Velicer Clayton, Lempert Lauren K, Glantz Stanton
Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Tob Control. 2015 Sep;24(5):469-80. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051571. Epub 2014 Jun 11.
Use previously secret tobacco industry documents to assess tobacco companies' routine claims of trade secret protection for information on cigarette ingredients, additives and construction made to regulatory agencies, as well as the companies' refusal to publicly disclose this information.
We analysed previously secret tobacco industry documents available at (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu) to identify 100 examples of seven major tobacco companies' reverse engineering of their competitors' brands between 1937 and 2001.
These reverse engineering reports contain detailed data for 142 different measurements for at least two companies, including physical parameters of the cigarettes, tobacco types, humectants, additives, flavourings, and smoke constituents of competitors' cigarettes. These 100 documents were distributed to 564 employees, including top managers in domestic and foreign offices across multiple departments, including executive leadership, research and design, product development, marketing and legal. These documents reported new competitors' products, measured ingredient changes over time, and informed companies' decisions regarding ingredients in their own products.
Because cigarette companies routinely analyse their competitors' cigarettes in great detail, this information is neither secret nor commercially valuable and, thus, does not meet the legal definition of a 'trade secret.' This information is only being kept 'secret' from the people consuming cigarettes and the scientific community. Public agencies should release this detailed information because it would provide valuable information about how ingredients affect addictiveness and toxicity, and would help the public health community and consumers better understand the impact of cigarette design on human health.
利用此前保密的烟草行业文件,评估烟草公司向监管机构提出的关于香烟成分、添加剂和构造信息的商业秘密保护常规主张,以及这些公司拒绝公开披露此类信息的情况。
我们分析了可在(http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu)获取的此前保密的烟草行业文件,以确定1937年至2001年间七家主要烟草公司对其竞争对手品牌进行逆向工程的100个案例。
这些逆向工程报告包含至少两家公司142种不同测量的详细数据,包括香烟的物理参数、烟草类型、保湿剂、添加剂、调味剂以及竞争对手香烟的烟雾成分。这100份文件分发给了564名员工,包括国内外办公室多个部门的高层管理人员,涵盖行政领导、研发、产品开发、营销和法律等部门。这些文件报告了新的竞争对手产品,测量了成分随时间的变化,并为公司关于自身产品成分的决策提供了依据。
由于卷烟公司经常对其竞争对手的香烟进行详细分析,这些信息既非秘密信息,也无商业价值,因此不符合“商业秘密”的法律定义。这些信息只是对吸烟人群和科学界保密。公共机构应公布这些详细信息,因为它将提供有关成分如何影响成瘾性和毒性的宝贵信息,并有助于公共卫生界和消费者更好地了解香烟设计对人类健康的影响。