Tobacco Documents Online

~?~:~: i~i BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO Copy Request Form Request Number: 5 Organization: Physicians for a smoke free Canada I Request Details Request Date: ...... [~0,,(...~../...~....~ ................... • leeomeoooleooao *J Page Range: First Page LastPage ~ (_~ ~, 0 / ~'~ "~" (~ ~ Requested By: (Print Name) ...... ~ .......................... Details below will be filled in by Depository Staff Only II Copy Details Copied By: ..... .~...~.~./7 .~...f....~ ............................ ...... Date: ....0../..~.~..~S~.Z ............ Time: ..ff....~...~/~ .............. Copy Checked By: .......................................................... Date: .................................... Time: ............................... IIl Delivery Details Checked By:........... ....................... . . Date: .................... Sent By: . . Date: ...... so•o••• • • eJ6so • oeul • es so osoaol •••so•• Ioo •eo•oooso•• $s • • BatCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

i686 THE CONFEDERATION OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITY CIGARETTE MANUFACTURERS LIMITED Tobacco Advertising and Children O C) C~ ~D BatCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

TOBACCO ADVERTISING AND CHILDREN There appears to be disagreement in the EC Health Council on the EC Commission's proposed directive to ban tobacco advertising. There is growing recognition that bans on tobacco advertising do not lead to a reduction in smoking. Anti-smokers have been using the emotive argument that advertising encourages children to start smoking. But there is no convincing evidence to suggest ~hat it encourages anybody - adult or child - to start, or that advertising bans reduce consumption. Advertising and consumption The latest USA stud.'.', published in 1992. examines the relationship of cigarette advertising or, consumption from 1961 to 19909 It concludes that over the past 30 vears "there is a lack of consistent empirical information linking cigarette consumption to advertising expenditure". The findings suggest, as other researchers have found, that "aggregate cigarette consumption is prima~y related to price and income and not to advertising expendivures." In New Zealand, where a partial advertising ban was imposed in 1990, significant price increases and an economic recession were primarily responsible for the decline in overall consumption. This was recognised by the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health, SteFhen Dorrell, in a I Gary. B Wilcox, University of Texas, Austin and Barry Vacker, Southern Methodist University. Dallas, Texas. G", CZ) CZ) O" x,O PO BatCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

Commons Written Answer on November 12, 1991 when he said: "Changes in New Zealand'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." In Canada, where the only comprehensive 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. He ruled: "The virtual totality of the scientific documents in the State's possession, at the time the Act was passed, does not demonstrate that a ban on advertising would affect consumption." Experience in Europe shows that in the UK and the Netherlands, where advertising is permitted, overall consumption has declined by more than 20% during the last decade alone. In Norway, Finland and Iceland, where bans were imposed m the 1970s, consumption has since either increased, or failed to match the same rates of decline. In reviewing international data, German National Ministry of Health scientific adviser Professor R Bergler: found that existing research does not support the claim that advertising bans have a preventative effect. He stated: "The expected effects of advertising bans - that is, a drastic reduction of smoking frequency and a strong spreading of negatwe attitude towards smoking - are not forthcoming." -'Professor R Bergier: "Zi~arettenkonsum im )ugendalter", Deutscher Instituts X'erl;ig, ~hriftenreihe zur argewandten Sozialpsychologie 199s.. 0", 0 ./::a, 0", ",0 Lt4 BatCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

Children and smoking - the McDonald survey The Tobacco Advisory Council in Britain recently commissioned consultant Colin McDonald, a member of the Market Research Socie .ty, to write, "Children, Smoking and Advertising"" - an objective review of all the significant recent research studies which examine the relationship between tobacco advertising and ~.lvenile smoking initiation. He concludes that all the studies attempting to establish a connection between advertising and smoking by children, fail to do so. Challenging the claim that advertising predisposes children towards smoking, McDonald writes: "This inference remains hypothetical only; it cannot be derived from the data." Children may recall advertisements for many products, including tobacco, says McDonald, but it does not follow that they will therefore be attracted to smoking, or see it as socially approved. And he dismisses as "unjust~,fied and unworthy~, claims that "sinister" and persuasive influences can be implanted in young children's minds. Bergler backs up these finding, concluding that there is no convincing empirical evidence for a causal effect of cigarette advertising on smoking initiation in young people. °Pending publication. OX 0 xO BatCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

Why do children smoke? Child-en's motivations for smoking are complex. No one explanation or interpretation is possi.b[e, says 8ergler. Nume.'ous psychological studies show that many lifesWle factors are L-.volved. Personali.ty, self-image, peer group pressure, whe:ker or not parents smoke and simple curiosity can dete.--~- ine the decision to begin. Helping to resolve personal con~:c:s which arise at school or in the family are given as other reasons. Berg.'er concludes that young smokers want to be less conformist, more ~'own-up and independent. They have a different self- imace from non-smokers, which is evident before they start smo'.,c.ng - and evidence suggests it is unlikely that young peo..-ie are ~.~luenced to begin smoking by advertising messages. Chi~-~ren are not at all naive about advertising, he says, and the majo."k~, of youngsters between ages 7-12 are anti-tobacco. Ano-ner independent study, published in November 1990, also ider.~L'-ied peer pressure and parental example as key masons. The report "Why Children Start Smoking", undertaken by the Of~.ce of Population Censuses and Surveys, for the UK's Department of Health, highlighted seven major factors as too=rations for smoking. Advertising was not one of them, Th~ multi-factoral view is shared by many researchers. Not leas: Rabier (1991), whose study comparing the psycho-social aspe:ts of smoking in the EC's 12 member states shows that advertising "is not a particularly important predictor" in dete.,"mining why children smoke. Th9 study, amongst others, confirms that the anti-smoking lob'.':v has distorted the debate by attempting to show that advertising is a prime .~actor in juvenile smoking initiation - and b.v :ailing to take other motivations into account. OX q I,,,. ,,D BatCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

What advertising does not do Advertising does not have the power to make consumers buy products they do not want - and tobacco is no exception. International evidence from a number of surveys clearly show that advertising bans do not reduce overall consumption. For example, bans in Finland and Norway have been ineffective in reducing smo~ng among their young people. Since tobacco advertising was prohibited in Nor~'ay in 1975, and Finland in 1978, both countries are held up by anti-smokers as examples of what ought to happen in the UK, the Netherlands and Germany. Norway - the evidence A study in the journal of the Norwegian Medical Association (1990)-~ reported that the ban has had no discernible effect on the incidence of smoking in Norway. Between 1977 and 1989 the incidence of smoking among Norwegian youth 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 dropped by a significantly lesser extent in Norway than in the UK (Norway 5~ decrease, UK 9~}. While the decline in smoking incidence among young females was slightly greater in Norway than the UK, the proportion who smoke has remained consistently higher through the same pe.,'iod than in the UK. Gotestam. K 0 and Gomstam, K G "Smoking and Attitudes Toward Smoking in .~nr.va.v". TJddskz nor Laegeforen. I,~0, ]7(110): 2250-]. O~ 4~ ,.O O', BatCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

In a ]ater report, in 1992~ the same researchers went on to hypothesise that an advertising ban leads to reduced smoking and tobacco sales - and concluded that their results did not support this. Norway is consistently poor in almost all smoking reduction comparisons. For example, the drop in number of male smokers in the USA, England, and Sweden in 1977-87 was 22.5% - 25%, compared to 8% in Norway. The reduction for women was 12.9,% - 18.4%, compared to a Norwegian increase of 12%. The chief of the Tobacco Products Control Unit in Canada has questioned the reliability of studies cited bv anti-smokers to support their lobby, on the grounds that it 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". Finland Smoking among 12-18 year olds had been declining sharply before the ban on tobacco product advertising was imposed. University. of Helsinki researchers found that since the ban, smoking among teenagers had increased and in 1989 the percentage of teenagers who smoked daily, was greater than when the Act on Smoking came into effect. ' Gotestam, K O and Cotestam, K G Psychological Reports 1992. 70. 531-537. O~ C~ ,,.O "-,4 BatCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

THE EUROPEAN EVIDENCE Evidence from across Europe demonstrates that the trend for smoking among children is falling, The decline among younger smokers is also at a much faster rate than among adults. Denmark A review of the data available shows that for the 20-year period from 1971 to 1991, there has been a significant drop in the number of young people smoking cigarettes in Denmark - declining by 46% to 20,9%. This compares with the virtually static situation in the case of all adults, with 38.8% still smoking in 1991. Percentage Smoking Cigarettes* 1971 1981 1991 (lst half) 15-19 years 38.6% 29.2% 20.9% All Adults 38.2% 39.2% 38.8% "Source: Gallup Omnibus. ]990 France In France, the figures published by the Comit~ Fran~ais d'Education pour la Sant~ shows that smoking among 12-18 year olds has been falling at a much faster rate than among all smokers. In 1977 these younger smokers represented 46% of all cigarette smokers, but by 1983 they accounted for 36% and in 1991 for 30.5%. Smoking prevalence among adults remained constant at 40%. O m r~ O'~ ,.O CO BatCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

Belgium Similarly, the Belgian smoking statistics reveal that, betweer~ 1986 and 1990, there had been a considerable fall in the proportion of young people smoking - Ear in excess of the decline among adults. Percentage Smoking Cigarettes" 1982 1986/87 1990 %Change 1982/90 15-17 years Boys 16% 5% -69 Girts 10% 8% -20 Adults Men 52% 42% 39% -26 Women 28% 26% 26% -7 "Source: CP, IOC-SOBEMAP C) ",.0 ',,D BatCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

West Germany The German smoking figures highlight the large decline in children smoking across the seven year period from 1981 to 1987, which was at a much faster rate than for adults. Percentage Smokers" 1981 1987 .~ Change Boys 12-14 years 9% 3% -67 Girls 12-14 years 6% 4% -33 Boys 15-17 years 39% 32% -18 Girls 15-17 years 37g~. 33% -11 Adults Men 45.7% 41.7% -9 Adults Women 22.4% 22.8% NC "Source: Adult figures: The Maxwell Report: International Tobacco 1990. Part One, 9 May 1991. Boys/Girls figures: "Jugend und Drogen" - Eine Studie ~iber Konsum und MiRbrauch yon A[kohol, [[legalen Drogen und Tabakwaren dutch junge Menschen in Nordthein-Westfalen, yon lnfratest-C, esundheits-Forschung, im Auftrag des MAC (Ministerium f6r Arbeit, Gesundheit und Sozia|es NRW, 1967). And other figures demonstrate a dramatic drop in West German children smoking during the years 1973-1990. Smokers (permanent and occasional)* 1973 1990 14-17 years 57% 32,% 14-25 years 58% 48% "Source: Bundeszentrale f6r gesundheitliche AufkJ/irung: Die Entwicklung der Drogenaffin;it Jungerlicher, 1990. ",,.~ --,,,j C-O BatCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

Great Britain The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) figures clearly demonstrate the large fall in the percentage of school children smoking cigarettes in England, Scotland and Wales. Overall, this has been at a faster rate than among the adult British population, despite the continuation of tobacco advertising during the period ]984 to 1990. Percentage Smoking Cigarettes* 1984 1990 ~ Change England Boys and Girls 11-15 years 22,% I6~ -27 Wales Boys and Girls 11-15 years 17% 15% -12 Scotland Boys and Gifts 11-15 years 24,% 20~ -17 All Adults 16 years + 34% 30% -12 "Source: Boys/Girls figures: "Smoking Among Secondary School Children in 1990" OPCS, 19SI. Adult figures: General Household Survey "Cigarette Smoking 1972-1990" OPC,.S monitor. 26 November 1991. The World Health Organisation found, in a 1986 survey, that there were "no systematic differences" between juvenile smoking in countries with advertising bans (Finland, Norway) and those without (UK, Austria). Three surveys carried out by the Children's Research Unit (CRU) in 1989 and published by the International Advertising Association, all show that smoking incidence among juveniles is higher in many 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. ,,,,,j O BatCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

CONCLUSIONS • Evidence does not support the claim that advertising encourages children to smoke. • The evidence indicates that factors other than tobacco advertising determine the degree of smoking by young people and adults alike. • A wealth of independent research has shown there is no connection between advertising and overall tobacco consumption. • In the absence of evidence, an EC advertising ban is not justified. Moreover, such a ban would not comply with the principle of proportionaliO,,. • An advertising ban in the EC would not lead to a general reduction in smoking. • The perceived need to control tobacco communication is better answered at national level through voluntary agreements which are manifestly more flexible and acceptable. Moreover, such an approach is in line ~ith the principle of subsidiarity. O~ 0 0 0 BatCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999

THE CONFEDERATION OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITY CIGARETTE MANUFACTURERS LIMITED (CECCM) Activities Consultant', co-ordination and represemation on members' behalf in connection with all aspec:s oi EC public altars. Corporate Members British-American Tobacca Co. Ltd. Gailaher Ltd. Imve.-.ai Tobacco Led. PhiliE" Morris Europe $.A. Reemtsma C~caret:entabnken G.m.b.H. R. J. Reynolds'Tobacco International. Inc. Rothmans l:',:emational Tobacco Lid. National Manufacturers' Association Members F~derat~on Belgo-Luxembourgeoise d~ Industries du Tabac Tobaksindusmen Co.Pcptha ,~cn Verband ,~er Cigarettenindustne ~o,m ! V,tCJ Verband tier Deu:schen Rauchtabakindustne 5¢mn (VdRI Hellenic Assooanon of European Tobacco Companies AF:ens IE._.K.E.E.J Groupement de FournLcseurs Communautaires de Cigarettes P.~.:s ~G.F.C.C.~ ]fish Tobacco Manu."acrurers' AdvisoP,." Committee D:,blm flTMACs Centro di Documentazlone • Informazione sul Tabacco .:'dan tC.D.I.T.J Stichtinc ~igarrettenindustvie ~;c Ha,quc ~S.S.I.~ Verenigmg Nederiandse Kerftabakindustrie T;:c Hague ¢ VNKJ Tobacco Advisorv Council L:.:dan ¢T..4..C.; Chairman: Mr[ Xl Lepere Chairman's Office 120 Pembroke Road Dublin 4, Ireland Tel: (01) 601 576 & (01) 681 62.~ Fax: (01) 606 ~4 Telex: 91824 CECM-E] Brussels Liaison Office ] ) Avenue de La .[oyeuse Entree (3rd Floor) 104{3 Brussels, Belgium Tel: (02.~ 231 1731 & (02) 231 1797 Fax: (02) ~1 1721 Telex: ~4717 CECCM-B ¢..,,4 BatCo document for PFSFC 1 March 1999