Technical Paper 2:
Tobacco Control in Australia: making smoking history
Promotion
Table of contents
- Overview and summary of action proposed
- Summary of proposed measures
- 1 - Introduction: the big picture
2 - Progress in meeting National Tobacco Strategy objectives: trends and concerns- 3 - Progress in Australia on recommended policies and programs
- 4 - What next, what first and for what cost?
- Major sources used in this document
- References
Addendum for October 2008 to June 2009- Goals of tobacco control: To reduce the human, social and financial costs of smoking
- Objectives of tobacco control: To reduce use of tobacco products and exposure to the toxic elements of tobacco smoke
- Comprehensive strategies to reduce smoking
- Tobacco control strategies
- Promotion of Quit and Smoke-free messages
- Services and treatment
- Addressing disadvantage and tailoring services
- Supporting parents and education
- Keeping tobacco control on the agenda
- Cost effectiveness of tobacco control
- Research, evaluation, monitoring and surveillance
- References
- Attachment 1: Proposed amendment concerning plain packaging, UK Health Bill
- Attachment 2: Sample of Studies Pulished January to May 2009 suggested or concluding health effects other thn those already covered in current Consumer Product Information in Australia
Promotion
Action 3.1Legislate to eliminate all remaining forms of promotion, including promotion of price specials, public relations activities, payments to retailers and proprietors of hospitality venues, promotion through packaging and, as far as feasible, through new and emerging forms of media.
New evidence
Documents released in the United States by the Community Rights Counsel, a non-profit Washington law firm, show that corporations including Exxon Mobil, Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco have contributed tens of thousands of dollars towards programs providing free travel for US federal judges. Source: Eric M. Weiss, Washington Post Staff Writer, www.theusconstitution.org/upload/filelists/224_Washington_Post_5-25-2006.pdf.Overseas developments
Nations meeting in Durban, South Africa, in November 2008 at the Conference of Parties to the FCTC unanimously adopted international standards to protect tobacco control public health policies from tobacco industry interests. Additionally, standards were adopted to assist governments to implement their obligations to ban all forms of tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship.[84, 85]Developments in Australia
A Sunday Mail investigation has revealed that Imperial Tobacco lavished trendy Adelaide stores with cash incentives and corporate entertainment in return for stocking Peter Stuyvesant brand cigarettes in specially designed cigarette dispensers. The SA Substance Abuse Minister, Jane Lomax-Smith, ordered a report into the laws on the sale of cigarettes through these outlets in the wake of the investigation, which discovered that:- Cash incentives of up to $2000 a year are offered to stores agreeing to sell cigarettes
- Smoking is promoted as safe and cool in literature given to targeted fashion outlets
- Free cigarettes are handed out to stockists
- Boozy lunches and even a swish cruise have been held for businesses that sell the brand
From 19 January 2009 the South Australian Government will be restricting the promotion and display of tobacco products at youth events, such as The Big Day Out. Victoria also announced a ban on sales at temporary outlets from 1 January 2010.[3]
Top of Page
Action 9.5
Make smoking a ‘classifiable element’ in movies and video games.
New evidence
Investigators reported in the BMJ specialist journal Tobacco Control that financially lucrative commercial collaborations between tobacco companies and major motion picture studios beginning in the late 1920s are responsible for the smoking imagery so prevalent in ‘classic’ movies.[86]A new report released in February 2009, Smoking Presentation Trends in US Movies 1991–2008, indicates that tobacco exposure incidents per film have decreased by about half since 2005. However, smoking imagery on film still remains high. While the proportion of all films that are smoke-free has been growing since the late 1990s, it still remains below 50%, even for youth-rated (G/PG/PG13) films, leaving a majority of movies with smoking. In fact, most youth exposure to on-screen smoking occurs in youth-rated films. In 2008, PG13-rated films delivered 65% of on-screen tobacco impressions. The report was conducted by Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails and the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education University of California, San Francisco.Source: American Legacy Foundation, 2009-02-25, http://americanlegacy.org/3006.aspx.
More than one-quarter of adults participating in a New South Wales survey in 2004 thought that movies they had seen recently contained excessive or inappropriate smoking.[87]
Several further studies have found that exposure to movie smoking are strongly associated with trying smoking.[88]
On the other hand, researcher Connie Pechmann from the University of California Irvine has found that television shows that subtly embed second-hand smoke messages in their plots reduce adolescents' intent to smoke, but that epilogues restating the anti-smoking message are counter-productive; they actually make smokers resist the message. Source: Technology Marketing Corporation, 2009-03-19, www.tmcnet.com/viewette.aspx?u=http%3a%2f%2fwww.tmcnet.com%2fusubmit%2f2009%2f03%2f19%2f4069389.htm&kw=0.
Overseas developments
Guidelines for implementation of Article 13 of the FCTC concerning Tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship adopted in November 2008 state that ‘Parties should take particular measures concerning the depiction of tobacco in entertainment media products, including requiring certification that no benefits have been received for any tobacco depictions, prohibiting the use of identifiable tobacco brands or imagery, requiring anti-tobacco advertisements and implementing a ratings or classification system that takes tobacco depictions into account’.[89] Para 31In January 2009 the Delhi High court struck down the Indian Government’s notification of 2005 banning smoking scenes in films or television. In its order, the court allowed the depiction of smoking scenes in the films as it formed the fundamental right of a film-maker to show his creative abilities. It said banning smoking in films violated a filmmaker's fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. Source: Indian Television Dot Com (in), 2009-01-23.