Tobacco Documents Online

Warning ! ! WITHIN THE TREND OF CONSUMER PROTECTION, MORE AND MORE COUNTRIES ARE REQUIRING WARNING LABELS TO BE INCLUDED IN PRODUCT PACKAGING. THE VERBAL CONTENTS OF SUCH LABELS ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS VARY RATHER CONSIDERABLY FROM COUNTRY TO COUNTRY. HOWEVER, THE ESSENTIAL THEME IS GENERALLY THE SAME, NAMELY, A STATEMENT ON THE ALLEGED HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF TOBACCO USE. CERTAINLY, CONSUMER INFORMATION IS PROPER WHEN IT. IS FAIRLY AND FACTUALLY PRESENTED. AND, ONE CANNOT ARGUE AGAINST GOVERN~[ENT'S RIGHT TO REQUIRE SUCH WARNINGS IF IT DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE. ... ...... ~. ~/ HOWEVER, CONCERNS ARE RAISED WHEN OFFICIAL ~ i, ..~. , FACT, BUT GO ON TO EXAGGERATE OR MIS-STATE THE • .... . , A HEALTH WARNING ON A CIGARETTE PACK -- OR IN .... • ' " :~ A STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION ~ETWEE~ TOBACCO USE ~ CERTAIN FORMS OF DISEASE ... IS ONE THAT REFLECTS~/ FACT. HOWEVER, WARNING LABELS THAT GO FURTHER AND MAKE IT APPEAR SCIENCE CAN PROVE A CAUSE-AND-EFFECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN' SMOKING AND HUMAN DISEASE ... ARE, AT MOST, OPINIONS OR

BELIEFS, NOT DEMONSTRATED MEDICAL .~0NCLUSIONS. FURTHER, IF LABELS ARE TO TRULY SERVE THE CONSUMERS, THEY SHOULD NOT BE OPEN' TO CONFLICTING OR AMBIGUOUS INTERPRETATIONS. THE AIM ALWAYS SHOULD BE TO SEEK CLARITY AND AVOID CONFUSION'. IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT ANY WARNING BE UNDERSTOOD ACCURATELY BY THE EVERYDAY READER. ~AKE FOR EXAMPLE THE POTENTIAL WHICH EXISTS FOR DIFFERING INTERPRETATIONS OF A LABEL RELATING SMOKING TO A SPECIFIC DISEASE. IT COULD MEAN: I. SMOKING CAUSES THIS DISEASE, OR 2. ONLY SMOKING CAUSES THE DISEASE, OR 3. SMOKING ALWAYS CAUSES THE DISEASE. A BRITISH PUBLICATION SERVING THE PUBLIC HEALTH FIELD DEVOTED AN EDITORIAL TO THE PROBLEM OF OVER-STATING UNPRO~/EN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS. IT SAID THE RESULT MIGHT BE A "REBOUND OF DISBELIEF." THE EDITORIAL CALLED ~OR "HONEST CAMPAIGNS" IN DISCUSSING VARIOUS ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST TOBACCO. "IF WE ARE TO RETAIN THE CONFIDENCE AND RESPECT OF THE PUBLIC, OUGHT WE NOT TO TAKE THE GREATEST CARE NOT TO MISLEAD THEM? WREN WE ARE SEEKING TO INTERFERE WITH THEIR PERSONAL • -2 -

WarningS! PLEASURES SUCH AS SMOKING AND EATINg, HONESTY IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT." IN SOME COUNTRIES WHICH HAVE WARNING LABELS ON CIGARETTE PACKS, SO~ OFFICIALS ARE ATTEMPTING TO STRENGTHEN' THE WORDING OR TO REQUIRE A SERIES OF LABELS -- AS EXISTS IN SWEDEN AND NORWAY. UNDER THIS APPROACH, SEVERAL DIFFERENTLY-WORDED WARNINGS ARE EMPLOYED ON A ROTATING BASIS. ONE PROFESSOR OF MARKETING AT AN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY SAID "THERE IS NEITHER THEORETICAL NOR EMPIRICAL SUiPPORT FOR THE PROPOSITION' THAT THE ROTATIONAL WARNING SYSTEM ... WOULD HAVE ANY POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE LEVEL OF PUBLIC AWARENESS ABOUT' SMOKING AND HEALTH ISSUES ... [IT] WOULD BE TOTALLY ARBITRARY." THE ROTATIONAL LABEL SCHEME WAS USED FOR A PERIOD OF TIME IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND ~CELAND, BUT: SUBSEQUENTLY THESE REQUIREMENTS WERE RESCINDED. - - IN THE UNITED STATES %~HEN ADDITIONAL CIGARETTE PACKAGE WARNING LABEL LEGISLATION' WAS: BEING CONSIDERED IN THeE CONGRESS, AMONG THE WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED IN OPPOSITION WAS DR. EDWIN FISHER, A PATHOLOGY PROFESSOR AND' DIRECTOR OF LABORATORIES AT A PITTSBURGH HOSPITAL. HE R'EC0~TED HIS CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY DURING A - 3 -

FILMED INTERVIEW': Warningl[ [Fisher, p. 6] "The issue at hand was whether there should be more stringent labelling of the cigarette package -- more stringent than what appears. Anecdotal, I may relate to you that the Congressman in charge of the hearings asked me if I thought the extant or existing labelling was satisfactory or not satisfactory. My view was that I could live with the labelthat is now present on American cigarettes .... I thought it was, however, somewhat scientifically inaccurate, butl could live with it. It was scientifically inaccurate in that I would have been. much more pleased to see "Cigarette Smoking May be Dangerous to Your Health" rather than"Is Dangerous." The attempt was made, however, to extend the labelling to include more definitive pronouncements, which appeared somewhat p~ntifical. The list was qu.ite large and it was obvious that the American cigarette package obviously couldn't contain all the warning." OTHER WITNESSES QUESTIONED THE WHOLE PREMISE OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR A STRONGER WARNING LABEL -- A PREMISE WHICH HOLDS THAT THE PUBLIC IS NOT AWARE OF SMOKING AND HEALTH ISSUES. HOWEVER, - 4 -

Warning ! ! ACCORDING TO MARKETING EXPERTS, PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYORS, AND ADVERTISING AGENCY OFFICIALS, THAT PREMISE IS FALSE. IN FACT, SEVERAL RESEARCHERS WHO HAVE MADE STUDIES OF ADULT AWARENESS IN , AMERICA CONCLUDE THAT SMOKING ISSUES ARE BETTER KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC THAN CRITICAL POLITICAL CONCERNS. ONE GOVERNMENT AGENCY, KNOWN FOR ITS OPPOSITION TO TOBACCO, ACKNOWLEDGED A GALLUP POLL WHICH INDICATED MORE THAN 90 PERCENT OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC BELIEVED THAT SMOKING WAS HAZARDOUS TO HEALTH. A UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR OF MARKETING CALLED SUCH LEVELS "EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH -- MUCH H'IGHIER THAN ONE WOULD EXPECT TO RESULT FROM NORMAL ADVERTISING AND MARKETING METHODS." "~-"~ ONE MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS SAID • ~ WARNING LABEL LAWS SHOULD NOT BE USED TO PREVENT • PEOPLE FROM SMOKING. THEIR PURPOSE, HE SAID, IS ~ TO INFORM THE PUBLIC OF SUSPECTED DANGERS. GIVEN THE LEVEL OF AWARENESS REPORTED, THE CONGRESSMAN ARGUED THE GOAL HAS BEEN ACHIEVED AND THAT FURTHER LEGISLATION WOULD BE "BURDENSOME AND UNWARRANTED." MUCH OF THE DEBATE ON WARNING LABELS HAS CENTERED ON THE NEED TO SEPARATE AWARENESS FROM BELIEF. IN. - 5 -

WarningS! SHORT, CIGARETTE CONSUMERS APPEAR TO BE VERY AWARE OF THE ASSERTED HEALTH HAZARDS ABOUT SMOKING, BUT DO. NOT ALWAYS CHOOSE TO BELIEVE OFFICIALLY-SPONSORED STATEMENTS. THERE ARE ALSO FINDINGS WHICH SUGGEST HEALTH WARNINGS MAY HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL LITERATURE, FOR EXAMPLE, INDICATES THAT SOME PEOPLE -- PARTICULARLY THE YOUNG -- ARE POSSIBLY INDUCED TO CONSUME PRODUCTS THAT BEAR OFFICIAL CAUTIONS. THIS "BOOMERANG" PHENOMENON IS TRACED TO DEFIANCE OF AUTHORITY FEELINGS. OR, AS ONE DOCTOR NOTED, "IT' SEEMS TO ME THAT THE PUBLIC IS INDEED WELL INFORMED ... PERHAPS THEY HAVE DECIDED THAT THEY WISH TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISION." A U'.S. LABOR UNION ALSO JOINED IN' OPPOSING ADDITIONAL CIGARETTE PACKAGE WARNING LABEL LEGISLATION. ITS STATEMENT SOUNDED A NOTE OF ALARM OVER GOVERNMENT DESIRES TO REFORM THOSE WHO REJECT OFFICIAL WARNINGS IN MATTERS OF PERSONAL PREFERENCE. THE UNION' CAUTIONED AGAINST THE KIND QF GOVERNMENT STRATEGY WHICH DICTATES THAT "IF THE PEOPLE WON'T BE INFORMED, THEY MUST BE REFORMED." -6-

I-C Warningll THE WARNING LABEL DEBATE SEEMS CERTAIN TO CONTINUE. ALREADY CERTAIN STANDARDS HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED. THEY ARE WORTH KEEPING IN MIND. FOR EXAMPLE, A THRESHOLD TEST IS THAT ANY WARNING LABEL SHOULD BE BALANCED, FACTUAL, AND ATTRIBUTED TO AI~PROPRIATE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY. MOREOVER, WARNING LABELS ON CIGARETTE PACKS SHOULD NOT DENIGRATE THE PRODUCT NOR DETRACT FROM THE PACKAGE DESIGN. THESE ARE VALUABLE COMMERCIAL ASSETS WIqICH HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED OVER MANY YEARS AT CONSIDERABLE EXPENSE TO THE INDUSTRY'S INVESTORS. OF COURSE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PREDICT WITH ANY ACCURACY WHAT CONTOURS THEWARNING LABEL FUTURE MAY ASSUME. BUT, IT REMAINS THE INDUSTRY'S HOPE THAT WHATEVER LAWS OR REGULATIONS EMERGE IN THE CONSUMER'S INTEREST WILL BE ONES WHICH REFLECT SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS RATHER THAN EMOTION OR POLITICAL PASSION. - 7 -