Seeing Beneath

the Surface:

The TruthAbout theTobaccoIndustry’sYouthSmokingPreventionProgrammes

Most governments, NongovernmentalOrganizations (NGOs) and tobaccocontrol advocates in the Western PacificRegion have meagre budgets to develop,implement and sustain their tobaccocontrol programmes. The tobaccoindustry has apparently seized upon thisvulnerability in attempts to promotethemselves as “responsible corporatecitizens” while they continue to thwart realprogress in reducing tobaccoconsumption.

Industry documents reveal that BritishAmerican Tobacco (BAT), Japan TobaccoInternational ( JTI), Philip Morris (PM)and their local subsidiaries have offeredmoney, expert consultants and supportservices to governments and civicorganizations in drafting tobacco controllegislation and carrying out educationaland advocacy projects purportedly to helpprevent young people from using theirproducts. The industry is aggressivelypromoting their “Youth SmokingPrevention” programmes within theWestern Pacific Region.

Introduction

2002 – Philip Morris (PM)Asia offers its “youthsmoking prevention”programme to the Ministryof Health. At the sametime, it warns of the“adverse consequences ofdrastic increases intobacco taxes.”

Lao People’s

Democratic Republic

Malaysia

2001– “On Top of the World WithoutSmoking” was launched in August by theConfederation of Malaysian TobaccoManufacturers (British American Tobacco(BAT), JTI and Godfrey Philips Malaysia),with “full endorsement of Malaysia’sMinistry of Youth and Sports.”

1994 – tobacco industry funded “YouthShould Not Smoke-Right Decisions RightNow” undertaken by the Junior Chambersof Malaysia (JAYCEES), endorsed by theMinistry of Education.

2000 – “I’ve got the Power” programme

1999 – “18 + It’s the Law” retail access programmedeveloped for supermarket chains and for the AustralianConvenience Stores Association by Philip Morris.

Australia

1999 – Philip Morris provides funds for the “I Am Strong” programme, officially endorsedby the Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports. University of Asiaand the Pacific also received PM support to train teachers for this programme.

2001 – Philippine JAYCEES and Sangguniang Kabataan (Youth Body) partner with PhilipMorris for a youth smoking prevention programme.

2002 – Japan Tobacco announces a smoking prevention ad campaign, aired in thePhilippines and 132 other Asian countries on MTV channels, with the catch phrase “Youthshould not smoke”.

Philippines

2001– BAT launched an educationcampaign programme in Port Moresby topersuade children and young peoplenot to smoke.

Papua New Guinea

1999 – the Tobacco Instituteof Japan launched anationwide retailer supportprogramme to “enhancetobacco retail outlets’compliance with the country’sexisting minimum age law.”

Japan Are these offers

for realor are they

too goodto be true?

Are these offers

for realor are they

too goodto be true?

“No one should

welcome the tobacco

industry’s youth anti

smoking campaigns,

a cynical attempt to

make smoking seem

more grown-up and

even more appealing

to youth.”Tobacco Free Kids

Action on Smoking andHealth, UK. 2001

What They Say, What

They Mean and What

the Evidence Shows

The tobacco industry multinationalsclaim they do not want young peopleto smoke:

BAT: “Ensure that only adults smoke.”

JTI: “No one wants minors to smoke.Neither does Japan Tobacco. Smokingis an adult choice. When we say that,we mean it.”

PM: “Every decent minded personagrees that it is wrong for minors tosmoke. Smoking is an adult choice…”

But the internal tobaccodocuments say otherwise:“(Brown and Williamson) (the USsubsidiary of BAT) will not support a youthsmoking prevention programme whichdiscourages young people from smoking.”Tobacco Institute, 1983

And the evidence indicates:A major motivation for teen smoking is theaspiration to adulthood… The positioningof tobacco as ‘adult’ and ‘forbidden’ is,therefore, a thinly concealed pitch toaspirational and rebellious youth.Danger! Public Relations (PR) in thePlayground, ASH, 2001.

The tobacco multinationals’ smokingprevention programmes emphasize limitingyouth access to tobacco through the use ofretailer schemes, identification cards andlaws to increase the age limits for tobaccosales. “Philip Morris International activelysupports laws worldwide that establish aminimum age of at least 18 for the lawfulsale of tobacco products.” PM, 1999

What they say:

“If we can frame proactivelegislation or other kinds of

action on the youth access issue…we will be protecting our industry

for decades to come.” PM, 1995

What they reallyintend:

Point-of-sale restrictions may havecontributed to increasesincreasesincreasesincreasesincreases in non-commercialacquisition…. Legislation designed toprevent adolescents from purchasingcigarettes is an insufficient strategy forreducing adolescent smoking, as there areseveral other easily available sources ofcigarettes for adolescents. Castrucci BC, etal; Journal of Adolescent Health, 2002

What the evidence shows:

“Lastly, we discussed the issue of taxationfor tobacco products. While we recognizeand respect the rights of governments todetermine tax rates for consumer products,we wish to inform you…of the possibleadverse consequences of drastic increasesin tobacco taxes…(that) would not onlydefeat the purpose of the tax increase butcould also undermine the work of thegovernment on tobacco regulation andyouth smoking prevention.” PM, 2002

What they say:

“The 1982-83 round of price increasescaused two million adults to quit smokingand prevented 600,000 teenagers fromstarting to smoke…. we were hitdisproportionately hard. We don’t need tohave that happen again.” PM, 1987

What they reallyacknowledge:

“…. the most effective way to deter childrenfrom taking up smoking is to increase taxes increase taxes increase taxes increase taxes increase taxeson tobacco.on tobacco.on tobacco.on tobacco.on tobacco.” WB, 1999

What the evidence from theWorld Bank (WB) shows:

“It seems to me our

objective is…. a

‘media event’ which in

itself promises a lot

but produces little.”(Tobacco Institute Vice

President Franklin Dryden,

1979)

The evidence is clear – a comprehensive and integratedThe evidence is clear – a comprehensive and integratedThe evidence is clear – a comprehensive and integratedThe evidence is clear – a comprehensive and integratedThe evidence is clear – a comprehensive and integratedapproach to tobacco control is necessary, with the followingapproach to tobacco control is necessary, with the followingapproach to tobacco control is necessary, with the followingapproach to tobacco control is necessary, with the followingapproach to tobacco control is necessary, with the followinginterventions all playing a role:interventions all playing a role:interventions all playing a role:interventions all playing a role:interventions all playing a role:

••••• Increasing tobacco prices through taxes and other meansIncreasing tobacco prices through taxes and other meansIncreasing tobacco prices through taxes and other meansIncreasing tobacco prices through taxes and other meansIncreasing tobacco prices through taxes and other means••••• Banning all forms of tobacco advertising and promotionsBanning all forms of tobacco advertising and promotionsBanning all forms of tobacco advertising and promotionsBanning all forms of tobacco advertising and promotionsBanning all forms of tobacco advertising and promotions••••• Implementing smoke-free workplaces, public places, vehiclesImplementing smoke-free workplaces, public places, vehiclesImplementing smoke-free workplaces, public places, vehiclesImplementing smoke-free workplaces, public places, vehiclesImplementing smoke-free workplaces, public places, vehicles

and homesand homesand homesand homesand homes••••• Educating youth on nicotine addiction and the risks of tobaccoEducating youth on nicotine addiction and the risks of tobaccoEducating youth on nicotine addiction and the risks of tobaccoEducating youth on nicotine addiction and the risks of tobaccoEducating youth on nicotine addiction and the risks of tobacco

useuseuseuseuse••••• AAAAAddressing smoking cessation among all smokers, young andddressing smoking cessation among all smokers, young andddressing smoking cessation among all smokers, young andddressing smoking cessation among all smokers, young andddressing smoking cessation among all smokers, young and

adultadultadultadultadult

WH

AT

At the same time, they lead us to believe that theirproduct is only harmful to young people.

••••• Establishing youth prevention and education programmesEstablishing youth prevention and education programmesEstablishing youth prevention and education programmesEstablishing youth prevention and education programmesEstablishing youth prevention and education programmesas stand-alone interventionsas stand-alone interventionsas stand-alone interventionsas stand-alone interventionsas stand-alone interventions

••••• Laws, programmes and policies that focus only on preventingLaws, programmes and policies that focus only on preventingLaws, programmes and policies that focus only on preventingLaws, programmes and policies that focus only on preventingLaws, programmes and policies that focus only on preventingsmoking by youth enacted in isolat ion from othersmoking by youth enacted in isolat ion from othersmoking by youth enacted in isolat ion from othersmoking by youth enacted in isolat ion from othersmoking by youth enacted in isolat ion from otherevidence-based interventions of comprehensive tobaccoevidence-based interventions of comprehensive tobaccoevidence-based interventions of comprehensive tobaccoevidence-based interventions of comprehensive tobaccoevidence-based interventions of comprehensive tobaccocontrolcontrolcontrolcontrolcontrol

••••• TTTTTelling young people they shouldn’t smoke because they’reelling young people they shouldn’t smoke because they’reelling young people they shouldn’t smoke because they’reelling young people they shouldn’t smoke because they’reelling young people they shouldn’t smoke because they’renot adultsnot adultsnot adultsnot adultsnot adults

••••• UUUUUsing Ising Ising Ising Ising ID cards and signage to enforce age limits for theD cards and signage to enforce age limits for theD cards and signage to enforce age limits for theD cards and signage to enforce age limits for theD cards and signage to enforce age limits for thesales of cigarettessales of cigarettessales of cigarettessales of cigarettessales of cigarettes

••••• Interventions that do not address adult smokingInterventions that do not address adult smokingInterventions that do not address adult smokingInterventions that do not address adult smokingInterventions that do not address adult smoking••••• VVVVVoluntary marketing restrictions by the tobacco industryoluntary marketing restrictions by the tobacco industryoluntary marketing restrictions by the tobacco industryoluntary marketing restrictions by the tobacco industryoluntary marketing restrictions by the tobacco industry

WH

AT DOESN’T WORK:

WORKS:

Industry sponsored youth smokingprevention programmes distract usfrom the interventions that work:

Industry sponsored youth smokingprevention programmes distract usfrom the interventions that work:

then the “Youth Smoking Prevention” programme you are

considering is likely to be ineffective. Rather than protecting

youth from tobacco, it may actually encourage an increase

in youth smoking.

If you answered,

“YES” to any of

these…

YES

NO

Does it advocate any of the following messages:

••••• “Youth should not smoke”

••••• “Smoking is an adult decision”

••••• “Only adults should smoke”

••••• “It’s the law: obey the law”

“Just say no”

YES

NO

Does it stress peer pressure as the most

important reason for teen smoking without

acknowledging the role of environment cues,

especially from advertising and promotions?

YES

NO

Does it emphasize restricting access by youth to

tobacco products through the use of ID cards,

signs prohibiting sales to minors, policies to

raise the age limit for tobacco sales and

“voluntary cooperation” of “tobacco retailers?

YES

NO

Does it involve a “partnership” between the

tobacco industry and government, educators’

groups, parents’ groups or civic institutions?

YES

NO

Is the tobacco industry promoting the programme

as part of its “responsible marketing” policy?

Is yourprogrammeeffective?

If you answered

“NO” to any of

these, and …

A QuickTest

YES

NO

Does it clearly mention that

youth smoking prevention

interventions should be framed

within a comprehensive

tobacco control programme?

YES

NO

Does it support cigarette price

increase through taxation?

YES

NO

Does it support total advertising

bans?

YES

NO

Does it deal directly with

nicotine addiction as a major

cause for compelling people to

continue smoking?

YES

NO

Does it talk about the risks

associated with smoking?

Five Recommended Action Points

Know the evidence on what works

and what doesn’t work to protect

young people from tobacco.

When individuals or groups offer to

fund a “youth smoking

prevention” programme, evaluate

the programme elements against

the evidence. Refuse all

programmes that are based on

weak and ineffective interventions.

Require all prospective donors to

your tobacco control programmes

to complete a legally binding

disclosure form that identifies all

possible links with the tobacco

industry.

Turn down all offers of support,

funding and/or expert assistance

that require you to trade the more

effective interventions (i.e. price

increases, total ad bans) for less

effective interventions (i.e.

educational programmes, partial

and/or voluntary ad bans).

2.

1

3

4

5

“A hallmark of

all (tobacco)

industry-designed

efforts is the absence

of the most effective

tools for combating

youth tobacco use.”

Tobacco Free Kids, 2000

Finally, the Tobacco Free

Initiative in The Western

Pacific Regional Office

(TFI-WPRO) strongly

urges all governments,

NGOs, academic and

health institutions and

other entities to refuse

all offers from the

tobacco industry to

provide funding support,

assistance and/or expert

consultations to help you

design and implement a

tobacco control

programme.

Finally, the Tobacco Free

Initiative in The Western

Pacific Regional Office

(TFI-WPRO) strongly

urges all governments,

NGOs, academic and

health institutions and

other entities to refuse

all offers from the

tobacco industry to

provide funding support,

assistance and/or expert

consultations to help you

design and implement a

tobacco control

programme.

“If the nations of the world cannot once and for all conclude thatthe tobacco industry should not be trusted, they will continue tosuffer the disease, death and disability caused by the industry’s

promotion of its products and its search for profit.”

TFI Western Pacific Regional Office 2002

No sensible, ethical person will take money from drug dealers fora youth programme to prevent drug abuse. No one in their rightmind would accept money from child pornographers to teachchildren about avoiding sexual harassment. So why should

governments and private entities accept money from the tobaccoindustry to teach young people not to smoke?

The tobacco industry “should not be allowed to run youthsmoking prevention programmes. No department or school should

be fooled by the tobacco industry’s youth smoking preventionprogrammes.”

Glantz, SA, American Journal of Public Health (AJPHA), June 2002

Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids Action on Smoking and Health, 2002

The truth about the tobacco industry’s youth smokingprevention programmes: They don’t work.