PHAI Online - The Public Health Advocacy Institute
Archive for the ‘News’ Category
Florida court of appeal affirms $28.3 million verdict against R.J. Reynolds; explicitly rejects RJR’s attempt to “essentially nullify” Florida Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Engle
Tuesday, December 14th, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Edward L. Sweda, Jr. or Mark Gottlieb (617) 373-8462 or (617) 373-2026
In a resounding defeat for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the First District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed a jury’s award of $5 million in compensatory damages (later reduced by the trial judge to $3.3. million because the jury found Benny Martin 34% responsible for his death from lung cancer in 1995) and $25 million in punitive damages.
As the court noted, the “crux of this appeal is the extent to which an Engle class member can rely upon the findings from the class action when she individually pursues one or more Engle defendants for damages.” RJR attempted to “diminish the preclusive effect of the findings by claiming, based on the Phase I verdict form, that the findings ‘facially’ prove nothing specifically relevant to Mr. Martin’s claims. In so doing, RJR urges an application of the supreme court’s decision that would essentially nullify it. We decline to do so.”
Edward L. Sweda, Jr., Senior Attorney for the Tobacco Product’s Liability Project (TPLP), a project of the Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI), based at Northeastern University School of Law, called today’s decision the “worst nightmare for the tobacco defendants because the powerful Phase I findings will be applicable to Engle progeny trials in state court.” Furthermore, the award of $25 million in punitive damages is entirely justified by what the court accurately described as the ‘evidence of decades-long wanton conduct by RJR…’”
PHAI’s Gottlieb co-authors new study showing increased tobacco smoke expsoure of kids in multi-unit housing
Monday, December 13th, 2010
Today, Wilson et al., published a new study in the journal Pediatrics demonstrating that children who live in homes in which no one smokes inside have a 45% increase in cotinine levels if they live in apartments compared with detached homes. The findings came through analysis of data from the 2001–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
What this means is that it is likely that tobacco smoke from other units in attached housing results in tobacco smoke exposure for residents of “non-smoking” units. Because there is no risk-free level of tobacco smoke exposure, there are several policy implications here:
- Potential residents of multi-unit housing should carefully check a building’s smoking policy before moving in because there is no such thing as a smoke-free home if there is smoking in the building;
- Landlords need to understand that a permissive smoking policy means more than increased fire risk and maintenance costs and should act accordingly; and
- While we may all respect the privacy rights associated with the home, tobacco smoke does not.
This study provides important evidence that the growing trend in smoke-free housing, besides enhancing property values, reducing fire risks and lowering maintenance costs, makes the home a safer place or everyone, particularly children and others who spend the most time indoors such as the elderly and disabled.
Florida Jury Snaps Tobacco’s Recent Winning Streak with an $80 Million Award Against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
Monday, November 15th, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - Contact: Edward L. Sweda, Jr. or Mark Gottlieb (617) 373-2026 or (617) 373-8462.
A Bronson, Florida (Levy County) jury today awarded $8 million in compensatory damages and another $72 million in punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company for its role in the lung cancer death of James Kayce Horner. Mr. Horner, who started smoking at the age of 17 in 1934 (decades before warning labels appeared on cigarette packages), smoked for over 60 years before dying of lung cancer on March 11, 1996, at the age of 78.
The jury determined that R.J. Reynolds had 90% responsibility for Mr. Horner’s death, and Mr. Horner 10%. Plaintiffs have now won 21 out of 32 Engle Progeny cases that have reached a verdict since February 2009. After eight consecutive defense verdicts in trials since August 2010, this jury clearly rejected the arguments made by defense law firm Jones Day.
Diane Webb, Mr. Horner’s daughter, is the plaintiff in a wrongful death action against the makers of Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Kool, Camel and Winston – the brands Mr. Horner smoked. Ms. Webb is represented by the West Palm Beach firm of Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley. Attorney James Gustafson can be reached at 800-780-8607.
Attorney Gustafson told the jury that Mr. Horner was addicted to the drug nicotine, and that his addiction was why he sucked in cigarette smoke from 40 cigarette per day for 60 years. He smoked to avoid the withdrawal from nicotine.
Senior Attorney for the Tobacco Products Liability Project at Northeastern University School of Law (TPLP), Edward L. Sweda, Jr. was delighted with the verdict: “This jury was justifiably appalled by what it learned about R.J. Reynolds’ outrageous misconduct during the decades that James Kayce Horner was an addicted customer. Today’s verdict is proportionate to that reprehensible wrongdoing by the company.”
TPLP Director, Mark Gottlieb, noted that, “while the tobacco companies have won a string of verdicts in recent weeks after a much longer string of defeats, this verdict shows that they clearly have their work cut out for them as they battle thousands of individual trials in Florida. ”
The Tobacco Products Liability Project is a project of the Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston, MA. It is an independent federally recognized non-profit charity.
National Cancer Institute Study may Affect Cigarette Litigation
Thursday, November 4th, 2010
Results of a study released today by the National Cancer Institute suggests that heavy smokers may be able to reduce the chances of dying from lung cancer through low-dose helical computed tomography (CT) scans. In a randomized national trial of more than 53,000 current and former heavy smokers, CT scans led to outcomes with 20% fewer deaths from lung cancer.
This finding will likely play a very significant role in several class action lawsuits against Philip Morris which seek to have the company pay for periodic CT scans for heavy Marlboro smokers. One such case, Donovan v. Philip Morris, has been certified as a class action in federal court in Massachusetts. In 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recognized medical monitoring as a valid cause of action (the Harvard Law Review discusses this decision here in a pdf).A similar case is awaiting a decision on class certification in New York: Caronia v. Philip Morris. The class in both cases are represented by the firm of Levy Phillips & Konigsberg.
The important thing about this and similar cases is that they are on behalf of people who are not yet suffering from lung cancer from smoking but who are at dramatically increased risk for the disease. Most health insurance plans will not cover CT scans, even for heavy smokers. Therefore, the people at the highest risk for lung cancer do not usually benefit from this diagnostic procedure. However, until today, there was not as clear a case to be made that CT scans would substantially benefit heavy smokers. Risks from these procedures include possible unnecessary radiation exposure and complications from further diagnostic procedures subsequent to an inconclusive scan.
The only case of this sort to go to trial did so twice (due to a mistrial) and resulted in a defense verdict. That case was Blankenship v. Philip Morris. The findings from the NCI study released today might very well have led to a different result there and in pending and future cases.
Yet another plaintiff’s verdict in Florida: Piendle v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al.
Thursday, August 5th, 2010
August 5, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Edward L. Sweda or Mark Gottlieb (617) 373-8462 or (617) 373-2026
A Palm Beach, Florida jury today returned a verdict of $2.2. million against Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds, on behalf of Liz Piendle, the widow of Charles Piendle, who died from lung cancer in 1996 at the age of 55. The jury assessed $4 million, but found Mr. Piendle to be 45% responsible while the two defendants were found to be 55% responsible (27.5% each) for his death; therefore, the $4 million figure was reduced to $2.2 million. The jury also found that Mr. Piendle was addicted to cigarettes containing nicotine, that his addiction was a legal cause of his lung cancer and death, that Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds placed “defective and unreasonably dangerous cigarettes” on the market and that “by clear and convincing evidence” punitive damages are warranted against both of the defendants.
The Piendle family is represented by Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley; Attorney Greg Barnhart can be reached at 561-686-6300.
Edward L. Sweda, Jr., Senior Attorney for the Tobacco Products Liability Project (TPLP), a project of the Public Health Advocacy Institute, was delighted with today’s verdict. “There have now been 19 plaintiff verdicts out of the 22 Engle Progeny cases that have gone to a full jury verdict. Today’s verdict is welcome news for the Piendle family as well as for all those who believe that corporate wrongdoers deserve to be held accountable for their reprehensible misconduct. We look forward to the jury’s assessment of punitive damages in this case, something designed both to punish those wrongdoers and to deter such misconduct in the future,” Sweda concluded.
11th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated decision that would have eliminated preclusive effect of Engle Jury Phase I findings for progeny cases in federal court
Thursday, July 22nd, 2010
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals today, in Brown et al. v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., vacated an August 28, 2008 order by U.S. District Court Judge Howard Schlesinger which had totally eliminated the preclusive effect of the Engle jury’s Phase I findings.
Now, with that roadblock having been cleared, federal court plaintiffs in Engle progeny cases have received a green light to have their cases proceed to trial. While the tobacco companies are today proclaiming “victory,” the order that would have given them an actual victory has, instead, been entirely vacated.
Essentially, the plaintiffs will need to demonstrate to the trial court, through the record of the Engle Phase I, that the jurors were truly making generalized findings because the defendants’ misconduct was rampant and continuous. For example, see the part of the 1999 jury’s verdict sheet dealing with strict liability:
——-
Did one or more of the Defendant Tobacco Companies place cigarettes on the market that were defective and unreasonably dangerous?
Please answer “Yes” of “No” as to each Defendant, below. If you answer “yes” to any Defendants, please answer whether the conduct occurred during one of the following time periods:
Philip Morris, Incorporated Yes _X___ No __
Before July 1, 1974 Yes __X__ No __
After July 1, 1974 Yes __X__ No __
Both before and after July 1, 1974 Yes _X__ No __
——–
When the Florida Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that this finding should be given res judicata effect (for members of the class action who were to proceed in individual actions moving forward), the idea was that it would not be necessary for evidence to be presented to prove the same points about the product being defective and addictive and the cause of disease over and over again for each member of the class. This is the basis for issue preclusion.
The defendants argued in this case that the general findings of the Engle phase I jury were not specific enough to be given res judicata effect. For example, their argument might be:
Who is to say that the Engle Phase I Jury didn’t simply mean that Philip Morris placed a couple of cartons of defective and unreasonably dangerous Marlboros on the market before and after July 1, 1974? They did not say that the plaintiff in this case ever smoked any of those unreasonably dangerous and defective cigarettes. Therefore, this plaintiff needs to prove that the cigarettes he smoked were defective and unreasonably dangerous to this jury.
They are free to make this argument or something like it to keep the jury from hearing what the findings were in phase I — and probably will — but the plaintiffs, under today’s ruling, only need to show that the jury was presented with persuasive and compelling evidence that all of the defendants’ cigarettes were dangerous and unreasonably dangerous during Phase I.
A total victory for the plaintiffs here would have prevented the defendants from making arguments such as the one above. However, by allowing the issue preclusion with support from the record into the trials, it is likely that most courts will permit the juries to hear what the Phase I findings were, as the Florida Supreme Court had intended.
PHAI’s Gottieb co-authors piece in NEJM: Puffing in public housing poses serious health risks to tenants
Wednesday, June 16th, 2010
Media contacts: Valerie Wencis, Massachusetts General Hospital, 617.726.0274,
Todd Datz, Harvard School of Public Health, 617.998.8819,
Barry Wanger, Northeastern University School of Law, 617.965.6469,
Researchers examine risks and consequences of cigarette smoking to all inhabitants of multiple-unit housing; challenge status quo
BOSTON– In an effort to protect children from harmful tobacco smoke exposure, health and medical professionals are pushing for a ban on smoking in public housing in a report appearing in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine.
“Research shows that those living in multiple-unit housing are being exposed to toxins from tobacco smoke,” says Jonathan Winickoff, MD, MPH, lead author and pediatrician at MassGeneral Hospital for Children (MGHfC). “Even if you are not a smoker and don’t smoke inside of your own apartment, if you have a neighbor who is smoking inside of his, the entire building is contaminated.”
Over 7 million people are served by public housing in the U.S., with 4 in 10 units occupied by families with children. On July 17, 2009, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a memorandum that strongly encouraged local Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) to implement no-smoking policies in some or all of their public housing units. While surveys indicate that 4 in 5 nonsmokers prefer smoke-free building policies, and many private landlords throughout the country have made their housing units smoke-free, only about 4% of PHAs have banned smoking in the units they manage. The article gives specific guidance on policy options for PHAs and HUD to protect all residents from tobacco smoke exposure and clarifies that there are no legal barriers to banning smoking in public housing. “HUD has taken an important step,” says coauthor Michelle Mello, J.D., Ph.D. of the Harvard School of Public Health, “but it could do more to prod lagging PHAs to take action.”
The National Toxicology Program has identified more than 250 poisonous gases, chemicals, and metals in tobacco smoke, 11 of which are class A carcinogens. Numerous epidemiologic studies show that exposure to tobacco smoke can cause lung cancer and cardiac disease in nonsmokers, and the Surgeon General’s report on involuntary smoking concluded that there is no safe level of exposure. Even brief exposures to tobacco smoke can adversely affect nonsmokers, especially children, who experience increased rates and severity of asthma and other respiratory illnesses, as well as higher risk of sudden infant death syndrome.
Smoking in a single unit within a multiunit residential building puts other residents of the building at risk. Tobacco smoke can move along air ducts, through cracks in the walls and floors, through elevator shafts, and along plumbing and electrical lines to affect units on other floors. Mitigation measures like fans and air filters are not effective in preventing exposure. High levels of tobacco toxins can persist in the indoor environment long after the period of active smoking — a phenomenon known as third-hand smoke. Tobacco toxins from smoke are deposited on indoor surfaces and reemitted in the air over a period of days to years, and are found on rugs, furniture, clothing, and floors – all surfaces that children crawl and play on.
While it is clear that second and third hand smoke are inimical to the health of nonsmokers in multiple housing units, there are challenges facing public housing authorities, landlords and nonsmokers. Any addiction is difficult to overcome and a ban would put pressure on tenants addicted to nicotine, and could raise concern over how to deal with tenants who continued to smoke inside their building.
“Any no-smoking policies within PHAs would need to be accompanied by clear instructions on how residents can access evidence-based smoking-cessation resources,” says coauthor Mark Gottlieb, J.D., Executive Director of the Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University School of Law. Currently most state Medicaid programs do not cover comprehensive tobacco-dependence treatments, a situation that may change with an increased emphasis on tobacco control in healthcare reform. However, right now, free smoking cessation services are available in all 50 states though the quitline.
“Rather than prohibiting smokers from inhabiting public housing units, prohibiting the act of smoking on the premises would minimize the ethical concerns relating to a smoking ban,” says Mello. “This type of policy would encourage smokers to quit, since only those who continued to smoke on the premises would be required to move out.”
Creating and maintaining smoke-free living space that encourages smoking cessation not only provides a healthy environment for children as they grow, it discourages them from picking up the habit. “When children see smoking in and around their homes, it normalizes the behavior for them,” says Mello. “Research shows that no-smoking policies in the home lead to lower smoking initiation rates by teens.” Americans living below the poverty level are 1.6 times more likely to smoke; adopting a smoke-free policy in public housing units encourages inhabitants to “fight back” against the intense tobacco marketing that exists in low-income neighborhoods.
“As we move forward and further explore public housing policy, it is important to remember that the status quo is not acceptable for America’s children,” says Winickoff. “Each child deserves a healthy start, and we can help provide this by encouraging smoke-free home environments.”
About the Massachusetts General Hospital
Founded in 1811, the MGH is the third oldest general hospital in the United States and the oldest and largest in New England. The 900-bed medical center offers sophisticated diagnostic and therapeutic care in virtually every specialty and subspecialty of medicine and surgery. Each year the MGH admits more than 46,000 inpatients and handles nearly 1.5 million outpatient visits at its main campus and health centers. Its Emergency Department records nearly 80,000 visits annually. The surgical staff performs more than 35,000 operations and the MGH Vincent Obstetrics Service delivers more than 3,500 babies each year. The MGH conducts the largest hospital-based research program in the country, with an annual research budget of more than $500 million. It is the oldest and largest teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School, where nearly all MGH staff physicians serve on the faculty. The MGH is consistently ranked among the nation’s top hospitals by US News and World Report.
About Harvard School of Public Health
Harvard School of Public Health (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu ) is dedicated to advancing the public’s health through learning, discovery, and communication. More than 400 faculty members are engaged in teaching and training the 1,000-plus student body in a broad spectrum of disciplines crucial to the health and well being of individuals and populations around the world. Programs and projects range from the molecular biology of AIDS vaccines to the epidemiology of cancer; from risk analysis to violence prevention; from maternal and children’s health to quality of care measurement; from health care management to international health and human rights. For more information on the school visit: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu
About The Public Health Advocacy Institute
The Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI) is a legal research center at Northeastern University School of Law that focuses on public health law. PHAI’s goal is to support and enhance a commitment to public health in individuals and institutes who shape public policy through law. PHAI is committed to research in public health law, public health policy development; to legal technical assistance; and to collaborative work at the intersection of law and public health.
###
Report on Altria Group, Inc.’s Annual Shareholders Meeting – Richmond, Virginia, May 20, 2010
Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010
By Edward L. Sweda, Jr., Senior Attorney- PHAI
DEATH PENALTY
On May 20, 2010, the Commonwealth of Virginia executed Darick Demorris Walker, who had been convicted of murdering Stanley Beale in 1996 and Clarence Elwood Threat in 1997. Also on May 20, 2010, the Altria Group, Inc. Annual Shareholders Meeting took place in Richmond, Virginia.
During the meeting’s question and answer session, shareholder Anne Morrow Donley asked chairman and chief executive officer, Michael E. Szymanczyk the following question: “Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court made a quite controversial decision, noting that essentially corporations are like people. Therefore, fair is fair. There’s a death penalty when murder is committed, so it seems only fair that there should be a corporate death penalty for this company because it admits that it is making a product that kills people. A corporate death penalty could require Altria to apologize for its weapons of mass destruction and could require Altria to cease and desist from the destruction of life. So my question is, since the company itself has admitted in legal proceedings that it makes products which kill people, and courts in various states have upheld challenges from the company saying that Altria is legally responsible for the deaths of customers, therefore, why should not Philip Morris, or Altria itself, not be subject to the death penalty?”
His response was to fall back on the tired refrain that cigarettes are a “legal product” and that people, aware of smoking’s risks, still choose to do so.
FLORIDA LAWSUITS
Having noted that Philip Morris had lost jury verdicts in seven “Engle Progeny” cases during a 15-month span, Tobacco Products Liability Project Senior Attorney Edward L. Sweda, Jr. asked Mr. Szymanczyk when his company will change its policy of refusing to settle the “Engle Progeny” cases, which number approximately 9500. His response was to declare that Altria is “bullish” about the long-term prospects of tobacco litigation in the United States. He said this even though in recent years, when state legislatures considered bills to put an artificial cap on total awards against tobacco companies in product liability cases, company lobbyists have supported such bills by portraying the company as risking bankruptcy if the caps were not imposed. Mr. Szymanczyk’s “bullish” comment became the headline in the Richmond Times-Dispatch’s account of the meeting.
ALTRIA’S ATTEMPT TO REMOVE CERTAIN PANELISTS FROM A SCIENTIFIC PANEL DESIGNED TO ADVISE THE U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA)
During his business presentation just prior to the question and answer session, Mr. Szymanczyk cited the company’s “Mission,” which includes a pledge that it will “actively participate in resolving societal concerns that are relevant to our business.” Shareholder Rev. Michael Crosby of the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility, noted that, according to a report in late April in the Wall Street Journal in March 2010 Altria had attempted to remove four members of an FDA advisory panel because of alleged conflicts of interest. The FDA rebuffed Altria’s attempt to remove those panelists. Fr. Crosby said that such a power play by Altria contradicted that pledge. Mr. Szymanczyk’s response was that the company is “participating in” the FDA’s regulatory process and that “part of participating involves representing shareholder interests.’
SHAREHOLDER RESOLUTIONS
There were two shareholder resolutions considered at the 2010 Shareholders Meeting. The first, which called on the company to “commission an independent study and issue a resulting report on the affect of our company’s marketing on the purchasing practices of poor people. Shareholders ask that this report offer ways to alleviate the harm done to innocent children, such as food insecurity, by such adults who smoke. Shareholders ask that this report include recommendations as to whether our Company should continue marketing its products in census tracts with over 50% poverty.” Supporters of this resolution noted that families with at least one smoker spend 2% to 20% of their income on tobacco. In many instances, such spending deprives children of necessities such as food.
Management opposed this resolution, claiming that Philip Morris USA’s “responsible marketing practices, cessation support and the regulatory authority of the United States Food and Drug Administration (‘FDA’) are sufficient to address the concerns raised by this proposal.”
This resolution received 4.3% of the total number of shares and, thus, is not eligible to be refilled for the 2011 Shareholders Meeting.
The second resolution called on the company to create human rights protocols for itself and its suppliers. Noting that Philip Morris USA contracts with suppliers who employ migrant farm workers, the proponents cited the serious problems of Green Tobacco Sickness (GTS). GTS occurs when the skin absorbs nicotine from touching tobacco plant; the illness threatens more than 33 million tobacco farm workers globally. The shareholders supporting this resolution “request the Altria Board of Directors to commit itself to create procedures to implement the internationally agreed-upon core human rights conventions in the countries in which it operates and to find ways to ensure that its suppliers are enforcing these as well.”
Management opposed the resolution, claiming that there are already sufficient practices and programs in place in the United States that “address farm safety and working conditions.” This resolution received 20.5% support and will therefore be eligible for submission next year.
- TPLP’s Edward L. Sweda, Jr. (left), with Rev. Michael Crosby and Anne Morrow Donley of Virginia, on the morning of May 20, 2010, shortly before attending the 2010 Altria Group, Inc. Annual Shareholders Meeting at the Greater Richmond Convention Center
Report from the Reynolds American, Inc. Annual Shareholders Meeting -– May 7, 2010 – Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010
By Edward L. Sweda, Jr., Senior Attorney – PHAI
NEW RULES REGARDING ADMITTANCE TO THE MEETING.
The Reynolds American Inc. (RAI) Annual Shareholders Meeting took place in Winston-Salem, North Carolina on Friday morning, May 7, 2010. According to a March 22, 2010 “Dear Shareholder” letter from President and CEO Susan M. Ivey, those shareholders who planned to attend the meeting “MUST pre-register for the meeting and request an admittance ticket no later than Wednesday, April 28, 2010.”
- Reynolds American, Inc. Headquarters – Winston-Salem, NC. May 7, 2010
However, that letter, which was part of the company’s proxy materials, was not mailed to shareholders unless the shareholder specifically requested that the material be sent. Unfortunately, both I and shareholder Anne Morrow Donley of Virginia GASP missed the deadline for requesting an admission ticket by one day. Strictly adhering to the terms of this new rule, RAI’s Assistant Secretary, Dean E. Tsipis, informed me that the company was “unable” to fulfill my April 29, 2010 request for an admission ticket. “Unwilling” would have been a more accurate adjective.
Similarly, a new attendance rule by RAI kept out Keith T. Barber, a reporter for the Greensboro, North Carolina-based “Yes Weekly.” On April 28, 2010, RAI “announced” – via a release via PR Newswire but not by directly contacting local reporters – that members of the media had to request an admittance ticket by April 30, 2010. Mr. Barber, who arrived at the meeting on May 7, 2010, was barred from the meeting.
SECURITY
Winston-Salem’s taxpayers financially supported the heavy presence by the Winston-Salem Police Department (WSPD) at the Reynolds American meeting. Shortly after the 9:00 A.M. start of the meeting, there were four police officers standing in front of the building while four marked police cruisers were parked near the building’s main entrance. At the side of the building were another two parked police cruisers. As the FLOC demonstration was winding down at about 11:25 A.M., one of the WSPD officers told organizers of the demonstration that Reynolds management would like the demonstrators to leave the front of the building by 11:30 A.M.
FLOC
- Demonstrators outside Reynolds American Inc. headquarters, May 7, 2010
The major controversy at the RAI meeting was management’s unwillingness to meet with members of FLOC (Farm Labor Organizing Committee), AFL-CIO. (See this for details of FLOC’s campaign regarding Reynolds American. FLOC has also described desperate conditions in North Carolina’s tobacco fields, noting that nine workers have recently died in the fields, most due to heat stroke.
According to the Winston-Salem Journal, FLOC believes that “it has to be more vocal and demanding to persuade Reynolds to use its clout to pressure its suppliers to improve conditions for the state’s 30,000 tobacco farmworkers.” The company insists that its supplier list is proprietary and has refused to reveal who they are. Baldemar Velasquez, president of the Ministers
- Picket sign denouncing GTS – Green Tobacco Sickness, which occurs when the skin absorbs nicotine from touching tobacco plants
Conference of Winston-Salem and Vicinity, said that “We believe it is Reynolds’ role, and under its sphere of influence, to require its suppliers to treat the farm workers with dignity and proper work and living conditions.”
SHAREHOLDER RESOLUTIONS
Two of the shareholder resolutions considered at the meeting addressed issue of smoking and health and the company’s conduct. The first resolution was filed by proponents who noted that in 2009 RAI had challenged some provisions of the new law which allows the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate tobacco products, arguing that the law violated the company’s First Amendment rights. RAI also contended that FDA restrictions had limited the company’s ability to “convey ‘truthful information’ about its tobacco products.” Therefore, “shareholders request the RAI Board of Directors to oversee the inclusion in all RAI product advertising, promotion
- FLOC’s rolling billboard, denouncing “corporate criminals.”
and marketing (including inserts in tobacco packages themselves) truthful information regarding the devastating health consequences identified with using such products.” The proponents suggested that this truthful information cover the health hazards to smokers from smoking and to nonsmokers from breathing secondhand smoke; the decline in tobacco-related diseases when increased taxes on tobacco are combined with smoking restrictions; and the “human rights violations connected with undocumented workers in the U.S.A. and forced child labor in key ‘developing’ countries who pick tobacco leaf used by RAI.”
Not surprisingly, RAI management opposed the resolution calling on it to provide its customers with truthful information. It claimed that “Our Guiding principles and Beliefs” are sufficient.
The resolution received less than 2 percent of the shares voted and, thus, will not be eligible to be refiled for next year’s Shareholders Meeting.
The next resolution, on Human Rights Protocols for the Company and Its Suppliers, received over 10 percent of the shares voted and will be eligible for refilling for the 2011 meeting. The resolution requests that RAI’s Board of Directors “to commit itself to create effective procedures to implement the internationally agreed-upon human rights conventions in the countries from which it gets its tobacco and to find ways to ensure, through truly independent monitoring, that its varied suppliers are enforcing these as well as pertinent laws of the nations in which its suppliers operate.” The proponents specifically cited the African nation of Malawi, where “countless children are being forced into slave-like situations to provide leaf for RAI products,” and that “forced child labor persists to the degree that the U.S. Department of Labor lists Malawi’s tobacco production as particularly egregious.”
RAI management opposed this resolution as well, claiming that respecting universally recognized human rights “is one of the foundations of how we conduct our businesses.” Nonetheless, RAI opposed the resolution, stating that “we do not believe it is within our sphere of influence to assume the regulatory and enforcement role of the federal, state and local governments” in the United States. Of course, the resolution had not called on the company to assume those roles; rather, the “truly independent monitoring” would be key to ensuring that the suppliers were adhering to these laws in countries such as Malawi. The proponents noted that “RAI cannot dismiss the above problems by saying its suppliers ‘report’ they comply with codes covering farm workers’ basic rights and that no forced child labor takes place in tobacco fields supplying RAI product.” If RAI feels it cannot enforce these basic codes, it could stop doing business with suppliers that abuse workers’ human rights. It has never done so.
More Florida Verdicts against Cigarette Companies – Buonomo
Friday, May 21st, 2010
On May 20, 2010 after a three-week trial, a six-person Fort Lauderdale, Florida jury returned a verdict in favor of Connie Buonomo, the widow of Matthew Buonomo, who died from chronic obstructive lung disease in 2008 at the age of 80.Mr. Buonomo had started smoking as a teenager.
The defendant, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. was ordered to pay $5 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages. After deliberating for five hours, the jury unanimously determined that R.J. Reynolds was 77.5 percent responsible for Mr. Buonomo’s death, compared with 22.5 percent responsibility for the deceased. Of the 19 “Engle Progeny” cases that have reached a jury verdict since February 2009, 16 of the verdicts have been for the plaintiffs.
See the Sun-Sentinel’s account.
