Anne Landman's Collection
Some Problems About Advertising Restrictions and Warning Labels -- A Summary
Abstract
In this 1977 paper, Don Hoel of the tobacco industry's law firm Shook Hardy and Bacon argues against laws to require health warning labels on cigarette packages. Hoel argues that the public is already well-informed about smoking and health claims, and says that warnings on labels "may mislead the public":
"A warning which lists specific diseases supposedly associated with cigarette smoking could be interpreted in two different ways by the public: that smoking alone causes these diseases or that smoking always causes these diseases. Since neither interpretations is supported by scientific evidence, the warnings my mislead the public..."
Hoel further argues against health warning labels, saying
"[R]egulations that would...require the placement of health warning labels on cigarette packages and in advertising are inadvisable for several reasons. Experience has demonstrated that the declared goals of such regulations (i.e., to educate the public and to reduce sales) will not be met. Satisfactory factual language for warning labels has not been found, and misleading wording can only confuse the public. Attempts to single out one industry for such restrictive treatment are discriminatory and unnecessary...For all these reasons, efforts to...implement helath warning labels are inappropriate limitations of the freedom of the individual and should be avoided."
Fields
- Notes
BREAKING NEWS-HOEL DOWN - Don Hoel was to testify today in the U.S. Dept. of Justice case against the industry. Gene Borio of tobacco.org (who is monitoring the trial in person) reports, however, that at 10:55 AM this morning Hoel became ill in the middle of his testimony. The judge came down from the bench, held him, and cleared the courtroom. He was laid out on the floor of the courtroom, paramedics were called and Hoel was taken by ambulance to Washington Hospital Center. The trial is scheduled to continue at 11:15 AM today.
- Quotes
In conclusion, regulations which would rerestrict or ban advertising or require the placement of health warning labels on cigarette packages and in advertising are inadvisable for several reasons: Experience has demonstrated that the declared goals of such regulations (i..e. to educate the public and to reduce sales)will not be met. Satisfactory factual language for warning labels has not been found, and misleading wording can only confuse the public. Attempts to single out one industry for such restrictive treatment are discriminatory and unnecessary. Further, the smoking, public would be denied access to information necessary to make informed choices about new products and product changes. For all these reasons, efforts to restrict advertising activity and to implement health warning labels are inappropriate limitations of the freedom of the individual, ad should be avoided.
- Company
- Philip Morris
- Author
- Hoel, Donald K. (CTR Industry Research Committee & PM Attorney, Shook Hardy)Donald Hoel was an attorney with Philip Morris' law firm Shook Hardy and Bacon (SHB). He served as a member of the CTR Industry Research Committee in 1978?. Hoel assisted in screening "apppropriate" projects to received CTR funding.
- Recipient
- Isenring, Paul (PM Employee)
Born: 28 May 1916, d. October 7, 1992 Frenchtown, NJ
1993 First scientist to report in 1950 on the carginocencity of cigarettes in rats painted with tar. Assistant at Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research Directed the American Health Foundation (AHF) from 1984 to his death in 1998.
Document Images
Draft
November 4, 1977
13;Y /D0jUJ94A )40E1.
sEn,r zv~ P. /sE-Vr?/tiG-
dJl) /y/,t//77
SOME PROBLEMS ABOUT ADVERTISING RESTRICTIONS AND WARNING LABELS --
A SUM1MARY
In an effort to reduce cigarette consumption, proposals
have been made to restrict or ban advertising and to place warning
labels on~cigarette packages andlin advertising. However, supporters
ofsuch proposals ignore-a number of important considerations
when they make their claims. Some of those claims are listed
below, with brief factual responses which are discussed at greater
length in the attached paper.
1. Ciigaretteadvertising should be!bannied because it encourages
people to smoke.
FACT
Restricting, or banning cigarette advertising will not reduce
cigarette consumption since advertising does not cause people
to smoke. Instead', advertising encourages smokers to continue
using their current brand of cigarettes or to try another
brand. As a result, cigarette advertising by competing com-
panies functions only to divide, not increase, an already
existing,market.
2. Health ~aarning labels should be placed on cigarette packages
and in advertising because people are not informed about the
health risks of smoking.
FACT'
. ..:
Those who argue that the public i¬ informed about_the
claimed health risks of smoking apparently assume that other
sources of information are not availiable. However, this is
incorrect. The public:has information available from many
private and governmental sources. Even,welil-knownianti-
smokin!g spokespersons state that the public is informed.
Consideration of these facts indicates that efforts
to place health warning labels on cigarette packages or in adver-
tising and to restrict or ban advertising should be carefully
examined before any action is taken.~ EXperience has shown that
hasty actions may lead to the need'lfor change at a later time:.
In at least one country, a warning label requirement was~later
dropped.
Draf t
November 4, 1977
PROBLEMS TO CONSIDER
IN ADVE'AtTISING' RESTRICTION'S' AND WARNING LABELS
For years, antismokers have contended~that cigarette
advertising serves as an important method of encouragingipeople
to begin smoking or to continue smoking. As a result, these
activists have urged that cigarette:advertising be limited or
even banned in an effort toireduce cigarette consumption. Other
antismokers have adivocated printing warning notices on cigarette
packages and'iniadvertising about the alleged effects of smoking.
They, too, apparently believe that this will cause people to
stop smoking or not to begin smoking. However, such arguments
are not supported by expert studies which have investigated the
effects of advertising or the experience.of those countries which
have restricted'or even abolished advertising.
CIGARETTE ADVERTISING DO'ES' 1005O92954
NOT INCREASE TOTAL TOBACCO NiARKET
Antismokers who assume that cigarette advertising influ-
ences people.to beginsmoking fail to understand how advertising
functions in selling tobacco~products. Economists who have studied
the effect of cigarette advertising "generally concluded°"that
it has been used as a competiitive.weapon by the companies to
1 +
divide rather than to expand the cigarette market. This function
of cigarette advertising was examined in an international study
of eleven countries. The results were presented'at an antismoking
Isymposium entitled."TheThird'Worid Cbnference on Smokinglan
,
r. .~X~~Y~"t+~{y~ari
i Ne Y
w. ork City in 1
' r,,pealth held, a
~
f
~
'
r
.~
~`
~.:_ ~ a~~-~ 1 "~ i~, : ..<. ~~ ~. , 'Q~~~~
,y~~. ,~,F~ ,t- f~y~~
0
Ilk
W-1
` . ~
- In explaining why cigarette manufacturers continue
toladvertise if they cannot expand their market, the study report
explains:
"Certainly, each company advertisediin the hope
of expanding the market for its ownibrand, and
hence its own profits. But, since all of the
companies advertised', their competitive adver-
tising has been offsetting,. No,p~articularcompany was able to get any large competitive
advantage from its advertising. Once all the
companies advertised, each had to advertise,
just to protect its sales and profits. Total
cigarette consumption was but little augmented'
by thisadvertising."
The study report concludes that "since cigarette consumption
has not been increasedimuch by advertising, then consumption
would not be~reduiced muchlif advertising were banned." Thus~,
it appears that competitive advertising does not increase the
total tobacco market, but serves only to divide an already existing
market. As a result, cigarette manufacturers use competitive
advertising to maintain their share of the total cigarette market
by promoting brand'id'entification and loyalties among individual
customers.
PEOPLE BEGIN SMOKING FOR
PSYCHOLOGICAL REASONS
if advertising does not cause people to begin smoking,
what does? Studies examining the motivations of people who begin
smoking point to such psychological factors as curiosity, group
For example, a 1969 study of public school children
in the United States found that smoking behavior of friendsand
no effect.. In a news story explaining these results, the study
relatives was the most important influence!=their decision
to smoke, while cigarette cominercials then on television had
2
an obvious devil for most of us who worry about adolescent smokers,
director was quotedas saying, "The television commercials are
but no one has looked closely enough at the devil to see if he
3
has any substance."
Two similar studies cond'ucted in Australia and the
UnitedlKingdom also showed~that the smoking habits of others
were the major influence among youngipeople, while advertising
4
was not considered important. A 1977 Gallup survey undertaken
toistudy smoking behavior in American teenagers also found that
advertising was not among the reasons given for beginning to
smoke.
5
ADVERTISING' BANS DO1NIQT'
REDUCE CIGARETTE CONSUMPTZON
Y ~t s~~ j, I i' ~ . +. .-SI
~
S
:s.11~,.._ ~'
~~f t
L'1~
'
ands, SwitzerLand and'Holland, to the abolition of billboard ~
..
-
'."
.~
' J.
=':~
~i. .,:..t1rf ~
~ x
in Austria, The United Kingdom, France, West Germany, the Nether-
eastern Europe, to the abolition of radio-television advertising
Iniresponse to various pressures, proposals to ban
or restrict cigarette advertising are appearing with increased
frequency almost everywhere in Europe. A wide:variety of such
restrictions are already ineffect, ranging from the abolition
of all advertising in Finland, Italy, Norway and countries of
,
.X
advertising in Denmark, France, and Sweden. However, the experience
of those countries which banned cigarette advertising indicates
that such restrictions did not have the effect anticipated by
those who~ adVocated their enactment.
A comparison ofsales figures in countries before and
after cigarette advertising was banned indicates that the advertis=
ing prohibition has not reduced consumption. For instance, sales
of cigarettes, pipes, and smoking tobacco in Norway increased
rather than decreased in its first full year of total advertising
1 6
prohibition. In some countries, also¢newhat slower rate of sales
growth was observed immediately after total bans on advertising,
7,
but such slowdowns were only temporary.
In comparing marketing results between countries with
competitive advertising and countries in1which competitive adber-
tising has been prohibited for substantial periods of time,
investigators have found little difference in trends of per capita
consumption. Therefore, advertising bans appear to have had
little or no effect in the overall trend of cigarette consumption.
These findings would'seem to;be!convincing evidence
that restrictions on advertising will not serve the purposes
of those who:are.lobbying for their enactment. Then why do calls
for restrictions continue, in the face of suchicontradictory
evidence? One tobacco company executive offered an explanation
in an appearance before a group of advertisers in whichihe opposed-
attempts to restrict advertising by such "social reformers":
"Moreover, as the experience with cigarette adver-
tising has shown, such attempts doni't work because
they are based'on failse perceptions ofadvertising.
While that should~be a compelling arglnment for them
to cease and desist, it is merely a thornlof frus-
trationifor the crusaders, and they want more
distortions, more restrictions."
BANS ON CIGARETTE ADVE'RTZSINIG'
RESTRICT EXCHANGE' OF INFORMATION
Not only have advertising bans failed to reduce total
cigarette consumption but they have also prevented customers
frcr., receiving the product information they need to make purchasing
decisions. Advertisingihas been useful in informing the public
about prodhct changes such as filter cigarettes and' the "lighter"'
cigarettes. A total ban would make it difficult for the cigarette
to inform the public about later product developments.
Even well-knownlanti-cig,arette spokespersons are opposed to advertis-
ing,bans for just this reason. One such individual, Dr. Ernst
Wynder, told a Swiss reporter in an interview, "'I'dio not be]!ieve
that advertising,has mulch influence. Advertising does not influence
peoole to smoke, but it helps them to choose one or another brand.
Above all, Iam against aniadvertising ban because the 'lighter'
and less harmful cigarettes manufactured nowadays, would not
9'
be widespread enough without advertising. "' 1005092968
Wynder's beliefis share !by a speaker at an anti-smokingi
conference in London who said that "it is those countries where
cigarette advertising is permitted~that the trend towards safer,
ir,d now towards low ' tar' cigarettes has been most marked.
10
Attempts by "social reformers" to restrict or ban advertis-
ing would limit the free access of consumers to information they
need to make intelligent decisions in purchasing any product
on the marketplace:.
PUBLIC ALREADY WELL-INFORMED
ABOUT SMOKINGAZi1D 1HBALTH CLAIMS
Those critics who urge that health warningilabels be
placedion cigarette packages and in advertising or that warning
labels already in use be "'strengthened" contend that the public
must be informed about the claimed health risks of smoking. How-
ever, the public al'ready has many sources of information available,
including reports and'bulletins from both private and governmental
sources. As early as November of 196,8, Daniel Horn, director of
the!U. S. National Clearinghouse for Smoking and Health (U. S'.
governmental antismoking propaganda bureau), conceded'that the
public was well aware of the smoking and health controversy.
"Youlcould stand on a rooftop and shout 'smoking
is dangerous' at the top of your lungs and you
would not betell'ianyone~anything they did
not already know."
In recent public appearances, both Dr. Wynd'er and Dr. Horn
denied that warning labels printedlan cigarette packages serve
any edhcational value.
12.
N
OI
At present, countries disagree on the need for or the Q
wording,of health warnings. Sweden requires sixteen different
warnings to be printed at alternate times on cig,arette packages.
. , ~
r
Some are vague, such as, "Smokers have more sickness than nonsmokers."
Others are more explicit, includingi, "'Stnokers run an increased
risk of heart attacks'and certain diseases of the arteries."
France requires the warning that "Abuse is dangierous." The current
United' Kingdom,warniing reads, "HM. Government Health Department's
Warning: Cigarettes can seriously damage your health." Several
countries do not require any warnings on cigarette packages sold'
within their borders. At least one country which previously
required a warning on the cigarette packages has dropped this
requirement. These broad differences demonstrate.the uncertainty
and confusion surrounding the use of warning labels inithe smoking
and health issue.
One essential feature of any warning is that it must
be factual and meaningful to the ordinary reader. A warning
which lists specific diseases supposedly associatediwith cigarette
smoking could be interpreted in two different ways by the public:
that s'moking alone causes these diseases or that srnoking,always
causes these diseases. Since neither interpretation is supported
by scientific evidence, the warnings may mislead the public or
prompt skepticism about their content.
WARNING NOTES IN CIGARETTE
ADVERTISING ARE DISCRIMINATORY
The question must be asked why cigarette ad!vertising
has been sinigled~outfor suchproposed restrictive legi~slation,,
since smoking is not the only subject of a health-related controversy. ,:
Throughout the years, a great deal of attention has been focused
on the possible health hazards of such products as dairy and
meat products containing saturated fats, sleeping and pain pills,
insecticides, and alcohol. But those businesses have not been
confronted withisuch concerted efforts to regulate otherwise
legal products.
Why then has cigarette advertising come under such
vigorous attack? Perhaps cigarette advertising has been selected
as an easy initial target by those who hope to abolish all aldver-
tising whichithey feel is an unnecessary expense eventually paid!
by the consumer.
In conclusion, regulations which:would restrict or
ban advertising or require the placement of health warning:labels
on cigarette packages and in advertising are inadvisable for
several reasons. Experience has demonstrated that the declared
goals of such regulations (i.e. to educate the public and'to
redhice sales) will not be met. Satisfactory factual language
for warning labels has not been found!, and misleading wording
can only confuse the public. Attempts to single out one industry
for such restrictive treatment are discriminatory and unnecessary.
Further, the smoking, publ'ic would be denied access to information
CD'
necessary to make informed choices about new prodhcts and product
changes. For all these reasons, efforts to restrict advertising I&
activity andito implement health warning labels are inappropriate
limitations of the freedom of the individual
