Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

Tobacco Advertising

WHO hails Azerbaijan`s ban on tobacco ad

Aug 5th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://news.az/articles/society/111282

The World Health Organization (WHO) has commended Azerbaijan`s imposing a ban on advertising of tobacco and tobacco products.

According to the Ministry of Health, in Twitter and Facebook posts, head of the Secretariat of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Tibor Szilagyi described the prohibition of any form of advertising for any form of tobacco product as one of the achievements of Azerbaijan, AzerTag reports.

Szilagyi also shared a photo reflecting WHO-promoted No Tobacco Day campaign in Azerbaijan.

$45M Settlement Proposed in Arkansas Tobacco Lawsuit

Aug 1st, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

Attorneys for cigarette smokers and for tobacco manufacturer Philip Morris USA have agreed to a $45 million settlement of a lawsuit over the marketing of Marlboro Lights in Arkansas.

The settlement was submitted to Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox on July 29, three days before the start of an estimated six-week trial in a class-action lawsuit, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported. The lawsuit alleged that Philip Morris violated the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act in its marketing of Lights and Ultralights, which are now sold as the Silver and Gold.

The estimated amount of the payments to individual smokers was not clear. Plaintiff’s attorney Tom Thrash said there could be more than 1 million people eligible. The funds also will be used to pay attorney fees, which are to be decided by the judge.

Philip Morris spokesman Brian May said the company is glad to resolve the now 13-year-old case.

“After over a decade of litigation in this case, we’re pleased to put it behind us and believe the agreement is in the best interest of the company,” he said.

Lawyers now will begin establishing a process for how potential claimants can apply for payments, how their claims of tobacco use will be validated and the time frame for paying out the money.

Thrash said he did not expect any payments to be made until early next year.

Those eligible for payments are smokers who bought the Lights brands in Arkansas between Nov. 1, 1971, when the Lights brand was introduced, and May 29, 2003, the effective date of the lawsuit.

Smokers who filed the lawsuit said the company, a subsidiary of Virginia-based Altria Group, misled consumers about the safety of the cigarettes by leading smokers to believe the brands had lower levels of tar and nicotine.

Company officials said Lights did what they were advertised to do — deliver less tar and nicotine — if they were smoked correctly. The Lights filters were specially ventilated to reduce tar and nicotine, but smokers could get more by inhaling more deeply or more often, the company stated.

Ban on point-of-sale display of tobacco products from Aug 1, 2017; retailers will have 1-year grace period

Jul 28th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/ban-on-point-of-sale-display-of-tobacco-products-from-aug-1-2017-retailers-will

The point-of-sale display ban on tobacco products – approved in Parliament in March – takes effect on August 1, 2017.

Retailers have a one-year grace period before the ban goes into effect, a joint statement by the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) on Thursday (July 28) said.

MOH has beefed up tobacco control measures in a bid to protect public health and reduce tobacco consumption, particularly among younger Singaporeans.

These include previously announced amendments to the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act on Monday (Aug 1), such as bans on emerging tobacco products and shisha.

MOH said the point-of-sale display ban on tobacco products aims to reduce the exposure of non-smokers, especially among the young, to the advertising effect of tobacco product displays.

It also hopes to help current smokers attempting to quit by minimising impulse purchases of tobacco products.

General tobacco retailers will be required to use plain, undecorated storage devices to keep tobacco products within their premises out of the direct line of sight of the public and potential customers.

A text-only price list, which must fulfil MOH’s requirements, may be shown, but only upon customers’ request.

MOH noted that globally, there has been a marked increase in the popularity of e-cigarettes, especially among young people.

The amended Act extends existing restrictions on e-cigarettes to include newer varieties which do not necessarily bear a physical resemblance to cigarettes or other tobacco products.

The component parts of such products will also be banned to prevent retailers from importing them and reassembling them locally for sale.

Existing prohibitions on advertisements for tobacco products will also be extended to cover advertising for e-cigarettes and similar products.

The ban on advertising for tobacco products, e-cigarettes and similar products will also be extended to advertisements published electronically, MOH said.

Advertisements and sales promotions originating from Singapore, whether targeting local or foreign audiences, and advertisements from outside Singapore which can be accessed by people in Singapore, will now be banned.

Customer loyalty programmes and promotional schemes involving tobacco products are also not allowed.

A ban on emerging tobacco products first imposed in June last year will now be extended to include the likes of nasal snuff, oral snuff and gutkha.

From Monday, the grace period for importers and retailers on the ban on shisha – first imposed in November 2014 – comes to an end.

Existing licensed tobacco importers and retailers who import or sell shisha will be prohibited from importing, wholesaling or retailing the product.

MOH said that any person who contravenes either the ban on emerging tobacco products or the ban on shisha can be fined up to $10,000, imprisoned up to six months, or both.

In the case of a second or subsequent conviction, they could face a fine of up to $20,000, imprisonment of up to 12 months, or both.

Members of the public who have information on the import, distribution, sale or offer for sale of emerging tobacco products or shisha can call the reporting line at 6684 2036 or 6684 2037 during office hours.

MOH said it remains committed to lowering smoking prevalence in Singapore through a multi-pronged approach towards tackling tobacco use. This, it said, includes public education, restrictions on tobacco advertising, easy access to smoking cessation services and taxation.

Who really won the legal battle between Philip Morris and Uruguay?

Jul 28th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

The tobacco giant has to pay $7m to the small South American nation in a dispute over cigarette adverts. But the case could still set a worrying precedent

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/jul/28/who-really-won-legal-battle-philip-morris-uruguay-cigarette-adverts

This month, campaigners celebrated the legal defeat of tobacco giant Philip Morris by Uruguay at the World Bank-hosted international centre for the settlement of investment disputes.

Philip Morris filed its controversial $25m (£19m) claim for damages at the World Bank arbitration court six years ago, saying it had “no choice but to litigate” due to Uruguay’s introduction of graphic warnings on cigarette packets. On 8 July, two of the three arbitrators ruled that Uruguay had the right to continue its anti-cigarette campaign, and that Philip Morris should reimburse $7m (£5.3m) in legal costs.

The David-Goliath battle between Uruguay and Philip Morris is an iconic case because it so clearly illustrates the way corporations can use international investment treaties to attack regulations made in the public interest.

So does Big Tobacco’s defeat by Uruguay mean that the growing public opposition to these investment treaties is mistaken? The corporate arbitration lawyers that take up many of the cases – and their supportive political allies – are keen to say that it proves the system can work fairly.

The question however is for whom is the system working? In investment arbitration cases, states never win. States can never file lawsuits against investors, so the best-case scenario for them is if the tribunal dismisses the investor’s accusations.

In this case, although Philip Morris was required to contribute $7m for legal costs, Uruguay will still have to pay a further $2.6m in financial costs and much more in terms of the non-material resources it has taken to fight this.

And this is a case that should never have been heard as it contradicted both the terms of the bilateral investment treaty between Switzerland and Uruguay (used as the basis for the claim) as well as the framework convention on tobacco control – the only binding multilateral convention on public health.

The arbitration panel’s decision to hear the case put a brake on the adoption of similar tobacco control measures in Costa Rica, Paraguay and New Zealand, among others.

Moreover, the lawsuit may have encouraged legal threats and actions by other corporations, hopeful that they could secure either revision of government policies or financial compensation.

In the past few years, Katoen Natie (logistics), Botnia (pulp/paper) and Farmashop (pharmacy) have threatened Uruguay with lawsuits. In March, a US-based telecommunications corporation, Italba, filed a lawsuit against the country.

The real winners in this proliferation of investor-state cases – which have surged globally from six in 1996 to 696 now – have been the corporate law firms that work on these long and complex cases. Typical arbitration lawyers, employed by either the state or a corporation, earn up to $1,000 an hour.

Philip Morris hired three international law firms (Sidley Austin, Lalive, and Shook, Hardy & Bacon), whereas Uruguay was represented by Foley Hoag. The three arbitrators that decided the case also received wages: nearly $1m between the three of them.

But more disturbing than the profits lawyers make is the power that they are given. Juan Fernández-Armesto, a Spanish lawyer and expert on investment arbitrators, said (paywall):

It never ceases to amaze me that sovereign states have agreed to investment arbitration at all […] Three private individuals are entrusted with the power to review, without any restriction or appeal procedure, all actions of the government, all decisions of the courts, and all laws and regulations emanating from parliament.

The German association of judges said in February (pdf) that these arbitration systems not only fail to meet international requirements for technical and financial independence, but are also unnecessary as disputes can be resolved through national courts.

So while Uruguay can celebrate this particular win over a corporate Goliath, perhaps the victory’s most useful contribution would be to raise awareness among states of the dangers of signing up to a privatised court system that leaves decisions on public policies in the hands of corporate lawyers. Failure to do so will mean the arrival of many more transnational Goliaths, armed not with spears but legal papers.

Cecilia Olivet is a researcher at the Transnational Institute and Alberto Villareal coordinates the trade and investment programme of Redes-Friends of the Earth Uruguay

MPAA: Cigarette ban in movies in an infringement of free speech

Jul 21st, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.local8now.com/content/news/MPAA-Cigarette-ban-in-movies-in-an-infringement-of-free-speech-387810002.html

(WVLT) — According to the Hollywood Reporter, the Motion Picture Association of America is reponding to a lawsuit, saying the restriction of tobacco imagery in movies is an infringement on free speech.

You can read the original report on hollywoodreporter.com.

The plaintiffs want any movie with tobacco imagery to be rated R.

According to the CDC, the more smoking young people see on the screen, the more likely they are to start smoking themselves. The CDC cited a Surgeon General’s Report that showed an industry-wide standard of rating movies that show tobacco use as R-rated could result in reductions in youth smoking. It could reduce the number of teen smokers by nearly one in five and prevent 1 million deaths from smoking among children alive today.

You can read the full CDC report on cdc.gov.

Movie Industry in First Amendment Clash With Anti-Smoking Activists

Jul 21st, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/07/21/movie-industry-in-first-amendment-clash-with-anti-smoking-activists/

A consumer-fraud complaint targeting the Hollywood film industry is pitting anti-smoking activist fears against free speech concerns.

The defendants in the case are the Motion Picture Association of America, its studio members and theater owners who in court papers say they’re defending against a dangerous assault on the First Amendment.

But the plaintiffs’ lawyers seeking to turn the lawsuit into a mega-class action say it’s not the speech that’s at stake, but the lives of kids.

The main plaintiff is a 52-year-old California man named Timothy Forsyth, a father of two middle-school aged kids who alleges that the film industry is misleading and literally killing young consumers by affixing PG-13 ratings on films featuring “tobacco imagery.”

Movies in which characters smoke are dangerous to children who are “particularly vulnerable to various forms of marketing and advertising,” the complaint filed by his lawyers alleges. And parents who trust the movie-rating system to warn them about inappropriate content are unwittingly exposing their kids to images that will hook them on cigarettes and set them on a path toward lung cancer and heart disease. And by failing to disclose that youth-rated films contain tobacco imagery and by not giving those movies a more restrictive R rating, the film industry is tricking parents into buying their kids tickets to films, the lawsuit alleges.

In court papers, the film industry is attacking the lawsuit as a “misguided attempt to upend basic tort principles and core First Amendment protections to force…the movie ratings body… to change the opinions it expresses through its movie ratings system.”

The plaintiffs spotlight 10 big-budget Hollywood films released between 2012 and 2015 that are rated PG-13 and contain “tobacco imagery.” Among them are “Dumb And Dumber To”, “Iron Man 3″, “Men In Black 3″, “Transformers: Age of Extinction” and “The Hobbit” franchise.

It’s not exactly clear how tobacco imagery is defined, but it seems to encompass more than cigarette smoking but could include characters smoking pipes (as the case with the wizard Gandalf in the Hobbit) or just images of cigarettes.

The MPAA is pushing back hard. It’s invoking powerful First Amendment protections under California’s “anti-SLAPP” statute. The law, one of the most expansive of its kind in the country, aims to discourage costly lawsuits of dubious merit that threaten legitimate freedom of expression. It shifts the burden of proof to the defendant’s advantage, offers a stronger shield against plaintiff discovery demands and gives the party getting sued a way to toss out a lawsuit at an earlier stage.

The plaintiffs claim the MPAA’s rating system isn’t a protected expression of opinion but a form of commercial speech. As such, the First Amendment protections are much weaker, they argue. Their commercial speech argument hinges on the fact that the MPAA has registered its ratings as trademarks.

In a brief filed this month, the plaintiffs wrote:

Defendants are free to express their opinions in newspapers and books and press releases about the appropriate way to rate films with tobacco imagery, and the expression of their opinions in that form is protected by core First Amendment principles. However, when defendants make false and misleading representations on product labels or advertisements for the purpose of selling products, they are engaged in quintessential commercial speech, and such commercial speech is not protected by the First Amendment.

Beyond its First Amendment defense, the MPAA balks at the notion that it’s the only public source of information available to parents about the content of movies. It notes that they can go online to anti-smoking websites like Smoke Free Movies to see if a film features smoking.

The film association says smoking imagery, particularly when it glamorizes smoking, can be factored into ratings. The MPAA’s movie ratings body, though, has rejected demands that it slap a mandatory R rating on all motion pictures with any smoking.

Overall, though, the percentage of youth-rated movies that are “smoke free” has plummeted in recent years, according to data posted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And smoking levels are also at record lows.

Removal of tobacco displays helps reduce smoking, says study

Jul 7th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

Removal of point-of-sale (POS) tobacco displays from shops including convenience stores and gas stations has helped reduce smoking among New Zealand school students to record low levels, according to a recent University of Otago study.

http://www.petrolplaza.com/news/industry/MiZlbiYyMDIxNSYmMQ%3D%3D

The research, published in the international journal Tobacco Control, used an annual classroom-based survey of around 25,000 Year 10 students in the country and compared findings from an earlier study conducted before the tobacco display ban took effect in the country in 2012.

“The proportion of children who had tried smoking but were not regular smokers fell, from 23-24% in 2011 and 2012 before the changes, to 17% in 2014. The proportion of smoking students who were buying or trying to buy cigarettes from stores also declined,” stated the research.

The reductions both in experimental and regular smoking considered at their lowest level for two decades were attributed to “the removal of point-of-sale (POS) tobacco displays, accompanied by increased enforcement measures and penalties for selling tobacco to minors.”

New tobacco advertising laws underway for Jakarta

Jul 7th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.marketing-interactive.com/new-cigarette-law-underway-jakarta/

The Jakarta Legislative Council (DPRD) is planning to pass yet another law on tobacco advertising, read an earlier report by The Jakarta Post.

Under the law, stores that sell cigarettes can no longer display them openly. The act of showing the name or logo of any brand of cigarettes will be prohibited. Once it takes effect, stores will sell cigarettes by only displaying a sign with a message, which reads “cigarettes are available here,” reported Tribune news.

Simultaneously, the Jakarta Legislative Council is looking to pass a law to implement and create no smoking zones across the city.

The council has reportedly handed the draft bylaw to the city administration in a plenary meeting on March 11 attended by Jakarta Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, better known as Ahok.

The law aims to prohibit people from smoking and prevent the up-take of smoking to protect people from secondhand smoke exposure. This move is the latest measure taken by the Jakarta administration, after a series of regulations on tobacco control imposed in the city over the past few years, to curb cigarette smoking and exposure to tobacco smoke.

The law also targets to free Jakarta from outdoor and indoor cigarette ads before the end of this year. This despite the sharp criticisms from tobacco manufactures over the tougher restrictions on outdoor and indoor cigarette advertising.

Cigarette advertising laws tightened in Jakarta last year following the signing of the Gubernatorial Decree (Pergub) No.244/2015 on advertising guidelines that prohibits indoor cigarette advertising. The city has already been banning outdoor cigarette and tobacco product advertising since mid-January 2015 that saw the removal of all cigarette billboards from roadsides in areas across the city.

Earlier in 2012, the government issued tighter tobacco controls that put more limitations on cigarette advertising in all media. It only allowed cigarette commercial up to 72sqm in size and restricted the broadcasting of smoking ads on television to between 9.30 pm and 5 am. This came after former governor Fauzi Bowo imposed a bylaw banning smoking from all government buildings in 2010, where smoking in public buildings is prohibited.

In response to a potential drop on the city’s tax revenue amid the slowdown in economic activities- Balegda, which is the City Council’€™s Legislation Body, revealed that Jakarta has generated revenue from taxes on cigarette ads totaling around Rp 14 billion per year. This is much lesser than the amount spent on medical treatments for cigarette-related health problems.

According to the 2011 Global Adults Tobacco Survey, the prevalence of smoking among adults in Indonesia stands at 34.8% , including 40% of 13- to 15-year-old adolescents.

Hiding cigarettes reduces smoking – study

Jul 5th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/hiding-cigarettes-reduces-smoking–study-2016070514#axzz4DWH5YaVx

Hiding tobacco away in shop cabinets has helped lower school student smoking to its lowest level in two decades, University of Otago researchers say.

The scientists have looked at the effect of the 2012 law change, which removed visible tobacco displays from behind the counter, and smoking by 14- and 15-year-olds.

They say there is strong evidence there has been a significant reduction in both experimental and regular smoking, when accompanied by enforcement measures for selling tobacco to minors.

The tobacco industry has a history of saying that tobacco control measures won’t work and predicting disastrous effects, even when the evidence suggests otherwise,” said lead researcher Professor Richard Edwards.

“They are currently making such arguments to oppose the introduction of plain packaging. This study shows once again that the industry is not to be trusted, and that implementing rigorous tobacco control measures will help protect children from becoming smokers.”

The study results have been published in the international journal Tobacco Control.

Hiding their light under a bushel

The proportion of children who had tried smoking but were not regular smokers fell from 23-24 percent in 2011 and 2012 to 17 percent in 2014

A pre-2012 study found children who frequently visited shops that sell tobacco, such as dairies, convenience stores, supermarkets and service stations, were at greater risk of trying smoking

In 2013 data comparisons showed the effects were eliminated or weakened

The study used data from an annual classroom-based survey of around 25,000 Year 10 students.

16 outrageous tobacco ads that would be illegal today

Jun 30th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://uk.businessinsider.com/vintage-tobacco-adverts-that-would-be-illegal-today-2016-6

Everyone knows by now that smoking isn’t good for your health. The cigarette was even called “the deadliest artefact in the history of human civilisation” by Stanford University researchers.

But thanks in part to ingenious marketing campaigns throughout the 1900s, 10 million cigarettes were being sold every minute around the world by the year 2000, according to the World Health Organization.

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the Stanford School of Medicine’s “Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising.”

Over the years, the project has published more than 16,000 vintage tobacco ads.

Most of them would be completely illegal in many countries today — including Britain, where all tobacco advertising is outlawed.

Until direct links were found between smoking and poor health in the 1960s, cigarettes were marketed as a remedy for a number of ailments, including sore throats and asthma. Even dentists recommended them.

Until direct links were found between smoking and poor health in the 1960s, cigarettes were marketed as a remedy for a number of ailments, including sore throats and asthma. Even dentists recommended them.

The tobacco industry put people's faith in science to the test. They claimed that their products caused no adverse side-effects​, with the apparent backing of "medical specialists."

The tobacco industry put people’s faith in science to the test. They claimed that their products caused no adverse side-effects​, with the apparent backing of “medical specialists.”

this-advert-claimed-to-prevent-throat-irritation-and-coughing

This advert claimed to prevent “throat irritation and coughing.”

It was considered uncouth for a woman to smoke at the turn of the 20th century, but as the Prohibition era came to an end, tobacco companies aggressively targeted the untapped female market.

It was considered uncouth for a woman to smoke at the turn of the 20th century, but as the Prohibition era came to an end, tobacco companies aggressively targeted the untapped female market.

Some of them were outrageously sexist.

Some of them were outrageously sexist.

This one claimed passive smoking was a way of getting women to follow you.

This one claimed passive smoking was a way of getting women to follow you.

However, like any business should know, they had to move with the times, and just decades later, they were latching onto the feminist movement as well.

However, like any business should know, they had to move with the times, and just decades later, they were latching onto the feminist movement as well.

As World War II came to an end, the tobacco industry ventured into new markets to keep profits up during a time of austerity — the African American market became one of the most important demographics.

As World War II came to an end, the tobacco industry ventured into new markets to keep profits up during a time of austerity — the African American market became one of the most important demographics.

Children were also regularly used in advertising. Stanford researchers suggest that this was an effective way of reinforcing the idea that smoking is part of regular family life.

Children were also regularly used in advertising. Stanford researchers suggest that this was an effective way of reinforcing the idea that smoking is part of regular family life.

This ad campaign showed small children admiring their parents' choice of cigarettes. The use of children was part of the industry's master plan​ to rope in more female consumers.

This ad campaign showed small children admiring their parents’ choice of cigarettes. The use of children was part of the industry’s master plan​ to rope in more female consumers.

No child was too young for the tobacco marketers.

No child was too young for the tobacco marketers.

Celebrity endorsements have always been a winning tactic. If Lucille Ball smokes, it must be cool.

Celebrity endorsements have always been a winning tactic. If Lucille Ball smokes, it must be cool.

From as early as the 1930s, smoking was advertised as a dieting technique, encouraging people to "reach for a Lucky" instead of a sweet.

From as early as the 1930s, smoking was advertised as a dieting technique, encouraging people to “reach for a Lucky” instead of a sweet.

Advertisers really bucked the weight-loss trend in the 1970s. This was perhaps one of the few medical claims that had an element of truth to it.

Advertisers really bucked the weight-loss trend in the 1970s. This was perhaps one of the few medical claims that had an element of truth to it.

Impressionable teens were a popular target market. According to the Stanford research, these ads presented smokers as "young, attractive, vibrant, athletic, happy, and full of vitality. Without claiming health benefits outright, Lucky Strike portrayed its brand as healthy and enticing through these campaigns."

Impressionable teens were a popular target market. According to the Stanford research, these ads presented smokers as “young, attractive, vibrant, athletic, happy, and full of vitality. Without claiming health benefits outright, Lucky Strike portrayed its brand as healthy and enticing through these campaigns.”

Sometimes cigarettes were simply marketed as a quick pick-me-up.

Sometimes cigarettes were simply marketed as a quick pick-me-up.

← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →