Lorillard and RJ Reynolds sue FDA

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
67
This afternoon, Lorillard and RJ Reynolds filed a lawsuit against the FDA seeking to remove several members of the TPSAC and its Constituents Subcommittee due to conflicts of interest regarding menthol cigarette review, smokeless tobacco products as harm reduction alternatives, litigation against tobacco companies, trade secrets, and the the failure of the FDA to resolve these concerns after being repeatedly informed of them.

I think the 76 page brief (attached at the bottom of this note) makes some compelling arguments.

Lorillard's press release is below.


LORILLARD SUIT ALLEGES FINANCIAL CONFLICT AND BIAS
AMONG FDA ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

GREENSBORO, NC – Feb. 25, 2011 – Highlighting conflicts of interest and bias among members of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientific advisory committee, Lorillard, Inc. (NYSE: LO) today filed suit to stop FDA from receiving or relying on recommendations from the advisory committee, including recommendations regarding the use of menthol in cigarettes. In the complaint, Lorillard also asks the Court to enjoin the FDA from making available to the advisory committee any trade secret or confidential commercial documents submitted by the company to FDA until the advisory committee is lawfully constituted.

The lawsuit was filed jointly by Lorillard and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The advisory committee is expected to submit a non-binding recommendation on the use of menthol in cigarettes to the FDA by March 23, 2011.

The suit alleges that the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee as currently constituted fails to meet requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act to be fairly balanced and not to be inappropriately influenced by any special interest. Instead, the suit alleges, conflicts of several members of the committee render the panel unable to deliver any report or recommendation to the FDA that is “free of the taint of conflicts of interest.”

The suit specifically alleges that three members of the committee, Drs. Neil Benowitz, Jack E. Henningfield and Jonathan M. Samet are conflicted because they have made tens of thousands of dollars as paid expert witnesses in litigation against tobacco products manufacturers and due to their continuing financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that make smoking-cessation products.

Beginning last year, the two companies and others urged the FDA to ensure that members of the panel were free of conflicts. Those concerns, however, were either summarily rejected or entirely ignored.

“We are taking this action reluctantly after the FDA failed to constitute the committee in accordance with the law and failed to properly address legitimate concerns regarding fairness and impartiality,” said Ronald S. Milstein, senior vice president and general counsel of Lorillard.

About Lorillard, Inc.
Lorillard, Inc. (NYSE: LO) is the third largest manufacturer of cigarettes in the United States. Founded in 1760, Lorillard is the oldest continuously operating tobacco company in the U.S. Newport®, Lorillard’s flagship menthol-flavored premium cigarette brand, is the top selling menthol and second largest selling cigarette in the U.S. In addition to Newport, the Lorillard product line has five additional brand families marketed under the Kent®, True®, Maverick®, Old Gold® and Max® brand names. These six brands include 41 different product offerings which vary in price, taste, flavor, length and packaging. Lorillard maintains its headquarters and manufactures all of its products in Greensboro, North Carolina. For more information, visit the Company’s web site at Lorillard, Inc.: Index.
Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements made in this press release are “forward-looking” statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, or the Reform Act. Forward-looking statements include, without limitation, any statement that may project, indicate or imply future results, events, performance or achievements, and may contain the words “expect”, “intend”, “plan”, “anticipate”, “estimate”, “believe”, “may”, “will be”, “will continue”, “will likely result”, and similar expressions. In addition, any statement that may be provided by management concerning future financial performance (including future revenues, earnings or growth rates), ongoing business strategies or prospects, and possible actions by Lorillard, Inc. are also forward-looking statements as defined by the Reform Act.

Forward-looking statements are based on current expectations and projections about future events and are inherently subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control, that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated or projected. Information describing factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements is available in Lorillard, Inc.’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), including, but not limited to, our Annual Report on Form 10-K and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. These filings are available from the SEC over the Internet or in hard copy, and are available on our website at Lorillard, Inc.: Index. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the time they are made, and we expressly disclaim any obligation or undertaking to update these statements to reflect any change in expectations or beliefs or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any forward-View attachment 30774looking statement is based. ###
 

Rosco

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Dec 23, 2010
7,124
2,013
73
KCMO:>)
Yet another legal issue to follow, and this one should be big.
This is, for better or worse, putting Big Tobacco on our side for now.

Maybe this will finally draw some attention to the abuse of power the FDA has been guilty of lately.

and here I thought this new book I had would be enough.
This is funny really. I hope the fda gets a royal cleaning....and I'll buy the enema kit to provide the needed hosing.:thumb:
 

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
67
A detailed article in today's Winston-Salem Jrnl about the lawsuit is at:
RJR and Lorillard sue federal agencies | JournalNow.com

This lawsuit, if even partially successful, can benefit tobacco harm reduction. While the menthol cigarette issue is generating most of the attention, smokeless tobacco and/or harm reduction is referenced in the following sections of the plaintiffs' brief.
Sections 27-30, 41, 45, 46, 51, 63-67, 76-81, 84, 85, 94-106, 108-114, 116, 118, 112, 125, 143-149.

If/when the FDA proposes regulating e-cigarettes as tobacco products, the outcome of this court case can also benefit e-cigarettes.

Also, if the lawsuit helps prevent the FDA TPSAC from recommending a ban on (or mandatory reductions of) menthol in cigarettes, it will make it easier to defeat state legislation that seeks to ban flavored smokeless tobacco and flavored e-cigarettes.
 

KDK

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
May 27, 2010
237
15
Fresno Ca. USA
Tried to comment, but it's not showing up. That';s not uncommon for me, as I'm not good at all this new-fangled stuff. My kids(grown and out of the nest) make fun of me all the time, because I don't know what I'm doing on the computer. I try to comment on a lot of stuff, but have had very few show up. I'll keep trying though, because i'm not a quitter (except of cigarettes). Anyway, You keep on after them, cause you do it so well! And thank You.
 

Crumpet

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Oct 7, 2010
300
180
central VA
Thank the lawd. I've been saying it was about time that BT sued someone for forcing them to make deceptively false claims about their products (that smokeless isn't a 'safe' alternative). Look: it was wrong and inexcuseable for BT to blatantly lie about the harm their products caused. However, it isn't any more acceptable to tell more lies about their products now, even if you think you're doing it for the 'public good'. Besides, the FDA/antis aren't doing it for the public good; they're actually hurting people with their lies just like BT did all those years ago, only they're doing it to benefit BP now.
 

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
67
Speaking about Jack Henningfield, he gave several presentations on smokeless tobacco products at the 2003 National Conference on Tobacco OR Health, and during one of them he expressed support for the EU's ban (save Sweden) on the sale of snus.

During the Q&A in response to my question inquiring why he was a snus prohibitionist (while acknowledging that snus was less hazardous than cigarettes), he got so angry at my use of the term "snus prohibitionist" that his face turned beet red and I thought smoke was going to start coming out of his ears as he defended the EU snus ban while claiming it wasn't prohibition.


when I asked him why he
 

CJsKee

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Apr 1, 2009
991
26
Oklahoma
Speaking about Jack Henningfield, he gave several presentations on smokeless tobacco products at the 2003 National Conference on Tobacco OR Health, and during one of them he expressed support for the EU's ban (save Sweden) on the sale of snus.

During the Q&A in response to my question inquiring why he was a snus prohibitionist (while acknowledging that snus was less hazardous than cigarettes), he got so angry at my use of the term "snus prohibitionist" that his face turned beet red and I thought smoke was going to start coming out of his ears as he defended the EU snus ban while claiming it wasn't prohibition.


when I asked him why he


Well...hells bells!!! I say if it makes them that mad, let's just call them all "tobacco prohibitionists"! :evil: :laugh: That's the end goal :grr:
 

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Speaking about Jack Henningfield, he gave several presentations on smokeless tobacco products at the 2003 National Conference on Tobacco OR Health, and during one of them he expressed support for the EU's ban (save Sweden) on the sale of snus.

During the Q&A in response to my question inquiring why he was a snus prohibitionist (while acknowledging that snus was less hazardous than cigarettes), he got so angry at my use of the term "snus prohibitionist" that his face turned beet red and I thought smoke was going to start coming out of his ears as he defended the EU snus ban while claiming it wasn't prohibition.


when I asked him why he

He wasn't too happy with me either, when I walked up to his WHO "Let's Ban the E-Cigarette" Poster at the SRNT conference last year and started telling him the beneficial effects the device had on my health.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread