Tobacco Documents Online

• • INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE WITH CI ARETTE ADVERTISIN T BANS • As a general matter, there is no relation between smoking incidence -- in juveniles or adults -- and advertising restrictions. In fact, numerous studies indicate that consumption is declining in many countries where advertising is allowed, while increasing in many countries where advertising is allowed, while increasing in many countries where it is prohibited. • As the President s Council of Economic Advisers stated in its 1987 report to the President: 'Evidence from other countries suggests that banning tobacco product advertising has not discouraged smoking. ' Trends in 5mokinQ Among Young People in Scandinavia • In Finland, Sweden and Norway, where tobacco advertising has been severely restricted or banned for more than a decade, the incidence of smoking among youth has either remained essentially the same or increased since imposition of the restrictions and bans. These findings are corroborated by other studies, including a survey by the World Health Organization. • Finland Tob acco prod uct advertising b anned since 1978. Smoking incidence among juveniles had been declining sharply before imposition of the ban. Smoking incidence among juveniles increased after imposition of ban. "On the basis of the situation of the early 1990s, smoking does not appear to be decreasing at the moment." ( 199 1 study published in Finnish Medical Gazette.) • Sweden -- Tobacco advertising severely restricted since 1979. -- Between 1980 and 1982, incidence of smoking among . juveniles did not decline.

-2- • Following a brief, subsequent decline, smoking began to increase again in 1984. Antitobacco researchers from Sweden recently acknowledged, "tobacco use is once more on the rise in the younger age groups in Sweden." • Norwav - Tobacco advertising banned in 1975. - Total incidence of daily smoking among adults remained essentially unchanged between 1979 and 1989. If juvenile smoking incidence had declined significantly since 1975, adult smoking incidence would have fallen correspondingly, which it did not. Smoking incidence in 1987 remained higher in Norway than in United States or Great Britain. • "Even though the law to stop tobacco advertising has a meaningful content, we cannot see that it has had a fundamental effect upon the sale or use of tobacco." (Gotestan and Gotestam, Smoking and Attitudes Toward Smoking in Norway (1990). • Cross-country Surveys on Juveniles • WHO surveyed ''no systematic differences'between juvenile smoking in countries where tobacco advertising is completely banned (e.g., Norway, Finland) and in countries where it is not (e.g., England, Austria) • Three Children's Research Unit (CRU) studies and WHO study disclose that the incidence of smoking among young people is higher in many places where advertising is banned than where it is not, or the incidence of juvenile smoking is found to be virtually identical in both situations. • Examples 16-country study by CRU: proportion of 11-15 year-olds who said they smoke regularly was significantly higher in Norway (13 %) and Sweden (10 %) than in Spain (7%) (minor advertising restrictions), Hong Kong (3 %)(few

• tob acco advertising controls ), or Kenya (0.5 %)(no restrictions). Singapore: Tobacco advertising banned since 1970. Health Ministry data indicate smoking among 15-19 year-old boys jumped from 5.5% in 1987 to 12.3% in 1991. Tobacco Advertising and Smoking by Adults • Evidence indicates that tobacco product consumption by adults is unaffected by advertising controls. • Developed countries Statistics from Finland, Sweden and Norway establish that adult per capita tobacco product consumption began declining before advertising controls were imposed and thereafter either continued to decline or increased somewhat. I 16-country study of 8 Soviet-bloc countries and 8 free- market countries disclosed that smoking increased between 1970 and 1984 in Soviet-bloc countries, even though advertising did not exist during this period. Consumption trends for 8 free-market countries not substantially affected. R. Masironi table of yearly cigarette consumption per adult in 122 countries; Judging by per capita consumption, one cannot tell which countries allow tobacco advertising and which do not. • Section 30 1 counties Introduction of U.S. cigarettes in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand, along with limited advertising (except Taiwan), has not resulted in increased smoking in those countries. • In all three countries that permit advertising, all that occurred was a switch among some consumers from domestic brands to U.S. brands; however, domestic tobacco monopolies continued to dominate the market in those countries.

-4- • • The developing world Limited data and information on controls is available, but tends to buttress conclusions regarding no advertising impact. Dr. Eugene M. Lewit considered effects of advertising restrictions in less developed countries (LDC's): "evidence from a sample of LDCS suggests that the existence of advertising restrictions per se had little if any effect in trends in or on the level of cigarette consumption." • New Zealand Report Toxic Substances Board of New Zealand claimed in a report that data from 18 countries "shows that there is a relationship between legislation banning tobacco promotion and reduced uptake of the habit by young persons. 0 Report suffers from methodological and other flaws that invalidate its conclusions; its conclusions were based on misleading and self-contradictory data. When the data are corrected and re-analyzed, the "trend is for increasing strength of restriction to be associated with smaller drops in consumption. The stronger the restriction, the smaller the annual fall in consumption." (Peter Mullins, Chairman, Sage Consultants, Ltd., 1991.) • The Canada advertising case In 1991, the Quebec Superior Court struck down as unconstitutional Canada's tobacco advertising ban. The court found "no rational connection" between the means chosed and the legislation's ob jective of reducing smoking. Court concluded neither TSB report nor any scientific document demonstrates that a ban on advertising would affect cons u m p tion. -- "There is no evidence that advertising as such entails a • danger to public health," the Court observed. "As Aristotle said, the word 'dog' never bit anyone.

• • The Quebec Court of Appeal subsequently reinstated the advertising b an even though it agreed that the evidence at trial failed to establish that the ban was likely to reduce consumption. The Canadian Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to the Court of Appeal's decision. i\ZD ~ ~ ~ CD C~O . ~ ~ Ci~