U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler in a ruling finalized wording on five statements to correct what the court earlier found was deception by tobacco companies on the dangers of smoking, USA Today reported.

Her 27 Nov ruling expands on the judge’s 2006 decision that tobacco companies violated racketeering laws, deliberately deceived the public on the dangers of smoking and manipulated their products to increase addiction. The ads to be paid for by US tobacco companies will run for at least two years in various media that have not yet been specified.
Implementation details include regulating size, colour, font and placement, according to a document obtained from the website of the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. The speed and volume at which the ad is announced in broadcast statements may be monitored. ‘Onserts’ on cigarette boxes are proposed and running the statements in Spanish is under consideration. The document addresses statements placed as onserts on product, in newspapers, on websites and television advertisements.
Tobacco companies have the right to appeal the ruling.
All five statements begin with a preamble saying the court has ruled tobacco companies deliberately deceived the American public and are being ordered to make the statements. The preamble is followed by the declaration: Here is the truth.
Topics addressed include adverse health effects of smoking, addictiveness, lack of significant health benefit from smoking low-tar or natural products and dangers of secondhand smoke. There is a statement on culpability of tobacco companies that begins: “Tobacco companies intentionally designed cigarettes to make them more addictive.”
As reported by USA Today, the statement continues: “Cigarette companies control the impact and delivery of nicotine in many ways, including designing filters and selecting cigarette paper to maximize the ingestion of nicotine, adding ammonia to make the cigarette taste less harsh, and controlling the physical and chemical make-up of the tobacco blend.” The case is Civil Action No. 1999-2496 USA v. Philip Morris USA, et al; 99-cv-02496. (pi)