his book "how philip morris burned ted kennedy and the antitobacco movement," this is no fan of tobacco. this is a guy that's calling balls and strikes. he's one person that's more concerned about the public health in this country and making sure that what we do accomplishes good public health policy that he's willing to be outspoken. he goes on in his book and he says "the process of validating new, reduced risk products appears to be designed to prevent such products from ever reaching the marketplace, thus giving smokers the start and for man the impossible choice of quit or die." you might remember that part. we can now call the continuum of risk "quit or die." rather than making smoking safer for those who continue to smoke, it will deny smokers access to new products that might literally save their lives. that is hardly a sterling prescription for good public health. if the objective is public health, h.r. 125 smalls way short. even if the idea of f.d.a. regulation were good in theory and practice, several things, including the f.d.a.'s competence in tobacco policy and science, it

host: in the discussion i heard , philip morris supported this. why is that? guest: that is an interesting point. they are the largest cigarette maker in the country. some say, it's in their best interest to do it. it could in fact make it harder for newer products come to market which would limit challengers. host: if i'm a smaller company, i see this in a completely different light. guest: other companies are not particularly supportive of this plan. they cited a number of different reasons. host: here's how you can get in the conference. call in. the numbers are on the screen. if you follow us on twitter go to c-span wj if you want to send us a dweet that way. the republican line first. go ahead. caller: i'm calling in. first-time caller to c-span. thank you for your coverage. i want to thank congress and mr. obama for doing this, and the fda. it's about time. it's probably 30 years too late but thank god they've done it. host: buffalo, new york on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i don't know if you've ever been a smoker. i have. many other listene

morris controls publications from virginia university. but should be fully disclosed cannot allow. right now they're all sorts of rules regarding any study done by a federally funded researcher industry or anyone who wants to get the raw data but of the industry does the study that data can be secret and we should make sure scientist to have a finish to a conflict of interest cannot be on the federal and advisory committees otherwise we cannot trust their advice. the viet vioxx example is very clear. and very tragic side is with contract -- conflict of interest cannot see the truth in front of them. one thing i try to do is put all of these smoking guns on their website defendingscience.org so they can download the documents and see what i am talking about. these are very powerful documents. i would love for you to do that. then i will take some questions [applause] >> so let's first asked from any journalists and anybody with a ph.d.? [laughter] so let's start here we will be bringing a microphone around a. >> figure for presentation you

the bill was supported by philip morris, the largest tobacco company. why? because by restricting advertising, it restricts the measures the advertising and promotions by which its market dominance could be challenged. so again, it's what used to be called regulatory capture, an industry delighted to be regulated, it freezes in its advantages. second the bill goes out of its way to say, the mere fact that the f.d.a. will have -- be regulating tobacco does not immunize the tobacco companies for libet done by their tobacco product. that's protecting another strong battalion here in washington, the trial lawyer. host: you say in your paragraph, ironies abound about the state children health program being supported by tobacco taxes. guest: all over the country, state governments are increasingly addicted, i use the word intentionally, to tobacco taxes. therefore they have a difficult problem. they have to price the pack of tobacco with -- most of which, nowadays, the vast majority of which new uh n.o.w. is taxes. they have to price it so as to not discourage too

as far as philip morris is krneds you said they supported this bill. e how did they react to it? were they as supportive? guest: what i can tell you it's been hard to get this bill through congress over the years. the house may have passed bit but not the senate. so what we've seen with fill lip morris' support behind this bill was a push to get it through congress. and it was able to get through both houses with wide margins. obama is going to sign it. part of it may have been their support, part of it may be the time now with the number of states reducing smoking in places, and other issues overall. host: thanks for your time. guest: thank you. host: coming up we're going to look at mats and science in the united states. our guest released a new study on that issue this week. we'll be right back. >> telephone conversations from the final months of lyndon johnson's presidency, on vietnam, u.n. appointees, and trubblets for his pick for supreme court chief justice. host: michelle, how would you rate the success of mats and science education in the united states? guest: math and s

well, what was the one thing philip morris and the other companies cared more about the and anything else? mauney? no, image but what about image. what they cared about was the social the acceptability of their product. dak 30, 40 years ago tobacco was a reinforcing substance and it was positively viewed. they need is something you wanted and something that was your friend. that was the key. will was the real change, the real success? what did we collectively do as a country? we changed the reenforcing substance for something that was positively valence to something that was negatively valance. so social acceptability, change the product. social norms have a great deal to do with whether we are going to approach something. that is my friend i want, or my enemy i'm going to avoid it. where do we have to focus? the problem, i think the problem is very much not only sugar, fat, and salt, but 80 is a big food and i don't just mean the industry. i'm talking literally about big food. the challenge is as hard a public health challenge as we can and ragin. it's not just about office or the w

morris, the largest tobacco company. why? help morrison knows by restricting advertising it restricts the measures the advertising promotions by which its market dominance could be challenged so again, it is what used to be called regulatory capturing and industry delighted to be regulated because it freezes the and bandages. second, the bill goes out of its way to say the fact the fda will be regulating tobacco does not immunize the tobacco companies against liability for damage done by the product. that is simply protecting another strong battalion in washington. >> host: you also in the irony is abound about the state children's health insurance program being supported by tobacco taxes. >> guest: all over the country state governments are increasingly addicted i would use the word intentionally to tobacco taxes therefore they have a difficult problem they have to price the pack of tobacco most of which nowadays the vast majority in most states is taxes. they have to price it so as to not discourage too much smoki

i'm pleased this has the support of tobacco manufacturers, such as philip morris and the american cancer society and the campaign for tobacco-free kids. the family smoking prevention and tobacco control act is a step in the right direction to address the issue of smoking in our country. i ask members of congress, how many loved ones and constituents do you know have died from lung cancer caused by smoking? this bill can help those 13, 14 and 15-year-olds who are growing up now not to become addicted to tobacco. i strongly support the bill and i urge my colleagues to support it as well. and, again, thank you for the time and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to point out a couple of issues. it seems to me that if a head of lettuce has more rules than tobacco, then i think we should reduce the regulations on lettuce. i think we're going in the wrong direction in terms of this issue. the other thing i'd like to point out is something that my colleague from indiana p

you have given a big check mark to philip morris and say that your market share is ok. and that when you lock down the marketplace and we then stifle innovation and we do not have competition in that marketplace we truly don't have the ability then for these companies to track at-risk capital to make investments in harm reduction -- in a harm reduction strategy whereby we can migrate people down the continuum of risk. so what we're going to have to do is if this bill becomes law we have some real challenges in front of us. one is how do we stand up this new mission within f.d.a., an agency that is already very stressed and underresourced and we're already are going to be addressing issues in the committee regarding food safety and drug safety while we pile on more missions. . i would say to my good friend as soon as this bill is signed into law a couple things are going to happen. number one, the lawyers will make a run to the federal courts and the supreme court will be back sitting in judgment over the provisions on advertising restrictions, not only violation -- pote