Draft Statement of C. Whitley before Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs. Argues that the Tobacco Product Education and Health Protection Act of 1991 (S. 1088) should be rejected. Discusses the role of advertising and the effects of advertising bans. Argues against disclosure provisions of the bill. Asserts that bill prescribes inaccurate warning labels and duplicates existing tobacco industry youth initiatives. Contains handwritten corrections.
(indexer.indexer_email WAS INVALID IN OLD DATABASE: CPM)
- Named Organization
- American Council on Science and Health
- Center for Tobacco Products
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Family C.O.U.R.S.E. Consortium
- National School Boards Association
- Tobacco Institute
- Cigarette Advertising Code
- It's The Law
- Legal Issues
- Whitley, C. O.
- Named Person
- Pertschuk, M.
- Whelan, E.
- Kennedy (Sen.)
- Chabot, J.J. (Justice)
- Koop (Surg. Gen.)
- Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
- Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs
- US Senate
- Advertising Regulations
- Constitutional Amendments
- Industry Front Groups
- Industry Sponsored Prevention Programs
- Tobacco Education
- Warning Labels
Page 11: 00003372
keeping nearly $400 million in sales. Suddenly, that "mere" 10
percent of brand switchers become a very important audience. ~
Medel State Program
Under S.I088 a "Model State Program" would be established
with several goals and specific criteria to encourage states to
prevent tobacco use by minors.
Mr. Chairman, no one should suggest that state and local
governments need federal encouragement in this area. State and
local jurisdictions are on record as having local tobacco taxes,
local advertising Aa~s, sampling bans, sales and smoking
Moreover, the "Model State Program" as defined in S.I088
mirrors what the tobacco industry itself is already doing. I've
given you a~ overview of our youth initiatives; I'd like to walk
you through a side-by-side comparison of the tobacco industry
youth initiatives and the "Model State Program."
side-by-side comparison. ]
The "Model State Program" is designed to prevent
initial use of tobacco products by minors. Our program
helps p~ven~ youth access to tobacco products.
The "Model State Program" would encourage cessation of
tobacco use by youth and others, including "high risk"
categories. Our program is designed to discourage young
OTA TOBACCO Lm6AT ON .... TIMN 366171
Page 12: 00003373
people from smoking.
The "Model State Program" would implement and
prohibition on the sale of tobacco products to
program Implements and encourages a prohibition on
of tobacco products to minors.
In the proposed "Model State Program," to qualify
federal grant, a state must:
o have in effect a law prohibiting the sale of
tobacco products to those under 18. The industry supports
such laws, and supported the successful passage of them in
six states just this year.
o improve enforcement of this law. The industry's
"It's the Law" program does this.
o have in effect a law intended to reduce youth
access to cigarette vending machines by minors. The
industry supports state legislation requiring supervision of
cigarette vending machines in places frequented by youth.
o improve enforcement of this law. s the Law,"
coupled with industry support for the use of tokens, lock-
boxes, etc., works to achieve this end.
o have in effect or seek to establish a law
prohibiting the distribution of free samples of tobacco
products. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, the
industry voluntarily has banned sampling on public streets,
MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
Page 13: 00003374
sidewalks and parks, and does not give samples to people
F~ther, the indust~ progr~ offers "Tobacco: Helping
You~ Say No," to deal with peer press~e, which
Und~ this p~ovision of S.i088, compliance wi~ laws to
prevent youth access to cigarettes would shift from law
enforc~ent agencies to p~lic health authorities. Today, 47
states and ~e District of Col~bia have laws~' ~e sale
of tobacco products to minors. Those laws can and should be
enforced -- by law enforcement officers whose duty it i~ to
uphold ~e law.
Moreover, it should not be the role of ~e federal
gove~ent to usu~ the powers and prerogatives of state and
The $25 million allocat~ for 1992, with the promise of
additional fun~ for 1993 and 1994, throws money at an issue
already e~eri~cing nationwide att~tion. In addition, it would
duplicate ~e effo~s of ~e ve~ indust~ it is t~ing
~~ge co=itted to o= pro~am to reduce ~e supply,_ _nd
.~ tobacco products by minors. Some may ~estion our
motive, but it's really ve~ simple: the tobacco
not want, nor has it ever wanted, ~derage youth
to smoke. We
have vol~tarily end~ free distribution of product
p~lic. We have vol~t~ily stopped cigarette bill~d
MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION 366173 " -
Page 14: 00003375
advertising near schools and playgrounds. We are firmly behind
raising the minimum age to 18 and requiring supervision of
vending machines. We are giving parents the educational tools
they need to talk to their kids about smoking and are working
with professionals to develop more. We are working with
retailers to make it tougher for minors to buy tobacco products.
And we are conducting a multi-year advertising campaign to
broadcast our program and our message.
Mr. Chairman, I find myself in the unusual position of
saying to you that the tobacco industry is already working to
achieve the goals of Senator Kennedy's bill.
Anti-Smoking Advertising Campaigns
S.1088 would establish two new federal bureaucracies within
the Department of Health and Human Services. One of these would
administer anti-tobacco "information" and "education" programs,
including the Model State incentive program I've already
discussed as being unnecessary,~--~h~-i~-~.
Mr. Chairman, the industry supports the goal of this
legislation to reduce the number of young people who smoke, and I
agree that realistic, responsible action should be taken to
prevent them from smoking.
This bill has a price tag of $110 million for 1992 alone.
That's a lot of money to spend when there are already huge
amounts of anti-tobacco information and negative media coverage
out there. Public awareness levels regarding smoking almost
MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION TIMN 366174 "
Page 15: 00003376
reach the point of saturation now.11 Frankly, we can't expect
a new counter-advertising campaign to increase what are already
very high levels of awareness.
We do need to make sure our children are as well-informed as
they can be. The same anti-tobacco advertising campaign that's
been going on since the first Surgeon General's report has
reached kids and adults alike. Ever since that report was first
issued over 25 years ago, federal health officials and other
policymakers have actively warned the public about health risks
allegedly associated with smoking. State and local governments,
as well as anti-smoking organizations and individual activists,
have joined this crusade against tobacco use by dedicating their
efforts toward reducing the n1~mber of people who smoke.
The anti-tobacco lobby also has turned its attention to
youth smoking in recent years, developing outreach programs and
educational camgL~igns designed to teach children about the health
ef-~ee~s~associated with smoking.
And students are getting the message in the classroom. A
1988 National School Boards Association survey of public school
districts found that 75 percent have anti-smoking programs at the
elementary level, 81 percent at the middle school level and 78
11 Five years ago, an HHS survey showed that not
the American public heard that smoking posed a health threat, but
95 percent be~i..eved that cigarette smoking increased the risk of
lung cancer. Messages about other health hazards linked to
smoking also were received -- 92 percent believed it increased
the risk of emphysema and 91 percent believed it increased the
risk of heart disease. Most Americans also b~lieve that second-
hand smoke is harmful to nonsmokers.
CONFIDENTIAL: TIMN 366175
MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
Page 16: 00003377
percent at the high school level.
The pttblic information campaigns that would be conducted
under this bill are directed to '~., school dropouts, pregnant
women, minorities, blue collar workers and low income
individuals." It seems to me the assumption here is that
cigarette advertising improperly "targets" these groups. Mr.
Chairman, I find this attitude paternalistic and condescending.
The underlying implication is that these groups are in need of
special protection because they can't determine their own best
interests. It is not the function of government to play "Big
The CaliZornia ~xperience
The State of California began a $28.6 million mass-media
anti-smoking campaign in April of 1990, as part of a 1988
cigarette-tax initiative According to state officials, the ad
campaign has reduced smoking in that state.
Statistics show that the percentage of adults in California
who smoke went from 26.3 percent in 1987 to 21.2 percent in 1990.
Reports attribute the 5.1 percent drop in smoking directly to the
anti-smoking educational initiative. Based on this, other states
are now seeking to emulate the California example, in an effort
to reduce smoking in their states. But let us examine the real
reason smoking rates declined in California.
The ad campaign was part of a larger initiative, which
included a 25-cent increase in the state's cigarette tax (from 10
TObaCCO TININ 366176
Page 17: 00003378
to 35 cents per pack). That increase took effect in 1989, prior
to the ad campaign.
By examining cigarette sales statistics for the period of
1987-1990I2, a completely different pictm:e emerges. Between
1987 and 1988, there was a one percent drop in purchases; from
1988 to 1989 a 13 percent drop; and from 1989 to 1990 sales
remained virtually static, rising by six-tenths of one percent.
SO in ~e year prior to the tax ~ncrease, sales fell by one
.~;~,;<7~erc~t, then ~opp~ ~a~tically by 13 percent after the t~
?~ncrease took effect, an~ beZore the ad ca~aign
• ~learly, the decline in smoking cannot be
attribut~ solely to
~.~e ad c~pai~, as ~e decline cached before ~e ads were
It ~s unfort~ate ~at the statistics have been so skew~
~ere. ~is is an attempt tu claim success by falsely attributing
a costly anti-tobacco advertising c~paign and hiding ~e real
cause of the decline in smoking. It is misleading to ~uggest
that o~er states would experience similar declines in smoking if
they were to adopt an anti-smoking adve~ising c~paign, got
only is it misleading, but it is a dissa~ice. I would strongly
reco~d ~at ~e California adve~ising example be e~osed for
what it is: a costly priam that did not alter smoking habits.
12 Based on the Monthly State Cigarette Tax
MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION TIMN 366177
Page 18: 00003379
Zn~ed~ent and ~dd~t~ve D~scZosu~e
I mentioned earlier that two new bureaucracies would be
created under the provisions of S.I088. The first would, in the
words of Senator Kennedy, "get the anti-smoking message to the
nation.''13 That is, to a nation that already knows the
¢~ The other new agency would administer a program regulating
..~.~"additives" -- even though the safety of additives is currently
the responsibility of the Secretary of HHS under existing law and
there has been no suggestion of health concerns based on the
~additive information supplied to the Secretary by the cigarette
manufacturers over the past several years.
The Center for Tobacco Products would be directed to inform
the public regarding constituents of, and additives to, tobacco
products, and to restrict the use of additives that represent a
Significant health risk to the public. The Center would be
directed to investigate the additives contained in tobacco
products and to determine whether such additives represent a
significant added health risk to consumers of such products. If
the Center determines that any tobacco additive, either by itself
or in conjunction with any other additive, presents unnecessary
increased risks to health, the Center would be authorized to
prohibit the use of a tobacco additive or allow its use only at
Further, the Center would be directed to require public
13 Kennedy press release, details tk
MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION ~ 366178
Page 19: 00003380
disclosure, through labels or package inserts, of tobacco product
additives and "harmful tobacco smoke constituents " Cigarette
manufacturers would be required to provide to the Center a
complete list of each tobacco additive used in the manufacture of
each tobacco product brand name and the ~antity of such
additive, and a complete last of all brands ~at includes the
levels of "tar," nicotine, carbon monoxide, and other constituent
(as dete~ined by the Center) for each brand as dete~ined by ~e
~. ~ai~an, many of these provisions sustantially
duplicate existing law. To the e~ent these provisions would
=hange existing law, the change would sere no d~onstrable
policy objective. ~ese provisions also .would threaten public
dis=fosse of c~ercially sensitive info~tion that cu~ently
is protected from public disclosure as .trade se~et or
confidential info~ation. Su~ disclos~e would produce no
Under ~e Compr~ensive Smoking Education Act, enacted in
1984,. the cigarette manufact~s ~e re~ired to provide the
Secret~ of ~S on an a~ual basis "a list of the ingredients
added to tobacco in ~e manufa~e of cigarettes." 15 U.S.C.
section 13~Sa(a). ~e list provided to the Secre~ need not
identify the company involved or the brand o~ cig~ettes that
con~ins ~e in~edients. (Ibid.) Congress considered the
disclos~e o~ cigarette in~edient info~ation on this basis to
be ade~ate to "pe~it ~e fed~al gove~ent to initiate ~e
MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION TIMN 366179
Page 20: 00003381
toxicologic research necessary to measure any health risk posed
by the addition of additives and other ingredients to cigarettes
during the manufacturing process." H.R. Rep. No. 805, 98th
Cong., 2d Sess. 21 (1984).
The Secretary, in turn, is directed to transmit to Congress
periodic reports advising Congress of any information pertaining
to such ingredients "which in the judgement [sic] Secretary poses
a health risk to cigarette smokers." lid. Section 1335a(b)(i).]
Each year since 1986, the six major cigarette manufacturers have
jointly submitted ingredient lists to the Secretary as required
by the 1984 legislation. The most recent list was submitted just
this past December (check on this) In 1988, then-Surgeon
General Koop indicated that the Department of HHS was actively
reviewing the ingredient lists that had been submitted. There is
no reason to believe that this existing review mechanism is
inadequate and .needs to be expanded or replaced.
Neither is there any justification for requiring public
disclosure of tobacco additives. Because information concerning
the ingredients used to manufacture particular cigarette brands
is competitively sensitive, Congress provided in the
Comprehensive Smoking Education Act that the ingredient
information supplied to the Secretary "shall be treated as trade
secret or confidential information." Such information is exempt
from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and criminal
penalties are established for unauthorized disclosure. [15
U.S.C. Section 1335a(b)(A).] The Act specifically requires the
MINNESOTA TOBACCO Lrn6AT ON TIMN 366180 .....