|
|
|||||||||
NEWS & VIEWS |
|
The concession, made by tobacco companies as part of a Master Settlement Agreement of 46 states lawsuits against them, called for the companies not to "take any action, directly or indirectly, to target youth..." in their advertising or marketing, the researchers point out.
"But targeting isnt defined in the agreement, and the companies still are finding ways to reach kids with the message to smoke," says lead study researcher Michael Siegel, MD, MPH, associate professor at Boston Universitys School of Public Health.
| Cigarette Ad Spending Goes Up One Year After Agreement |
|---|
|
|
|---|
"And we found that cigarette brands that are popular among youth smokers are more likely to advertise in magazines that have higher levels of youth readership," Siegel adds.
"If they werent trying to reach kids, you wouldnt expect to find that the specific brands that are popular among youth are precisely those brands that are advertising most heavily in those magazines read by large numbers of kids; it just doesnt make sense," notes Siegel.
| Philip Morris Agreements Impact Is Less Than Expected |
|---|
|
|
|---|
But even if other tobacco companies followed the example of Philip Morris, it wouldnt stop cigarette ads from reaching kids, researchers found, because over half the nations youth are still getting the message that "smoking is cool" from other ad placements.
"Even if Marlboro [a Philip Morris product] hadnt put any ads at all in youth-oriented magazines in the year 2000, they still would have reached 57 percent of the nations youth that year just through ads in adult magazines," notes Siegel.
The data shows that on average, 82 percent of the kids in the US were exposed to magazine ads for youth cigarette brands (brands that are popular among young smokers) in the year 2000.
"There was kind of a perception out there among the public that the Philip Morris policy was going to substantially reduce youth exposure to cigarette ads in magazines, and our study suggests that this simply is not the case," emphasizes Siegel.
Unfortunately, states Siegel, research has also shown that ads enticing kids to smoke are very effective, regardless of where they appear.
| Experts Call for Stronger Protections |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The editorialists—Yale University School of Medicines dean and former US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) head David A. Kessler, MD, and the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids president Matthew L. Myers, JD, agree with Siegel that with tobacco ads still enticing kids to smoke after the 1998 Agreement, stronger action—including placing tobacco products under control of the FDA—makes sense. The American Cancer Society (ACS) agrees.
"The tobacco companies continue to try to hook new generations of customers on their addictive and lethal products because they need to do that for the very survival of their industry," says Dileep G. Bal, MD, MS, MPH, President of the ACS.
"By ostensibly targeting adults (especially vulnerable 18 to 24 year olds), tobacco companies know that kids will get the message that it is cool and sophisticated to smoke and so they do," Bal says. "It is a known advertising fact that kids "aspire up" and this is used ingeniously by the Tobacco Industry in their Madison Avenue blitz. More than 80 percent of adult smokers began smoking at 18 or younger, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)."
"As a vital part of its mission to reduce suffering and death from cancer, the ACS strongly advocates a wide range of actions to reduce tobaccos impact on public health," Bal emphasizes.
Those actions entail not only effective restrictions on tobacco-marketing practices directed toward kids, notes Bal, but also include support for:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | COVER ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |