Tobacco advertisements really do prompt teenagers to smoke, say the authors of a new study that calls for a ban on cigarette ads. In research involving more than 2,100 public school students in Germany, 277 young people who had never smoked before took up the habit after viewing tobacco advertising. Those who saw the most ads were 46 percent more likely to try cigarettes than those who saw no tobacco ads, the study found.

This “just adds weight to the idea of having the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] be able to control tobacco marketing,” said study co-author Dr. James D. Sargent, a professor of pediatrics and family and community medicine at Dartmouth Medical Center in New Hampshire.

Sargent, who has done extensive research on the influence of media on teen behaviors, worked with German researchers to produce the study, published online Jan. 17 in advance of print publication in the February issue of Pediatrics.

“There is a mental model for how advertising works,” said Sargent. After viewing an ad, teens “start having favorable thoughts about smoking: ‘it might be fun, it might make me more socially accepted.’ This preceded any intent to smoke on their part.”

Eventually a teen who has seen tobacco ads thinks about trying smoking, and soon after that “they try it,” said Sargent.

Students involved in the study ranged from 10 to 17 years old, with an average age of 12.5 years, when the study began. They were shown 12 ads with branding removed — six for cigarettes and six for other products, including candy, cars and cell phones. They were asked to identify the product advertised and recall the brand if they could.

After nine months, 13 percent of the students who had seen tobacco ads began smoking, showing a strong connection between the behavior and tobacco advertising, said Sargent. And the more ads they saw, the more likely they were to start smoking, the study found.

Smoking was not related to advertising for other products, the researchers said.

“Each one of these studies that we do is another little block that supports causality, just another little piece of evidence,” Sargent said.

Other known risk factors for teen smoking, such as parental and peer smoking, were controlled for during the data analysis, the researchers said.

“This [study] is very important because there are few, if any, longitudinal studies,” demonstrating a link between tobacco advertising and teen smoking, said Cheryl Healton, president and CEO of the American Legacy Foundation, an anti-smoking organization.

Previous research has mostly relied on cross-sectional studies, she said. That type of study documents incidence of a behavior at a certain point in time and may suggest a link between, say, smoking and advertising, but it doesn’t show cause-and-effect. A longitudinal study, on the other hand, follows participants for a period of time in an effort to demonstrate that one causes the other.

Advertising exploits themes that are meaningful to teens including sex appeal, masculinity for boys, thinness for girls, and social acceptance, according to research cited in the study. Most smoking starts during adolescence, and because tobacco is a powerful psychoactive drug, the path to addiction readily follows, the authors added.

Healton said tobacco companies spend about $30 million a day on advertising in the United States alone. They “have to get young people to smoke or else they will go out of business,” she said.

Although tobacco advertising is banned on American television, Healton said some TV programs promote smoking by showing characters lighting up.

“Sex and the City was the longest-running ad for Marlboro Lights,” she said, referring to the popular TV series.

In the United States, teen smoking has declined dramatically since its peak in 1997, according to data provided by Legacy. Yet, in 2007 about 20 percent of American teenagers reported smoking in the previous 30 days, the American Lung Association reported.

With these words the reader is launched into a strange netherworld that revolves around cigarettes. It is a place devoid of rules, morals, or polite behavior. One in which the culture dictates that anything goes, and everything is up for grabs. The Cigarette Book: The History And Culture Of Smoking collects hundreds of items that reflect this worldview, all are part and parcel of the smoking lifestyle.

As the title indicates, the book is focused almost exclusively on manufactured cigarettes, as opposed to other tobacco products. The cigarette as we know it today is a uniquely twentieth century phenomenon. In 1900, tobacco was mainly consumed in pipes, cigars, or cigarettes of the roll-your-own variety. By 1910, sales of factory-rolled cigs had exploded, reaching 8.6 billion for the year. The Cigarette Century had begun in earnest.

The huge sales broke the nascent industry wide open. Suddenly everyone
had important business dealings with the tobacco companies. These included reps from advertising, corporate sponsors, labor and industry, pro-smoking groups, anti-smoking groups, health studies… the list is endless, because it has never stopped growing, and never will.

The Cigarette Book compiles this unwieldy group of interested parties in a format much like that of a small encyclopedia. The first entry is “aardvark” (which refers to a surreal Winston ad) and the final is “Zippo” (about the iconic lighter). Each item is explained with a few brief, descriptive paragraphs, some of which include illustrations.

One thing that makes this such an enjoyable read are the peculiar things the authors discovered. Take the entry titled “Global Warming.” In 2006, former tobacco farmer Al Gore stood in front of a group from the UN and told them that cigarettes were a “significant contributor” to global warming. Apparently he even managed to keep a straight face when he said it.

Ever wonder what the biggest boondoggle the cigarette companies ever faced might be? It was a brand called Premier, the world’s first smokeless smoke. The public hated it, and Premier lasted about as long as New Coke did. When the brand was rolled out in 1988, the overall cost was estimated to be over $300 million.

The “Slang” section features obscure terms used for cigarettes over the years. These include “Durries” (from Australia), “Gaspers,” (for cheap brands), “Tabs” (Specific to Northern U.S.), and the ever popular “Coffin Nails,” which has been traced back to a magazine article published in 1867.

There are some celebrities who will always be associated with smoking. A number of them are profiled, including Frank Sinatra, Yul Brynner, Bette Davis, John Wayne, and Laurence Olivier. Beginning in 1956, Sir Laurence even had his very own “Olivier” brand of cigarettes. Legend has it that he blackmailed theatres to stock only Olivier brand smokes in their vending machines if they ever wished for him to grace their stage.

Quite a few U.S. Presidents were smokers, but none were as devoted to the habit as Lyndon Johnson. At his peak, LBJ smoked three packs a day. Another heavy smoker in the world of politics was “Uncle Joe” Stalin. While he puffed like a chimney in meetings, nobody else was allowed to smoke at all.

On the opposing team, Adolph Hitler quit his pack a day habit and became the original anti-smoking zealot. Much like the evil-doers of today, Hitler taxed and banned cigarettes everywhere he could. According to the book, when der Fuehrer killed himself, the first thing his staff members did was break out the smokes.

The Cigarette Book is full of interesting, funny, and sometimes downright bizarre bits of trivia about smoking. Whether you are a three pack a day LBJ type, or an anti-smoking fanatic like Hitler, you are bound to find something to enjoy here. My copy now resides in the holiest place of all for books. In the bathroom, right next to the toilet.

As the international health community increases its efforts to fight smoking, the International Tobacco Growers Association (ITGA) is worried about the impact it would have on the livelihoods of millions of African tobacco growers. The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), established under the World Heath Organization (WHO), calls on signatory countries to implement measures to reduce tobacco use in member countries. To date, 168 governments have signed onto the treaty.

Countries operating under the anti-tobacco treaty have taken a variety of measures to reduce tobacco usage. In Canada, cigarette packages are concealed under the counter to reduce visual temptation to buy them. Estonia prohibited the introduction of tobacco-vending machines, and Brazil promised that it would work on helping its tobacco growers switch to sustainable alternative crop.

But António Abrunhosa, CEO of ITGA, says the treaty is flawed because it excludes the interests of tobacco farmers.

“For some inexplicable reason, tobacco growers, the very people most affected by the guidelines, are officially excluded from any discussions. Even ministries of agriculture or economy seem unaware of the discussions taking place within the FCTC. There doesn’t seem to be any balanced form of representation whatsoever,” said Abrunhosa in a statement.

ITGA represents over 30 million tobacco growers around the world and says that in some countries, entire communities depend on tobacco as a cash crop, a crop that has been able to maintain a stable market despite the recent global economic recession.

However, countries such as Malawi, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Tanzania, which most-heavily depend on tobacco farming, could face the loss of millions of jobs if the demand for tobacco exports is significantly reduced.

At the same time, Africa is also one of the world’s largest consumers of cigarettes, inflicting high health costs on impoverished nations. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, in 2007 Africans smoked 400 billion cigarettes, 15 percent of which came from the illicit tobacco market.

ITGA President Roger Quarles said that the WHO has not yet proposed a viable alternative industry that could replace tobacco farming in Africa.

The director of the FCTC tobacco framework, Laurent Huber, says that to completely implement the treaty in every country would take time, as tobacco-growing countries must find alternative income-generating industries.

“We are promoting public health through the Framework Convention Alliance. … Tobacco is still growing at this stage, there is not immediate risk,” says Huber.

Huber also said that in Africa in particular, the farmers barely make any money from tobacco crops since they need to import the seeds and the pesticides.

Hubert went on to say, “Tobacco is not a normal, usual product. It needs to be treated a little differently because it’s a leading cause of mortality … it’s not an unreasonable response for a major global problem.”

Quarles makes the point, however, that even if banned, tobacco would find its way into the black market since there will always be people who smoke.

“There will always be that 15 percent of people who know the [health] risk factors and are willing to accept the consequences,” says Quarles, pointing out that already a large number of cigarettes are smuggled across the border into Canada to avoid paying high taxes.

But Huber thinks this argument does not hold, and anyone who makes a living off of a product will try to create a sense of fear if such product is at risk of leaving the market.

“Tobacco, like anything else will enter the black market and is an issue of corruption,” he said, adding that most of the cigarette trafficking is coordinated by the tobacco industry in the respective countries.

From theepochtimes.com, June 25, 2010

June 22 marks the first time in American history that terms like light, ultra-light, low, mild and medium can no longer legally be used in the marketing and sale of cigarettes. The United States will be the 71st country (we’re behind, of course) to outlaw the labeling of cigarettes as “light” — an underhanded ploy promoting the idea that certain cigarettes have lower tar and nicotine content than others. Given that “light” smokes account for about half the cigarette market, the antismoking legislation, passed last year, stands to throw a wrench in tobacco companies’ deceptive marketing practices. But the tobacco industry is revving up to try to deceive smokers and potential smokers in different ways that may circumvent the new law.

Already major light brands are being repackaged with colors associated with, well, lightness. Camel Lights will be Camel Blues. Marlboro Lights and Ultra-Lights will, respectively, be Marlboro Gold and Silver. Pall Malls previously trumpeted as filtered, lights and lights menthol will now come in a rainbow of colors intended to convey tobacco “intensity” — red, blue and orange.

The brains behind the $13-billion-a-year cigarette marketing industry know that colors and packaging make a difference. Research has shown that 79 percent of people think that cigarettes packaged in a light blue box contain less tar and are safer than those in a darker hued package. And certain colors — like blue — are perceived to be less strong than, say, red.

In other countries where the practice of labeling cigarettes “lights” has been banned for a while, marketers have turned to using letters and numbers that similarly skew consumers’ perception of the health drawbacks to smoking cigarettes, and ultimately deliver the “same messaging as light or low,” says Gregg Haifley of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

Big Tobacco goes to all this trouble, of course, because it pays off. The whole concept of light cigarettes was born of the Surgeon General’s 1964 report that directly linked cigarettes and smoking to cancer and other diseases. Fearing a drop-off in smokers, the industry spun the story that you should pick light or mild cigarettes as an alternative to quitting. (Around that time, a cigarette brand called True featured a female tennis player saying: “Considering all I’d heard, I decided to either quit or smoke True.” The athlete, naturally, picked True.)

Although contemporary cigarette companies officially claim only that “light really refers to flavor,” they’ve been more than happy to let consumers reach their own conclusions.

From alternet.org, June 22, 2010

WASHINGTON – With the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act due to take effect June 22, tobacco companies are lightening up their packaging colors on “light” or “mild” cigarette brands, USA Today reports. The act prohibits the use of the words “light” or “mild” on cigarette advertising or packaging. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and the American Lung Association have accused the tobacco companies of being disingenuous for using lighter colors to convey the “light” or “mild” brands. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued guidance that found many smokers think cigarettes called “light” or “mild” have fewer health risks.

The color changes are “a transparent attempt by the tobacco industry to evade the law and mislead consumers,” said Waxman.

“The tobacco industry is masterful in its knowledge of consumer behavior and marketing,” added Paul Billings, vice president for national policy for lung association.

R.J. Reynolds countered that the “smoking experience” is what smokers enjoy about “light” cigarettes. Coloring the packaging on those brands will alert smokers that the taste they enjoy is still available, said David Howard of R.J. Reynolds, which makes the Salem brand.

Salem cigarette packages had been the same green shade but now “lights” are housed in a lighter green and white, while “ultra lights” come in a pale gray and white. “The bottom line is there is no safe cigarette…and that is certainly well-known among adult cigarette consumers,” said Howard.

FDA spokeswoman Kathleen Quinn said the ban encompasses “mild,” “light” and “low” but that the agency would look into any probably violations on a case-by-case basis.

nacsonline.com, June 15, 2010

National’s Tau Henare says tobacco company Philip Morris may be forced to appear before the Maori Affairs select committee’s inquiry into the tobacco industry. British and American Tobacco have previously fronted but Henare, who chairs the committee, told the Sunday Star-Times that Philip Morris had refused. “It’s about respect for the constitutionality of the Parliament. We make laws, we get rid of laws, and I think we deserve a bit of respect,” Henare said.

He wrote to the company last week warning it he will ask Parliament’s Speaker Lockwood Smith to issue a summons to force it to show up.

Under Parliament’s rules this is possible but is rarely used.

A spokeswoman for Philip Morris said the company “would consider the committee’s request to appear before it.”

June 7, 2010, tvnz.co.nz

We examine China’s plan to ban smoking in public by January 2011, despite being home to a third of the world’s smokers. When the smoking ban goes into effect in China next year, smoking will be banned in all public venues, workplaces and public transportation. However, anyone who lives or has lived in the world’s biggest tobacco consuming country — 30 percent of the worlds smokers, world’s largest tobacco grower and cigarette producer — rightfully doubts how effective the new law is going to be.

Try, try again

In 1995, the Guangzhou government banned smoking in public spaces, but the minor fine of RMB 20 dished out to offenders did not deter people. After a while, the smoking ban existed on paper only.

In 1997, Hunan Province introduced a smoking ban in public venues, but it met the same end as the Guangzhou law. The Beijing government declared a smoking ban in public places in May 2008, nonetheless, the ban did little and anti-smoking volunteers, when they were around, were ignored with no enforcement ability.

Shanghai implemented a partial smoking ban before the 2010 Expo and although it has helped a bit, technically smoke-free venues around town still have ashtrays on the tables.

Take with one hand, give with the other

It is soon going to be five years since China signed the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control whether the decision by China’s Ministry of Health to ban smoking in January 2011 is merely lip service to meet the commitment that China signed over four years ago.

“Can such a big policy that will have huge effects in so many aspects be carried out within such little time?”

The article is doubtful at best, considering, it says, that China’s state Tobacco Bureau plans in the next five years to create 12 new tobacco brands that will achieve projected sales of RMB 40 billion, and most of the products are to be sold to domestic consumers.

While the Ministry of Health is working hard on realizing the promise made to the WHO, another government body is working on their tobacco sales strategies. We agree, that it doesn’t seem to add up.

If the government could cut the supply of tobacco, and also persuaded smokers not to smoke, then it’d work, but it’s almost a fairy tale, declared researchers.

What people say

Although some voices in cyber space give their blessings to the smoking ban, those in favor are few and far between. Most Chinese citizens have responded negatively to the policy.

“Drainage oil is tolerated but second-hand smoking is not?” asks Yidong Xinyewu.  “With all the cigarettes I’ve smoked in my life, I don’t release as much smoke as any factory chimney. Why not close down some factories first?”

“No smoking in Internet cafes? No smoking at restaurants and bars?! How ridiculous! I suggest the government take control on housing prices and close the gap between the rich and the poor before they deal with cigarettes,” vents citizen Lao Biaoge from Liangshan.

Another comment by Er Yu Xiao Heng compares smoking with drinking. “Smoking only damages health while drinking damages the society and health. Why isn’t drinking banned?”

With such strong voices against the ban, others express their skepticism about how it will be enforced, a common problem for previous provincial smoking regulations.

“It is funny to talk about smoking ban unless a pack of cigarettes was sold for RMB 50 several times more than they are currently sold for or punishment for smoking was as heavy as taking drugs,” says Kuaile Rensheng from Dongguang. “But the government simply doesn’t want to lose the huge tax income from tobacco.”

“If all tobacco factories were closed, no one would be smoking, but there’d be so much tax loss,” agrees Gu Guanglin.

With cigarettes so cheap and the country’s long smoking history, this smoking ban looks like the government is drawing in more than it can exhale. We look forward to finding out. At least until 2011 Chinese scientists have found a good use for all those cigarette butts lying around.

The popularity of brands such as Lucky Strike and Pall Mall cigarettes continues to boost sales at British American Tobacco, although the company said that a shrinking tobacco market and cash-strapped consumers were denting cigarette volumes.

“Our consumers are finding economic conditions difficult and volumes suffered as a result of market size declines,” said Paul Adams, chief executive of British American Tobacco.“However, there was continued pricing momentum and good growth in market shares, leading to solid revenue growth. We remain on track for the year.”

Sales volumes of Lucky Strike grew by 8 per cent in the three months to the end of March, whilst Pall Mall grew by 10 per cent. The Dunhill brand increased volumes by 24 per cent, after BAT changed the brand of its Carlton cigarettes in Brazil to “Carlton by Dunhill”.

In the three months to the end of March, revenues in constant currencies grew, helped by the acquisition last year of the Indonesian tobacco group Bentoel Internasional Investama, although BAT declined to give figures for the increase in turnover.

However, in spite of this sales growth and the gains made in its major brands, total cigarette volumes fell in the period, with organic volumes down 4 per cent, whilst volumes from BAT’s subsidiaries down by 1 per cent.

BAT attributed some of the decline in volumes to a reduction in the size of the overall tobacco market, with total tobacco consumption falling fastest in the markets of Brazil, Japan, Ukraine and Romania.

Notwithstanding a reduction in the size of the Japanese tobacco market, Asia Pacific was the only region in the world where BAT increased its sales volumes, with the group selling 45bn cigarettes, up 5 per cent on the same period last year. The region now accounts for 25 per cent of sales volumes.

In eastern Europe, however, sales volumes fell 7 per cent to 25bn cigarettes, with volumes also falling in western Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, although stable in the Americas.

Shares in British American Tobacco fell 14½p to £21.26 on Wednesday.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. You may share using our article tools. Please don’t cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

By John O’Doherty, Ft

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. — Customers may already have noticed the change—although it has been subtle thus far. But they will starting March 1. That’s the official launch date of the latest line extension from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.’s Camel brand: menthol cigarettes containing a menthol burst capsule that enhances menthol flavor when squeezed.

The new cigarette supplanted Camel Menthol cigarettes in August 2009 and evolved from the “wonderful success” of Camel Crush (launched September 2008), according to Brian Stebbins, senior marketing director for Camel cigarettes. Crush also contains the menthol capsule, but squeezing it turns that cigarette from nonmenthol to menthol. “Whenever we launch something new, we try to find out who’s interacting with it, who likes it, who doesn’t like it and who has an idea of how to make it even better,” Stebbins told CSP Daily News.

“We identified that there’s a pretty large group of adult menthol smokers who are interested in the capsule technology, but they want to see us use it differently,” Stebbins said, adding that they want to use it to use it to make menthol cigarettes “even fresher and even cooler at the moment of their choosing, or on demand.”

The soft launch in August included “very minimal communication on packs and on the website for those who were interested.” Stebbins added, “And the idea there was to let those smokers who already choose Camel Menthol have an opportunity to experience the innovation first, let them experience the product first, let them let us know what they think and the response has been very positive.”

As for March 1, Stebbins said, “That is where we actually go out and try and tell the story to a broader audience about the innovation on Camel menthol.” The launch will mean a new look for the packaging, retail communications, retail merchandising and a “very solid” launch promotion program—including direct mail, emails and person-to-person engagements in bars, nightclubs and festivals.

Stebbins described the new packaging as having “a fresher, cooler color pallet that menthol smokers respond very nicely to” and said it will also “tell the story of the product within,” using the Camel mascot. Stebbins also said the name of Camel Menthol Lights will change to Camel Menthol Silver; Camel Menthol will keep the same name. He added, “We will still have a couple of menthol products that are in the market that will not have capsules in them, but they are not a primary marketing emphasis…. That really just kind of depends upon the business opportunity in those markets and retailer choice about what they carry.”

He said the product’s demographics are wide ranging. “Our testing indicates that the adult smokers who are interested span different age groups, they span different brands that they buy from today and it’s male/female. It’s a very broad opportunity, and I think that’s mostly because it’s a provocative innovation. We’re talking about a category, menthol cigarettes, where there’s a lot of sameness, and Camel cigarettes is the exact opposite of that.”

According to a Jan. 17, 1997 New York Times article, Reynolds briefly tested a menthol version of Camel in 1966, but never sold it nationally. Camel Menthols were nationally launched in 1997.

“I think the ‘new news’ here is menthol is growing considerably in the category, and to be frank, until we had introduced Camel Crush, Camel wasn’t getting its fair share of that growth,” Stebbins said.

Although menthol is “expressly permitted” under the recent flavored cigarette ban, there has been concern in the industry. David Howard, an R.J. Reynolds spokesperson, told CSP Daily News, “Obviously, as [U.S. Food & Drug Administration] regulations take effect, one of the things is that there will be a committee looking into menthol…. And certainly, whatever information is needed from us, we’re going to cooperate for any information that they need or assistance that we can provide in that study. But at this time, menthol is specifically not part of the flavored bans and permitted by FDA regulations…. And certainly, we believe it’s a viable product category, obviously; it’s a very large and growing category with adult smokers.”

According to the National Survey on Drug Use & Health Report, published by the Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration, on Nov. 19, 2009, among past-month smokers, the rate of smoking menthol cigarettes increased from 31% in 2004 to 33.9% in 2008. Past-month smoking of menthol cigarettes was more likely among those who were recent smoking initiates (i.e., began smoking in the past year) than among those who were longer-term smokers (i.e., initiated use more than a year ago) (44.6% vs. 31.8% respectively).

By Linda Abu-Shalback Zid, Cspnet.com
February 5, 2010