Tobacco Documents Online

! '~i:~! %C~ i~i~~I i i i:~ .,i!~, BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO Copy RequestForm Request Number: Organization: Physicians for a smoke free Canada 4 Request Details Request Date: ... (~ oDoaolaaolta o. ~o • • * • ** *o.o o •• • • u o oa i• o• • • o• I~o e• ma •co oe •u~ Page Range: First Page Last Page (z~ C) I C) [ ~-/ ~ ~" Requested By: (Print Name)...C.~~-~ ............................. Details below will be filled in by Depository Staff Only II Copy Details ? ..M ~~ ~0pied~y'..~ ................ ~~.r..~ ................. ,,,e. .... __..,.~._,........ ............. ~,°e. ....... . .......... Copy Checked By: .......................................................... Date: .................................... Time: ............................... Ill Delivery Details Checked By: .................................. Date: .................. oo • • Sent By: ................ Date: ........... • •emoooooo*laB *o omoeoo*e o • • ••*lu6eoJ BatCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

"HEAR THE OTHER SIDE." There is no proven connection bet-~,een tobacco advertising and overall tobacco consumption. And no proof that banning advertising reduces consumption. Issue No. Y July 1992 Tobacco Advertising and Children 3[inisters postponed voting on the proposed EC ban on tobacco advertising at a meeting of the Health Council on 15 .~lav. This follows increasing concern from lepslators that a ban would not have the effect its proponents have claimed, namely a reduction in overall consumption. In their effom to three the ban through, anti-smokers have been using the emotive ar.~ument that advertising encourages children to start smoking. They hoped this would persuade the ffK government to support the proposed ban despite there being no convincing evidence for their assertion. There is no convincing evidence re suggest that advertising encourages any indMdual, including children, to start smoking. Despite this anti-smokers continue to cite children in their calls for an advertising ban. In this edition of Hear The Other Side. we consider the evidence relating to tobacco advertising and children. In particular we report on a new survey by Colin McDonald. Before doing so, a review of the relationship between tobacco advertising and overall consumption is necessa~,~. Advertising and Consumption There is no convincing evidence from any'where in the world to show that advertising bans reduce consumption, despite anti-smoking claims in the past. In New Zealand where a partial advertising ban was imposed in 1990, significant price increases and an economic recession **ere together primarily responsible for the decline in overall consumption. This was recognised by Health Minister Stephen Dorrell in a Commons Written :knswer on November 12, 1991 when he said:'Changes in New Z=aland's attitude to smoking led to a decline in tobacco consumption before the imposition of a ban and this decline has continued. At the same time. economic factors such as a fall in incomes have had an impact on consumption". In Canada, where the only full judicial review of tobacco advertising and consumption to have taken place was heard last year, a Quebec High Court Judge overturned legislation which banned tobacco advertising, ruling: *The virtual totality of the scientific documents in the State's possession at the time the Act was passed do not demonstrate that a ban o,~ advertising ~'ould affect consutnption." F_.xperiencc in Europe shows that in the L'K. where advertising is permitted overall consumption declined by 20% during the lqF,0's. In countries such as Norwa); Finland and Iceland. where bans were imposed in the 1970s, consumption has since incr~.lsed For more detailed analysis of international tobacco consumption trends please refer to previous issues of Hear The Other Side or contact the TAC. CYx O O m4 TOBACCO ADVISORY COUNCIl. Glen House Stag Place London SWlE 5AG Tel: 071 828 2041 Fax: 071 630 9638 t'X) BatCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

The McDonald Survey The Tobacco Advisory Council recenth" commissioned Colin McDonald, an experienced marker research consultant and ntember of the 3,1arket Research Socie~; to write 'Children, Smoking and Advertising', a full and obiectire review of all the significant recent research studies which examine the relationship bet~een tobacco advertising and juvenile smoking initiation. The truth about Children and smoking McDonald concludes that all the studies, which attempt to establish a causal connection between advertising and smoking by children, fail to do so. They make the claim that advertising 'reinforces' and 'predisposes" children towards smoking. McDonald writes: 'This inference remains hypothetical only: it cannot be derived from the data'. His other conclusions are: • W~ile the studies show that there are correlations between children smoking and awareness of advertising, many explanations are possible. For example, children who have already become involved with, or interested in, smoking might be expected to notice advertisements, in the same way that people who have bought a new car tend to notice other people driving the same make. • In any case, from the evidence presented in the studies themselves, the correlation is weak: "B.v far the majority of those who recognise ads are still non-smokers. Children can easily notice but ignore (advernsing)." • The fact that children can recognise associations between cigarette brands and particuhr advertising or sports sponsorships cannot be taken to impl.v, as suggested in the studies, that they will therefore be a~racted to smoking or see it as socially approved. In particular, the claim that "sinister" persuasive influences can be implanted in young children's minds before they are aware, and remain dormant until they become old enough to start being interested in smoking, is "unjustified by the evidence and an unworthy argument." McDonald writes: • In eve.'3' study '~,Vhen seeking to draw interpretative conclusions from the results the authors move into hypothesis which cannot be derived from the results alone without the aid of prior assumptions'. • 'Since the writers of these research papers are all committed opponents of cib, arette . advertising, it is natural that the evidence should "suggest" to them what they most ,*'ant to see in it'. What makes children smoke? McDonald points out that a major weakness of the majorit3." of the papers is that they have not covered children's motivations for smoking..-kll the studies are structured merely to trs." to show that children who smoke pay more attention to advertisements. • There is nothing to indicate why children might want to smoke in the first place, or whether advertising pla.~ a role in this or not. One study sets out genuinely to discover why children start smoking. This was carried our by the Social Survey Division of the Office of Populatiun Censuses and Surve.vs. on behalf of the Department of Health. The report: "~Vhy children start smoking" was published in November 1990 and identified peer pressure and the example of parents as major factors. The seven most important factors identified by the OPCS study as associated with star~ing to smoke did not include adverasing. Anti-smoking campaigners tend to overlook the OPCS report, which is regarded as the most complete and objective study yet published on why children smoke. CTx C22 C2~ L2"1 ',D BatCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

International evidence shows bans to be ineffective International evidence from a number of surveys show three facts very clearb,,: • Advertising bans do nnt reduce overall consumption • Advertising bans in Finland and Norway have been ineffective in reducing smoking among their young people • [n the USA. L'K and many other countries where advertising is permitted, incidence of smoking among young people has tended to tail. Smoking among juveniles in Norway and Finland Cigarette advertising has been banned in Norway since 1975 and in Finland since 1978. Both countries are held up by anti-smokers as examples of what ought to happen in the UK. Norway Finland A studv in the journal of the N'orwe~an Medical .-kssociation (1900) reported that the advertising ban in that count~" has had no discernible effect on the incidence of smoking in Norway Among Noewe~an youth, between 1977 and 1089 the incidence of smoking declined by 13% among 15-24 year olds. a slower rate of decline than the UK (16% among 16-24 year olds). The proportion of young male smokers between 1977 and 1989 declined by a significandy =,g'reater extent in the L-K than in Norway (L'K: 9% decrease. Norway: 5%). and while the decline in smoking incidence among young females was slightly ~eater in Norway than the UK. the proportion of young females who smoke has remained consistently higher through the period than in the L'K. Moreover, the chief of the Tobacco Products Control Unit in Canada has questaoned the reliabilit3." of studies cited by anti-smokers to support their assertion on the ~ounds that i¢ is based on "small samples of a rather narrow age range~. The Norway data. he said, do not offer "compelling evidence that banning tobacco product advertising reduces either smoking by youth or overall tobacco consumption.~ Smoking among 12-18 year-olds had been declining sharply before the ban on tobacco product advertising was imposed in 1978. University. of Helsinki researchers found that, since the ban. smoking among teenagers had increased. In 1989. the percentage of teenagers who smoked daily was greater than when the Act on Smoking came into effect. Studies by the World Health Organisation and the Children's Research Unit The World Health Organisation found in a 1986 survey that there were 'no systematic differences' het~'een juvenile sm~king in countries with advertising bans (Finland. Nor~ay) and those without (LTK.. Austria). Three surveys carried out by the Children's Research Unit (CRU) in t989 and published by the International Adverusing Association. taken together, show that smoking incidence among juveniles is higher in man)" places where advertising is banned than where it is not. In other cases, the incidence of juvenile smoking is found to be virtually identical in both situations. O'x G I x.O BatCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

USA Increased advertising in :Lmerica - bur decreased smoldng among young people A study by the Universi .ty of Michigan revealed that between 1975 and 1987, there was a 30% decline in smoking by high sch(m[ seniors. A report in 1989 by the US Surgeon General showed that daily smoking among male high school seniors was nearly halved (from 28% to 16% in 1987),among female high school seniors daily smoking decreased by 33% during the same period. Despite increased expenditure on ci~rette adve~sing and promotion during this period, smoking declined dramatically across the board. These ficts hardly support the thesis that tobacco advertising leads to an increase in smoking among .-kmerican teenagers. The anti-to/~acco campaigners have tried to stir up emotive worries about children to support their case for an advertising ban. But the evidence does not support their claims. There is no justification, by evidence or reason, tbr an outright ban on tobacco advertising in the United Kingdom. The U'K Government should continue co resist the proposed EC ban. while retaining the existing s.vstem of volunta~- am'cements which are manifestly more flexible and acceptable than blanket prohibitions imposed by Brussels. The evidence largely indicates that factors other than tobacco advertising determine the degree of smoking by young people and adults alike. An advertising ban in the UK would not lead to a reduction in smoldng. Previous editions of HEAR THE OTHER SIDE Features 1. European Commission Draft Directive on advertising. 2. Advertising and Consumption. 3. Voluntary. Agreements. 4. International Comparison. Ox CZ~ CD For further information please contact: Christopher Bullock Director Public Affairs. Ben Welsh Public Affairs Executive. Tel: 071 828 2041 Fax: 071 630 9638 LFI .,,0 L.n BatCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

SPONSORSH/P RESEARCH PROGRAMME Prepared for TOBACCO INSTrU.ITE OF NEW ZEALAND 8th Hoor, Dilworr.h Building Car Queen S~t & Oostoms Smut East PO Box 1582 Aucklz.~ 1 New Zealand September 1991 CRU No. 4009 Children's 686 Research Unit 0 Lrl ,.o BatCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

SPONSORSHIP RESEARCH PROGRAMME Prepared for TOBACCO INSTITLYrE OF NEW ZEALAND 8th Floor, Dilworth Building Car Queen Street & Customs Steer Fast PO Box 1582 Auckland 1 New Zealand September 1991 CRU No. 4009 O', O t.m ,,D BatCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

INDEX Prcfa¢~ Editorial Comment The Research Objectives Method and Sample Sponsorship Research : Key Findings International Research Findings : Advertising Elaboration of Main Findings : Sponsorship A. Personal experience of sponsorship B. School sponsorship C. Knowledge of sponsored activiti~ D. Diffcrem types of sponsorship E. Spons~ and recipient F. Impact of sponsorship on juvenile smoking initiation G. Contributory factors in smoking inkiadon H. Cm'mnt smoking / non-smoking bchaviour I. Comparative smoking behaviour : New Zealand J. Impact of advertising on juvenile smoking initiation in Now Zealand K. Impact of advertising on juvenile smoking initiation : International findings Conclusions PAGE 2 3 4 4 5 6 8 8 8 9 11 II II 12 14 15 15 16 16 Appendices A: The Children's Research Unit (CRU) B : Technical C : List of prompted reasons for trying the first ciga~tt¢ D: Staging to Smoke: Answers given to prompted reasons for starting to smoke E : Data on Smoking Prevalence F : Rcsmcdons of Tobacco Adv(mising - National regulatory systems G : Sponsorship Survey Questionnaire o~ cD o ./:a. Lrl ,,,o co BatCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PREFACE A fairly widespread belief exists around the world that advertising is a major factor in the initiation process of children smoking. In contrast there has been a lack of systematic cross-national research to compare juvenile smoking initiation under differing nations' conditions. Considering that one common remedy has been p .ropo .sed to ~mbat.juvc.nile .smoking, namely to ban or severely resu'ict tobacco advcrusmg, ~t was ~,~ct to mvesngate me validity of fl'fis initiative, by comparing countries which differ significantly in terms of public policies toward tobacco advertising in order to determine the rclar, vc impact ot tobacco advertising on why juveniles start smoking. To this end the Children's Research Unit (CRU - see Appendix A) conducted a series of studies to determine the extent to which tobacco advertising influenced juvenile smoking initiation in a sample of countries selected for their different regulatory systems regarding the advertising of tobacco products (see Appendix F for further details about national regulatory systems). New Zealand was included in the comparative international study in 1988. The results at that time underlined the already established international patterns. Now, a new belief has come into being that sponsorship is also a major factor in the initiation process of children smoking. New Zealand is the Rrst country to be studied with respect to both advertising and sponsorship in terms of the initiation process. Although advertising and sponsorship have been postulated as having a positive beating on the smoking initiation process, the current survey of Young People and Sponsorship conducted in New Zealand, together with data from the study of 16 counmcs, clearly show that advertising and sponsorship arc insignificant factors with respect to initiation. It is noteworthy that the majority of New Zealand children, in common with those of other countries surveyed gave as their main reason for first trying a cigarette that they "wanted to sec what it was like." Glen Smith Children's Research Unit Chah'maa $epmmber 1991 CZ~ u CZD Lrl ,,,o ,,,O BatCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

EDITORIAL COMMENT i l 1 ! I ! 1 ] ! ] l I This report discusses the findings of a new research study conducted in August 1991 among New Zealand children aged 10 to 16 years by the Children's Research Unit. This tarter orgmisation has been conducl~ng research for a period of 18 years among children in a number of countries with widely varying cultures. After examining the study, I am satisfied that the sample of participating children was appropriately chosen, that the issues researched were key ones, and that the sequence of questions asked was such that children would have answered them accurately. The study makes it clear that the vast majority of children interviewed had, themselves, been personally involved with an organisadon or activity which had been sponsored, and were of the opinion that individuals being sponsored did not have to use the sponsor's producT. As was the case in previous research studies in New Zealand and other counmes, it is abundantly clear from this latest study that the majority of New Zealand children who smoke for the f~t time do so, by their own account, because of curiosity, because their friends smoked, or because they were given a cigarette. Over and above the personal statements of these New Zealand children it is also clear from the latest study (as in previous studies in a number of counn'ies, including New Zealand) that there is a strong relationship between smoking by friends (especially close friends), smoking by parents and smoking by siblings and a young person's'decision to try his/her fast cigarette and/or to continue to smoke. The fact that, in the 1988 study, only one New Zealand boy out of a total of 288 respondents attributed his smoking initiation to advertising, and that, in this 1991 study, only one New Zealand girl out of 297 respondents attributed her smoking initiation to sponsorship - and these only when being shown a list of possible causes - it is a clear indication that cigarcne advertising and sponsorship, both in New Zealand and elsewhere, arc insignificant factors in smoking initiation. Professor John R G Jenkins BA. MA(Cambridge), MBA('Tomnto) DBA(Harvard), DPhil(Oxford) Professor of Business Administration School of Business & Economics Wilfrid Lauricr University, Waterloo, Canada N2L 3C5 O'x ../2a, G'x C.D <:D BatCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999