By Anne Landman on June 02, 2009

The National Cancer Institute has awarded a five-year, $2.7 million grant to Northeastern University Law School to research how the tobacco, fast food and sweetened beverage industries use and exploit the concepts of "personal responsibility" and "choice" to avoid liability and litigation for diseases that result from use of their products. Law professor and public health advocate Richard A. Daynard will lead the project to analyze legal and regulatory forums, advertising, public relations campaigns and news coverage to examine how the tobacco industry utilizes personal responsibility rhetoric to influence courts, legislatures, regulatory agencies and public opinion. The project will then examine the extent to which the food and beverage industries have applied the same, or similar strategies to shift blame from source to consumer to avoid legal responsibility for widespread health problems. "If the burden for addressing the harm is left with the consumer rather than the manufacturer," Daynard said, "the manufacturer benefits -- often at the expense of public health."

Comments

Sounds like the GOP platform, also reminds one of the Zionist method of prevarication and procrastination to avoid having to upset the current, highly profitable, status quo.

Tobacco is considered one of the most addictive products on earth, 9 out of 10 smokers start as children or teenagers, and tobacco companies are known to spike nicotine levels in cigarettes to make them more addictive so kids get hooked faster. In what sense, then, does this represent a “choice”?

I hope someone finally does take a serious look at these Big Tobacco shills. You see this all over the internet now and occasionally in letters to the editor - which is to say, places where their BS won’t be subject to immediate and direct scrutiny by people who are able to refute it. This has become a sort of cottage industry: set up a website where you advance all the usual tobacco industry arguments and rhetoric, include a link to a PayPal account, and wait for those anonymous “donations” to roll in.

If you really want to get to the heart of the problem, I say tobacco companies' activities should be carefully monitored; we should know where every dime they spend goes. I predict we would then see a lot fewer smokers' advocacy organizations and so-called "citizens groups" which promote the tobacco industry's agenda thinly veiled as issues of "freedom," "choice” and “government encroachment.” And perhaps at least one less “tobacco control advocate” supporting those shills on his tobacco analysis blog. Though I suppose I can’t include a link to the most obvious offenders because PRwatch doesn’t enjoy being threatened with frivolous lawsuits, understandably.

It's truly most hypocritical when Big Tobacco avoids corporate responsibility by blaming the victims of their product, their profit.

Tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death in the USA today according to the CDC in Atlanta. "The Drug War" should be against Big Tobacco and their political allies like former United States Senator Elizabeth Dole and her husband Bob Dole.

My father started smoking in the 1940's and tried to quit many times- it was simply too addictive for him to quit. He didn't "just" die back in 2005 of lung cancer- he was intentionally murdered- for monetary gain. Don't we as a nation have laws against murder? for monetary gain?

After all, how many of the world's mega-corporations intentionally murder their customers?

Hollywood may have some blame here along with tobacco industry. Think about it. How many stars are glorified on the screen with a cigarette hanging from their lips giving appearance of coolness. If hollywood made smoking less glamorous it might help lower a generation of new smokers in the future.

If the bill had any teeth, would Philip Morris be supporting it?...Why?..read the link.
"The currently-proposed FDA regulations may sound good to those not steeped in the tobacco industry's behavioral history or long-range strategies, but predictably, given PM's involvement in crafting it, the bill is riddled with loopholes that clearly will benefit the tobacco industry, and leave protection of public health in the dust."
"...the bill elevates the needs of tobacco companies above the need for effective and immediate action to reduce nicotine addiction."
"How does passing legislation that is in the best financial interests of the largest, smartest and most aggressive tobacco company in the U.S. serve the public health agenda?"

Some posts are so one sided, it was a pleasure to see one written that allowed a person to see both sides.