "Advertising bans have not been followed by decreases in overall tobacco consumption," [Changed to] "Advertising bans have no discertible effect on tobacco consumption trends."
  • [The same change to wording has been made on the following page — presumably because they didn't want the specific term "decrease" being used.]
  • [The TI has added an further attack to Para 3] "The extent to which the case against tobacco advertising bans is made by anti-tobacco advocates themselves is remarable indeed."
  • [His attack on Cohen which he says was] "in order to discredit me; instead of presenting his own reasoned conclusion. [Becomes] This was nothing more than an attempt to discredit me personally as an alternative to presenting his own reasoned conclusions. [...followed by the assumption that this tactic had come from New Zealand.]
  • [They also added that the critic's attack was due to personal jealousness.] It is a measure of their inability to persuade on the merits of the case that they have now added personal attacks to their repertory.
He says he is replying as a "matter of honor" — but he is so firmly in the tobacco industry's pocket that he needs legal clearance from the TI before he can sent the letter. He is also planning his attack at the Waxman Hearing due soon.

First draft Final letter

1989 Sept 8: Boddewyn is again being paid via his wife's company Bodner Inc. This time there are two payments: $3,500 to Bodner Inc and $580.85 to Jean Boddewyn.
[He would also often be paid by the other tobacco companies, and many of his payments would have been laundered through Covington & Burling which had a long-established system of hiding such payments.]

1989 Sep 26: Boddewyn has prepared an article "The Impact of Tobacco Advertising Bans on Tobacco Consumption, Smoking Initiation and Incidence" for the UK journal "Health Promotion." It has been rejected.

    He writes to the editor maintaining that the rejection was :

because — irrespective of any merit — my manuscript challenges WHO and other antismoking positions.
Their objections had been that:
  • their arguments boil down to saying that "nobody has ever said that an advertising ban will do the job all by itself," < li> that [his] survey data are questionable.
  • [that he] provided only "flawed evidence" since I deliberately chose to quote non-tobacco sources.
In conclusion, I really wonder about the possibility of having any article published in Health Promotion that challenges official antismoking positions. Maybe I should serve as one of your reviewers when you receive antismoking pieces for publication. I bet I could be more objective than the reviewers you presently use (I already serve on eight editorial boards in the management and marketing fields).

[God help us! Eight editorial boards! The whole field must be rife with charlatans, shills, crooks and grifters if Boddewyn is the best they can find.]

1989 Oct 16: A Philip Morris report on a wide range of activites in the East European, Scandinavian, Swiss and Middle East/North African (EEMA) region, and lists many of their underhand projects.

LIBERTAD Is a supposed grass-roots lawyers and journalists group of extreme freemarketeers who tour the world talking to journalists, and appearing on the media, to attack 'prohibitions' and the rise of the 'Nanny State'. They are simply academic or journalistic consultants who are recruited to tour as a sgroup whenever the need arises for some tobacco propaganda in some distant country.

We are working in cooperation with PM EEC to publicize in EEMA countries the messages being delivered during the current series of European LIBERTAD conferences. We are also making an effort to determine if such conferences can be scheduled in EEMA countries.

    Our efforts to expand the Children's Research Unit country database (with studies in Kuwait, Sweden, Switzerland & Turkey) on advertising's negligible impact on juvenile smoking initiation, and to merchandise the study results have born fruit this year. The updated 1989 IAA (INFOTAB) 16 Countries Report has been widely distributed and publicized in our priority markets

    EEMA Planning has initiated and is providing technical support to publish critiques of unfavorable studies on the impact of ad bans. A recent example is Jean Boddewyn's article in the 1989 fall issue of the BRITISH JOURNAL OF ADDICTION critically reviewing the New Zealand study by Chetwynd et al.

1989 Oct 16: According to a 1989 Corporate Affairs Action Plan, Philip Morris

"initiated and is providing technical support to publish critiques of unfavorable studies on the impact of ad bans.

    A recent example is Jean Boddewyn's article in the 1989 fall issue of the British Journal Of Addiction critically reviewing the New Zealand study by Chetwynd et al."
(EEMA Regional Annual Report Regarding PMI Corporate Affairs Action Plan)

1989 Nov: The British Journal of Addiction carries an editoral and a number of Commentaries on advertising and smoking. The Editorial is titled "Advertising and Smoking — A Smouldering Debate". The editor comments:

Advertisements which promote tobacco brands have been restricted to varying degrees. Fifty-eight countries or around one-third of the United Nations have banned certain kinds of advertising, 20 of them being complete bans. The industry has responded by a variety of ingenious ruses to counter such bans, not only by expanding advertising in exempt media but particularly by sponsoring popular sporting and cultural events. With the proliferation of 'hot' electronic media and international broadcasting, it has proved difficult to eliminate 'indirect' advertising of tobacco.
The controversy in the pages of this journal were the result of the Chetwynd study.
The original study by Chetwynd et al. (1988), attracted attention both because of its extension of econometric analysis of smoking to another country and because it has purported to estimate the effect of industry advertising on consumption, a subject which remains controversial. It should be noted here that the data used by Chetwynd et aI. and re-estimated by Harrison er aI. (1989) was purchased by the New Zealand Department of Health which also made it available to researchers in another university who took a different approach but came up with similar results (Toxic Substances Board, 1989).

    In retrospect it appears clear that the original Chetwynd study was seriously flawed for two broad reasons: poor data and inappropriate methodology. However, the response by that research group [under Robin] Harrison (1989 [Toxic Substances Board]) has been spirited and has removed many of the most obvious objections.
He goes on to publish commentary by some tobacco consultants and some anti-smoking advocates:
  • "The Influence of Advertising on Tobacco Consumption: some problems with Chetwynd et al's analysis" by John D Jackson and Robert B Ekelund Jr. [both long-term tobacco industry lackies.]
  • "The Influence of Advertising on Tobacco consumption: a reply to Jackson & Ekelund." by Robin Harrison, Jane Chetwynd & Roderick J Brodie. [They conclude that while some flaws were in the original paper, their model and their analysis is still robust]
  • "There is No Convincing Evidence for a Relationship between Cigarette Advertising and Consumption" by JJ Boddewyn (another tobacco industry lackey.) [Boddewyn questions Chetwynd's ability to undertake impartial research... The pot calling the kettle black once again.]
  • "The Influence of Advertising on Tobacco Consumption: a reply to Boddewyn", by Jane Chetwynd, Roderick Brodie and Robin Harrison.
  • Simon Chapman, a prominent anti-smoking academic from Sydney University also chimes in with "The Limitations of Econometric Analysis in Cigarette Advertising Studies," He thinks these econometric studies are relatively useless, and points out that if advertising wasn't effective then the tobacco companies would not be the world's No. 1 advertisers.
  • Glen Smith, an Australian tobacco industry consultant who ran the Children's Research Unit from London to prove that advertising had no effect on recruiting new smokers — especially on children — [And was well paid for his services] also added his piece "The Effects of Tobacco Advertising on Children".
  • Luk Joossens, a Belgian Consumer researcher and control advocate adds "The Influences of Advertising on Tobacco Consumption: comments on Boddewyn & Chapman."

1990 May 4: Bruce Renshaw of the Tobacco Institute of New Zealand has written to Boddewyn asking him to give evidence to their Social Services Select Committee to counter the actions of Helen Clark, the Minister of Health against tobacco advertising and sponsorship. Their letter reveals that Boddewyn was 'available on call' whenever required by the tobacco industry any where in the world.

The purpose of this letter is to allert you to the possibility of our wishing to call on you too present a written subnvission, and further to the possibility that you may be required to appear before the Select Comunittee in Wellington, New Zealand to make further representations and answer questions.

    At tlus time we do not know the exact timing of the Select Committee Hearings, but estimate them to be in the mid-late June 1990 period. If required in person, this would necessitate your presence in New Zealand for a miniunum of 3 days.

1990 June 12: The Tobacco Institute of New Zealand (TINZ) has advised Philip Morris (who promoted the idea) that they are paying Boddewyn $10,000 for a report and his appearance at a NZ parliamentary hearing. The Newspaper Publisher's Association will act as the front, while Philip Morris will fund the operation.

This put Boddewyn in the position of having knowingly and deliberately conspired with the tobacco industry to deceive the New Zealand parliament.

[W]e have contracted Professor Jean Boddewyn to prepare a written submission and to visit New Zealand to appear before the Social Services Select Committee.

    In fact, we had previously written to Professor Boddewyn alerting him to the possibility of our requiring his serviices. Because he was travelling to Europe during early/mid June he sent us some material which he had already prepared for a 1989 US Congressional Committee along with amendments.

    We were able to submit it accordingly.

    As a consequence, there is no need for you to take any action re Boddewyn — it has already been arranged, but thank you. For your general information he will be in New Zealand at the invitation of the Newspaper Publishers Association of New Zealand.

    We thank you for agreeing to cover Professor Boddewyn's costs. These are:-
  • Fee US dollars — $10,000
  • Travel (say)     —  $5,000
          TOTAL     — $15,000
    [Travel: Business Class New York/Auckland/Wellington/Auckland /New York, plus accommodation.]

The letters of Bruce Renshaw (who was Executive Officer of the TINZ) exposed Boddewyn as a co-conspirator with the Tobacco Institute in deceiving the New Zealand parliament: The TINZ had written to him saying:
"Please understand that though this institute has made all the various arrangements with you, your visit to NZ will formally be at the invitation of, and in support of the Newspaper Publishers' Association."
Furthermore they outlined what they wanted the Select Committee to be told:
"Our evidence will prove that advertising has little or no effect on children" [and that] "ad bans do not work."

    "[W]e will need to counter the regularly expressed claims by the [Health] Minister [Helen Clark] and her supporters that in New Zealand 4000 deaths are directly attributable to smoking and 273 deaths are caused by passive smoking each year."
In response to media inquiries in 1999, the TINZ Director, Michael Thompson was reported as having:
"denied the Institute told Professor Boddewyn what to say... What we did was outline to Professor Boddewyn what the committee hearings were about so he could decide what line he might take" (The Press 1999).
Boddewyn's NZ Testimony transcript

1990 July 12: A Tobacco Institute document lists the editorial successes of a large number of the paid cash-for-comments academics and consultants. It outlines what each has done in the recent past.

Roger Blackwell
JJ Boddweyn
, professor of marketing and international business,
Baruch College of City University of New York

    7/25/89 Testimony on behalf of TI on advertising bans and consumption (H.R. 1250)

1990 Aug: Sam Chilcote to Members of the Executive Committee of the Tobacco Institute.

[A]t the June meeting, this Committee asked Institute staff to make further revisions in a proposal to develop a "celebrity" speakers' program. At the same time, Philip Morris offered to share with Institute staff its own list of potential candidates, that it had developed independently.

    Those tasks have been completed. And while it is clear that there are a number of individuals who can and are speaking out on our issues independent of The Institute, there also is much more that could be done. There are, for example, opportunities to develop higher profiles for those individuals with whom we enjoy an existing relationship, and to increase within the media an awareness of their availability.

    There also are a number of individuals who have been identified who do not currently have a relationship with the industry, but whose views appear to be compatible with our own. The addition of new speakers to our program will be expensive.

    Most of these individuals command substantial consulting fees; media and other activity will require a new commitment of funds, although an exact amount cannot be determined until candidates have been approached.
The list of potential candidates includes two from Barach College:
Dr J. J. BODDEWYN, professor of marketing and international business, Baruch College of City University of New York.

LEON SCHIFFMAN, professor of marketing, Baruch College of City University of New York, author of a text on consumer behavior.

1990 Aug 3: Sam Chilcote at the Tobacco Institute has advised the Members of the Executive Committee of plans to develop a celebrity speakers program using academics and other expert consultants. They offer the speakers both money and personal/companypromotion:

[W]hile it is clear that there are a number of individuals who can and are speaking out on our issues independent of The Institute, there also is much more that could be done. There are, for example, opportunities to develop higher profiles for those individuals with whom we enjoy an existing relationship, and to increase within the media an awareness of their availability.

    There also are a number of individuals who have been identified who do not currently have a relationship with the industry, but whose views appear to be compatible with our own. Should the Executive Committee decide that it wants to proceed with an expansion of our speakers' program, these individuals would be contacted to determine their interest in our issues.

    The addition of new speakers to our program will be expensive. Most of these individuals command substantial consulting fees; media and other activity will require a new commitment of funds, although an exact amount cannot be determined until candidates have been approached.
He then lists:
  • Authors, newscasters and newspaper columnists
  • Well-known politicians, political aides, White House staffers, State authorities, agency administrators, etc
  • Heads of various coalition groups (American Advertising Federation. etc)
  • Cash-for-comments legal and business academics from Savarese's network list.
  • Cash-for-comments 'risk assessment' academics and promoter.
  • Cash-for-comment experts in indoor air pollution and ventilation systems.
  • Cash-for-comment academic economists
  • Many other collaborators and some likely allies:
This consultant along with about a hundred others, is thought to be a potential speaker. The category heading was :-
First Amendment/Constitutional Issues/Advertising Issues

Tobacco Institute list
  • Martin Redish — University of Chicago law professor, Redish already appears in the broadcast and print media on advertising and other Constitutional issues.
  • Burt Neuborne — Neuborne has represented the ACLU, the Freedom to Advertise Coalition and the tobacco industry, in Congress and in media forums on Constitutional issues.
  • Floyd Abrams — This pre-eminent First Amendment scholar has been most accommodating in Congressional and media appearances to defend the industry's right to advertise its products.
  • James Dickinson — This former Washington Post political writer might speak out against efforts to censor free speech through advertising bans and restrictions.

    Phillip Morris List[All PM consultants]
  • Howard H. Bell, president of the American Advertising Federation, Washington
  • Daniel L. Jaffe, executive vice president of government relations, Association of National Advertisers, Washington
  • Philip Kurland, professor of law, University of Chicago
  • Barry W. Lynn, legislative counsel, American Civil Liberties
  • Bert Neuborne, professor of law, New York University School of Law, formerly national legal director, American Civil Liberties Union
  • Martin H. Redish, professor of law, Northwestern University
  • Richard Mizerski, professor of marketing, Florida State University, former FTC staff member
  • Roger D. Blackwell, professor of marketing, Ohio State University and president of Blackwell Associates, a marketing consulting company
  • Dr J. J. Boddewyn, professor of marketing and international business, Baruch College of City University of New York
[A TI note on the PM List says those on the list above "have existing relationships that allows them to testify, conduct media tours, write op-eds, etc. as appropriate."]

[ In tobacco industry parlance, "Constitutional Issues" refers to the "Freedom to Advertise" or so-called "Commerical Free Speech" projects run in conjunction with the print and broadcast media.

1990 Nov: Philip Morris's Tom Osdene maintained a diary which provides plenty of uncensored information about his activities as a main disinformation executivte. See page 20

1991: Boddewyn wrote an article for Marketing News in 1991 that criticized "anti-tobacco advertising research," but the article and accompanying biographical note did not mention his financial ties to the tobacco.

The Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising, and other marketing-related publications have also carried writings by professors who received tobacco industry money, but have not disclosed the authors' industry ties.

    If advertising, marketing, and communication journals do not start requiring financial disclosure, they may get the publicity that Professor Boddewyn says they do not now get. But the headlines will read, "Conflicts of Interest Pervade Academic Journals" rather thatn "Tobacco Advertsing Harmless."

1991 June 16-21: XIV World Conference on Health Education in Helsinki Finland. Boddewyn has made an oral presentation "Tobacco Advertisements Bans: Pros, Cons and Alternatives" He boasts:

  • In the past 13 years I have conducted 18 international surveys on the regulation and self-regulation of advertising [in] 54 countries.
  • I have recently been an advisor to the WHO regarding the promotion of pharmaceutical products.
  • My articles on cigarette advertising and consumption have appeared in British Journal of Addiction [Warburton?]
  • personally I think young people should not smoke. [A new version of the consultant's plea of integrity.]
Despite all, he still opposes advertising bans

1991 Jun 13: The LIBERTAD operation has been run in Spain. This is a list of consultants at a Madrid media conference,

  • Peter Berger and Paul Dietrich are regulars both with Libertad tours and with the industry's stock-standard media briefings
  • Joe Pedelty is from Consolidated Safety Services, a company which did fake indoor air quality testing for the Tobacco Institute.
  • Tom Borelli was a top disinformation executive with Philip Morris, USA
  • Jean Boddewyn is listed as being fluent in both English and Spanish

1991 June 19: He has written for the Tobacco Institute (via lawyers Covington & Burling) a paper "Cigarette Advertising, Cigarette Advertising Bans, and Cigarette Consumption: The Flawed Connection."

    He has cleared this via the lawyers and the PR people at the Tobacco Institute. It is his oral presentation at the XIV World Conference on Health Education, in Helsinki, Finland.

1991 July 15: Sharon Boyse, the "Issues Manager" at British-American Tobacco is advising her South African subsidiary on countering advertising bans and running a symposium. She is critical of a list of experts submitted by Rembrant (the SA cigarette holding company), saying "It would be disastrous to get the wrong person on the wrong subject in such a situation."

It is very important that they are asked to help us in appropriate ways and on appropriate subjects. For some of them we should contact them (rather than Rembrant) directly — this is particularly true for Phil Witorsch and Jean Boddewyn.
  • Advertising: [Jean Boddewyn is] a better option than Glen Smith, simply because he is an all-rounder who is an expert on advertising bans and consumption but can also cover the children issue. [He] has published many studies in this area including a number of 'definitive' ones. He is based in New fork and is an excellent presenter and discussant. Again, he should be contacted through us.
  • Francis Roe He has been a consultant to BAT for many years. He is certainly an expert in the field of cancer research (though perhaps he has been a private consultant for too long and is too associated with the industry) but he is not an expert on ETS — there are many who are much more knowledgeable, and Francis will most definitely not argue our position on active smoking very strongly.
  • Phil Witorsch is the best option on ETS and health. There are several alternatives if he is unavailable. Phil Witorsch is an excellent witness on ETS but has never worked on active smoking. Again, BAT have worked with him in the past. Would thoroughly recommend him but please ask Rembrant to observe industry consultant development sensitivities and contact him through me at BAT. A direct approach will ruffle feathers not only at BAT but elsewhere.
  • Gordon Cumming - definitely not. He has been a consultant to Rothmans for years but I'm sure they, like us, would agree that he would be far from ideal in this situation. I have spoken to him about his views on smoking and disease and, quite frankly. he is uninformed. He is an expert in respiratory disease but this is not enough unless he has something sensible to say about smoking.
  • Alan Armitage is quite hopeless - years out of date and no credibility. Definitely not !
  • Glen Smith is good on children and advertising but is not expert in other fields i.e. whether advertising bans have any impact on consumption. See below for an alternative.
  • Petr Skrabanek is an eccentric academic who specialises in debunking' opinions that have become dogma but I have to say I don't know what his response would be if asked whether smoking causes disease. He needs further investigation on this issue.
  • Frank Sullivan knows only about smoking and pregnancy and would only be useful to you on that subject. I would think he would not be worth the cost of bringing him out on that subject alone.
  • Peter Lee is indeed an expert on epidemiology and statistics and again has been a consultant to BAT for a number of years. However, he is inclined to be incomprehensible to non-experts and when asked will say that he definitely believes that smoking causes lung cancer. Definitely not appropriate in this regard.
  • David Warburton - defnitely the best on addiction. If unavailable, an alternative would be Professor Ian Hindmarch of the University of Surrey, England. We have worked with him in the past and so have Rothmans.
  • Paul Dietrich: You may like to consider the possibility of having Paul Dietrich in South Africa to talk about WHO priorities and role. This should not be linked to your other experts and ideally should have no direct link to the tobacco industry.

        One of the things that has been tried successfully elsewhere is a media tour organised by a PR agency. Paul has a number of platforms on which to justify such an activity: he is a member of the board of the PAN-American Health Organisation. the Latin American branch of PAHO. as well as being head of the Catholic university and associated Institute for World Health and Development in Washington D.C.

[Boyse is over-selling Paul Dietrich here, and also getting things wrong. He was a member of PAHO's advisory board (alongside Jimmy Carter); a WashingtonDC board member for the local Catholic University; and ran the PM lobby group, the Institute for International Health and Development (IIHD) which had Catholic University support — but was totally a tobacco industry lobby organisation.]

1991 Aug 22: BAT's Sharon Boyse memo "Caribbean Media Briefing" to be held Feb 3 1992. The speakers are confirmed.

  • Sharon Boyse will speak on active smoking
  • Phil Witorsch on ETS-health
  • Gray Robertson on indoor air quality (IAQ)
  • Jean Boddewyn on advertising
  • Paul Dietrich on WHO
  • Ian Hindmarch on addiction.
Paul Dietrich was the most expensive:
Costs: Paul Dietrich is probably our most expensive speaker and he charges US $1600 per working day (not days spent sightseeing!) and first class air travel (from Washington); all other speakers are also from the New York/Washington area and daily rates and travel class are yet to be confirmed. However, the presenter on addiction [Hindmarch] comes from the UK.

1991 Aug 28: He has faxed an op-ed he has written: "Lessons from the Canadian Tobacco-Advertising Ban Decision" to Sharon Boyse at BAT. The cigarette advertising ban has been overturned by a Canadian appeal court judge who had remarked that 'the word "dog" never bit anyone.' [Aristotle's defence of free speech]

The societal problem lies with tobacco use — not with tobacco advertising which has not been proven to cause health problems by itself, to induce consumption, to reassure smokers, to maintain the respectability of stroking, to be so inherently attractive as to distort reality, and to be reinforced by the nicotine dependence of smokers — all common criticisms of tobacco advertising.

    His note to Sharon Boyse shows that BAT and Philip Morris (Aurora Gonzalez) where planning another lecture in Argentina, as a follow up to a tour covering Madrid and Caracas. Philip Morris want to make some 'minor corrections' to his Spanish lecture notes, and he is seeking Boyse's approval for the addition of some new material based on the Canadian legal decision.

1991 Nov 4: Sharon Boyse at BAT has confirmed media briefing in Argentina. Attending will be Paul Dietrich, Jean Boddewyn and Phil Witorsch. They will be there for a week from Nov 4, except for Dietrich who needs to be in Washington on the 6th for a PAHO meeting.

1991 Dec 17: Boddewyn is opposing a proposed New York City law on public smoking and advertising. He says he represents the American Advertising Federation. But he sends a copy of his submission to the Tobacco Institute.

1992 Jan 8: He is now working for Sharon Boyse, the Issues Manager at British-American Tobacco in London who ran many of the industry's media conferences in South America and the Carribean. He was faxing her (1) a filled-in form to apply for a work permit (2) a short resume. I will send the photographs and letters of reference to Mrs Demming in Trinidad by fast mail (but no police certificate).

1992 Feb 4: He is lecturing in Trinidad & Tobago, and accompanied by his wife.

1992 Mar 20: Philip Morris, Issues Management — Weekly Report Jean Boddewyn is coming in to visit Lance Pressl at Philip Morris. At this time Pressl (A German working in the USA) was Regional Director of Government Affairs. He was the rising star in the disinformation divisions of Philip Morris. His primary respnsibility was in countering advertising-bans and he lists his activites

  • Attended AAF Conference.
  • Attended MS Civil Liberties Union Conference on Free Speech. Speakers: Jean Boddewyn & Carla Michelotti.
  • Met with Caesar Rodriguez & Aurora Gonzales re: youth initiatives for South America, will supply argumentation.

1992 Mar 25: BAT memo on "Industrial Briefings Sessions for the Media." [ie How to organise journalist's junkets] This memo recommended:

  • ETS — The best person to carry out presentations on ETS and health is Professor Philip Witorsch from the USA. This is essentially a good and not too technical overview of why many scientists do not accept the claims that ETS causes diseases such as lung cancer.
  • IAQ — Someone from Healthy Buildings International, either Gray Robertson or Simon Turner, was originally used for this presentation. However, HBI have now decided to stop participating in these events, and alternatives are available from Consolidated Services Inc. in the USA or Chris Proctor from Covington & Burling.
  • Active Smoking — Sharon Boyse (BAT's Issue Specialist)
  • Advertising — Prof Jean Boddewyn from New York has proven to be a useful speaker here, covering all issues (including children and sponsorship if necessary) thoroughly, if somewhat unpredictably.
  • Young People and Smoking — [On] why young people experiment with smoking and what makes young people smoke. Glen Smith of the UK-based Children's Research Unit is available for this purpose.
  • WHO — The star of every journalist briefing has always been Paul Dietrich, who gives an excellent presentation questioning the priorities of the WHO.

1992 Mar 25: British-American Tobacco and Philip Morris are running briefing sessions for the media in Latin America and the Caribbean. This memo advises the various national companies how to organize such a briefing for their own journalists and editors.

By educating them about our position and providing the backup of independent international experts, the aim is to make the media take our views more seriously, and to increase the chances that they will offer us the chance to comment as issues arise because they have learned that we have an opinion worth listening to and one that reflects the vie s of international experts.
They should invite 15-20 journalists to a beach resort for two days. They hope that journalist will later contact the 'independent international experts" (paid consultants/academic lobbyists)

    Recommended as "independent experts"
  • Philip Witorsch for ETS (passive smoking)
  • Gray Robertson or Simon Turner from HBI for Indoor Air Quality
  • Chris Proctor or someone from Consolidated Services Inc. for IAQ
  • Jean Boddewyn for Advertising
    ADVERTISING - Professor Jean Boddewyn from New York has proven to be a useful speaker here, covering all issues (including children and sponsorship if necessary) thoroughly, if somewhat unpredictably. Alternative speakers from the US are available.
  • Glen Smith for Young People smoking (Children's Research Unit)
  • Paul Dietrich for opposion to WHO
  • Ian Hindmarch for Addiction (a BAT consultant)

1992 May 18: Philip Morris, Issues Management — Weekly Report Jean Boddewyn is coming in to visit Lance Pressl at Philip Morris. He lists his activites this month.

  • Washington Legal Foundation will submit a piece on Commercial Speech for this edition of PMES.
  • Formalized contract with Charles Jameson for marketing studies. He has already visited CDC and HHS archives for comparative data. Jean Boddewyn is coming in next week to talk with JB [John Boltz - New York Regional Manager], VH [Vic Han - Washington DC Issues Manager] and me about how the studies can be disseminated.

    [Charles Jameson operated through Young Rubicam ad agency and most of his documents are still privileged and unavailable. (There is a later Charles Jameson from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who doesn't appear to be the same person.)

    A Feb 2002 deposition of Christina Hollis in the USA vs Philip Morris Inc. case. She was a Philip Morris employee working on their Youth Smoking Prevention (sic) project looking at genuine studies about why teenagers smoked.
    Q. Who were the primary independent contractors that Philip Morris worked with on those?
        A. We worked a lot with a group called the K group. We worked with Greenfield Consulting. And we worked a lot with Charles Jameson. [They were supposedly using focus groups to design ads directed at youth to prevent them from smoking. So, while ads didn't encourage youth to smoke, they could discourage them....?
Philip Morris had a whole department with dozens of analysts doing the same sort of research as Boddewyn and the CRU, but keeping the information secret within the company]

1992 May 19: Meeting to discuss PM Research grants in 1993. It lists those under the control of the industry lawyers Covington & Burling and Shook Hardy & Bacon:

Peter Atteslander (Swiss), Karl Baettig (Swiss), D Bienfait (Fr),
Claude Bieva (Belg), Jean Boddewgn (sic) (Belgium), Angelo Cerioli (It),
Guy Crepat (Fr), Jacques Descotes (USA/Fr], Sal DiNardi (USA),
John Faccini (Fr), Andre Fave (Fr), Jan ER Frijters (Nether),
Roland Fritsch (Fr), Gio Gori (USA), John Gorrod (UK),
Pierre Guisnet (Fr), P Hellstroem (Swed), MP Iurato (It),
K Sune Larsson (Swed), Peter N Lee (UK), George B Leslie (UK),
Frank Lunau (UK), Tors Malmfors (Swed), Luigi Manzo (It),
Bernice Martin (UK), Bo Mikaelsson (Fr), A Navarro (Fr),
Georg Neurath (Ger), Odd Nilsen (Nor), Roger Perry (UK),
A Poma (It), Mark Reasor (USA), Andre Rico (Fr),
Gray Robertson (USA) Francis JC Roe (UK), Berthold Schneider (Ger)
Sorrell Schwartz (USA), A Sherlock (UK), Petr Skrabenek (Ire),
J-P Tassin (Fr), Daniel Thorburn (Swed), G Tymen (Fr),
Alain Viala (Fr), Tage Voss (Den), John Wahren (Swed),
David Warburton (UK), DF ('Max') Weetman (UK), Lars Werkoe (Swed),
Arne Westlin (Swed)

    They also outline in more detail some other projects for
  • [Ragnar] Rylander
  • Case Western Uni ( Friedland and Whitehouse)
  • Meyer Friedman Institute (SF)
  • Australian ATRF grants
  • INBIFO budget $14 million
  • Netherlands (Stitchting)
  • Switzerland (AFSC)
  • Belgium (Fetetab)
  • Duke University ( Red Williams)
  • Medical College of Virginia - Linden Eves
  • Johns Hopkins
  • Peter Lee
  • D Warburton (Quality of Life - multi-industry support)
  • USA Consultants
    • [Leo] Abood,
    • [Philip] Guzelian
[With the possible exception of Linden Eves, these are all well-known tame tobacco scientist/lobbyists who were regularly bought in exchange for consultancies or so-called grant money.]
[Note that Boddewyn is being listed here as Belgian, despite him working in the USA.]

1992 May 20: Covington & Burling internal report outlines the information obtained from Philip Morris on current research projects. The writer says

If anything is omitted, please let me know as soon as possible. I would not like anything to show up later which will affect our funding decisions for 1993.
It lists the research currently being sponsored by Philip Morris (mainly) via the lawyers. These are one-year commitments for (mostly genuine) research being done in Europe to keep any adverse findings out of the hands of US plaintiff lawyers (via legal discovery):
  • Caboche $20,400;
  • Tassin $89,100;
  • Dusser $57,300;
  • Molimard $63,600;
  • Micheletti $57,300;
  • Hirt $95,000;
  • Syrjaenen $131,800;
  • Schnneider $98,700;
  • Symann $55,000;
  • Vincze $60,000
There is also a list of payment to tobacco-friends for dubious and fake research under the ETS banner.
  • Gerrod of Kings College $37,900 + $55,600 (seemingly for alkaloid enhancement of nicotine's addictive qualities);
  • Weetman (IAI) for "Decision making" $50,000 ;
  • Nilsen for Nicotine Measurements $252,400 (something they could do better themselves.)
[All of the above are long-term researchers who do fake research for the industry and run lobbying operations.] There is also a few million dollars worth of research to be conducted in Holland, Belgium, Switzerland.
Australia has continuing grants (PM pays 1/3rd total in Aust dollar) $147,000 and new grants (to PG Board $49,733; DG Byrne $76,690; and JE Kellow $44,235), plus "Scholarships" $46,000 and unspecified "Program Grants" of $187,000.
TOTAL $550,818 of which Philip Morris paid $192,786
Other main grants:
  • INBIFO had a yearly budget of $14 m (includes CRC)
  • PM USA
    • [Leo] Abood $90,000
    • [Philip] Guzelian $100,000 + $1k/day consulting fee
    • [Ragnar] Rylander (3 projects — 1 with Linda Koo) $150,000 pa
  • Case Western University — [Robert] Friedland and [Peter] Whitehouse (Altzheimers) $1.24m + $2.1m +$700,000
  • Myer Friedman Institute (Stress) $697,000 pa ($6.5m over years 1988-93)
  • Duke University ( Dr Red Williams) (Stress) $380,000 pa
  • Medical College of Virginia ( Linden Eves)
  • Verband DM5.8m


Miscellaneous or unrecorded handlers:
  • Hans Altmann (molecular biologist) Austrian; Karl Baettig (nicotine) (Swiss) handled by (FTR/Gaisch)
  • Digby Anderson; John Gerrod [JW Gorrod] handled by P Martin (UK London)
  • Peter Attslander handled by SHB (Switzerland)
  • JER Frijters (part of ARISE group) (Netherlands)
  • A Sherlock; DM Warburton (nicotine) (UK)
  • JP Tassin (nicotine) (France)
  • T Voss; J Wahren (nicotine and ARISE) (Sweden)

Handled by Covington & Burling:
  • P Lee; GB Leslie; F Lanau; B Martin; R Perry; FJC Roe; DF Weetman (UK)
  • D Bienfait; G Crepat (member of ARIA) <<; P Guisnet; B Mikaelsson; A Navarro; A Rico; G Tymen; A Viala; (France),
  • C Bieva; Jean Boddewyn (Belgium)
  • A Cerioli (science communications); MP Iurato; L Manzo; A Poma; (Italy)
  • J Decotes (ETS); S Dinardi; J Faccini; A Fave; R Fritsch; G Gori; M Reasor; G Robertson; S Schwartz (USA)
  • P Hellstroem; KS Larsson; T Malmfors; D Thorburn; L Werkoe; A Westlin (Sweden)
  • G Neurath; B Schneider(Germany)
  • O Nilsen (Norway)
  • P Skrabenek (Ireland)

1992 Nov 11: British-American Tobacco in Indonesia has accidentally sent the $5,051 payment for Prof Jean Boddewyn's services for a media briefing in Bali (7 Oct 92) to his College, rather than to him directly. They have had to correct the payment.

    Also speaking at this media briefing were other well-known tobacco academics, Prof Philip Witorsch (US), Prof Ian Hindmarch (UK), Paul Dietrich (US editor/lobbyist) and Chris Proctor (ex BAT chief scientists, working through lawyers Covington & Burling). Psychopharma Ltd. was a private company which laundered some of Hindmarch's payments.

See Hindmarch's bill General Payments Details

1993: He begins a retained consultancy agreement with British-American Tobacco on the basis of four quarterly payments of $1,500 each paid into his Belgium bank account.

1993 Jan 12: He submits his first quarterly invoice for the BAT consulting work to Sharon Boyse. Note that he asks for the $1,500 quarterly payment before the work is done.

    Payment is to be made into the ING Bank Belgium.

1993 Sept 20: Jean Boddewyn has just completed a lecture tour of South Africa, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka for Sharon Boyse at British-American Tobacco. He needs his airfare expenses of $10,679.15 to be deposited urgently into his ING Bank Belgium account before his American Express card bounces.

    He has been travelling around the world for BAT from Oct 5 to the 24th (Apparently accompanied by his wife, with four days off in Hawaii)

1993 Oct: He has made a lecture tour for BAT of the Indian subcontinent. He wants reimbursement of $10,678.15 for airfares, and $15,385 for his fees and some miscellaneous expenses.

1993 Nov 8: He is billing Sharon Boyse of BAT for his tour giving media seminars in South Africa and India. His fee is $15,000 and he has $385 in small expenses (apart from the airfares, paid separately)

Thank you for this great opportunity to assist you and to enjoy your company once more! Sophia deserves a great big hug for all her hard work during the past six months!

1993 Dec: The Journal of Advertising has published a paper by Boddewyn which

raises important issues about the social importance and objectivity of academic research. One major issue concerns the social relevance of the advertising research conducted by academics, which Professor Boddewyn contends is largely neglected by the mass media. This neglect "renders main-line advertising scholars irrelevant."

[What renders some of them irrelevant is their addiction to suckling at the teat of the tobacco companies.]
Boddewyn's contention is that only JAMA and the medical journals publish advertising research, and these are overwhelmingly critical. Lawrence C Soley, Professor of Communications at Marquette University, (author of 'The News Shapers') has been provided with a Guest Editorial: "Cigarette Advertising Smoke-filled Rooms and Research: A Response to Jean J. Boddewyn's Commentary."
There is no conspiracy by the media to play up antitobacco stories, nor is there a conspiracy by JAMA to get articles critical of tobacco advertising swiftly into print, as Professor Boddewyn suggests. In fact, newspaper and magazine trade as- sociations lobby against tobacco advertising restrictions.
[The tobacco industry probably paid Boddewyn to write this attack.]
[The only other name mentioned in this article is Scott Ward of Wharton, probably because he and Boddewyn had been so actively promoted by the tobacco industry that they were now seen as the two great authorities on the subject.]

1993 Dec 10: Karen Darangan of Philip Morris is sending a FYI memo to the Surgeon General's Task Force - preparing for the release of the Feb 1993 release. Boddewyn, Professor of Marketing & International Business, Baruch College CUNY is on their list of helpers.

PM advertising guide.

1993 Dec 31: BAT send an payment of $16,885 to Boddewyn's Belgium bank account.

1994: BAT "Marketing and Tobacco use" (draft only)

Q. If tobacco advertising was banned, surely young people would be less likely to start smoking?

    A. Evidence contained in research carried out and published in Finland, Norway and Sweden indicates that advertising does not influence youth to smoke. The most significant influences on the decision to smoke are peer pressure and parental influence.

    In Finland tobacco product advertising has been banned since 1978. However, researchers have reported that smoking amongst juveniles increased after the ban was imposed.

    Governments in different countries have adopted different regimes on the restriction of tobacco advertising but it has been said that "for every country with a ban, there is another without a ban that displayed a lower incidence of smoking".
    (J.J. Boddewyn - International Journal of Advertising 1994, 13, 311-312)

1994: Boddewyn, J., "Cigarette Advertising Bans and Smoking: The Rawed Policy Connection," International Journal of Advertising, 13(4), p. 319 (1994)

1994: In the International Journal of Advertising Boddewyn continues to spur his long-dead horse. "Cigarette Advertising Bans and Smoking: The Flawed Policy Connections."

    He now openly attacks the effectiveness of advertising bans on adults, claiming that experience does not show that bans are effective in curbing tobacco consumption.

1994: The Pan American Health Organisation (part of WHO) has produced a report "Profits Over People" looking at the way the tobacco industry infiltrated their Latin American operations and geneally influenced politicas and the media in this region.

    Boddewyn is listed as Affiliated with the International Advertising Association, and a speaker at both the Bariloche '91 and Venezuela '91 journalists conference.

    This document list the numerous scientific and academic lobbyists who worked for the tobacco industry and provided tainted information in the South American and Caribbean regions.

1994 Mar 14: He has been faxing Sharon Boyse's old secretary who has now left the company; he needs details of payments made to him in 1991, Boyce's new secretary advises him of the Accounting Departments records of payments:

  • Mar 1 1991 — $1,500 fee
  • Mar 31 1991 — $1,500 fee
  • Oct 31 1991 — $ 15,385 fee and expenses
  • Dec 31 1991 — $1,500 fee $10,678.14 airfare expenses

    Further the above it would appear that the quarterly invoice for July to September has not been paid. I have referred to the departmental files and cannot find reference to your invoice for the quater's consultancy services. If you are in fact missing a payment, please re-submit for the period in question.
A second page shows that corrections were made and later bills for his consultancy and services were paid.
  • Jan 12 — Feb 29 1993 — $975 Jan - Mar (Handnote says $1,500)
  • Apr 20 — May 31 1993 — $952 Apr-June (Handnote says $1,500
  • Sept 20 — Oct 31 1993 — $7,059
  • Nov 4 — Dec 31 1993 — $1,000 consultancy fee
  • Nov 4 — Dec 31 1993 — $10,339 (unspecified)

1994 Apr 22: David Bacon, an Issues Manager at British-American Tobacco, writes to Boddewyn. He has taken over the control of Boddewyn from Brendan Brady.

Dear Jean
I have arranged for payment of the second quarter invoice which we receved here recently.

Might I suggest that next time you're in the UK we make time to meet?
A handnote added by Boddewyn says that he will be
"away in Brussels from June 2 to 20. Just a detail about the remittances/payments you are checking. The payment mentioned below has not yet reached my bank in Burrsls. It seems that your Treasury Dept. takes a long time to send the payments you request (about 6 weeks according to my bank statements)

    That may explain why we are still trying to find one payment of US$1,500 of last year.
A second note says:
ING Bank (Brussels) just notified me today that payment from BAT had been received on May 27. Thanks.

[The payment of $1,500 later turned up as paid via Baruch College, but made out to the ING Bank, Brussels A/C No 627-800-6115-51. He believes the problem arises from BAT combining his consulting fees with expenses reimbursements. ]

1994 May 16: He has sent the accounts department of British-American Tobacco his Belgium bank account details.

1994 June: In a letter to the editor of the Scandinavian Journal of Soc. Medicine, he returns the criticism of Scandinavian researchers who had attacked his claims made at the XIV World Conference on Health Education in Helsinki. They have objected strongly to Boddewyn's interpretation of their research.

My central theme was that the data from Finland and Norway did not show a decline in smoking, among young people or adults, following the imposition of tobacco advertising bans in those countries.

    In developing this theme, I drew upon data published by these authors, who favor tobacco advertising bans. They now claim that I have "misused" their work.

    Regarding Norway, they suggest that smoking among 13-15 year-old schoolchildren increased between 1963 and 1975, the year when tobacco advertising was banned in that country, and declined significantly thereafter.
He is now constantly under seige from the people who's data he was misusing.

1995,: Professor Boddewyn sent a letter to the New York Times criticizing them for continuing to cite 1991 studies of the impact of Joe Camel advertising on youth. Professor Boddewyn argued that the 1991 studies had been debunked by at least three other researchers. He did nor disclose, however, that at least two of the researchers received funding from the tobacco industry, and that all of the studies were published in marketing journals.http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xak86d00/pdf

1995 Aug: Robert Higgs, Jean Boddewyn, Dwight Lee and other cash-for-comments economists are involved in two related battles in support of the tobacco industry:

  • An attempt to discredit David Kessler and the FDA to block them controlling aspects of the cigarette industry.
  • Attempts by the advertising industry to maintain tobacco advertising.
There are a mass (204 pages) of press clippings and notes on media contacts from this RJ Reynolds file.

    The industry has struck (or is in the process of striking) coalition deals with these think-tank allies over the FDA problem.
  • The Alexis De Tocqueville Institution
  • The Small Business Survival Committee
  • Frontiers of Freedom
  • The Independent Institute
  • The Business Leadership Council
  • National Center for Policy Analysis
  • Institute for Policy Innovation
  • Capital Research
  • CATO lnstitute
  • Citizens for a Sound Economy
  • Citizens Against Government Waste
  • Heritage Foundation
They have also co-opted sections of the Veterans organizations, unleashed the Freedom to Advertise Coalition and frightened senior citizens, and both organised labor and the agricultural sector.

1995 Dec 22: Boddewyn has sent comments on the proposed FDA " Regulations Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes." He now admits that this has been prepared at the request of the Tobacco Institute.

    He advises Carol Hrycaj that he has sent the FDA four copies by certified mail.
    One inclusion is an older article where he says that

most of the sources cited by the FDA concerning the impact of advertising on juvenile smoking behavior have appeared in medical and public-health journals rather than in advertising, marketing and consumer-behavior journals or conference proceedings, where the antismoking authors would have benefited from the critiques of reviewers well versed in advertising theory and practice as well as in consumer behavior, including that of children and adolescents.

[He also trots out the old statistical mantra that they are confusing statistical 'association' with 'causality'. No one can prove 'causality' of course.

    His letter to the FDA is on Baurch College letterhead, although he does admit that the comments were "prepared at the request of the Tobacco Institute". He writes about himself in the third person:
Dr Boddewyn is an acknowledged authority on advertising regulation and self-regulation around the world. He has published extensively on these topics — an experience which led him to conduct a survey for the World Health Organization on pharmaceutical advertising.

    His contributions have also been recognized by the Academy of Management, Academy of International Business and International Academy of Management, whichelected him Fellow of these organizations

1996 /E: Tobacco Institute 'facts' and 'quotes' document for use by Issues Staff and Regional Directors.

Numerous studies involving foreign countries which have imposed ad bans show that these steps do not result in a decline in cigarette consumption:
  • A 1983 study by the International Advertising Association, by Professor J.J. Boddewyn, of CUNY, concluded: "Advertising bans haven't been found to bring significant changes in tobacco consumption."
    • Study involved 16 countries with bans, eight in Western Europe and Asia (including Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Italy) and eight Eastern bloc nations.
    • In the most severely restricted - countries, cigarette consumption between 1970-1981 rose 25 percent overall and 14 percent on a per capita basis.
  • [The] International Advertising Association (IAA)'s 1983 study of the effect of ad bans on cigarette consumption was conducted by Professor J.J. Boddewyn, Baruch College, New York, New York. Dr Boddewyn is professor of marketing and international business.

    Conclusion: "... advertising bans have not been followed by significant changes in tobacco consumption."

1996 Jan 16-17: [Sample Invitation letter Dec 5 1995] Philip Morris runs annual 'Straight Talk" conferences..

  • [Service providers] It is our pleasure to invite you to our third "Straight Talk" conference to discuss issues of mutual concern to both our companies. The conference will be held on Thursday, January 11th, at the Grand Hyatt Hotel on E. 42nd Street (between Park and Lexington Avenues), in New York City.
  • [Corporate lobbyists] to discuss legislative and regulatory issues that currently face our company. The conference will be held January 16-17, at the Jefferson Hotel at Franklin and Adams Streets in Richmond, Virginia.
The annual "Straight Talk" meetings were launched two years ago as a way for PM USA to communicate with our suppliers about the need to join forces and work as a team in support of our mutual benefit. We believe that your attendance at this meeting will be beneficial to you as you support the company in its legislative issues.
Marilyn Bodner (Boddewyn) appears to have attended as Jean's representative — see below.

1996 Feb 5: Boddewyn's wife and her company Bodner Inc. figure on a list of advertising agencies and other tobacco industry service companies which had attended Philip Morris's January 11th "Straight Talk Conference".

Marilyn Bodner is credited as the proprietor of this company which provides "Human Resources".

    Companies were invited to these annual meetings

1996 March 18: Boddewyn has been reduced to making direct approaches to the Tobacco Institute for work..

    He has written to the Tobacco Institute's Issues Manager Carlo Hrycaj (on first-name terms) asking her to subsidize his attendance at a Marketing and Public Policy Conference. She has circulate the letter with a note...

...another solicitation! Not a bad idea since he isn't shy to ask questions, if appropriate.

    Since he's not asking us for a consulttion fee I'm incined to recommend a $400 cap.

1998 Oct: Anti-tobacco researcher Norbert Hirschhorn has documented the use of Boddewyn by the tobacco industry:

[In the 1980s'] The IAA selected Jean J. Boddewyn, Professor of Marketing and International Business, Baruch College, City University of New York, to edit a report prepared by and from industry sources, using data assembled from official and trade organizations.

The report`s first English edition was in October 1983, the second in April 1986, and was titled Tobacco Advertising Bans and Consumption in 16 Countries. Boddewyn was selected because of his numerous works for IAA on advertising regulations.

    At about the same time, the Tobacco Institute of Australia invited Mr. Glen Smith (originally from Australia), Managing Director of the Children`s Research Unit of London, England, to critique the Commonwealth Department of Health`s Technical Information Bulleting No. 66 of April 1981 on methods to assess student drug use, and two important Australian 1981 studies on advertising as factor associated with smoking uptake by childen.

    The disparaging critiques of the studies came in letters dated 21 August 1981 and 3 March 1982 and are both abstracted and cited in full by the Tobacco Institute of Australia in an April 1982 document marked STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL.

    In August of 1986, IAA published Smith`s study in five countries, called Why Do Juveniles Start Smoking? The paper was edited and prefaced by J.J. Boddewyn.

[The Norwegian research at a minimum was under the control of INFOTAB.]

    Boddewyn then combined his sixteen country study of adult tobacco consumption with Smith`s study of juvenile initiation in presenting testimony before United States Congress Subcommittee on Health and the Environment (Committee on Commerce and Energy), 1 August 1986 and 27 July 1987. [Also twice in Canada]
At the recommendation of Bryan Simpson, Smith then approached the US Tobacco Institute to add a US study to their data:
Whilst we cannot predict research findings, our experience in five countries suggests that it would be feasible to expect
    parallel findings in the USA.
A number of related documents show that Anne Duffin of the Tobacco Institute had serious concerns developed about his methodology. She then suggested that an alternate approach should be recommended:
"Have Savarese/Tollison identify a non-tax economist [suggested name REDACTED] to duplicate the Lester Johnson study "Advertising Expenditure and Aggregate Demand for Cigarettes in Australia." Sign up the researcher to testify on his findings."

    Such a study probably could be done in 30 days and be a helluiva lot cheapter than $86,000.

[She suggests that the research should not be fronted by the tobacco industry, but preferably by some advertising organisation.]

Tobacco Institute concerns
TI objections

Hirschhorn report

From: Jean Boddewyn
Subject: Removal of material concerning me
Date: 17 August 2013
To: editor@sciencecorruption.com

Dear Editor:

I would appreciate your removing material concerning my work for the tobacco industry. For one thing, I have not worked for it for twenty years. Second, several of the statements would require some answers from me. And, third, much of my work on tobacco advertising was validated by publication in important Journals. I am now retired and no longer participating in tobacco-advertising research. Your attention to this request will be greatly appreciated.

Best regards,

Jean Boddewyn
Emeritus Professor
Baruch College (CUNY)


CONTRIBUTORS:dlo2 scsu ent2

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License