US tobacco company loses 'addiction' case
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.San Francisco - Documents allegedly showing that the nation's third-largest cigarette manufacturer knew of nicotine's addictive qualities 30 years ago but ignored that information have been made available here, writes Edward Helmore.
The California Supreme Court ruled that the University of California could release the papers, which detail research commissioned by Brown and Williamson, the makers of Lucky Strike and other brands.
The documents, which run to 4,000 pages, purportedly showthe Kentucky- based company knew of the carcinogenic and addictive qualities of tobacco in the 1960s but chose to ignore those research results and abandoned steps to make cigarettes safer.
Brown and Williamson had sued the University of California, saying the papers had been stolen in 1989. The documents came to light in May 1994 when they were sent anonymously to Stanton Glantz, a professor at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF).
"The decision invites any person to steal documents and launder them through the UCSF library," a company lawyer said. Following the ruling, which overturned a lower court decision, the information has been put on the Internet.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments