Medicine: A.M.A. v. Kent

The A.M.A., which banned all tobacco advertising from its publications Jan. 1, swung hard last week on a manufacturer who had cited A.M.A. findings in cigarette ads. In 80 newspapers last month, P. Lorillard Co. had advertised: "The A.M.A. . . . tests proved that of all the filter cigarettes tested, one type was the most effective for removing tars and nicotine.—This type filter is used by Kent . . . and only Kent!"

The usually soporific A.M.A. Journal came out of its editorial corner hopping mad: "The unauthorized and medically unethical use of the prestige and reputation of the A.M.A. and the Journal in Kent cigarette advertisements . . . constitutes an outrageous example of commercial exploitation of the American medical profession. The implication . . . that the A.M.A. authorizes, supports or approves any particular brand of cigarettes or combination of claims made in their behalf—whether pygmy-sized or king-sized, with or without filters, nicotinized or denicotinized—provides a most reprehensible instance of hucksterism . . .

"Until the clinical relationship between the amount of nicotine and tars and their effect on the individual smoker is conclusively established, no filter can offer a panacea except one that possesses 100% efficiency. The hard facts of the matter are that a completely efficient filter would permit the smoker to inhale nothing but hot air."