The “Global Settlement” With the Tobacco Industry: 6 Years Later

Abstract

On June 20, 1997 a group of attorneys and health advocates proposed a "global settlement" of all public and private litigation against the tobacco industry. This agreement was controversial, and the subsequent implementing legislation was defeated. We sought to determine whether the global settlement represented a "missed opportunity" or a dead end. We compared the global settlement with subsequent laws, regulations, settlements, and judgments against the tobacco industry and found that other than Food and Drug Administration regulation of tobacco, tobacco control advocates have achieved many of the policies included in the global settlement and several beyond it. The policies that have been developed since 1997 have advanced tobacco control substantially, often beyond the provisions of the global settlement.

Avoiding “Truth”: Tobacco Industry Promotion of Life Skills Training

“…In 1998, the year after the CDC identified these two programs as "effective," the proposed "global settlement" of all public and private litigation against the tobacco industry that would have effectively immunized the industry from future litigation in the United States, collapsed [15]. During this time, the industry sought new opportunities to gain public support and credibility and to protect itself against future litigation [16].…”

The Secret Life of Focus Groups: Robert Merton and the Diffusion of a Research Method

“…Marx, who argues social scientists should make more use of such data, points, for example, to the use of evidence presented to US Senate committee hearings on anti-trust violations by researchers studying white-collar crime (Geis 1968;Baker and Faulkner 1991). Very large volumes of previously secret tobacco company documents have been made public as the result of settlements reached to litigation between the tobacco industry and a number of US states, health insurers, and private individuals, (Givel and Glantz 2004). Increasingly made available on the Internet in a form that permits free text searching, the documents, going back some 50 years, provide a remarkable insight into the workings of the industry (Bero 2003) 15 .…”

Consent and Counter-Mobilization: The Case of The National Smokers Alliance

“…These campaigns were at the federal (Adkins, 1994;Auxier, 1996;Campbell, 1993;Givel & Glantz, 2004;NSA, 1994dNSA, , 1998Philip Morris, 1994a, 1994b, 1994c, 1994d, 1994f, 1994g, 1995 (The post office and the smokers, 1994), Tobacco Control Resource Center, 1996Center, , 1997Center, , 1998Center, , 2000 Derks, 1997;Herbeck, 1999;Hilts, 1994;Magzamen & Glantz, 1999NSA, 1994aNSA, , 1994bNSA, , 1994cNSA, , 1995bStuckey, 1999), and local levels (Americans for Nonsmokers ' Rights Foundation, 1999;Aucoin, 1995;Auxlier, 1997;Bialous & Glantz, 1998;Corwin, 1997aCorwin, , 1997bCorwin, , 1997cCox, 1995;Dearlove & Glantz, 2000;Farragher, 1998;Fentress, 1999;Fentriss, 1999;Givel & Glantz, 2001;Herbeck, 1999;Herscher, 1994;Kennedy, 1994;Lofholm, 1998;Mial, 1996;Miller, 1997;Mizejewski, 2000;NSA, 1995cNSA, , 1...…”

“…Throughout the 1990s, the conflict between the tobacco industry and health advocates over the regulation and taxing of tobacco products has been highly acrimonious and contentious (Derthick, 2001;Givel & Glantz, 2004;Pertschuk, 2001;Studlar, 2002). During this period, new health data such as the 1992 report by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designating secondhand tobacco smoke as a human carcinogen helped to reinvigorate significant new antitobacco actions (United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 1992).…”