Analysis: Big Tobacco thwarting ads?

BOSTON, July 12 (UPI) -- The tobacco industry is working behind the scenes and pressuring states to spend less on anti-smoking efforts, a public health researcher at Temple University said this week.

Jennifer Ibrahim reviewed public anti-smoking media efforts from 1970 to 2006 and found that the five biggest tobacco companies have lobbied state legislators concerning the states' anti-tobacco programs.

In fact, some companies convinced states to cut back on public anti-smoking campaigns and allow the industry itself to put forth anti-smoking programs, she concluded.

But the industry advertisements are not as effective and in some cases actually encourage children to smoke, Ibrahim said.

"They tried to glamorize smoking as an adult thing (but) research shows this increases smoking,'' Ibrahim told United Press International.

About 23 percent of high school students smoked in 2005, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

Much of Ibrahim's research is based on internal company documents now available at the University of California as a result of the large, multi-state settlement against the tobacco industry in 1998, said Ibrahim, who teamed up with Stanton Glantz of the University of California to produce the report that will appear in the July issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

The settlement is expected to deliver about $246 billion to 46 states and the District of Columbia over 25 years. The CDC recommends that states use their money to fund anti-smoking efforts, but many states use some of the money for other purposes.

The CDC recommends that the states spend about $1.6 billion on anti-tobacco efforts this year, but state legislatures have allotted just $597 million, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

Overall, states have cut anti-tobacco programs by 28 percent from 2002 to 2005, even though the money has been available, the group says.

"Our state legislators and governors have failed miserably in spending tobacco dollars responsibly. We know these programs are effective, we have the money, we have the evidence. What we need is the political will to fund these programs,'' Danny McGoldrick, vice president at Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, told UPI.

The group advocates the oversight of tobacco by the Food and Drug Administration, a move under debate in Congress.

According to Ibrahim, as states began using the money to produce aggressive anti-smoking campaigns that discussed the dangers of smoking, the tobacco industry geared up its lobbying efforts against them.

Philip Morris created its "Think, Don't Smoke" campaign, which stressed parent-child communication, in 1998, shortly following the settlement.

The program came under intense fire by anti-smoking organizations for being ineffective and an effort by the industry to co-opt more aggressive anti-smoking advertisements, and was discontinued in 2002.

Today, Philip Morris' maintains a youth anti-smoking program called, "Talk, They'll Listen," and it also focuses on parent-child communication, Bill Phelps, company spokesman, told UPI.

"We believe that parents are an important influence on their children, and that's why we have focused on that,'' Phelps told UPI.

State departments of health in Arizona, Florida, Nebraska, New York and Pennsylvania run parent-directed anti-tobacco campaigns, Phelps said.

The company declined to comment about Ibrahim's research because it was still reviewing it, Phelps said.

But Ibrahim said the tobacco companies convinced some states to reduce spending on anti-smoking efforts and to make what efforts they do make less aggressive.

In Florida, the state provided $70.5 million to anti-tobacco efforts in 1998, but in 1999 these funds were cut by 36 percent. Records show that the chair of the Appropriations Committee had accepted campaign contributions from the tobacco industry, Ibrahim said. Gov. Jeb Bush then laid off staff members and partially dismantled the program, Ibrahim said.

Some of the most effective anti-smoking campaigns for children and adults are ones that portray the tobacco industry as manipulative and intent on creating more smokers, Ibrahim said.

"When you reveal those practices, people say they don't want to be manipulated and they don't smoke,'' Ibrahim said.

"New Jersey's slogan is 'New Jersey youth are not for sale.' That's been really effective, it hits home for youth,'' she said.

"And the idea that the tobacco industry is trying to seduce youth to smoke hits home for adults, too,'' Ibrahim said.

According to Ibrahim, internal tobacco industry documents show the companies sometimes worked together to strategize against the states' anti-smoking campaigns, Ibrahim said.

Ibrahim cites internal documents that show that executives of RJ Reynolds, Philip Morris, Lorillard and Brown & Williamson met on Sept. 29, 1998, about the creation of a youth smoking prevention program.

A 1999 internal Philip Morris memo shows that the company and Brown & Williamson endorsed prevention programs that focused on positive youth development, rather than the deceptive practices of the industry, according to Ibrahim.

McGoldrick said it is no surprise to him that Ibrahim found the industry working on the state level to soften anti-smoking programs.

"They have a long history of this," he said. "I've spent a lot of time in state legislatures. They are crawling with tobacco company lobbyists. They have friends in every state and lots of money,'' McGoldrick said.