Tobacco Documents Online

Statement of Senator Walter D. Huddlesflo.n of Kentucky before the Committee on Labor and Human Resources United States Senate on the Comp.rehensive Smoking Prevention Education Act of 1981 (S'. 192'9)1 **:~** Srlashingtom,, D. C. March 16, 1982'

IiEC'EIV~D MAR _ 9. 1982 Q ~. STEWENS

-5,- The Congress simply could not have legislated the progress made in the past decade. And Congress should not., at this time, attempt to legislate in a manner that could undermine the basis for the recent, voluntary successes of the industry. After concrete data are obtained about the true effects of the labeling provisions proposed in this bill, either through in-depth stud',ies cr experience abroad, then -Congress will be in a position to evaluate rationally the proposition advanced in S. 1929. Until then,, the more cautious apprcach is certainly the most.prudent approach. I respectfulLy recommend, Mr. Ch.airman, that S. 1929 be set aside by your committee as an unwarranted and' untested intrusion into an industryprogram of adaptation which has been accepted by the public an~d', has achieved successes not expected by the anti-smoking advocate,s of a decade ago. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. «,: ,f

-4'~- following the adoption of warning statements showed a rise in smoking by child'ren, particularly girls...." Major educationaL efforts have not deterred youthful alcohol abuse, teenage promiscuity, or other conduct that is regarded as damaging, to young people. These proposed warnings will not stop experimenting with cigarettes either, and an.ez,isting program that i's relatively balanced should not be cast aside for a new and untried program of potentially counterproductive effect. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the emphasis on low "tar" cigarettes in brand development and advertising. I applaud the continu,ing, contributions of the industry to unrestricYed'research on the smoking and'.health~controversy. This committee, with the best oflintentions, should not initiate a legislative program which. can.only impede the voluntary progress that is beingimade. There are those who will always smoke cigarettes, no matter what sci'entifiicassertions or medical claims are madle against the product. And there are those who will be zealots in the war against tobacco, no matter what breakthroughs.may be achieved by the manufactu,rers of cigarettes. If Congress concludes -- based upon incomplete an.d in- conclusiive scientific data -- that the zealots deserve the law's support,, the industry^s determined efforts to achieve real progress will be demeaned and'.repudiated in every advertisement they place, on every package of cigarettes they manufacture.

Camprehensive Smoking Prevention Education Act of 1981 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I appreciate this early opportunity to:present my views on S'. 1929, the "Comprehen~sive Smoking Prevention Education Act.of 1981." 1 oppose th~e bill.. As introduced this measure.is counter- productive and' willldefeat the principal goals shared by its sponsoXs. Let me explain why the proponents,'' good intention.s are so misguided-in this instance. Mr. Chairman, cigarette advertising is directed to the smoker -- it's an effort to sell aiparticular brand to an established,consumer.The advertising designed to attract new consumers of proprietary drugs„ or doq food, or breakfast cereals, is vastly'different in content.and style and immediately apparent to the casual observer. As.noted in Advertising, Ace of October 19, 1981, the advertising expenditures of these industries are higher, as a percentage of sales, than those,of the tobacco products industry. The "'hard sell" is conspicuous by its absence from tobacco products advertising -- and for good reason. The industry is conscious of the contr'oversy about.smoking and health,, and advertisingiis sty7ed'accordingly. Over the past ten years, a revolution has occurred in cigarette production and marketing. Low "tar" brands accountedfor nearly fifty per cent of all cigarette sales in 1980, O'. tJ M+ ~. a

-3- There are several' reasons, in my judgment, for the declining per capita consumption of cigarettes in the United States. First, almost all people, includ'ingyoung people, are. informed about the smoking; and health,c:ontroversy. The.19'78 Gallup opinion Index indicated that 9'-0 per cent of the respondents actually believe that "smoking is hazasdous to health.'° The same results were found in the 1978 and'1980 Roper Reports, and in the ChiltoniStudy, as cited by the Federal Trade Commission staff in its May, 19181, report on the cigarette. advertising investigation. Second',. the advertising of cigarettes, as I have said,,is directed, to the brand preferences of current adult smokers... Third, the:young people who begin smoking are respondingto peer pressure, not advertising claims, and peer pressure to b.egin smoking has declined'as the smoking and heelth.controversy has been debated over the years. The rotating labels of S. 1929'may actually spark the rebellious tendencies of'American teenagers, as the initial warning label may have don.e in the l9'60"s. In testimony before a House committee on March 12th, Dr. Bernice C. Sachs, a noted psychiatrist and President offthe Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine, recalled her prediction in 1965 that proposed warnings for cigarette packages andladvertising "'couldiwell fan the fire of youthful rebe]lliousness,, rather than deter smoking by teenagers."' Dr. Sachs continued,. "As I predicted,. surveys

-2- compared to~two percent just six year.s earlier. The development of new brands -- low,"tar"'brands -- and the ag;gressive advertising of thes!e.new_brands., has been.one industry response to the continuing controversy addressed'in these hearings. Another has.been,the contribution of more than $100 million inn unrestricted grants for scientific research on smoking and health. Who can complain about these voluntary industry initiatives? Who can say the "blunt instrument"' approach of government controls and regulation, reflected in S'. 1929,, will be more productive? ' I say that S. 1929 will place the progress being made today; under current law and regulation, in the most.dire jeopardy. The premise of'S. 1929 is that certain draconian, rotating warning labels against the continued consumption of this lawful product will deter such continued consumption. We.simply cannot know whether that assumption is correct or incoarect, but we can cite evidence that it probably is not correct. In Sweden rotating labels have been in effect.since 1977 -- and cigarette consumption has increased. In the United States the single warning label has been required since 1966, and its message has become part of. the lexicon. And per capita consumption of cigarettes has declined since the single-label requirement was established'.. •