English10 Dollars a can
Cigarettes, snacks and soda under attack
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger supports a bill that would ban all sales of “junk” food and soft drinks in high schools beginning in 2009. He wants to fill vending machines in schools with fresh fruits, vegetables and milk. Obesity, in fact, is a real sore point for public health, greater than tobacco as a cause of death.
Being overweight can lead to a host of health problems. Top nutrition experts have said that the relatively low cost of these products are one of the main reasons for their mass consumption. So why not raise the cost to $ 10 per can, like what has been done with cigarettes? And what about a “Snack e soda ban”?
But many are puzzled. Snacks and sodas, basically, do not contain ingredients harmful for the health like cigarettes do. They have only a few more calories, like homemade bread and jam, and gas bubbles do not cause obesity, they just dilate the stomach.
Besides, everyone today knows that when we overeat we get fat, and the producers themselves would never dream of denying that if you eat too much, you will gain weight, so why blame it all on snacks and sodas?
Today we are seeing not only lawsuits of ex-smokers against the cigarette manufacturers; there is also an increasing number of lawsuits of obese customers against fast-food restaurants.
“If you eat too much, you will gain weight”
The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a bill to ban lawsuits by obese customers who say they became overweight by eating at fast-food restaurants. “Trial lawyers have targeted the fast-food industry as the next Big Tobacco by bringing these insane lawsuits”, said the bill's author, Rep. Ric Keller, R-Florida, referring to cigarette smokers' litigation against tobacco companies.
Ric Keller
“W've got to get back to those old-fashioned principles of personal responsibility, of common sense, and get away from this new culture where everybody plays the victim and blames other people for their problems”, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said about the issue. “The point of this debate is all about personal responsibility. If you eat too much, you will gain weight”.
But Ric Keller's comparison with suits against Big Tobacco is not really appropriate. While it is quite clear that eating too much makes us fat, it has never been clear how much damage cigarette smoking causes, and Big Tobacco has always done its best to keep it from being clear. The ingredients of a snack, its place and date of production are printed on each and every packet, and they do not damage the health, whereas today we are used to the idea that a cigarette can have all the "secrets" it wants.
At the same time, Big Tobacco's slogans and sophisticated advertising messages have done a tremendous job, leading to a constant rise in the number of smokers of all ages.
Nicotine is addictive
The job of misinformation of Big Tobacco regarding the damage to health caused by cigarette smoking began many decades ago, and found its culmination in the testimony of the seven CEOs of the Big Tobacco companies in 1994.
At a hearing on the Regulation of Tobacco Products, they declared under oath “Nicotine is not addictive”. A resounding falsehood that up to today has gone unpunished!
“Big Food” is not “Big Tobacco”: here are some examples…
1929, "20,679* physicians have confirmed “Many prominent athletes smoke Luckies all day long with no harmful effects to wind or physical condition”.
1939, “Philip Morris a cigarette recognized by eminent medical authorities* for its advantages to the nose and throat”.
(*Let's have some names! It would be interesting to know the 20,679 physicians and eminent medical authorities' names).
1946, RJ Reynolds: “More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette”.
1949, “Not one case of throat irritation due to smoking Camels!”
1950, The US Federal Trade Commission declares that the advertising: “Smoking Camels renews and restores bodily energy” is clearly false and deceptive, there being in tobacco smoke no constituent which could possible create energy.
1960, Philip Morris starts using the Cowboy image because it “would turn the rookie smokers on to Marlboro … the right image to capture the youth market's fancy …a perfect symbol of independence and individualistic rebellion”.
1965, a “strictly confidential” report by two scientists, Francis Roe and M.C. Pike states: “Advertising aims to do precisely the opposite from that which we suggest parents, doctors and teachers should be doing…”.
1971, an internal RJR document: “the lower age limit for the profile of young smokers is to remain at 14”.
1973, a confidential memo from B&W's Assistant General Counsel, outlines: “salient problems now facing the cigarette industry”, which includes “increased educational programmes to prevent young, non-smokers taking up the practice of smoking”.
1974, RJR “Marketing Goals” for 1975: “Increase our Young Adult Franchise: 14-24 age group in 1960 was 21% of the population; in 1975 will be 27%. As they mature, they will account for a key market share of cigarette volume for next 25 years "we will direct advertising appeal to this young adult group without alienating the brand's current franchise".
1975, a report by a Philip Morris researcher Myron E. Johnston to the head of Research at Philip Morris, Robert B. Seligman outlines that: "Marlboro's phenomenal growth rate in the past has been attributable in large part to our high market penetration among young smokers … 15 to 19 years old … my own data, which includes younger teenagers, shows even higher Marlboro market penetration among 15-17-year-olds …”.
1976, B&W's Advertising Objective for Viceroy is to: “Communicate effectively that Viceroy is a satisfying, flavourful cigarette which young adult smokers enjoy, by providing them a rationalisation for smoking, or, a repression of the health concern they appear to need”.
1976, an RJR document: “Evidence is now available to indicate that the 14-18-year old group is an increasing segment of the smoking population. RJR-T must soon establish a successful new brand in this market if our position in the industry is to be maintained over the long term”.
1980, Imperial Tobacco Canada “There is no doubt that peer group influence is the single most important factor in the decision by an adolescent to smoke. Serious efforts to learn to smoke occur between ages 12 and 13 in most case [sic]. However intriguing smoking was at 11, 12 , or 13, by the age of 16 or 17 many regretted their use of cigarettes for health reasons and because they feel unable to stop smoking when they want to. By the age of 16, peer pressure to initiate others to smoking is gone”.
1988, RJR launches a $75 million a year promotional campaign, the cartoon “Joe Camel”, said to “appeal younger, male smokers, who had been deserting Camel in droves”.
In 2000 Philip Morris began its obligations under the MSA by sending out 28 million free "anti-smoking" textbook covers to 43,000 schools across America, including elementary schools.
The book covers showed Philip Morris's logo beside images of cobol people snowboarding and having fun. They also bore the words “Don't smoke”, so students would understand youth were meant to be excluded from the fun and freedom depicted on their book covers.
Like any ad for cigarettes, these covers carried the Surgeon General's health warning, but the warning was strategically placed so that, when the cover was properly wrapped around a book, the warning wound up on the inside of the book, less visible than the logo with fun lifestyle images.
California's State Superintendent of Education, Delaine Easton, was not fooled. She issued a letter to all schools in her state urging them to reject these book covers and “take immediate action to thwart this attempt by the Philip Morris Tobacco Co. to reach kids with their message”. Other school officials agreed with her.
The “Lawsuit Culture” and Impunity
President George Bush has signed the controversial Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which limits eligibility for filing class action suits in state courts, saying the act is a “critical step toward ending the lawsuit culture in our country”.
If, in the case of lawsuits against fast food restaurants, the “Lawsuit Culture” Bush refers to be quite evident, in the cases of lawsuits against the producers of cigarettes, there is the sacrosanct need for truth and clarity.
A healthy society is not the result is of questionable prohibitions, but of a profound process of individual training, which is achieved first of all through correct information.
Would we not have much fewer smokers without the subtle and false claims of cigarette advertising campaigns? And would we not have much better public health without the misleading information and blatant untruths presented by Big Tobacco, which still today goes unpunished?
No Comments