[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 120 (Monday, July 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7470-H7476]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                      TOBACCO AND AMERICA'S YOUTH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Everett). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of May 12, 1995, the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have taken out this special order to talk 
about the No. 1 threat to the health of our children--tobacco.
  This week, data from the National Institute on Drug Abuse shows that 
we are losing the battle to keep cigarettes away from children. In just 
3 years, there has been a 30-percent increase in smoking among 13- and 
14-year-olds. Nearly one-third of high school seniors smoke cigarettes.
  This is a health crisis of huge dimensions. Every day, 3,000 children 
start smoking. One-third of these children will eventually die from 
their tobacco addiction.
  Why is this happening? The answer is obvious. The tobacco industry 
spends $5 billion a year--over $10 million a day--on tobacco 
advertising and promotion. Much of this effort is specifically targeted 
at children. To keep its profits flowing, the industry has developed 
clever promotions like Joe Camel and the Marlboro Country Store aimed 
directly at children.
  The administration is trying to protect our children from tobacco. As 
reported last week, FDA Commissioner David Kessler has found that 
tobacco is an addictive drug. He has called for commonsense regulation 
to protect children--like banning cigarette vending machines. I believe 
the President will support these efforts.
  Unfortunately, when word of the administration's actions leaked out, 
it encountered fierce resistance on Capitol Hill. The Speaker said that 
Commissioner Kessler must be ``out of his mind'' to consider regulating 
tobacco. Other Members promised Congress would intervene to prevent 
regulation from going forward.
  It is against this backdrop that I am here today. This hour, I will 
be reading into the Record excerpts of dozens of previously secret 
documents from the Nation's largest tobacco company, Philip Morris. 
These documents make a compelling case for regulation of tobacco to 
protect children. I hope they will dissuade Members of this body from 
any legislative effort to block regulation.
  Last year, when I served as chairman of the Health and the
   Environment 

[[Page H7471]]
  Subcommittee, we commenced an investigation of the tobacco industry. We 
learned more in that year than we had learned in the previous decade 
about tobacco industry efforts to study and manipulate nicotine, an 
addictive drug.

  The subcommittee's investigation was cut short prematurely by the 
elections. In particular, we were able to learn very little about the 
activities of the Nation's largest tobacco company, Philip Morris. Two 
out of every three cigarettes smoked by children are Marlboro 
cigaretts--a Philip Morris product. But we learned far less about 
Philip Morris than its much smaller rival, Brown & Williamson.
  Since the election, I have continued my investigation as an 
individual Member of Congress. I have been handicapped by the inability 
to hold hearings or hire an investigative staff. But nonetheless, I 
have learned a tremendous amount about Philip Morris. I am here today 
to report on what I have learned to this body.
  I am here to report that Philip Morris researchers administered 
painful electric shocks to college students to determine the influence 
of anxiety on student smoking habits.
  I am here to report that Philip Morris studies third-graders to 
determine if hyperactive children are a potential market for 
cigarettes.
  I am here to report that the company planned illegal experiments that 
involved injecting human subjects with nicotine.
  And I am here to report that as early as 1969, the board of directors 
of Philip Morris was briefed by its researchers on the addictive nature 
of nicotine. The board was told that people smoked to obtain ``the 
pharmacological effect of smoke'' and that smokers' craving for this 
effect is so strong that it ``preempts food in times of scarcity on the 
smoker's priority list.''
  The documents that I will be discussing today describe the secret 
research activities of Philip Morris from January 1969 to November 
1980. Some of these documents were described in a front-page article in 
the New York Times on June 8, 1995. Most of the documents, however, 
have never previously been discussed in public.
  Last month, I wrote Philip Morris to ask the company to cooperate 
with FDA's investigation by turning over the documents described in the 
New York Times to FDA. However, the company refused to cooperate.
  Three major points emerge from the documents I will describe today:
  First, Philip Morris conduced an extensive, but secret, research 
program into nicotine pharmacology for over a decade.
  Second, top Philip Morris scientists and executives have known for 
decades that cigarettes have powerful and addictive pharmacological 
effects.
  Third, Philip Morris conducted secret research that focussed on the 
pharmacological effects of cigarettes on children and college students.


                the secret nicotine pharmacology program

  The documents I will describe today cover the period from January 
1969 to November 1980. They describe an intensive investigation into 
nicotine pharmacology, involving dozens of previously secret studies.
  The studies described in the document range from traditional 
pharmacology involving animal experiments to high-technology 
electroencephalography [EEG], which measures human brain waves. Some of 
the studies raise troubling ethical questions. And some appear to be 
simply illegal.
  Three of the documents describe experiments that were to involve 
injecting nicotine into human subjects. Such experiments are illegal 
without the approval of the federal Food and Drug Administration. In 
another series of five experiments described in the documents, Philip 
Morris administered ``painful'' electric shocks to human subjects. 
Experiments that inflict pain are ethically dubious unless they are 
being conducted for beneficial purposes.
  The volume of the experimentation is staggering. In one typical 
year--1979--at least 16 separate studies on nicotine pharmacology were 
conducted by three different Philip Morris laboratories:
  First, the Animal Behavior Group conducted six experiments on topics 
such as ``nicotine discrimination'' and ``nicotine self-
administration.'' These are the same studies that are used by the 
National Institute on Drug Abuse to establish the addiction potential 
of drugs.
  Second, the Neuropsychology Laboratory conducted five experiments on 
topics such as ``effects of smoking on the electroencephalogram'' and 
``long-term deprivation and the electrical activity of the brain.'' 
These studies are designated to show the pharmacological effects of 
cigarettes on the human brain.
 Third, the Smoking Behavior Group conducted five studies on topics 
such as the behavioral consequences of smoking low-nicotine cigarettes. 
These studies were used to learn how smokers respond to changes in 
nicotine delivery.

  Philip Morris conducted these studies for commercial reasons. The 
document describing the plans and objectives for the Behavioral 
Research Laboratory in 1979 states expressly that ``the rationale for 
the program rests on the premise that such knowledge will strengthen 
Philip Morris R&D capability in developing new and improved smoking 
products.''
  There is no reason to believe that the documents provide a 
comprehensive summary of Philip Morris' nicotine research. As I will 
discuss, congressional hearings I held last year disclosed that 
nicotine research occurred after the period covered in this report. 
Moreover, most of the documents discuss the activities of Philip 
Morris' Richmond, VA, research center. The documents contain only 
fleeting references to nicotine studies being conducted by Philip 
Morris in Cologne, Germany, and Neuchatel, Switzerland. Virtually 
nothing is known about these secretive foreign research programs.


   top Philip Morris scientists and executives knew cigarettes have 
             powerful and addictive pharmacological effects

  On April 14, 1994, Philip Morris CEO William Campbell testified 
before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment of the House 
Committee on Energy and Commerce that ``cigarette smoking is not 
addictive,'' that nicotine is retained in cigarettes because nicotine 
``contributes to the taste of cigarettes,'' and that ``Philip Morris 
research does not establish that smoking is addictive.'' The documents 
I will describe conflict fundamentally with these statements.
  The documents show that top Philip Morris scientists and executives 
knew that cigarettes have powerful and addictive pharmacological 
effects. For instance, the documents show:
  First, during the fall of 1969, the Philip Morris Board of Directors 
was briefed by Philip Morris researchers on why people smoke. The 
researchers told the board that people smoke to obtain ``the 
pharmacological effect of smoke.'' The researchers further told the 
Board that smokers' craving for this ``pharmacological effect'' is so 
strong that it ``preempts food in times of scarcity on the smoker's 
priority list.''
  Second, in November 1974, Philip Morris' Director of Research, Thomas 
Osdene, who subsequently became vice president for science and 
technology, approved and sent to the then vice president for research 
and development, Helmut Wakeham, and other Philip Morris officials a 
report stating that the consumer smokes ``to achieve his habitual quota 
of the pharmacologically active components of smoke'' and that stopping 
smoking produces ``reactions . . . not unlike those to be observed upon 
withdrawal from any number of habituating pharmacological agents.''
  Third, in March 1980, Philip Morris researcher Jim Charles, who 
subsequently became vice president for research and development, wrote 
the than vice president for research and development, Robert Seligman, 
that ``nicotine is a powerful pharmacological agent with multiple sites 
of action and may be the most important component of cigarette smoke.'' 
He added that ``nicotine and an understanding of its properties are 
important to the continued well being of our cigarette business since 
this alkaloid has been cited often as `the reason for smoking.'''
  Contrary to Philip Morris' public statements that cigarettes are not 
a drug, the documents are replete with statements that describe 
cigarettes in explicitly drug-like terms. The documents, for instance, 
include many references to ``pharmacological effects,'' 

[[Page H7472]]
``dose control,'' ``withdrawal syndrome,'' ``nicotine regulators,'' 
``nicotine dose,'' ``nicotine pharmacology,'' ``nicotine 
administration,'' ``nicotine analogues,'' and ``blood nicotine 
levels.''


   Philip Morris Conducted Research on the Effects of Cigarettes on 
                     Children and College Students

  One of the most significant revelations in the documents is that 
Philip Morris conducted pharmacological research specifically targeted 
at children and college students.
  One of the longest-running studies in the documents addresses the 
``hyperkinetic child as a prospective smoker.'' In this study, Philip 
Morris collaborated with the Chesterfield County school system in 
Richmond, VA, to determine whether hyperkinetic and borderline 
hyperkinetic children will become cigarette smokers in their teenage 
years. The researchers explained:

       It has been found that amphetamines, which are strong 
     stimulants, have the anomalous effect of quieting these 
     children down. Many children are therefore regularly 
     administered amphetamines throughout grade school years. . . 
     . We wonder whether such children may not eventually become
      cigarette smokers in their teenage years as they discover 
     the advantage of self-stimulation via nicotine. We have 
     already collaborated with a local school system in 
     identifying some such children in the third grade.

  This research began in 1974. It continued until 1978, when it had to 
be terminated prematurely because of objections from the school system 
and physicians.
  Many of the studies conducted by Philip Morris investigated the 
pharmacological effects of cigarettes on college students. These 
studies provided scientific data about the youngest segment of the 
cigarette market lawfully available to Philip Morris. Moreover, because 
there is no bright line that separates college students from underage 
smokers, the studies also provided Philip Morris with considerable 
insight into the underage market.
  In one series of experiments with college students--code-named 
``Shock I, II, III, IV, and V''--Philip Morris administered electric 
shocks to the students to determine if student smoking rates increase 
under stressful conditions. This study began in 1969. It ultimately had 
to be terminated in 1972 because ``fear of shock is scaring away some 
of our more valuable students.''
  In another study, Philip Morris gave college students low-nicotine 
cigarettes in an attempt to force the students ``to modify their puff 
volumes, inhalation volumes, and/or smoke retention times in order to 
obtain their usual nicotine dose.''
  Philip Morris maintains publicly that it does not target children in 
advertising, cigarette sales, or other ways. The documents undermine 
this claim--at least as it applies to scientific research. They show 
that Philip Morris has targeted children and college students, the 
youngest segment of the market, for specific research projects.
  At this point, I want to begin to read excerpts from the documents. I 
have organized the documents chronologically, beginning in January 1969 
and continuing to November 1980.


     chronology of philip morris research on nicotine pharmacology

  January 1969.--A Philip Morris report describes ``objectives and 
plans'' for its Smoker Psychology Program. These objectives and plans 
provide the first recognition in the documents that cigarettes have 
psychopharmacological effects and are smoked for need-gratification.
  One objective mentioned in the report is an ``attempt to teach a rat 
to seek the inhalation of cigarette smoke * * * through the reinforcing 
effect of the psychopharmacological effects of the inhaled smoke.'' 
This objective is noteworthy because a hallmark of an addictive 
substance is that the substance is reinforcing and will be self-
administered by rats. As described later in this chronology, Philip 
Morris succeeded in 1980, well in advance of the rest of the scientific 
community, in showing that nicotine has this hallmark characteristic of 
an addictive substance.
  A second objective mentioned in the report is to determine whether 
``there is any product that can potentially replace the cigarette in 
need-gratification.''
  Source: P.A. Eichorn and W.L. Dunn, ``Plans and Objectives--1600''--
January 8, 1969.
  August 1969.--A Philip Morris scientist, William Dunn, proposes that 
research techniques used to study ``drug addiction'' be applied to 
study ``the experiences of smokers in their efforts to discontinue the 
habit.''
  Dunn had visited a drug addiction study being conducted by Dr. Paul 
Lazarsfeld at Columbia University. Impressed by the study, Dunn wrote 
to Helmut Wakeham, the vice president for research and development at 
Philip Morris, to propose that Dr. Lazarsfeld study ``the experiences 
of smokers in their efforts to discontinue the habit.'' Dunn argued 
that the drug addiction methodologies would be ``highly effective'' in 
studying the cigarette habit:

       I saw this approach in operation in the drug-addiction 
     conference. In its current application it appears highly 
     effective. I can see no reason why it should not be as 
     effective for the proposed study.

  Source: Memorandum on ``Discussions with Professor Lazarsfeld on the 
Study of Discontinuing Smokers,'' from W.L. Dunn to H. Wakeham--August 
1, 1969.
  Fall 1969.--Philip Morris researchers brief the Philip Morris Board 
of Directors on why people smoke. The researchers tell the Board that a 
smoker begins to smoke at age 16 ``to enhance his image in the eyes of 
his peers.'' This psychosocial motive, however, is not enough to 
explain continued smoking. The researchers tell the board that people 
continue to smoke to obtain ``the pharmacological effect of smoke.'' 
According to the researchers, the smoker's desire for this 
pharmacological effect is so strong that it ``preempts food in times of 
scarcity on the smoker's priority list.''
  Specifically, the researchers tell the Board:

       We are beginning to concentrate on the smoker himself. We
        are addressing the question, ``Why do people smoke.'' . . 
     .
       First, we have to break the question into its two parts: 
     No. 1, Why does one begin to smoke? and No. 2, Why does one 
     continue to smoke?
       There is general agreement on the answer to the first part. 
     The 16 to 20 year-old begins smoking for psychosocial 
     reasons. The act of smoking is symbolic; it signifies 
     adulthood, he smokes to enhance his image in the eyes of his 
     peers.
       But the psychosocial motive is not enough to explain 
     continued smoking. Some other motive force takes over to make 
     smoking rewarding in its own right. Long after adolescent 
     preoccupation with self-image has subsided, the cigarette 
     will even preempt food in times of scarcity on the smoker's 
     priority list. The questions is ``why?'' . . .
       We are of the conviction . . . that the ultimate 
     explanation for the perpetuated cigarette habit resides in 
     the pharmacological effect of smoke upon the body of the 
     smoker, the effect being most rewarding to the individual 
     under stress.

  Source: ``Ryan/Dunn Alternate--Third Version of Board 
Presentation''--fall 1969, delivered with only minor changes.
  December 1969.--Philip Morris commences the first of several series 
of studies of smoking by college students. The first series is called 
``Shock I, II, III, IV, and V.'' In these studies, college students are 
given electric shocks to promote anxiety. The purpose of the studies is 
``to show that cigarette smoking is more probable in stress situations 
than in nonstress situations.'' According to the researchers:

       Shock intensity will be adjusted for each subject according 
     to the subject's pain threshold. The shock will be painful.

  The Shock studies run for three years. In October 1972, the 
scientists are finally forced to abandon the research because ``fear of 
shock is scaring away some of our more valuable subjects.''
  Source: Memorandum on ``Proposed Research Project: Smoking and 
Anxiety,'' from F.J. Ryan to W.L. Dunn----Dec. 23, 1969; Frank Ryan, 
``Shock I, II, III, and IV,'' in Consumer Psychology Monthly Report--
Sept. 16 to Oct. 15, 1971; Frank Ryan, ``Shock V,'' in Consumer 
Psychology Monthly Report--Jan. 15 to Feb. 15, 1972; P.A. Eichorn and 
W.L. Dunn, ``Quarterly Report--Projects 1600 and 2302''--Oct. 5, 1972.
  September 1970.--Philip Morris develops a five-year plan for the 
Smoker Psychology Program. Two of the research goals are first, to 
determine whether ``the smoking habit can be sustained in the absence 
of nicotine'' and second, to ``elucidate the role of nicotine as a 
factor in determining cigarette acceptability.''

[[Page H7473]]

  Source: P.A. Eichorn and W.L. Dunn, ``Five-Year Objectives and Plans 
for Project 1600''--Sept. 25, 1970.
  November 1971.--Philip Morris continues its study of smoking by 
college students in a project titled ``Desire to Smoke.'' In this 
study, ``all available college students will fill out a questionnaire 
rating their desire to smoke'' so that Philip Morris can ``compare the 
rated desire to smoke with our existing personality profiles.''
  Source: Frank Ryan, ``Desire to Smoke,'' in Consumer Psychology 
Monthly Report--Oct. 16 to Nov. 15, 1971.
  January 1973.--Philip Morris commences three studies to determine 
``what effect, if any, smoking has upon the magnitude of shifts in 
arousal level, with heart rate being used as the index of this psycho-
physiological state.''
  Source: P.A. Eichorn and W.L. Dunn, ``Quarterly Report--Projects 1600 
and 2302''--Jan. 5, 1973.
  February 1973.--Philip Morris begins a study of the effect of smoking 
on ``alpha brain wave dominance''--that is, the effect of smoking on 
the electrical activity of the brain. The researchers involved in the 
study state:

       Alpha brain wave dominance is associated with states of 
     tranquility and meditation. . . . As part of our continuing 
     search for the motivationally relevant effects of smoking, we 
     are investigating the influence of smoking upon the rate of 
     acquisition of alpha wave control.

  Source: W.L. Dunn, ``Smoking and Rate of Learning Alpha Control,'' in 
Smoker Psychology Monthly Report--Jan. 1 to Jan. 31, 1973.
  June 1974.--Philip Morris commences a four-year study of smoking by 
``hyperkinetic'' children to determine if they will ``discover the 
advantage of self-stimulation via nicotine'' and ``become cigarette 
smokers in their teenage years.''
  In June 1974, the researchers conducting the study write:

       It has been found that amphetamines, which are strong 
     stimulants, have the anomalous effect of quieting these
      children down. Many children are therefore regularly 
     administered amphetamines throughout grade school years. . 
     . . We wonder whether such children may not eventually 
     become cigarette smokers in their teenage years as they 
     discover the advantage of self-stimulation via nicotine. 
     We have already collaborated with a local school system in 
     identifying some such children in the third grade. . . . 
     It would be good to show that smoking is an advantage to 
     at least one subgroup of the population.

  In March 1975, the researchers describe their intention to increase 
the size of the study of ``hyperkinesis as a precursor to smoking'' to 
60,000 children:

       The size of our prospective study should be increased to 
     the base of about 60,000 children when a local school system 
     extends its student evaluation three more grades this spring.

  In July 1975, the researchers report the status of their 
investigation of the ``hyperkinetic child as a prospective smoker'' to 
Helmut Wakeham, the vice president of research and development at 
Philip Morris, and other Philip Morris officials. Specifically, they 
tell the Philip Morris vice president:

       We hypothesize that the characteristics of smokers and 
     hyperkinetic children so closely resemble each other that in 
     the past hyperkinetics were almost sure to become smokers. . 
     . . We have undertaken a long term prospective study to 
     identify the hyperkinetic and borderline hyperkinetic 
     youngsters in Chesterfield County school system, and to see 
     whether they become smokers. All the children in one grade 
     level were tested last year.

  In May 1977, Philip Morris continues its investigation into the 
smoking habits of hyperactive children by initiating two prospective 
studies with pediatricians treating hyperactive children. In these 
studies, Philip Morris will track the hyperactive children and a group 
of controls to see whether they have become smokers. Philip Morris will 
then ``help our colleagues find the variables which account for drug-
responding and non-responding.''
  Finally, the study of hyperkinetic children stops in March 1978, due 
to objections from school systems and physicians. The researchers 
write:

       Obstacles presented by school systems and physicians 
     concerned with the various ``privacy acts'' passed by state 
     and national legislatures have made it very difficult for us 
     to conduct studies using school and medical records of 
     minors.

  Source: F.J. Ryan, ``Relationship between Smoking and Personality,'' 
in Smoker Psychology Monthly Report--June 10, 1974; Frank Ryan, 
``Hyperkinesis as a Precursor of Smoking,'' in Smoker Psychology 
Monthly Report--Mar. 10, 1975; ``Behavioral Research Annual Report,'' 
approved by W.L. Dunn and distributed to H. Wakeham et al.--July 18, 
1975; F.J. Ryan, ``Hyperactivity,'' in Smoker Psychology Monthly 
Report--May 13, 1977; F.J. Ryan, ``Hyperkinetic Children,'' in Smoker 
Psychology Monthly Report--Mar. 10, 1978.
  November 1, 1974.--Philip Morris' director of research, Thomas 
Osdene, who later becomes vice president for science and technology, 
approves and sends an annual report on behavioral research to the vice 
president for research and development, Helmut Wakeham. The report 
shows that by 1974, top company officials plainly consider cigarettes 
to be a drug. The report analogizes smoking to drug use, stating ``dose 
control continues even after the puff of smoke is drawn into the 
mouth''; it asserts that a person smokes ``to achieve his habitual 
quota of the pharmacologically active components of smoke''; and it 
hypothesizes that stopping smoking produces ``reactions . . . not 
unlike those to be observed upon withdrawal from any number of 
habituating pharmacological agents.''
  The report also summarizes the status of a number of Philip Morris 
studies, including a study of smoker compensation when nicotine levels 
in cigarettes are reduced. Compensation studies, which are repeatedly 
discussed in the documents, assess the attempt of smokers to increase 
their nicotine intake through smoking more cigarettes or taking longer 
puffs.
  Source: ``Behavioral Research Annual Report, Part II,'' approved by 
T.S. Osdene and distributed to H. Wakeham et al.--Nov. 1, 1974.
  December 1974.--A Philip Morris document discusses the company's 
nicotine research program in Neuchatel, Switzerland. This is the only 
document describing these secret activities. The Switzerland 
researchers, who were also heavily involved in nicotine research, 
report that a ``compensation mechanism seems to be in operation for a 
proportion of the consumer population to adjust the nicotine yield to 
their needs or liking.''
  Source: Gustafson and Haisch, ``PME Research: 1972-74.''
  March 1975.--Philip Morris continues its study of smoking by college 
students by examining whether smoking by college students increases 
following a 2-hour deprivation period. Preliminary data suggest that 
students compensate for deprivation by smoking more and taking more 
puffs.
  Source: Quarterly Report Memorandum, from W.L. Dunn to T.S. Osdene--
Mar. 25, 1975.
  July 1975.--Philip Morris commences its first study of ``the black 
menthol smoker.'' The researchers explain:

       The black menthol smoker is an important segment of the 
     menthol market, yet all of the PM national field tests of 
     menthol cigarettes have been conducted with virtually all 
     white panels. What with some 500 black menthol smokers having 
     become available with the advent of the RP3 panel, the 
     opportunity was afforded to study the black response to 
     menthol cigarettes.

  Source: ``Behavioral Research Annual Report,'' approved by W.L. Dunn 
and distributed to H. Wakeham et al.--July 18, 1975.
  September 1975.--Philip Morris scientist W.L. Dunn describes smokers' 
abilities to compensate for reduced nicotine in cigarettes as ``dose-
regulating mechanisms of remarkable precision and sensitivity.'' He 
explains in detail how a smoker could compensate for a 15 percent 
reduction in nicotine in Marlboro cigarettes by ``more efficient 
extraction of the goodies.'' He writes:

       To accommodate to the 15% reduction in available Marlboro 
     nicotine, the smoker who was getting 50% of the available 
     nicotine over into his blood from the Marlboro . . . now must 
     get 59% of what the current Marlboro offers him. He can take 
     bigger puffs, or inhale more from the supply drawn into the 
     mouth . . . or for more efficient extraction of the goodies, 
     he can draw it deeper or hold it in longer.

  Source: Letter from W.L. Dunn to Stanley Schachter (Sept. 8, 1975).
  February 1976.--Philip Morris continues its study of smoking by 
college students by attempting to identify ``nicotine regulators'' 
among college students. A major goal of the study is to determine if 
Philip Morris can ``force'' students who are given low-nicotine 

[[Page H7474]]
cigarettes ``to modify their puff volumes, inhalation volumes, and/or 
smoke retention times in order to obtain their usual nicotine dose.'' 
Nicotine regulators are described by Philip Morris in the documents as 
smokers who compensate for nicotine deprivation by increasing their 
intake of nicotine.
  Source: Carolyn Levy, ``Regulator Identification Program,'' in Smoker 
Psychology Monthly Report--Feb. 10, 1976.
  June 1976.--Philip Morris researchers discuss ``why people start to 
smoke.'' They summarize the data indicating that most smokers begin to 
smoke between 10 and 18 years old. They then state that one of the 
reasons for continued smoking is that cigarettes serve ``as a narcotic, 
tranquilizer, or sedative.''
  Source: Memorandum on ``Why People Start to Smoke,'' from A. Udow to 
J.J. Morgan--June 2, 1976.
  December 1976.--Philip Morris scientists report a ``consensus of 
investigators'' that ``the reinforcement of the smoking act is the 
effect of smoke component action in the central nervous system.'' They 
propose setting up an electroencephalographic or ``EEG'' laboratory 
``to seek an ultimate explanation of cigarette smoking among the 
nicotine or smoke-component-related events of the central nervous 
system.'' The new EEG equipment would enable Philip Morris to monitor 
the brain waves of smokers.
  Source: Memorandum on ``Rationale for Investigating the Effects of 
Smoking Upon Electroencephalographic Phenomena,'' from W.L. Dunn to 
T.S. Osdene--Dec. 22, 1976.
  November 1977.--Philip Morris continues its study of smoking by 
college students. In a new experiment, Philip Morris attempts to 
distinguish students who smoke out of ``habit'' from those who smoke 
out of ``need.'' The researchers explain:

       Although nicotine intake appears a critical mainstay of 
     tobacco consumption, not all people smoke for nicotine on all 
     occasions. . . . All . . . cigarettes contribute to the total 
     nicotine in the system, so that a cigarette smoked out of 
     habit will delay the time until a cigarette is smoked out of 
     need.

  Source: F.J. Ryan, ``Habit and Need Cigarettes,'' in Smoker 
Psychology Monthly Report--Nov. 11, 1977.
  December 1977.--Philip Morris researchers report to the Director of 
Research their view that ``nicotine compensation is a real phenomenon'' 
and that ``some people smoke for nicotine and * * * try to obtain a 
relatively constant amount of nicotine from their cigarettes.''
  The report also states that Philip Morris has ``effected an 
arrangement with a university affiliated hospital for injecting 
nicotine in humans for discrimination studies.'' FDA approval is 
required before conducting nicotine injections, but in this case and 
the other instances of human injection mentioned in the documents, no 
such approval apparently was.
  Source: Memorandum on ``Behavioral Research Accomplishments--1977,'' 
from W.L. Dunn to T.S. Osdene--Dec. 19, 1977.
  March 1978.--Philip Morris launches its ``nicotine program.'' The 
program is to involve central nervous system (``CNS'') behavioral 
testing, studies of the ``molecular basis of nicotine
 pharmacology,'' and ``nicotine analogue preparation.''

  On March 15, 1978, the Philip Morris researchers involved in the 
program write:

       An effective nicotine program must include both peripheral 
     and CNS bioassay.  . . . It is clear that CNS studies 
     represent the most complex, state-of-the-art concepts. 
     Ultimately, the isolation and characterization of the 
     nicotine CNS receptors are the major goal. Many steps must 
     come first. These include (1) pharmacological location of 
     sites of nicotinic action using both cannulae and various 
     tissue sections; (2) measurement of electrochemical activity 
     following drug administration; (3) various techniques 
     including photoaffinity labeling and binding studies as aids 
     a receptor isolation (4) receptor identification and 
     characterization.

  On March 31, 1978, they elaborate further, describing ``CNS 
behavioral testing'' that is ``needed in the immediate future'':

       Nicotine discrimination, self-administration and tolerance 
     studies will enable us to examine the cuing and reinforcing 
     properties of nicotine and nicotine analogues in rats. These 
     are state-of-the-art bioassays for central nervous system 
     activity which we believe will serve as useful models of 
     human smoking behavior.

  These CNS studies are significant because they are the same studies 
used by the National Institute on Drug Abuse to determine the addiction 
potential of a drug. A substance that a self-administered and 
reinforcing has addiction potential because it induces repeated and 
compulsive use.
  The researchers also propose conducting studies into the ``molecular 
basis of nicotine pharmacology,'' because ``we must begin to gain 
expertise in experimentation dealing with nicotine receptor 
technology.'' Nicotine receptors are the structures in the brain to 
which nicotine attaches after entering the blood stream.
  Source: Memorandum on ``Nicotine Program,'' from J.I. Seeman to T.S. 
Osdene--Mar. 15, 1978; Memorandum on ``Nicotine Program: Specific 
Implementation,'' from J.I. Seeman et al. to T.S. Osdene--Mar. 31, 
1978.
  September 1978.--Philip Morris develops a new five-year plan for 
research and development. A major component of the plan is the nicotine 
analog program, which is based on the recognition that ``nicotine may 
be the physiologically active component of smoke having the greatest 
consequence to the consumer.''
  Specifically, the plan states:

       Nicotine may be the physiologically active component of 
     smoke having the greatest consequence to the consumer. 
     Therefore, we are studying the differences in physiological 
     effects between nicotine and its analogues to determine the 
     mode of nicotinic action. If acquired, this knowledge may 
     lead to a substance which will produce the known desirable 
     nicotinic effects and greatly diminish any physiological 
     effects of no benefit to the consumer.

  Source: Philip Morris, USA, ``Research and Development Five Year 
Plan, 1979-1983''--Sept. 1978.
  December 1978.--Philip Morris presents its objectives for the 
Behavioral Research Laboratory for 1979. The objectives are significant 
for two reasons:
  First, they describe intense research activity, involving over 15 
different investigations, into nicotine pharmacology.
  Second, they link the laboratory's nicotine research to the 
development of ``new and improved smoking products'' that capitalize on 
the research.
  The Philip Morris researchers state their overall objective as 
follows:

       All of the effort of the Behavioral Research Laboratory is 
     aimed at achieving this objective: To understand the 
     psychological reward the smoker gets from smoking, to 
     understand the psychophysiology underlying this reward, and 
     to relate this reward to the constituents in smoke.

  The researchers explain that to achieve this objective, three general 
lines of research will be pursued:

       1. The effects of nicotine and nicotine-like compounds on 
     animal behavior.
       2. The effects of smoke and smoke constituents upon the 
     electrical activity in the human brain.
       3. The effects of changes in smoke composition upon puffing 
     behavior, inhalation behavior and descriptive statements by 
     the smoker.

  The ``rationale for the program'' is its potential commercial 
application. Specifically, the researchers state:

       The rationale for the program rests on the premise that
        such knowledge will strengthen Philip Morris R&D 
     capability in developing new and improved smoking 
     products.

  The researchers then describe six studies being conducted by the 
animal behavior group--``nicotine discrimination,'' ``tail flick,'' 
``monitoring of motor activity,'' ``prostration syndrome,'' ``nicotine 
self-administration,'' and ``rat EEG''; five studies being conducted by 
a new neuropsychology laboratory set up ``to understand the 
interrelations between cigarette smoking and the human brain''--
``effects of smoking on visually evoked response,'' ``search for other 
evoked responses,'' ``effects of smoking on the electroencephalogram,'' 
``long-term deprivation and the electrical activity of the brain,'' and 
``comparison of three routes of nicotine administration''; and five 
studies being conducted by the smoking behavior group--nicotine 
detection, masking of nicotine, nicotine's affect on cigarette 
acceptability, behavioral consequences of low-nicotine cigarettes, and 
``mouthfeel'' factors.
  Three of the studies are especially noteworthy. First, the study 
comparing three routes of nicotine administration is significant 
because it again involved ``intravenous injection'' of 

[[Page H7475]]
human subjects with nicotine as one of the routes of administration. 
The other two routes of exposure were inhalation and ingestion. The 
study was designed to ``answer several important questions,'' including 
``what is the relationship between blood nicotine levels and CNS 
activity''; ``how soon following a given method of nicotine 
administration are effects seen in the CNS and for how long''; and 
``how are the human studies employing cigarette smoking similar to or 
different from animal studies employing nicotine injection.''
  Second, the study of long-term deprivation and the electrical 
activity of the brain is important because it involved measuring the 
brain waves of quitters to learn whether ``brains change in some 
fashion following the experience with tobacco.'' According to the 
researchers, this study was undertaken because ``in terms of the 
electrical activity of the brain, there can be little doubt that 
smokers and nonsmokers are very different.''
  Third, the study of the behavioral consequences of smoking low-
nicotine cigarettes is significant because it involved designing 
special cigarettes ``at or near the nicotine need threshold.'' As the 
researchers explained:

       The low nicotine delivery will ensure that total nicotine 
     in the system remains at or near the nicotine need threshold, 
     thus maximizing the proportion of day's cigarette consumption 
     which is smoked out of need. . . . The results may shed light 
     on the manner by which nicotine control is achieved.

  Source: Memorandum on ``Plans and Objectives--1979,'' from W.L. Dunn 
to T.S. Osdene--Dec. 6, 1978.
  January 7, 1980.--Philip Morris describes its objectives for the 
behavioral research laboratory for 1980. Many of the objectives are a 
continuation of the 1979 objectives. The Philip Morris researchers make 
several statements that again underscore the company's knowledge of 
nicotine's addictiveness.
  The Philip Morris researchers state that ``our theorizing on the role 
of nicotine suggests that cigarettes will be smoked whenever body 
nicotine content drops below a certain (unknown) level.'' The 
researchers also state their view that smokers will experience 
withdrawal syndrome and evidence of nicotine dependence upon being 
given ultra-low-nicotine cigarettes.
  In one noteworthy study, the researchers propose to use a place 
preference paradigm used to study morphine to study nicotine. 
Specifically, they state:

       Mucha and Van der Kooy (1979) have reported that a place 
     preference paradigm may be used to demonstrate the rewarding 
     properties of morphine. We plan to use a similar paradigm to 
     examine the rewarding properties of nicotine.

  A second important study described in the report involves the effect 
to develop an assay for measuring the nicotine level in saliva. This 
assay would be used to confirm that ``cigarettes will be smoked 
whenever body nicotine content drops below a certain (unknown) level.''
  Source: Memorandum on ``Plans and Objectives--1980,'' from W.L. Dunn 
to T.S. Osdene--Jan. 7, 1980.
  January 15, 1980.--Philip Morris describes its objectives for the 
Biochemistry Division for 1980 in a report from the director of 
research, Thomas Osdene, to the vice president for research and 
development, Robert Seligman. As in earlier reports, the objectives for 
this division include a heavy emphasis on nicotine.
  Specifically, the report states that the objectives include:

       1. To develop a fundamental understanding of the mechanisms 
     by which nicotine and other tobacco alkaloids interact with 
     the peripheral and central nervous system.
       2. To determine if nicotine analogues can be designed which 
     exhibit differential activity at different receptors. . . .
       5. To perform . . . pharmacological testing of nicotine and 
     its analogues.

  Source: T.S. Osdene, ``Plans and Objectives for 1980,'' distributed 
to R. Seligman et al.--Jan. 15, 1980.
  March 1980.--Philip Morris's vice president for research and 
development, Robert Seligman, sends a memo to Philip Morris scientists 
soliciting their views on the value of continuing Philip Morris's 
support for the nicotine analog research being conducted by Dr. Leo 
Abood at the University of Rochester.
  The researchers respond that the program should be continued. One 
researcher, Jim Charles, justifies support by explaining that 
``nicotine and an understanding of its properties are important to the 
continued well being of our cigarette business since this alkaloid has 
been cited often as `the reason for smoking.''' Charles subsequently 
became the director of research at Philip Morris and later vice 
president for research and development.
  Specifically, Charles states:

       Nicotine is a powerful pharmacological agent with multiple 
     sites of action and may be the most important component of 
     cigarette smoke. Nicotine and an understanding of its 
     properties are important to the continued well being of our 
     cigarette business since this alkaloid has been cited often 
     as ``the reason for smoking.'' . . . Nicotine is known to 
     have effects on the central and peripheral nervous system as 
     well as influencing memory, learning, pain perception, 
     response to stress and level of arousal.
       Our ability to ascertain the structural features of the 
     nicotine molecule which are responsible for its various 
     pharmacological properties can lead to the design of 
     compounds with enhanced desirable properties (central nervous 
     system effects) and minimized suspect properties (peripheral 
     nervous system effects). There are many opportunities for 
     acquiring proprietary compounds which can serve as a firm 
     foundation for new and innovative products in the future.

  A second researcher refers to related work being conducted by Philip 
Morris in Germany, stating ``for several years, we have been receiving 
data on peripheral screening of our nicotine analogues from Germany.'' 
According to the researcher, the work from Cologne, Germany, has been 
of the highest calibre.
  Source: Memorandum on ``Nicotine Receptor Program----University of 
Rochester,'' from R.B. Seligman to T.S. Osdene et al.--Mar. 5, 1980; 
Memorandum on ``Nicotine Receptor Program--University of Rochester,'' 
from J.L. Charles to R.B. Seligman--Mar. 18, 1980; Memorandum on 
``Nicotine Receptor Program--University of Rochester,'' from E.B. 
Sanders to R.B. Seligman--Mar. 21, 1980.
  November 1980.--Philip Morris describes its research objectives for 
the behavioral research program for 1981. The objectives again confirm 
the company's extensive interest in the pharmacological effects of 
nicotine.
  The report describes the goals of the electrophysiology program as 
follows:

       It is our belief that the reinforcing properties of 
     cigarette smoking are directly relatable to the effects that 
     smoking has on electrical and chemical events within the 
     central nervous system. Therefore, the goals of the 
     electrophysiology program are to: (I) Determine how cigarette 
     smoking affects the electrical activity of the brain, and 
     (II) Identify, as far as possible, the neural elements which 
     mediate cigarette smoking's reinforcing actions.

  The report describes the goals of a new behavioral pharmacology 
program as follows:

       Objectives: I. To develop a better understanding of the 
     behavioral pharmacological actions of nicotine, particularly 
     the action which reinforces smoking behavior. II. Develop the 
     empirical evidence which differentiates nicotine from 
     classical abuse substances. III. Use behavioral pharmacology 
     methods for evaluating the nicotine-likeness of nicotine 
     analogues.

  The report describes the goals of the experimental psychology program 
as follows:

       Objectives: 1. To gain a better understanding of the role 
     of nicotine in smoking. 2. To study basic dimensions of the 
     cigarette as they relate to cigarette acceptability.

  Two individual studies described in the report are especially 
important. First, the report states that Philip Morris succeeded in 
developing a technique for inducing rats to self-administer nicotine. 
This is significant because self-administration is a hallmark 
characteristic of an addictive drug. Independent scientists, who were 
not informed of this secret Philip Morris research, did not demonstrate 
nicotine self-administration in the laboratory until 1989, nearly a 
decade after Philip Morris.
  Second, the report describes a third planned experiment
   involving injecting nicotine into human subjects. The report states:

       There are tentative plans for one other project in which 
     nicotine will be delivered intravenously in different sized 
     spikes of different duration, to yield a broader picture of 
     the role of the spike, the level, and the reinforcement 
     characteristics of the substance. The execution of this 
     project . . . involves the dosing of numerous subjects with 
     nicotine.

  Source: Memorandum on ``Plans and Objectives--1981,'' from W.L. Dunn 
to T.S. Osdene--Nov. 26, 1980.


                          subsequent research

  What happened in the Philip Morris research laboratories after 
November 1980?

[[Page H7476]]

  On April 28, 1994, two Philip Morris researchers, Victor DeNoble and 
Paul Mele, appeared before the Subcommittee on Health and the 
Environment of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, to testify 
about their research at Philip Morris from 1980 to 1984. They described 
how they used experimental techniques developed by the National 
Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA] to determine the addiction potential of 
nicotine.
  DeNoble and Mele's experiments primarily involved nicotine self-
administration studies in rats. As described above, they found that 
rats would self-administer nicotine--one of the hallmark 
characteristics of an addictive drug.
  DeNoble and Mele's work held great interest to top Philip Morris 
executives. According to their testimony, in mid-1983 they were flown 
to New York to brief senior management on their work. Then in November 
1983, the President of Philip Morris, Shep Pollack, flew to Richmond to 
observe rats injecting nicotine in one of DeNoble and Mele's self-
administration experiments. At that time, Pollack was informed by 
DeNoble that the procedures he observed were ``the exact procedures 
NIDA would use to demonstrate abuse liability.''
  Despite Philip Morris's interest in their work, DeNoble and Mele were 
abruptly terminated in April 1984, due to concerns that their findings 
could bolster product liability claims against Philip Morris. 
Subsequently, Philip Morris threatened the two researchers with 
litigation if they disclosed their research activities in journals or 
at public forums.
  DeNoble and Mele were involved in only one part of Philip Morris's 
intensive investigation of nicotine--the rat experimentation. Virtually 
nothing is known about what happened to the many other Philip Morris 
research initiatives after 1980.


                               conclusion

  The documents I have just read make it clear that Philip Morris is in 
the drug business. Its laboratories have been intensively involved in 
unlocking the secrets of nicotine pharmacology for decades. The 
documents themselves state that this pharmacological research was 
undertaken for commercial purposes.
  The documents also indicate that this research was in important 
instances targeted specifically at children and college students.
  In summary, these documents make it crystal clear that we need 
regulation of tobacco to protect our children from becoming addicted to 
a life-threatening drug.
  Mr. Speaker, I have brought with me the documents I read from during 
the course of this hour. Pursuant to my earlier unanimous consent 
request, I am inserting the documents in the Record for publication.
  [Documents referred to will appear in a future issue of the Record.]
  

                          ____________________