Thwarting tobacco companies.

Considering the enormous harm tobacco products cause among their most loyal consumers, it is astounding and repugnant that tobacco product manufacturers continue to operate as fabulously profitable enterprises. These companies have used layer upon layer of defense and counter-offense to protect profits from effective public health measures for more than a generation (1 -3). Slowly, however, progress in the curtailment of tobacco use is being made on a variety of fronts. An important sign of and contribution to this movement is the commitment of the American Society of Preventive Oncology, published in this issue, to an active advocacy role in developing a tobacco control policy. In taking this step, the Society is accepting the challenge laid down recently by Secretary of Health and Human Services Louis W. Sullivan: to thwart the tobacco companies (4). A small window on the industry’s consistently shabby behavior with regard to public health concerns was recently opened by a series of articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association about the current advertising campaign for the Camel brand of cigarettes. Camel, like Winston and Salem, is made by the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. In recent years, Philip Morris has increased its market share in a declining domestic cigarette market, largely at the expense of Reynolds (5). The underlying dynamic behind this shift is not difficult to discern: the major Reynolds brands are used by older people, who are either dying or quitting smoking in large numbers. In contrast, Marlboro, a Philip Morris brand, has attracted young smokers, especially those just starting to smoke (6-8). While Marlboro had about one-fourth of the overall cigarette market during much of the 1980s, it