Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

Tobacco Advertising

Senate rejects advertising ban

http://www.tobaccojournal.com/Senate_rejects_advertising_ban.53648.0.html

A general ban on tobacco advertising called for by Health Minister Alain Berset was rejected in the senate today, international news site of National Broadcasting Corporation, swissinto.ch, reported.

The cabinet argued in Parliament that advertising for tobacco products had a large impact on young people but opponents of the ban argued that no proof was given that a ban on advertising would stop people from smoking, the site reported.

Swissinfo.ch commented that the senate had voted “to protect a free market economy, rather than support health concerns.”

No general ban on tobacco advertising

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/health-or-free-market_no-general-ban-on-tobacco-advertising/42229592

A ban on advertising tobacco products in Switzerland has been rejected by the Swiss senate, who voted on Wednesday to protect a free market economy, rather than support health concerns.

The ban had been called for by the Swiss Health Minister Alain Berset, who said in Parliament that smoking was damaging not only from a health perspective, but also socially and financially.

The cabinet had argued that adverts had a particularly large impact on young people. According to a German study, the risk of young people taking up smoking increased by 46% if they were exposed to adverts for tobacco.

Opponents of the ban argued there was no proof that an advertising ban would stop people smoking.

Worldwide more than five million people die every year as a result of tobacco consumption. In Switzerland that number is 9,500.

Protecting youngsters

The nationwide ban on selling cigarettes and other tobacco products to minors was undisputed, with a majority of parliamentarians explicitly expressing their support for laws protecting children and young people.

In this respect, it was argued, a legal basis is needed for test purchases to ensure shops aren’t selling tobacco to underage customers. A majority also agreed the importance of an existing ban on tobacco adverts directed at minors.

Regional differences

Tobacco advertising is already banned on the radio and on TV in Switzerland, but in 15 cantons billboard advertising is also prohibited.

In ten cantons cigarettes cannot be sold to under 18s, but in other parts of the country they can be sold to 16-year-olds.

In eastern Switzerland, it’s traditional to see children lighting up as part of a special event that centres around a regional cattle show.

Comprehensive ban sought on tobacco ads, promotion in China

http://health.asiaone.com/health/health-news/comprehensive-ban-sought-tobacco-ads-promotion-china

Public health and tobacco control activists called for a comprehensive ban on all forms of tobacco advertising and promotion in the nation’s advertisement law, which is being revised.

In the publicized draft amendment to the current law, which took effect in early 1995, media including radio, TV, movies, newspapers, websites and magazines are banned from advertising tobacco products.

“That leaves loopholes for the tobacco industry sneaking into emerging new media platforms like WeChat,” said Liang Xiaofeng, deputy director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, on Monday.

Other new forms of advertising include napkin boxes in restaurants, playing cards and seat covers in airplanes.

Wu Yiqun, deputy director of Think Tank, an NGO that is committed to greater controls on tobacco and smoking, agreed with the call for a comprehensive ban. “The method of listing media platforms should be abandoned. Instead, all forms of tobacco advertising should be banned in the new version of the law,” Wu said.

That’s in line with the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which took effect in China in 2006 after the government ratified it in 2003, Wu said.

The convention requires a comprehensive ban on all tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. It also demands signatory countries to introduce legislation to ensure the implementation of the convention’s legal obligations.

However, in China’s current draft amendment, “the ban is somewhat partial”, Wu noted.

Tobacco advertising is not banned in public areas such as shopping malls, supermarkets, Internet bars and public restrooms, she added.

So the tobacco industry is “intruding into these places”, she said, citing tobacco product retailers in particular.

“They do a lot of on-site promotions like new product tasting,” she said.

That is not covered in the draft amendment at all, said Xu Guihua, deputy director of the Chinese Association on Tobacco Control.

A recent survey conducted by China CDC found that nearly 49 per cent of Chinese students ages 13 to 15 reported having seen tobacco advertisements in recent months.

Additionally, 2 per cent said they have received free cigarettes distributed by tobacco companies, mostly at retailers, the CDC said.

Xu noted that so far, 41 countries worldwide had introduced an advertising and promotion ban for tobacco retailers.

Liang Xiaofeng said: “Young people are particularly susceptible to tobacco advertising. Therefore, banning tobacco advertising helps prevent the young from taking up smoking.”

A study conducted in 22 countries indicated that a comprehensive advertising ban would help reduce tobacco consumption by at least 6.3 per cent.

World No Tobacco Day

Tobacco scenes on screen should carry R-rating, say researchers

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/80602808/tobacco-scenes-on-screen-should-carry-rrating-say-researchers

There’s something about Audrey Hepburn’s impossibly long cigarette holder that oozes elegance and class.

The use of tobacco on-screen has long been a device used to help craft characters, from the effortlessly cool Danny Zuko in Grease to the womanising executive Don Draper in Mad Men.

But New Zealand researchers are calling for an R rating for TV shows and films containing tobacco imagery, after a study that shows there has been little change in on-screen smoking in the past 10 years.

“While tobacco imagery cannot be banned in any meaningful way, legislation could be introduced requiring programming with tobacco imagery to be R-rated,” the authors concluded.

The research, led by Louise Marsh of the University of Otago, examined tobacco imagery on New Zealand television over a week-long period in October 2014 – 10 years after a similar study in 2004.

There was “virtually no change” in the number of programmes with tobacco imagery, but there was a small reduction in the number of scenes with imagery, said Marsh, who works in the university’s department of preventive and social medicine.

Marsh argued the lack of change did not reflect the decline in smoking in New Zealand, and might encourage normalisation of smoking.

But longstanding film reviewer Graeme Tuckett said an R-rating would achieve nothing. “The whole idea of ratings has almost become redundant, because so many people watch things online.”

Films had typically reflected reality, and smoking was rarely portrayed as “cool” any more, he said.

“In the 30s, 40s and 50s, cigarette companies definitely paid for extensive product placement in film and TV to make smoking look really cool.

“It’s been a long time since I’ve seen a modern-day heroic character smoking.

“[Smoking] is one of those things that’s naturally on its way out, and trying to legislate it could be counter-productive.”

While the overall depiction has remained steady, the number of scenes featuring tobacco and under-18s had tripled, Marsh said.

One positive she could see was that the level of anti-smoking advertisements, such as those for Quitline, had almost tripled.

An Otago University professor supported the proposed R-rating, arguing that TV remained a powerful influence for normalisation.

“Having tobacco and smoking images on [TV] increases the risk that smoking will remain a ‘normal’ activity,” associate professor of public health George Thompson said.

“The removal or countering of smoking and tobacco images in the media is a major neglected area for tobacco control, and a tobacco and smoking R rating appears to be a practical and effective way of intervening for health.”

The tobacco industry is not happy with the way Australia got its residents to quit smoking

http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-tobacco-industry-is-not-happy-with-the-way-australia-got-its-residents-to-quit-smoking-2016-5

Tobacco juggernaut Philip Morris is pissed about Australia providing people with truthful advertising, so it sued the country in secret.

In 2012, Australia moved to remove all branding from cigarette packs, replacing them instead with plain-label packages displaying smoking harms — a move copied by France and Britain.

According to a 2015 report from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, tobacco consumption has fallen nearly 3%, the Guardian reported — potentially as a result of the plain-label legislation.

“The minister welcomes any decrease in smoking rates and believes several factors have likely contributed, including education campaigns, excise increases and plain packaging,” Fiona Nash, a spokeswoman for the assistant health minister, told the Guardian in 2015.

Philip Morris tried to fight back by suing on the grounds of “an abuse of rights,” according to the Guardian.

But after a 2015 closed-door hearing held in Singapore, the presiding tribunal decided the Morris claims were “inadmissible” and “precluded from exercising jurisdiction over this dispute.”

The best part is that companies like Philip Morris have tried legal routes like this before, claiming — no kidding — “the new rules impinge on their trademark intellectual property,” according to a MedicalX press release.

By which they probably meant, “It’s hard to sell cigarettes when you show people what cigarettes actually do.”

Fortunately, because Australia has its priorities straight, Nash concluded, “Plain packaging is a legitimate public health measure which is consistent with Australia’s international legal obligations.”

Don’t Be Fooled By The Tobacco Industry’s Misleading Ads

http://www.huffingtonpost.in/dr-gulshan-rai-khatri/tobacco-industrys-smoke-s_b_9819036.html

The tobacco industry has been raising a hue and cry via newspaper advertisements against the decision to have pictorial warnings covering 85% of cigarette/bidi packaging. They are calling the warnings a global conspiracy and outlining the impact it will have on the livelihoods of tobacco farmers. This is a wily effort to evoke public sympathy and mislead the government.

Let me explain why I think so.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of a concerted globally coordinated opposition by the tobacco industry to hamper implementation of the provisions of the FCTC (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, WHO) to which India is a signatory.

Tobacco is the only legal product that kills if used as directed, causing the death of one person every six seconds…

The sole objective of this crusade are diversionary techniques to cloak the tobacco industry’s deep commercial interests in not having these pictorial warnings cover 85% of the package area on both sides of tobacco packs. From a health advocacy perspective, it is one of the best, cheapest and most effective mediums to spread knowledge about the life-threatening illnesses which befall tobacco consumers, a large number of which in India are illiterate. Tobacco is the only legal product that kills if used as directed, causing the death of one person every six seconds; half of the current users will eventually die of tobacco-related diseases like cancers, heart disease and stroke amongst others, says the World Health Organization (WHO).

Yet, until now the tobacco industry in this country has never been effectively dealt with, in spite of India accounting for one million of the world’s six million tobacco-related deaths.

Just take a comparative look at how tobacco farmers are dealing with global curbs on tobacco use. Farmers in the USA and Brazil have already started looking to alternate crops rather than being dependent on tobacco. Closer home in Bangladesh, tobacco farmers have begun shifting to food crops. At the government level, Australia and France have implemented plain packaging for tobacco products along with graphical warnings thus obviating the marketing techniques and surrogate advertising employed by the tobacco industry, resulting in a lower burden of tobacco users.

[O]ur tobacco industry is inserting advertisements in national dailies rather than [supporting] the government’s socially responsible cause of keeping the illiterate and poor informed….

It is, therefore, shameful that our tobacco industry is spending more of its resources perpetuating the tobacco farmers’ lobby by inserting advertisements in national dailies rather than throwing its weight behind the Government of India’s socially responsible cause of keeping the illiterate and poor informed of their choices.

Measures such as the Government of India’s insistence on complying with the FCTC impact the quality of life for our future generations. The Uttarakhand Youth Tobacco Survey (UYTS-2013) has shown that 20.8% boys in the age group of 13-17 years studying in Government Inter Colleges are tobacco users and 86.3% smokers are initiated into smoking by the age of 15 years. Predictably, the 85% pictorial warning has outraged the tobacco lobby as it hits them where it hurts them the most–keeping away new smokers, most of whom are in their adolescence.

The absence of these measures is costing the country dearly too. Direct and indirect economic costs due to major tobacco-related illnesses–including respiratory ailments, cancers, cardiac diseases and tuberculosis–accounted for ₹1,04,500 crore (US $ 22.4 billion) in 2011 amongst persons aged 35-69 years. This is 1.6% of GDP and 12% more than the combined state and central government expenditure on health. The total central excise revenue from all tobacco products in 2011-12 amounted to ₹18,000 crore, only 17% of the estimated economic costs of tobacco.

We need punitive action for those in the tobacco industry not complying with relevant global and domestic laws, specifically on stark pictorial and written warnings…

It is evident that we do not have the wherewithal to enforce the provisions of COTPA (Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act). In many places, we still see the existence of tobacco vends within 100 yards of educational institutions and smoking is common in public places, in blatant violation of the law. Besides, the Indian tobacco industry, which has earned billions of dollars, easily escapes paying legal damages to the poor, who directly suffer by the use of their products.

Already in our very own quasi-federal structure, we are witnessing how effectively states like Maharashtra, Bihar and Gujarat have started impounding smuggled tobacco products and punishing those not conforming to the stipulated pictorial warnings. The Centre has now started adopting tobacco-control measures to give states the tools to save lives.

To raise awareness of the harms of smoking, smokeless tobacco and second-hand smoke, mass media campaigns have been developed in India. These campaigns educate people about the disastrous health effects of tobacco, encourage people to comply with and speak up in support of new, stricter national smoke-free laws.

We laud the Government of India’s move to wean away smokers and stop fresh recruits as we believe it will help curb surrogate advertisement by the Indian tobacco industry.

For how long will we allow human and financial costs to be outweighed by consideration of powerful tobacco lobbies?

We need punitive action for those in the tobacco industry not complying with relevant global and domestic laws, specifically on stark pictorial and written warnings, on all sides

Giving big tobacco a fight

The densely packed houses along Yogyakarta’s Kali Code River went from drab to a riot of reds, blues, yellows and whites.

Residents did not know who had paid for the elaborate paint job last year. The Yogyakarta press speculated that an unknown company had painted the houses so they
would resemble the colorful favelas of Rio de Janeiro.

It turns out the village’s benefactor was Philip Morris International and its “Show Your Colours” advertising campaign. On the side of the Gondolayu bridge that overlooks the settlements sits a giant picture frame, with tag lines hung above it reading, “Create your own story” and “Go ahead.”

The village had been transformed into a giant advertisement for a brand owned by the tobacco company.

The ads were another aggressive marketing attempt by an international tobacco company to gain market share in Indonesia. The country is the second-largest cigarette market in Asia after China, and had the highest male smoking rate in the world — 67%, according to a 2011 survey — thanks in part to the popularity of pungent clove cigarettes.

Over the last decade, it has become a last Eden for tobacco companies facing declining smoking rates at home. As late as 2004, international tobacco companies had a marginal presence in the Indonesian market. Today, led by Philip Morris International, they control around 45%. Yet that push has been met by an increasingly potent coalition of mayors, health officials and anti-smoking groups that has scored some important victories.

In one prominent example, huge cigarette billboards that dominated the highways of Jakarta, the capital, were taken down in 2015, as part of a move to ban outdoor tobacco advertisements by mayors around the country.

Many of the lobbying efforts that led to local regulations, including in Jakarta, were substantially financed by the Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use, the US$600 million (21 billion baht) fund founded by Michael Bloomberg, the former New York mayor.

The Bloomberg Initiative has designated Indonesia one of its five priority countries, and has donated more than $10 million since 2007. The initiative is largely focused on establishing local and regional tobacco control laws in a nation with a highly decentralised government structure.

“It’s a battle — like a war,” Yayi Prabandari, a professor of public health at Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta, said of the clash between tobacco companies and tobacco control organisations.

Before the Bloomberg Initiative became active in the country nearly 10 years ago, fewer than 10 cities had laws that restricted smoking in public areas, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which jointly administers the Bloomberg Initiative’s grant programmes in Indonesia. Since then, the group says, more than 170 cities have passed laws heavily restricting smoking in public spaces.

Yet tobacco growing has deep roots here. Indonesia is one of the few countries in Asia that has not signed the World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on
Tobacco Control, which mandates strict limits on tobacco advertising and sponsorship.

The Bloomberg Initiative has also created a backlash from smokers’ rights groups, who portray Mr Bloomberg as a foreign oligarch determined to stamp out Indonesia’s proud tobacco tradition.

“People who smoke today are stigmatised — we’re discriminated against,” said Alfa Gumilang, the chain-smoking secretary-general of Komunitas Kretek, a smokers’ rights group that accepts funds from the tobacco industry.

The Indonesian government relies on the tobacco industry for around 10% of state tax revenue. Although tobacco is not nationalised, the government issues growth targets; in 2015, the Industry Ministry released a “road map” for the industry calling for expanded cigarette production.

In October, President Joko Widodo visited the United States to promote US investment in Indonesia. While he was there, Philip Morris announced a $1.9 billion expansion of its tobacco factories in the country — the second-largest investment that Mr Joko secured from a US corporation during his visit.

Philip Morris’ success — it controls 35% of Indonesia’s tobacco market through its local subsidiary, Sampoerna — ushered in a new age of foreign expansion. In 2009, British American Tobacco purchased Bentoel, a local tobacco company that is now Indonesia’s fourth largest, with around 7.5% market share.

According to Health Ministry officials, Indonesia’s fragmented government ministries often work at cross purposes when tackling the issue. Because of the difficulty of making sweeping changes to tobacco control laws nationally, Indonesia tobacco control advocates are increasingly pushing for changes at the local and regional levels, where money from the Bloomberg Initiative comes in handy.

Dr Theresia Sandra, a specialist in chronic lung disease at the Health Ministry, credits the Bloomberg Initiative with helping local governments counter the influence of big tobacco. The group “builds organisations to balance against the strength of industry and opens local governments to the necessity of protecting their communities”, Dr Sandra said.

In one national success, the Indonesian government, with help from the Bloomberg Initiative, passed a law in 2014 requiring manufacturers to put warning labels on cigarette packaging. The tobacco fight in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, even extends to the country’s most powerful Muslim organisations, and shows just how central the issue is for society and the economy.

Muhammadiyah, Indonesia’s second-largest Muslim organisation, became the first major Muslim group in the country to issue an edict declaring that smoking is forbidden in all circumstances, citing smoking’s devastating consequences to public health.

The 2010 decision was significant: Muhammadiyah operates thousands of schools, universities and hospitals around the country. Almost overnight, those places became smoke-free zones. But the Indonesian media quickly pounced on a funding detail.

Posted on the Bloomberg Initiative’s website was a $393,000 grant to Muhammadiyah in 2009. According to Bloomberg’s website at the time, the grant sought “the issuance and dissemination of religious advice on the dangers of tobacco use among Muhammadiyah/Islamic institutions”.

Critics accused Muhammadiyah of seeking to unite Muslim opinion against tobacco in return for the grant money. Dr Sudibyo Markus, who led Muhammadiyah’s health department at the time, said there had never been any quid pro quo.

Meanwhile, religious leaders affiliated with Nahdlatul Ulama, Muhammadiyah’s main rival, criticised Muhammadiyah for supposedly bowing to Bloomberg’s money. But Nahdlatul Ulama, which does not view smoking as forbidden in most circumstances, receives funding from the foundation wing of Djarum, Indonesia’s third-largest tobacco company. The group’s vice chairman, Maksum Mahfudh, said there was “no relationship whatsoever” between the funding and its decision that it would not forbid smoking.

Anti-smoking forces give big tobacco a fight in Indonesia

The densely packed houses along Yogyakarta’s Kali Code River went from drab to a riot of reds, blues, yellows and whites.

Residents did not know who had paid for the elaborate painting job last year. The Yogyakarta press speculated that an unknown company had painted the houses so they would resemble the colourful favelas of Rio de Janeiro.

It turns out the village’s benefactor was Philip Morris International and its “Show Your Colors” advertising campaign. On the side of the Gondolayu bridge that overlooks the settlements sits a giant picture frame, with tag lines hung above it reading, “Create your own story” and “Go ahead.”

The village had been transformed into a giant advertisement for a brand owned by the tobacco company.

The ads were another aggressive marketing attempt by an international tobacco company to gain market share in Indonesia. The country is the second-largest cigarette market in Asia after China, and had the highest male smoking rate in the world — 67 per cent, according to a 2011 survey — thanks in part to the popularity of
pungent clove cigarettes.

Over the last decade, it has become a last Eden for tobacco companies facing declining smoking rates at home. As late as 2004, international tobacco companies had a marginal presence in the Indonesian market.

Today, led by Philip Morris International, they control around 45 per cent.

Yet that push has been met by an increasingly potent coalition of mayors, health officials and anti-smoking groups that has scored some important victories.

In one prominent example, huge cigarette billboards that dominated the highways of Jakarta, the capital, were taken down in 2015, as part of a move to ban outdoor tobacco advertisements by mayors around the country.

Many of the lobbying efforts that led to local regulations, including in Jakarta, were substantially financed by the Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use, the US$600 million (S$806 million) fund founded by former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The Bloomberg Initiative has designated Indonesia one of its five priority countries, and has donated more than US$10 million since 2007. The initiative is largely focused on establishing local and regional tobacco control laws in a nation with a highly decentralised government structure.

“It’s a battle — like a war,” Dr Yayi Prabandari, a professor of public health at Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta, said of the clash between tobacco companies and tobacco control organisations.

Before the Bloomberg Initiative became active in the country nearly 10 years ago, fewer than 10 cities had laws that restricted smoking in public areas, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which jointly administers the Bloomberg Initiative’s grant programmes in Indonesia. Since then, the group says, more than 170 cities have passed laws heavily restricting smoking in public spaces.

Yet tobacco growing has deep roots here. Indonesia is one of the few countries in Asia that has not signed the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which mandates strict limits on tobacco advertising and sponsorship.

The Bloomberg Initiative has also created a backlash from smokers’ rights groups, who portray Bloomberg as a foreign oligarch determined to stamp out Indonesia’s proud tobacco tradition.

“People who smoke today are stigmatised — we’re discriminated against,” said Mr Alfa Gumilang, the chainsmoking secretary-general of Komunitas Kretek, a smokers’ rights group that accepts funds from the tobacco industry.

The Indonesian government relies on the tobacco industry for around 10 per cent of state tax revenue.

Although tobacco is not nationalised, the government issues growth targets; in 2015, the Industry Ministry released a “road map” for the industry calling for expanded cigarette production.

In October, President Joko Widodo visited the United States to promote US investment in Indonesia. While he was there, Philip Morris announced a US$1.9 billion expansion of its tobacco factories in the country — the second-largest investment that Mr Widodo secured from a US corporation during his visit.

Philip Morris’ success — it controls 35 per cent of Indonesia’s tobacco market through its local subsidiary, Sampoerna — ushered in a new age of foreign expansion. In 2009, British American Tobacco purchased Bentoel, a local tobacco company that is now Indonesia’s fourth largest, with around 7.5 per cent market share.

According to Health Ministry officials, Indonesia’s fragmented government ministries often work at cross purposes when tackling the issue.

Because of the difficulty of making sweeping changes to tobacco control laws nationally, Indonesia tobacco control advocates are increasingly pushing for changes at the local and regional levels, where money from the Bloomberg Initiative comes in handy.

Dr Theresia Sandra, a specialist in chronic lung disease at the Health Ministry, credits the Bloomberg Initiative with helping local governments counter the influence of big tobacco. The group “builds organisations to balance against the strength of industry and opens local governments to the necessity of protecting their communities”, Dr Sandra said.

In one national success, the Indonesian government, with help from the Bloomberg Initiative, passed a law in 2014 requiring manufacturers to put warning labels on
cigarette packaging.

The tobacco fight in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, even extends to the country’s most powerful Muslim organisations, and shows just how central the issue is for society and the economy.

Muhammadiyah, Indonesia’s second-largest Muslim organisation, became the first major Muslim group in the country to issue an edict declaring that smoking is forbidden in all circumstances, citing smoking’s devastating consequences to public health.

The 2010 decision was significant: Muhammadiyah operates thousands of schools, universities and hospitals around the country. Almost overnight, those places became smoke-free zones.

But the Indonesian media quickly pounced on a funding detail. Posted on the Bloomberg Initiative’s website was a US$393,000 grant to Muhammadiyah in 2009.

According to Bloomberg’s website at the time, the grant sought “the issuance and dissemination of religious advice on the dangers of tobacco use among Muhammadiyah/Islamic institutions”.

Critics accused Muhammadiyah of seeking to unite Muslim opinion against tobacco in return for the grant money.

Dr Sudibyo Markus, who led Muhammadiyah’s health department at the time, said there had never been any quid pro quo.

Meanwhile, religious leaders affiliated with Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), Muhammadiyah’s main rival, criticised Muhammadiyah for supposedly bowing to Bloomberg’s money. But NU, which does not view smoking as forbidden in most circumstances, receives funding from the foundation wing of Djarum, Indonesia’s third-largest tobacco company.

The group’s vice chairman, Mr Maksum Mahfudh, said there was “no relationship whatsoever” between the funding and its decision that it would not forbid smoking.

He added that moving “drastically” against tobacco would impoverish the farmers and sellers who are “grass-roots people of NU”.

For now, the two sides appear to have fought to a draw.

After steadily rising for a decade, the smoking rate has plateaued, according to the Indonesian Family Life Survey, funded by the US National Institutes of Health, that was released in April.

Still, Philip Morris International remains optimistic about Indonesia. In a February conference call with investors, Mr Andr Calantzopoulos, chief executive officer, said Indonesia remained a good bet.

“We remain optimistic about the profit growth opportunities in this key market thanks to its growing adult population and rising income levels,” he told them.

We ban tobacco sponsorship of sport in the UK. Let’s stub it out in the arts, too

Medical professionals call for a smoke-free approach to arts sponsorship

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2016/may/01/we-ban-tobacco-sponsorship-of-sport-in-the-uk-lets-stub-it-out-in-the-arts-too

Smoking is a leading preventable cause of ill health and premature death, and a major contributor to health inequality. Current estimates are that the tobacco industry will kill one billion people in the 21st century.

Tobacco advertising has now been banned, along with sponsorship of sport. However, tobacco companies continue to use sponsorship of some high-profile arts organisations to promote the spurious idea that they are responsible corporate citizens. We suspect that most members of the Royal Academy in London will be appalled to learn that Japan Tobacco International (JTI) has been a premier sponsor for its exhibitions. British American Tobacco is also a sponsor, a position it shares with, among others, the Marie Curie cancer charity and Bloomberg. The latter is of note given Michael Bloomberg’s passionate tobacco control stance while mayor of New York.

These sponsorship arrangements are morally unacceptable and must be brought to an end. As healthcare professionals who deal daily with the harm caused by the tobacco industry, we call on arts, cultural and heritage organisations to sign the smoke-free arts declaration (smokefreearts.org.uk) to affirm that tobacco sponsorship is unacceptable. We also call on sponsors of the arts to undertake that they will no longer support organisations that accept tobacco sponsorship.

Dr Nicholas Hopkinson

Reader in respiratory medicine, Imperial College, London on behalf of 1,104 other healthcare professionals