tagged w/ Philip Morris
-
Corporations carry out some of the most horrific human rights abuses of modern times, but it is increasingly difficult to hold them to account. Economic globalization and the rise of transnational corporate power have created a favorable climate for corporate human rights abusers, which are governed principally by the codes of supply and demand and show genuine loyalty only to their stockholders. http://www.makeahistory.com/index.php/recent-news/43017-some-of-the-qmost-wantedq-corporate-human-rights-violatorsCorporations carry out some of the most horrific human rights abuses of modern times,... more
-
-
worrg
-
added this
-
7 months ago
- |
-
A Scottish university is battling a tobacco giant's attempt to gain access to its research into the smoking habits of thousands of teenagers.
Philip Morris International (PMI), which makes Marlboro cigarettes, has submitted Freedom of Information (FoI) requests to Stirling University.
The research examines why the teenagers start smoking and what they think of tobacco marketing.
Academics said agreeing to the request would be a major breach of confidence.
They are also concerned it could jeopardise future research.
Prof Gerard Hastings, of the university's Centre for Tobacco Control Research, said: "It is deeply concerning they are even trying to get this data.
"We are talking about children and this is data the tobacco companies themselves would never be allowed to collect."
He said it would be "catastrophic" if the centre lost its fight and was forced to hand over the data.
'Enormous implications'
"Most fundamentally this information was given to us by young people in complete confidence," he said. "We assured them we would treat it with absolute confidence and that it would be restricted to the research.
"There is no way that Philip Morris qualifies in that definition.
"It has enormous implications for academic freedom."
The centre, which is part of the university's Institute for Social Marketing, of which Prof Hastings is director, was established in 1999 by Cancer Research UK and aims to discover why children start smoking.
Over the past decade the study has involved up to 6,000 teenagers and young people aged 13-24.
The department initially refused even to respond to the request, complaining it was "vexatious".
But the information commissioner said on 30 June that this was not the case and also found the university had failed to respond to the request within the time limit.
The university said it had now made a "proper response" to Philip Morris, but is still refusing to hand over its research.
A spokeswoman for the information commissioner said the company could appeal again.
"If the commissioner comes to the decision that the university was not correct and has not applied the right exemptions, he can order the release of the information," she added.
Private information
A Philip Morris International spokeswoman said: "PMI made a Freedom of Information request to understand more about a research project conducted by the University of Stirling regarding plain packaging for cigarettes.
"Such government-funded research conducted by public institutions is covered by the Freedom of Information Act, in accordance with which members of the public can request information held by public authorities."
She added: "With regards to this FoI request, the Scottish Information Commissioner confirmed in his decision of 30 June, that we had a legitimate interest in seeking the information and asked the university to respond to the request.
"We are not seeking any private or confidential information on any individuals involved with the research. As provided by the freedom of Information Act, confidential and private information concerning individuals should not be disclosed."
The spokeswoman added that the commissioner also concluded that the information request submitted by PMI was not designed to cause disruption or annoyance to the university.A Scottish university is battling a tobacco giant's attempt to gain access to its... more
-
-
pdy
-
added this
-
9 months ago
- |
-
This past term of Congress let the drug industry write much of a health care overhaul, extended of ethanol subsidies, passed the Marlboro Monopoly Act, crafted a subsidy-laden stimulus bill, gave us Cash-for-Clunkers and Cash-for-Caulkers, tried to pass a corporate-backed climate bill, and created a Wall Street "reform" that formalizes bailouts.
Call it the corporatist Congress.
H.R. 1, the first undertaking of the 111th Congress, was the $800 billion stimulus bill, a cornucopia of corporate welfare and special favors. The New York Times reported in early 2009, "the industries that stand to gain most from the proposed legislation were also working to help shape it even before Mr. Obama had won the election."
These included the likes of Google and other tech firms, but also the coal and power industries, whose five-year joint lobbying effort finally paid off with a billion-dollar earmark for a clean-coal project in Illinois.
The stimulus also created special subsidies for electric cars, high-speed rail, and other "green" technologies, including a "Production Tax Credit" for windmills -- allowing companies like General Electric to be paid, up front, for building windmills, even if they never spin. While profiting handsomely from these targeted tax breaks, GE also got $24.9 million in stimulus money for its Global Research Center.
In June, Congress passed a tobacco regulation bill known on K Street as the Marlboro Monopoly Act. Philip Morris, by far the largest tobacco company, had been backing the bill for a decade, knowing it would crush smaller competitors and lock in its market share.
Cash-for-clunkers transferred tax dollars to the automakers and car dealers who had proposed it, while driving up the price of new and used cars for everyone.
The encore was Cash-for-Caulkers, a home renovation bill backed by the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and Dow Chemical, who all get the subsidies.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2010/12/farewell-congress-corporate-interests#ixzz19LERQEa3This past term of Congress let the drug industry write much of a health care overhaul,... more
-
-
....It just came out that Philip Morris posted a 20% gain this quarter....
....MacDonalds posted a 11% gain this quarter.......
....looking for a sign of dismal times.....
....Here it is...........It just came out that Philip Morris posted a 20% gain this quarter....... more
-
-
The Supreme Court waded yesterday into a complicated legal debate over whether tobacco companies can be sued in state courts for deceptive advertising of "light" cigarettes, a dispute that has divided government regulators and the business community.
As the justices began their new term, they engaged in a spirited oral argument over a lawsuit filed in Maine by three smokers against Philip Morris USA and its parent company, Altria Group. Using internal company documents and supported in part by the Bush administration, which helped them argue their case, the smokers accused Philip Morris of falsely marketing low-tar and low-nicotine cigarettes as less harmful than regular brands.
The tobacco company said it should be shielded from such state law claims by federal law, a position that drew skepticism from several members of the court's liberal wing. Conservative justices seemed generally more receptive to Philip Morris's argument, with Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Antonin Scalia suggesting that if consumers were misled into thinking that light cigarettes are safer, the fault is more the government's.
"The FTC's position seems to me incomprehensible," Alito told a Justice Department lawyer, referring to the Federal Trade Commission's regulation of the industry through a controversial test that measures tar and nicotine yields. Alito added: "You've created this whole problem by, I think, passively approving the placement of these figures . . . in the advertisements. And if they are misleading, then you have misled everybody who's bought those cigarettes for a long time."
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often the deciding vote when the court divides along ideological lines, told an attorney for the smokers that he is probably "going to have difficulty in accepting your position in this entire case."
The argument in Altria Group v. Good was the latest in a growing national debate over "preemption," a doctrine under which state product liability lawsuits against companies can be thrown out under federal law. Courts are filled with such cases, and the Supreme Court decided several last term in favor of corporations. The justices will hear another major preemption case, involving the pharmaceutical industry, in November. The Supreme Court waded yesterday into a complicated legal debate over whether tobacco... more
-
