Advisory Committee Report: A New Vertical-Component Seismometer

1932 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 6-7
Keyword(s):  
Advisory Committee ◽  
Vertical Component ◽  
Committee Report

scholarly journals Assumption of Risk and the Role of Health Warnings Labels in the United States

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
pp. 975-983
Author(s):  
K Michael Cummings ◽  
Jonathan Gdanski ◽  
Nichole Veatch ◽  
Ernesto Marcelo Sebrié
Keyword(s):  
Advisory Committee ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Smoking Prevention ◽  
Committee Report ◽  
Cigarette Pack ◽  
Cigarette Advertising ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
History Of

Abstract Introduction This article provides historical context for understanding how the cigarette industry have manipulated language used in health warning labels (HWLs) to protect them in litigation. Methods Review of previously secret internal business records from 1964 discussing the role HWLs on cigarettes. Review of the legal challenges made by cigarette manufacturers surrounding HWLs as mandated in the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act and the language in corrective statements ordered by US Department of Justice. Results Within days after the Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee issued its 1964 Report the cigarette companies plotted how they could use HWLs on cigarettes as a defense in future litigation. Industry lawyers discussed drafting legislation that would preempt other government agencies from requiring HWLs on cigarette containers and in cigarette advertising with language mirroring the key findings of the Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee report. In July 1965, Congress did pass legislation which mandated a single watered-down cigarette pack HWL which excluded cigarette advertising, just as industry lawyers had recommended. Subsequent HWL laws passed by Congress in 1969 and 1984 along with the more recent history of manufacturers opposing updated graphic HWLs and corrective statements reflects a consistent and continuing effort by cigarette companies to insulate themselves from taking responsibility for harms caused by smoking. Conclusion Beginning in the mid-1960s and continuing even through today, lawyers working on behalf of cigarettes companies have worked to manipulate the language of consumer warnings to focus responsibility for the harms caused by smoking on smokers. Implications In tobacco litigation, juries should be informed about the industry’s coordinated effort to draft legislation and water down the original caution statements proposed on cigarette containers and in advertising even though Congress ultimately is responsible for the law that was enacted. In addition, even though the 1992 Supreme Court decision in the Cipollone case preempted post-1969 failure to warm claims against cigarette makers, this protection does not apply on pre-1969 warning claims where the evidence shows that cigarette companies understood they were selling a defective product that when used as intended would harm their customers. Thus, those initiating smoking before 1969 and subsequently harmed by cigarettes can hold cigarette makers responsible for their failure to warn them about health risks.

Research And Practice: Research Advisory Committee Report

1995 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 300-303
Keyword(s):  
Education Research ◽  
Mathematics Education ◽  
Advisory Committee ◽  
Practice Research ◽  
Committee Report ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
New Form ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Gaining Insight

In the July 1994 issue of the JRME, the Research Advisory Committee described a new form of research session for the annual NCTM meeting called Reflecting on Practice (ROP). ROP sessions arose from the committee's hope that NCTM members would become more aware of a side of mathematics education research that is difficult to discern from published articles: the creative, messy, issue-dyfining processes that are always present in researchers' thinking as they focus their investigations and that frame and guide their research activities. The committee suspected that one reason for poor communication among researchers and nonresearchers is the research community's failure to share the qualitative, conceptual processes of gaining insight into important matters of learning, teaching, and reform.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document