LGST 001: Ethics and Social Responsibility (G6)

Group Presentation Report

Term 1, AY 2009-2010

Topic:

Ethics & International Business II– A Case-study of Big Tobacco

Prepared for:

Assistant Professor Mahdev Mohan

By:

Lau Pei En

Chiam Yan Wen

Choo Hui Shan Adeline

Ng Hui Li

Gan Jia Man

Eunice LAI Ci'ai

20 November 2009

Contents

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................3

1. Introduction: The Man Who Knew Too Much...................................................................3

1.1. Ethical Dilemmas Faced By Jeffrey Wigand..............................................................3

1.2. Ethical Dilemmas Faced By CBS................................................................................3

2. The U.S. Tobacco Bill........................................................................................................3

2.1. Background..................................................................................................................3

2.2. The Revised U.S. Tobacco Bill - FDA........................................................................3

3. Tobacco in Singapore.........................................................................................................3

3.1. The National Smoking Control Programme................................................................3

3.2. Additional Initiatives...................................................................................................3

3.3. Counter-Effectives of Initiatives.................................................................................3

4. Ethics of the Tobacco Industry...........................................................................................3

4.1. Freedom of Choice......................................................................................................3

4.2. Corporate Social Responsibility .................................................................................3

4.3. Concealment of Information........................................................................................3

5. Conclusion and Recomendations........................................................................................3

Bibliography...............................................................................................................................3

2

Executive Summary

3

1. Introduction: The Man Who Knew Too Much

The article ‘The Man Who Knew Too Much’ is a true story that has been eventually made into a

thriller. The setting of the show is the tobacco industry, and the story is about how a man – Jeffry

Wigand, who was the highest ranking executive to blow the whistle in the tobacco industry.

Jeffrey Wigand comes from the healthcare industry, having 17 years of experience before

deciding to switch to the tobacco industry. He has done so, mainly because Brown and

Williamson Tobacco Corp (B&W) wanted to produce a safer cigarette, something that can

compete with the cigarette made of little tar that has recently emerged in the market. Wigand felt

that he was a “man of science”, and “prided himself on his research skills”. Furthermore, he felt

that this was a good chance to produce less harmful cigarettes and benefit the community.

Therefore, he decided to switch industry, despite disapproval from many and reminders that he

would never be able to go back to the healthcare industry again.

The story unfolds as he discovers the trade secret, about how nicotine is addictive, how harmful

cigarettes actually are, and how the industry is concealing all this information and still

researching on how to increase their sales. He realizes that B&W is not serious about producing

a healthier cigarette, and was disgusted by how all the tobacco companies could lie to the public

about the actual effects of smoking. However, he could not leave the company as his daughter

had serious medical problems and he needed the medical coverage from the company.

By coincidence, Wigand meets the producer of 60 Minutes from CBS, who brought the idea of

whistle blowing into the picture. There were a lot of ethical dilemmas that Wigand went through

4

before successfully blowing the whistle. Things got complicated as he received death threats and

placed his family at risk, which led them to leaving him ultimately.

1.1. Ethical Dilemmas Faced By Jeffrey Wigand

1.1.1. Confidentially Agreement Vs Obligation to Assist

Wigand had signed a confidentially agreement with B & W but after he was fired, Bergman

requested for his assistance in translating a stack of documents relating to Tobacco Company.

Wigand likes to regards himself as a scientist and based on the expertise that he has, he felt that

he has the obligation to help Bergman in the investigation of Tobacco industry. However, this

will put him at risk of breaching the confidentiality contract that he had signed. Therefore, he

faces a dilemma as he is bounded by the contract which hinders him from helping Bergman.

1.1.2. Personal Interest Vs Ability to criticize B&W Publicly

In the breaching of lifelong contract, Wigand may lose the medical coverage for his daughter

which is a main concern for him as his daughter had some serious illness. Moreover, he may face

legal issues such as getting jailed for violating the contract. His wife also threatens to leave him

as she was so angry with him for quitting the job and was afraid that they may lose any claim to

their medical package. This placed an unbearable strain on their marriage.

Therefore although Wigand was urged by Bergman to do an interview for 60 Minutes to criticize

B & W publicly since he had sufficient evidence on hand, he had several personal interests to

consider such as the risk of losing his child’s medical insurance and his family.

5

1.1.3. Safety Vs Witnessing for the Lawsuit against Big Tobacco

Wigand was requested to be the witness for the suing against Big Tobacco to seek

reimbursement of Medicaid expenses resulting from smoking- related illness by proving that

cigarettes are addictive. As a result of this, Wigand had received death threats via email and find

a bullet in his mailbox. That put the safety of not only him but also his family at risk which

becomes a major factor to consider in continuing being the witness for lawsuit.

1.1.4. Privacy Vs Whistle-Blowing

Big Tobacco hired a PR firm to dig out details about Wigand’s life such as being an abuser in his

family and having shoplifting history. In addition, they published a 500-page document

criticizing his characters and ruin his reputation. This invades into his privacy which makes

Wigand hesitates whether to blow the whistle as there is decrease in the credibility of his words.

On the other hand, he feels that he should stop B&W from making further harm to their

consumers by announcing the real harmful effects of cigarettes to stop and prevent people from

smoking.

1.2. Ethical Dilemmas Faced By CBS

1.2.1 Conflict of Interest

6

Another ethical dilemma that surface in “The Man Who Knew Too Much” was regarding the

airing of the full testimony that Wigand taped after receiving the bomb treat at his house.

Initially, Bergman thought the only that the full interview should not be aired because CBS

Corporate raised the issue of the potential of being sued by Brown & Williamson for inducing

Wigand to breach his confidentiality contract. However, Bergman found out later on that there

was another major reason that constituted to the objection of airing the interview. They were

afraid that the potential lawsuit would jeopardize the sale of CBS to Westinghouse Cooperation.

A conflict of interest has arose because it was CBS responsibility to reveal to the public what

would they had a right to know, yet they were concerned about their personal benefits.

2. The U.S. Tobacco Bill

2.1. Background

The presence of global tobacco problems have resulted in a pressing need for regulatory

measures on the tobacco industry. There are three main issues that have raised the concerns of

authorities from different countries. Firstly, the increasing mortality rate caused by tobacco is

expected to account for 12% of all projected deaths by 2030, which adds up to an alarming

number of approximately 10 million (Stephen & Robert, 2001, p. 246). Secondly, smuggling and

advertising leakage of tobacco have raised a serious cross-border concern. With the aid of

technology like satellite broadcast, messages that promote smoking are no longer confined to the

boundary of a country. Lastly, the widespread and monopolistic positions of tobacco companies

have raised the possibilities of political and economic problems. Local brands are unable to

compete in the market. Similarly, the monopoly may be able to exert political pressure on the

7

local authorities. Therefore, with the evolution of the domestic control of tobacco to a global

complication, it has called for a need for collective effort from all the countries.

Prior to the actual control bill, efforts have been made to resolve these global tobacco problems.

For instance, the World Health Organization (WHO) has played the role as the main sponsors to

various conferences where research and political strategies have been discussed. In addition,

many initiatives have been done. International networks like the Globalink (www.uicc.ch) and

the international journal Tobacco Control (Stephen & Robert, 2001, p. 260), have been providing

key information on the current progress on the control efforts for the advocates. International

organizations like World Bank have also contributed actively; the World Bank released a book,

Curb the Epidemic in 1999 to encourage national leaders that their worries of massive job losses

as a result of regulated tobacco industry can be resolved. Countries might agree on a bilateral

basis to curb cross-border problems like smuggling. However, countries that are the sources of

the problem are not usually keen on such collaborations.

All in all, all these attempts to curb the global smoking-related problems have justified the need

for a bill which provides effective guidelines for countries to cooperate on the control measures.

2.2. The Revised U.S. Tobacco Bill - FDA

On 22 June 2009, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Act were signed into law. Under

the law, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will be given the authority to supervise

tobacco products.

8

The FDA is an agency within the United States Department of Health and Human Services

responsible for protecting and advancing public’s health by ensuring products sold in market are

safe for consumption.

In general, the new act granted FDA the following power:

Marketing Guidelines

1. Prohibit the use of misleading terms such as “light,” “low-tar,” and “mild” on

cigarette packaging

2. All product packaging must contain warning labels and these labels must cover at

least 50% of the packaging.

Reduce Tobacco consumption by minors

1. Youth – friendly additive flavored cigarettes will no longer be allowed

2. No advertising allowed within 1000 feet of schools or playgrounds

3. Vending machines selling cigarettes will only be allowed in adult-only

establishments

Approve or reject sales of Tobacco products

Request for a cutback in identified harmful ingredients and additives

Prevent tobacco companies from making false claims by requiring all product claims to

be based on scientific research

9

The FDA will not be allowed to:

Ban the sales of all tobacco products

Alter the minimum age needed to purchase Tobacco products : 18 years old

Exclude the participation from the tobacco industry during any tobacco-related scientific

advisory committees meeting

Criticism of the US Tobacco Control Bill 2009:

FDA’s Role as a Tobacco Regulator

1. FDA‘s role is to protect and advance public’s health by ensuring products sold in

market are safe for consumption. It is argued that by having FDA to regulate

tobacco products, it will give the public a misperception that tobacco products are

safe for consumption.

Dilution of FDA’s Authority

1. Under the new bill, FDA is given the authority to ask for removal of all harmful

ingredients in tobacco products. However, critics argued that, such rule should be

extended to additive ingredients as well. This is because additive ingredients in

tobacco product will make it harder for smoker to quit.

2. Removing of flavored cigarettes.

The bill outlawed all flavor cigarettes except methanol flavor which is one of the

most popular flavors. Critics believe that methanol flavored tobacco products

10

should be banned as well since methanol has anesthetic property. With anesthetic

property, it will make it easier for people to start smoking.

3. Tobacco in Singapore

Since the start of the National Smoking Control Programme initiated by the Ministry of Health in

1986, there has been an overall decrease in smoking prevalence across all age groups,

educational levels, and ethnic groups from Year 1984 to 1987. The programme includes five

sections; namely the public education, legislation, tobacco taxation, partnerships, as well as

provision of quit smoking services

3.1. The National Smoking Control Programme

3.1.1. Public Education

Public education focuses mainly on smoking control and it is an ongoing programme throughout

the year. It targets at all sectors of society but places a stronger emphasis in preventing youths

from picking up the habit of smoking. During these years, the Health Promotion Board has

conveyed several important messages to the public through the use of printed materials, role

models, anti-smoking campaigns (E.g. “Quit smoking is hard; not quitting is harder” and

“Toxique”) and the media. The information includes knowledge about harmful effects of

11

smoking, passive smoking, and benefits of not smoking. Alongside with the efforts put in to

create awareness, face-to-face activities were also conducted throughout the year at places like

schools, workplace, healthcare and community settings.

3.1.2. Legislation

Legislative measures which are implemented since the early 1970s, are revised to incorporate the

best international practices. The two main legislation instruments are namely The Smoking Act

and The Prohibition on Smoking in Certain Places Act, which are implemented by the Health

Sciences Authority and National Environment Agency respectively.

The Smoking Act covers areas such as:

Prohibition of tobacco advertisements and promotion in the media and in public in any

form

Mandatory requirement of all tobacco product packaging to display graphic health

warning labels

Prohibition of the sale or supply of tobacco products to persons below 18 years of age

Prohibition of use, possession or purchase of tobacco products by persons below 18 years

of age

Prohibition of smoking, chewing or possession of tobacco products in public by persons

below 18 years of age.

The Prohibition on Smoking in Certain Places Act covers areas such as:

12

Public transport, clinics, hospitals, maternity homes, nursing homes

Public libraries, libraries in institutions of higher learning, public museums, art galleries,

government workplaces

All air-conditioned workplaces, Changi International Airport, all air-conditioned

shopping centres, public queues and pedestrian underpasses

All schools, junior colleges, polytechnics, training institutes, air-conditioned and

enclosed areas in Universities

All bus shelters and interchanges, public pools and toilets, community clubs and open-air

stadiums

3.1.3. Tobacco Taxation

Tobacco taxation is an effective strategy to maintain tobacco control. The current tax is $0.352

per stick and the cost of an average packet of cigarettes is $11.00 with tax incidence rate of 65%

- 72%. This escalation in tobacco tax in turns lead to an increase in real cigarette prices. As

shown in a study conducted by the World Bank, for every 10% increase in the real “inflation

adjusted” price, there will be a decrease in the consumption of cigarettes by 2% - 8%. In other

words, increasing cigarette prices correspond to a decreasing per capita consumption. This also

implies that tobacco tax increase discourages people, especially the youths to pick up smoking

and encourages them to quit smoking. A reason to account for this is that young people are more

price-sensitive; thus, the increase in cigarette prices may deter them from starting or continuing

to smoke.

3.1.4. Partnerships

13

To further ensure the effectiveness and extensiveness of our National Smoking Control

Programme, Health Promotion Board works cooperatively with partners from schools,

workplaces, healthcare industry and community to promote smoke-free lifestyle. With joined

efforts, they organized joint events, exhibitions, workshops and support group sessions. The

committee on smoking control comprises members from self-help groups, youth organizations,

diverse businesses, health professionals and the media, helps to foster community collaboration,

assess effectiveness of the campaigns, and provides policy direction.

3.1.5. Provision of Quit Smoking Services

Health Promotion Board has also provided avenues for smokers who require more assistance and

quit smoking advices. “QuitLine”, a toll free hotline manned by experienced advisers and self-

help “Quit booklets” are available for any requesting individuals. In addition, they can approach

to the Quit centres located island-wide if they prefer a face-to-face consultation session.

3.2. Additional Initiatives

3.2.1. Requirement of Warning labels

From July 2003, all smoked, smokeless and small containers of tobacco products have to be

conspicuously labeled with either graphical and/ or textual warnings of the health risks tobacco

products are associated with (Ministry of Health (MOH), Singapore, 2003) (Appendix).

14

More prominent health warning labels have been associated with greater levels of awareness and

perceived effectiveness among smokers (Hammond, D. et al., 2007) but smokers can easily rid

this constant reminder by simply transferring their cigarettes to nicer cigarette cases.

Nevertheless, as smokers regularly purchase tobacco products and thus regularly come into

contact with those warning labels, their purpose may still be served.

3.2.2. Launch of Champix

In April 2008, a new anti-smoking treatment drug called Champix was launched in Singapore,

adding to the already available Nicorette. Champix is developed by leading pharmaceutical

company, Pfizer, and works by blocking nicotine receptors in the brain and decreasing feelings

of pleasure when smoking. Clinical trials for the new drug have shown that by the end of 12

weeks of therapy, it helped 44 per cent of smokers to stop smoking (PharmaAsia, 2008).

3.2.3. Extension of Smoking Ban

The smoking ban was extended throughout the years and from January this year, it was further

extended to include non-smoking at children’s playgrounds, exercise areas, markets,

underground and multi-storey car parks, ferry terminals and jetties, non-air conditioned areas in

offices, factories, shops, shopping complexes and lift lobbies. Violators will be fined S$200

while the owners of establishments that permit smoking will be fined S$200 and S$500 on

subsequent offences (National Environment Agency, 2008).

15

3.2.4. Introduction of Tobacco Stamp (SDPC)

Singapore is the first country to introduce the tobacco stamp “SDPC” -which stands for

“Singapore Duty-Paid Cigarettes”- on all duty-paid cigarettes sold in Singapore from January

this year. Anyone found buying, selling or smoking cigarettes without the "SDPC" marking

could be jailed or fined S$500 for every packet of duty-unpaid cigarettes (Singapore Customs,

2008).

3.2.5. Host for the 15th World Conference on Tobacco or Health (WCTOH) 2012

Finally, Singapore will also be hosting the 15th world conference on tobacco or health in year

2012. This event will provide the Health Promotion Board with an opportunity to be a centre of

excellence and a thought leader in tobacco control on a global scale. On a national level, it will

improve public and private multi-agency co-ordination to ensure integration and alignment in

tobacco control policy development in Singapore. Regionally and beyond, WCTOH 2012 will

provide impetus to build on existing networks and form new ones to address the global tobacco

crisis. It will allow Singapore to take on a greater leadership role to build capacity and facilitate

collaboration in tobacco control, especially in the South East Asian region (Health Promotion

Board, 2009).

3.3. Counter-Effectiveness of Initiatives

16

3.3.1. Increased use of contraband cigarettes

High demand for contraband comes from high prices for cigarettes in Singapore. A pack of duty-

paid cigarettes costs about S$10 while a contraband pack costs S$5.

Contraband provides cheap cigarettes, which encourages smoking, discourages quitting,

increases average daily consumption, prompts relapse, and encourages youth initiation. Tobacco

smuggling undermines the potential effectiveness of higher tobacco taxes thus reducing

government revenues and encouraging adults to continue smoking and children to start smoking

cigarettes.

In all, more than 730,000 packets, or nearly 15 million sticks of illegal cigarettes worth about

$6.6 million have been confiscated at the Singapore checkpoints so far this year - nearly

doubling last year's figures over the same period.

Singapore Customs has been clamping down demand for illicit cigarettes at the street level in

order to curb smuggling. Just in the first six months this year, a total of 3,084 buyers of

contraband cigarettes from street peddlers were booked. The number caught was a four-fold

increase over the same period last year. The number of peddlers caught also increased 20% from

381 in 2006 to 456 in 2007. In July this year, Singapore customs seized 100,000 packets of

illegal cigarettes hidden among 473 television sets worth an estimated 1 million Singapore

dollars.

17

3.3.2. Increased number of smokers

There are no statistics on the number of smokers in recent years but the world’s largest market

research company reported an average annual growth rate of 2.7% of tobacco in Singapore

between years 2001-2006. Tobacco companies have attributed this to the rising number of

foreigners living here. Today, there are close to one million foreigners in Singapore, comprising

of work permit and employment pass holders, and students. A recent British American Tobacco

(BAT) survey of 1,000 foreign workers found that more than a third smoke, with Chinese and

Thai nationals making up the bulk of them (Chow, J., 2009). However, intuitively, with the easy

availability of contraband cigarettes, more youth still in Primary and Secondary schools will be

likely to pick smoking up in addition to the rise of foreign workers suggested by research funded

by the tobacco company.

3.3.3. Increased Sales of Cigarettes

In 2008, smokers in Singapore lit up 16 million more cigarettes a month despite being banned

from smoking in more public places and being hit by record-high cigarette prices in 2007.

According to figures from the Singapore Customs, about 2.17 billion sticks - were sold last year -

more than the 1.98 billion sticks sold in 2007. Last year's sales also hit a three-year high,

crossing the two billion mark for the first time since 2005, when 2.09 billion cigarettes were

sold. Though sales dipped in 2006, a year after tobacco taxes shot up by 20 per cent, they went

up in the last two years (Chow, J., 2009).

18

3.3.4. Subliminal Advertising and Public Relations by Tobacco Companies

Tobacco Company Philip Morris circumvented Singapore’s ban on tobacco advertising at last

year’s F1 racing event by featuring their cigarette sticks as a barcode logo instead of their usual

explicit Marlboro branding. Through this subliminal advertising, Philip Morris circumvented not

only Singapore’s law, but also their signed agreement to withdraw from the sport by 2006 (Inside

F1, Inc., 2007). This subliminal advertising is insidious because over time, people will just come

to associate the barcode with the cigarette brand.

Finally, in a recent issue of local 8 days magazine was a notice on the availability of smokeless

tobacco on Ryanair, an airline that flies to and around Europe (see Appendix). Such notices can

be considered as advertising and public relations and by featuring tobacco on publications, it

may make tobacco use look normal and make it difficult for young people to believe that

smoking can kill. 8 days magazine especially has a wide reach amongst female youth and

teenagers, who may most likely be unaware of the seriousness of smokeless tobacco’s harmful

effects. “Girls and young female adults are specially targeted”, says Dr. Shigeru Omi (as cited in

WHO, 2008), WHO Regional Director for the Western Pacific. “The rise in tobacco use in this

group, the tobacco industry's special focus, is a challenge that has to be dealt with urgently.”

4. Ethics of the Tobacco Industry

4.1. Freedom of Choice

19

Tobacco companies argue that consumers should possess their rightful freewill to decide if they

want to smoke. From the perspective of ethical egoism, the consumer has absolute control over

his own decisions. Furthermore, there have been dividing results from medical researches on the

exact harmful effects of passive smoking; if there is no concrete evidence that a negative

externality is imposed on a third party, tobacco should not be regulated. If tobacco products are

to be regulated on the basis of causing harm, then fast food that had cause obesity and in turn

result in the high mortality rate due to heart failure ought to be regulated too. However, the

difference between fast food and tobacco is that the former harms the individuals consuming it

only. There is also widespread scientific consensus that exposure to secondhand smoke or

environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is harmful. In fact, the link between passive smoking and

health risks is accepted by every major medical and scientific organization and the governments

of 168 nations. Although the debate on whether secondhand smoke has more harmful effects

than firsthand smoke is still ongoing, there is no denying that secondhand has harmful effects on

passive smokers. Children, who have been exposed to secondhand smoke from a young age,

have also been found to have higher chances of having long-term phlegm, asthma, bronchitis and

the like ( ). Smokers do have the free will to smoke but so do the non-smokers who have the

right to breathe in fresh air. A restriction of the latter is a violation of Utilitarianism which

advocates the greatest good for the greatest number.

Tobacco companies may then argue that where consent has been given by non-smokers for

smokers to smoke in their presence, smoking should not be condemned. In addition, people are

generally aware of the potential harmful effects that secondhand smoke has. However, many

20

would rather give in to pressure to conform than to oppose damage to health that not necessarily

has immediate consequences but long-term ones.

The law has also imposed a legal age to purchase and use tobacco products. However, tobacco

control advocates maintain that such restrictions only entice youth to pick up smoking

4.2. Corporate Social Responsibility

The tobacco companies should not be held liable for any psychological effects of temptation felt

by the youths as it is generally beyond their control. Besides, tobacco companies like Phillip

Morris even conducted youth smoking prevention programs, which include the designing of anti-

smoking campaign to help in dissuading them to pick up the habit of smoking.

In seeking to fulfill the primary purpose of profit maximization, tobacco industry also plays its

part in ensuring the general well being of the society. As philanthropists, tobacco companies

distributed grants, scholarships, professorships, and even the creation of an entire school. Money

were donated to many medical faculties and they play an active role in discouraging abusive

child labour practices in tobacco farming.

However, youth smoking prevention programmes are created to appear to dissuade young people

from smoking but in fact often the opposite was achieved. One example will be the antismoking

21

campaigns “Think, don’t smoke” and “talk: they will listen”, which are being targeted at

teenagers and parents respectively. Apparently, these two slogans contradict each other. This can

be seen from the fact that on one hand the tobacco companies are advising teenagers to think and

start taking control of their own life. However, on the other hand, they are asking parents to stop

their children from picking up smoking habit. Obviously, being at a rebellion-prone age (is there

such a term?), teenagers will prefer not to heed their parent’s advice. Therefore, tobacco

companies are not truly concern of the public’s health but instead they are just trying to improve

their image and maximize their profit through specially designed anti smoking campaigns.

We believe that doing CSR does not help to alleviate the situation at all. Tobacco companies are

in an industry which can potentially kill half of its consumers and therefore it is very difficult to

determine how much CSR should be done so as to justify the negative impacts they have created.

Unlike other industries, the interests of tobacco firms contradict the social good as they sell

products which are fatal if consumed excessively. In addition, tobacco companies also continue

to conduct their business in appalling ways and one example will be sales of contraband

cigarettes.

Besides, the main idea behind CSR is that corporations should work towards reducing the

harmful impacts they have created on the society. Apparently tobacco firms are not able to do

that due to a conflict of interests. Therefore, it can be argued that, tobacco companies are doing

CSR not because they are truly concern of the welling-being of the society, but rather, CSR act

as a platform for them to legalize their activities and increase corporate acceptance among the

public.

22

4.3. Concealment of Information

(PEI EN’S PART)

As opposed to Tobacco companies’ claim that they have produced less harmful cigarettes

“Light”, Wigand has stated that there is actually no reduction in health burden. Many smokers

choose “low-tar”, “mild”, “light” or “ultra light” cigarettes because they think that these

cigarettes may be less harmful but the fact is not. This is also proven by Federal Government’s

National Cancer Institute (NCI) that light cigarettes provide no benefit to smokers’ health and

one is likely to main the same risk for developing smoking-related cancers and other diseases.

Researchers also found that this is just a sales tactics used by the tobacco industry. In advertising

and promoting light cigarettes, it reassures smokers and induces them to believe that there is a

safe alternative from regular cigarettes and that will deter them from quitting. There is also no

evidence to show that light cigarettes actually help smokers to quit. Moreover, smokers will

smoke a few extra cigarettes each day to get enough nicotine to satisfy their craving which will

help to simulate their sales revenue.

The reason why there are still questions about the harmful effects of nicotine is that all the

evidence and reports have been destroyed by Tobacco companies. As from the movie “The

insider”, the research which was done by Wigand on the damaging consequences of cigarettes

was being destroyed. In the board of meeting, the minutes were also reduced from 15 pages to 3

pages. Furthermore, in coming out with anti-smoking campaign and producing less harmful

23

cigarettes, it is clear that tobacco companies also believed that cigarettes are harmful but they

just chose to ignore this fact.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

Word Count: 4661

Bibliography

24

Ministry of Health, Singapore. (2003). No. S000 - Smoking (Control of Advertisements and Sale of Tobacco) Act (Chapter 309) Smoking (Control of Advertisements and Sale of Tobacco) (Labelling) Regulations. Retrieved from: http://tobaccofreeunion.org/tech-guide/Packaging%20Implementation%20Resource/Linked%20Documents/Legislation%20and%20Regulations/Singapore%20Smoking%20(Control%20of%20advertisements%20and%20sale%20of%20tobacco)%20(Labelling)%20Regulations%202003.pdf

PharmaAsia. (2008). Singapore Gets First New Anti-Smoking Treatment. Retrieved from: http://www.pharmaasia.com/article-6867-singaporegetsfirstnewantismokingtreatment-Asia.html

Singapore Customs. (2008). Cigarette Sticks to Bear "SDPC" Marking from Next Year. Retrieved from: http://www.customs.gov.sg/insync/issue03/features/sdpc.html

Chow, J. (2009). Smoking Up Despite Public Ban, Price Hike. The Straits Times, 19 January 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.straitstimes.com/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=9525af0cc2aee110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD&vgnextchannel=cf70758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD

World Health Organization. (2008). WHO Warns Of Tobacco Offensive against the Young. Retrieved from: http://www.wpro.who.int/media_centre/press_releases/pr_20080530_WNTD.htm

U.S.News & World Report. (2007). Research Shows What Works to Cut Smoking Rates. Retrieved from: http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/071206/research-shows-what-works-to-cut-smoking-rates.htm (haven’t cited in report)

Hammond, D., Fong, G. T., Borland, R., Cummings, K. M., McNeill, A., Driezen, P. (2007). Text and Graphic Warnings on Cigarette Packages: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Four Country Study. Retrieved from: http://www.roswelltturc.org/publications/ajpm_warnings_2007.pdf

National Environment Agency. (2008). Campaigns: Smoking Ban Extension. Retrieved from: http://app2.nea.gov.sg/campaigns.aspx

Health Promotion Board. (2009). Singapore to host the 15th World Conference on Tobacco or Health in 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.news.gov.sg/public/sgpc/en/media_releases/agencies/hpb/press_release/P-20090522-1/AttachmentPar/0/file/Media%20Release-WCTOH%202012%20[F]-issued%20220509.pdf

25

Inside F1, Inc. (2007). Marlboro Explains Tobacco Liveries. Retrieved from: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19038.html

http://lungcancer.about.com/b/2009/06/13/fda-tobacco-regulation-bill-2009-hope-for-less-lung-

cancer.htm

http://quitsmoking.about.com/b/2009/06/22/president-obama-signs-fda-tobacco-bill.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=FDA_tobacco_bill

http://www.hpb.gov.sg/hpb/default.asp?

TEMPORARY_DOCUMENT=1030&TEMPORARY_TEMPLATE=2

http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/tob-industry.pdf

Stephen D. Sugarman and Robert L. Rabin (2001). Regulating Tobacco. United Kingdom:

Oxford University Press

26

APPENDIX A: Warning Labels on Tobacco Products

For Smokeless Tobacco

27

For Smoked Tobacco

APPENDIX B: Write-up on Smokeless Tobacco in 8 Days Magazine

28

29