Reynolds America’s orientation, regarding tobacco regulations would be described at arm’s length, hands down. Reynolds America, being the parent company of our country’s largest tobacco manufacturer attacked the FDA’s proposal on the grounds that, “the FDA was incapable of enforcing the proposed legislation for tobacco regulation”. the company used media publicity, such as TV advertisements to basically drive home their allegations that the FDA could not even properly over see their core mission of insuring food and drug safety. Their (Reynolds) obligation was to keep their reputation, although controversial and disputed by anti-smokers, as a leading tobacco manufacturer.
Altria (parent company of Philip Morris USA) was an avid supporter of the law when it went before congress. Since they were certain that the law would be passed, they took a seat at the table, so to speak, as the bill was being discussed in congress. Their only opposition to the bill was that cigarettes not be banned entirely.
The difference between both companies positions is simply Reynolds pride and the decision to fight the proposal entirely was ultimately a publicity, morally stubborn sense of entitlement because of the nature of the what their company manufactures. Whereas, Philip Morris was more open minded and accepting of the fact that times are changing and societies right to be concerned about the well being of smokers and non-smokers, which shows good character for their company (Philip Morris USA). Personally, I believe that neither company could fully show good character with the products they produce and sell and Phillip Morris USA was only trying to get ahead of the impending damage to their company to “save