|
The Tobacco Industry RespondsTo the Editor:Regarding Chung, Garfield, and colleagues’ paper, Philip Morris U.S.A. has upheld its commitment to both the letter and the spirit of the MSA. Since signing the agreement, we have regularly met with state attorneys general to ensure that our actions, including our magazine advertising practices, reflect that commitment. In fact, we have taken a number of steps that exceed the agreement’s requirements. We understand that there are societal concerns about the visibility of cigarette advertising, especially as it relates to children. That is why we strengthened our policies to limit the overall exposure of our cigarette advertising. In April 2000 Philip Morris U.S.A. voluntarily removed its cigarette advertising from the back covers of all U.S. magazines. In June 2000 we took steps to further ensure that we were not placing ads in publications with reportedly high youth readership by using the same standard for choosing magazines as that proposed by the FDA. Since 1999 we have continued to reduce the total number of magazines in which we advertise; our annual spending on magazine advertising declined by more than 50 percent from 1999 through 2001. Since there is no standard in the MSA related to magazine advertising and youth readership, Philip Morris U.S.A. has repeatedly advocated that such a standard be developed in conjunction with the state attorneys general and be used to guide the placement of all tobacco product advertising. We continue to work toward that goal.
Philip Morris U.S.A., New York, New York
The authors respond: These thoughtful letters add to the evolving debate. Robert Levy suggests that "tobacco companies took pains to avoid kids," yet Charles King and Michael Siegel have shown that tobacco companies took no such pains and that youth exposure to advertisements remained unchanged.1 Our paper showed how tobacco companies were able to maintain youth exposure while appearing to avoid children. They did this by increasing youth targeting among magazines with fewer youth readers while decreasing youth targeting among magazines with more youth readers. Any increase in targeting violates the MSA. Moreover, our work suggests that a restriction such as that proposed by the FDA may have little overall effect on youth exposure. A ban on magazine advertising may be the only way to stop targeting. Jacob Sullum raises the valid question, "Why anyone should care whether youth targeting, however defined, goes up or down?" Thus far, evidence linking advertising to increased youth smoking is suggestive but circumstantial. Further research to demonstrate beyond doubt the link between advertising and youth smoking would be helpful. Our paper focused not on the effects of advertising but on compliance with the MSA. We found that compliance was lacking. Sam Kazman’s challenge to our definition of "targeting" is important. Because targeting was never specifically defined in the MSA, we chose a common-sense conception: Targeting occurs when, all else being equal, tobacco companies prefer to advertise in magazines with more rather than fewer youth readers. This conception is valid on its face and includes the idea of "singling out," but other interpretations may need to be investigated. Ellen Merlo’s comments on behalf of Philip Morris are illuminating. The state attorneys general recently announced their support for the FDA restriction on magazine advertising, a restriction that our study suggests would be largely ineffective. How much of Philip Morris’s willingness to abide by the FDA restriction is due to the restriction’s impotence? At the same time, news organizations have reported that Philip Morris has drastically reduced its magazine advertising in the first quarter of 2002, a positive sign that should be applauded, especially if it continues. Both Levy and Kazman argue that a ban on magazine advertising would raise difficult First Amendment issues, a concern that we share. In the past, however, bans have been negotiated with tobacco companies regarding television, radio, and billboards, so mutually acceptable bans on magazine advertising are clearly possible. If we believe that tobacco ads can induce children to smoke and that a partial restriction may not adequately reduce youth exposure to magazine ads, then other options, including bans, need to be considered. Further civil litigation would most likely continue to be slow and costly, and states are prohibited from legislating tobacco advertising restrictions. Since the major tobacco companies appear to be dramatically reducing their investment in magazines, it may be in everyone’s best interests for them to work with the federal government for a mutually acceptable ban that permanently codifies this withdrawal.
University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
|
