Fast-food fights: news coverage of local efforts to improve food environments through land-use regulations, 2001-2013. [corrected].

Zoning and other land-use policies are a promising but controversial strategy to improve community food environments. To understand how these policies are debated, we searched existing databases and the Internet and analyzed news coverage and legal documentation of efforts to restrict fast-food restaurants in 77 US communities in 2001 to 2013. Policies intended to improve community health were most often proposed in urban, racially diverse communities; policies proposed in small towns or majority-White communities aimed to protect community aesthetics or local businesses. Health-focused policies were subject to more criticism than other policies and were generally less successful. Our findings could inform the work of advocates interested in employing land-use policies to improve the food environment in their own communities.

Tobacco industry use of personal responsibility rhetoric in public relations and litigation: disguising freedom to blame as freedom of choice.

We examined the tobacco industry's rhetoric to frame personal responsibility arguments. The industry rarely uses the phrase "personal responsibility" explicitly, but rather "freedom of choice." When freedom of choice is used in the context of litigation, the industry means that those who choose to smoke are solely to blame for their injuries. When used in the industry's public relations messages, it grounds its meaning in the concept of liberty and the right to smoke. The courtroom "blame rhetoric" has influenced the industry's larger public relations message to shift responsibility away from the tobacco companies and onto their customers. Understanding the rhetoric and framing that the industry employs is essential to combating this tactic, and we apply this comprehension to other industries that act as disease vectors.

Cigarettes become a dangerous product: tobacco in the rearview mirror, 1952-1965.

Tobacco control's unparalleled success comes partly from advocates broadening the focus of responsibility beyond the smoker to include industry and government. To learn how this might apply to other issues, we examined how early tobacco control events were framed in news, legislative testimony, and internal tobacco industry documents. Early debate about tobacco is stunning for its absence of the personal responsibility rhetoric prominent today, focused instead on the health harms from cigarettes. The accountability of government, rather than the industry or individual smokers, is mentioned often; solutions focused not on whether government had a responsibility to act, but on how to act. Tobacco lessons can guide advocates fighting the food and beverage industry, but must be reinterpreted in current political contexts.

Tobacco industry use of corporate social responsibility tactics as a sword and a shield on secondhand smoke issues.

The tobacco industry has used corporate social responsibility tactics to improve its corporate image with the public, press, and regulators who increasingly have grown to view it as a merchant of death. There is, however, an intractable problem that corporate social responsibility efforts can mask but not resolve: the tobacco industry's products are lethal when used as directed, and no amount of corporate social responsibility activity can reconcile that fundamental contradiction with ethical corporate citizenship. This study's focus is to better understand the tobacco industry's corporate social responsibility efforts and to assess whether there has been any substantive change in the way it does business with regard to the issue of exposure to secondhand smoke. The results show that the industry has made no substantial changes and in fact has continued with business as usual. Although many of the tobacco companies' tactics traditionally had been defensive, they strove for a way to change to a more offensive strategy. Almost without exception, however, their desire to appear to be good corporate citizens clashed with their aversion to further regulation and jeopardizing their legal position, perhaps an irreconcilable conflict. Despite the switch to offense, in 2006 a federal judge found the companies guilty of racketeering.

Philip Morris's website and television commercials use new language to mislead the public into believing it has changed its stance on smoking and disease.

OBJECTIVES: This paper analyses Philip Morris's evolving website and the legal strategies employed in its creation and dissemination. METHODS: Internal tobacco documents were searched and examined and their substance verified and triangulated using media accounts, legal and public health research papers, and visits to Philip Morris's website. Various drafts of website language, as well as informal discussion of the website's creation, were located in internal Philip Morris documents. I compared website statements pertaining to Philip Morris's stance on cigarette smoking and disease with statements made in tobacco trials. RESULTS: Philip Morris created and disseminated its website's message that it agreed that smoking causes disease and is addictive in an effort to sway public opinion, while maintaining in a litigation setting its former position that it cannot be proved that smoking causes disease or is addictive. CONCLUSIONS: Philip Morris has not changed its position on smoking and health or addiction in the one arena where it has the most to lose-in the courtroom, under oath.

How tobacco-friendly science escapes scrutiny in the courtroom.

Although the tobacco industry helped fund the attack on "junk science," it has created its own dubious scientific scholarship for its expert witnesses. We suggest that plaintiffs' counsel should be proactive in using Daubert hearings to exclude the tobacco industry defendants' scientific expert witnesses by introducing documentation, such as we have found through researching previously privileged internal industry documents, to prove that much of their proposed testimony was developed by and for their lawyers.