Tobacco Documents Online

Opening Statement - H.R. 5041 Counter-Advertising Thank you Mr. Chairman. All of us in this room today share a common goal: 'to prevent young people from smoking. I commend you for your efforts toward that goal. However, this legislation, which apparently contemplates a massive investment in counter-advertising campaigns and public service announcements, is unnecessary and out of all proportion to the problem. Anti-smoking strategies similar to the ones mentioned in this bill are already in existence and, as a result, the vast majority of Americans, including young people, are well aware of the health risks associated with smoking. Each year the government and the private sector have stepped up tobacco education efforts. Mr. Chairman, I believe those efforts have been effective. We've seen a dramatic decline in tobacco use in the United States. In the decade since 1976, the smoking rate of high school seniors declined from nearly 29 percent to under 18 percent. The number of adults who smoke has decreased as well. Today, 29 percent of adults smoke, down from 40 percent in 1965, according to the Surgeon General's 1989 report, and that number keeps 1

declining. Between 1965 and 1985, some 41 million people gave up ~. smoking; nine out of ten without outside help. What's behind these significant achievements? For more than 25 years, researchers and scientists have studied and analyzed the health issues surrounding the use of tobacco products. For more than 25 years, our nation's health experts and government officials have disseminated anti-tobacco information to adults and young people through a variety of means. In addition to groups which traditionally espouse health-related messages, such as the Lung and Heart Associations and the Cancer Society, a number of organizations have been developed solely with one purpose in mind: eliminating tobacco use. Together, these groups have been waging sophisticated anti-tobacco campaigns. Individuals like former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop further raised the volume of the anti-smoking arguments. More recently, anti-tobacco messages from groups such as the American Medical Association's "Kids Against Tobacco" have been targeted specifically to children. The classroom is an oft used outreach method. For example, a 1988 survey by the National School Boards Association found that 75 percent of public school 0 districts have anti-smoking educational programs at the W elementary level, 81 percent at the middle school level, and 78 ~ ~ percent at the high school level. C~ ~ 2

Americans also have witnessed numerous public service announcements on local and network television. According to a 1984 study by the National Association of Broadcasters, more than 97 percent of stations carried anti-smoking PSAs. Another current initiative is an anti=tobacco awareness and education campaign by the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association, which started the "Smoke-Free Class of 2000 Project." This 12-year program focuses on children who entered the first grade in 1988 and follows them until they graduate in the year 2000. Add to all of this the dramatic increase in overall media coverage regarding smoking. One research firm collected almost 71,000 news articles that appeared in 1988 on tobacco; seven out of ten conveyed negative impressions about tobacco. In other words, the news media are already conducting the equivalent of counter-advertising, and on a much broader scale than we could envision in a legislative program. So when one considers how much television today's kids watch, not to mention the increase in anti-smoking education programs in the school, there is little doubt that the message is being heard loud and clear. An HHS survey in 1985 showed not only that the American public 3

had ear that cigarette smoking posed a health threat, but 95 percent believed that cigarette smoking increased the risk of lung cancer; 92 percent believed it increased the risk of emphysema; and 91 percent believed it increased the risk of heart disease. Government survey data from 1987 indicate that four out of five adults -- and two out of three smokers -- believed that "second-hand" smoke is harmful to nonsmokers.The evidence suggests we have reached the point of saturation in terms of public information. On top of this data is research on just what causes young people to smoke. It would be nice and simple if advertising were the culprit, so we could solve the problem by shutting off the ads. But the fact is, existing research shows that tobacco advertising is not a leading cause of youth smoking. Most studies point to peer pressure and family example as the reasons most kids start smoking. As concluded by Dr. Mortimer Lipsett, former director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, "The most forceful determinants of smoking [by young people] are parents, peers and older siblings." Of course, we all want to see the number of underage smokers drop to zero. But the decline in smoking rates for both children and adults illustrates that public education and advertising 4

campaigns have already made both groups very aware of the health concerns a'ssociated with tobacco products. Therefore, allocating new funds for additional educational and advertising campaigns, when HHS alone already spends $40.6 million on tobacco control programs, seems'unwise when its effect would most likely be negligible. Although this legislation does not authorize a specific amount of money to fund this counter-advertising campaign, pending legislation in the Senate would authorize $50 million for such a venture. I think we can safely assume that a comparable sum would be needed for this proposal. Regardless of the exact amount, when you consider that our country is in the throes of a budget crisis, I think taxpayers would agree the money would be better spent on programs that " would cut the deficit, fund education, get the drug pushers off the streets, or reduce the gang violence that's ripping apart our families and schools. The intentions of this bill are beyond reproach -- but $50 million is a huge investment to make in good intentions alone. The sad fact is, some kids still smoke, and that is cause for concern. But it's clear that a new counter-advertising campaign is not the answer. Let's not throw money at something because it 5

may look good on paper. We have a real problem on our hands -- and advertising censorship is no solution. I suggest that the real solution lies in more vigorous enforcement of state laws prohibiting tobacco sales to minors and further efforts in our nation's classrooms to steer our children away from experimentation with tobacco. 6