Transcript Slide 1
Tobacco Industry Attempts to Thwart Health Promotion Initiatives for Tobacco Control in Australia Laura Bond, Jaimee Coombs, Mike Daube WA Tobacco Document Searching Program Background • 1998 Master Settlement Agreement • Tobacco industry documents available through online archives • Tobacco control campaigns • Tobacco industry strategies Methods •Tobacco document archives: – Philip Morris Document Site – Legacy Tobacco Documents Library – British American Tobacco Documents Archive •Keywords: – – – – – Health promotion, health groups Australia Tobacco control Campaign/s Antis, activists Results Groups: • Action on Smoking & Health (ASH) Australia • Australian Cancer Society • Australian Council on Smoking & Health • Australian Medical Association • Healthway and other Health Promotion Foundations • National Heart Foundation • Public Health Association (Australia) • The Cancer Foundation WA (Cancer Council) • WA Health Department (Philip Morris Australia, 1992) “Antis” Strategies • Legislation • Litigation • Exaggeration to attract headlines • Misrepresentation of data • Smokers as victims • Tobacco industry as subversives (Philip Morris Corporate Affairs, 1995) Tobacco Industry Strategies • Monitoring of tobacco control activity • Lobbying government/politicians • Relationships with allied industries and businesses • Funding ‘research’ to support their claims • Promoting smokers’ rights • Promoting corporate social responsibility National Tobacco Campaign • Launched in 1997 • Target group: 18-40 year old smokers • Collaboration between the Federal, State and Territory Governments and non-Government organisations • Multi-tiered campaign • Hard-hitting advertisements • ‘Every cigarette is doing you damage’ • Supported by cessation services (Quitline) Tobacco Industry Response • A waste of money and a smokescreen • Unreliable data: – 70% do not believe anti-smoking campaign best option for Australia – Anti-smoking campaigns nominated by less than 1% as most important issue facing Australia • Heavily monitored campaign Success! • • • • • • • • • 190,000 quit smoking within the first six months High rates of recall and recognition Well received by smokers Increased learning about health effects of smoking Calls made to Quitline increased Saved millions in health costs International recognition Younger target group Support for public education Graphic Health Warnings Campaign • Campaign launched Feb 2006 • Graphic health warnings 1 March 2006 • Tobacco products to be printed with a rotation of 14 health warnings • Covering 30% front of pack • Covering 90% back of pack • Aims: to increase consumer knowledge of the health effects of smoking; to encourage cessation; and discourage uptake or relapse “We question however, the appropriateness of using confronting pictorial warnings to shock and repel consumers of tobacco products.” (British American Tobacco, Submission to the Dept Health and Aged Care, 2001) “In order to be clear and readable, health warnings do not need to dominate the tobacco product package, overwhelm our trade marks or make the product’s packaging shocking or repulsive.” “We will oppose any proposal to require oversized and/or graphic warnings.” (Philip Morris, Submission to the Dept Health and Aged Care, 2001) Tobacco Industry Response British American Tobacco • Lack of evidence that health warnings will be effective • Current labelling already one of the strongest in the world • Australians already aware of health risks • Unnecessary financial burden on the industry and consumers • Will lead to increase in illegal sales and job losses • Denigrate consumers Philip Morris • Overpowering trade marks of a legal product • Denigrate/devalue the property of the manufacturer of a legal product • Unreasonably sized warnings would raise serious issues under domestic and international law Success! • Graphic health warnings introduced • Increased knowledge about health effects of smoking • Encouraged cessation • Discouraged uptake and relapse • Less desirable WA Health Promotion Foundation • Healthway was established in 1991 under the Western Australian Tobacco Control Act 1990. • Discourages tobacco use, promotes good health, prevents illness • Sponsors sport, arts and racing • Funds health promotion programs and research Tobacco Industry Response “For boundless hypocrisy the Western Australian Health Promotion Foundation has no peer.” (Australian Retail Tobacconist, 1991) “These government groups which are funded as hypothecated taxation vehicles by health bureaucrats really must be stopped from spreading.” (Martin Riordan, WD & HO Wills, 1995) Price Waterhouse Report: • Inconclusive evidence that smoking will decrease • Reduced government investment in housing, transport and employment • Increased burden on low income earners • Tobacco users paying for wide range of health issues • Long-term negative impact for sport and arts • “Extensive evidence overseas and in Australia suggests that even direct advertising has very little effect, if any, in encouraging people including juveniles to smoke. How much less then, would be the influence of sports sponsorships?” (Tobacco Institute Australia, 1988) • “Banning sponsorship of sporting, cultural and artistic events has no effect on smoking rates.” (Philip Morris Report, 1995) Success! • Removal of tobacco promotion from sponsorship and outdoor advertising • Promotion of anti-smoking messages and targeting hard to reach groups • Banned tobacco-funded research to WA universities • High recall of health messages • Beneficial to funding recipients “……It would appear that Healthway has to date operated in an efficient and equitable manner……” (Price Waterhouse Report, 1991) Socially Unacceptable “As reported in the last comprehensive review, the major thrusts of anti-smoking activity have been against flexibility of our products and attempting to portray smoking as socially unacceptable” (Smoking and Health Report, WD & HO Wills, 1981) “The anti-smoking movement wants to dictate how others should live their lives.” (Philip Morris, Industry Issues Report, 1996) “Smokers are made to feel increasingly alienated and uncomfortable. The antis regularly tell smokers that they are poisoning their families and colleagues, that if they smoke around children they are child abusers, that they are more dangerous drivers and less productive workers than nonsmokers. In this way, the social acceptability of smoking is continually being eroded.” (Philip Morris Corporate Affairs, 1998) Conclusions • Tobacco industry awareness of health campaigns • Tobacco industry strategies • Tobacco control a success in Australia • More work to be done • Lessons from tobacco transferrable to other public health issues “The implications of Australian antismoking activity are significant outside Australia because Australia serves as a seedbed for antismoking programs around the world.” (Philip Morris Australia, 1992) Contact Details Laura Bond Curtin University of Technology [email protected] (08) 9266 7117 http://healthsciences.curtin.edu.au/watdsp/