Categories
· Teen Smoking/Youth
· Tobacco Control
· Op-Ed
Organizations
· Cdc
|
ERIKSEN: YES: Programs needed to combat billions spent by tobacco companies. MARLOW: NO: Expensive programs' intentions good, but results are mixed.
Jump to full article: Atlanta (GA) Journal-Constitution, 2009-07-21
Author: Michael Eriksen / Michael L. Marlow
Intro: The real tragedy is that we know how to prevent the problem of teen nicotine addiction, but fail to act. Rigorous scientific research has shown that price increases, strict advertising restrictions and clean indoor air laws are effective in reducing smoking for everyone, but are particularly effective among young people. The research evidence also shows that counter-marketing campaigns, particularly those aimed at debunking the carefully constructed myths of the tobacco industry that make smoking appear to be the cool thing to do, are effective in reducing smoking rates and the social acceptability of smoking.
When I directed the CDC's Office on Smoking and Health, we wanted to learn how to use marketing techniques to keep kids from starting to smoke and convened an expert panel of teen marketing experts from the private sector.
Experts from companies like Adidas, Levi-Straus, and Proctor and Gamble -- companies that sell products to teens -- advised us that if we wanted to be successful in competing with the tobacco industry's multibillion-dollar effort to get people to smoke, we needed to do more than educate teens on the harm of smoking, and rather create a "brand" . . .
This "brand" became known as the "Truth Campaign" . . .
The tobacco industry hates the truth and hates counter-marketing campaigns that tell the truth. Why? Because it works. Given the tobacco industry has recently been found guilty in a federal district court of racketeering and perpetuating a fraud on the American people, upheld in a May federal appeals court decision, it seems to be that there is a need for more "truth" and not less.
The CDC provides recommendations for how much money states should spend on anti-tobacco programs. According to the CDC, careful research shows that its recommendations would prevent hundreds of thousands of premature tobacco-related deaths. But the data do not back the CDC's claims. . . .
Statistical analysis that I've conducted shows that there is a very tenuous link between cigarette sales and state anti-tobacco spending. At best, spending large amounts of money on anti-tobacco programs seems to produce a trivial drop in cigarette sales -- less than a pack a year per capita. States would be better advised to put these resources toward other public health policies that produce larger results. . . .
The CDC is now arguing that state anti-tobacco programs are underfunded. Tobacco-control advocates -- many of whom receive money through these programs -- repeat the CDC under-funding claims when pleading their cases for spending increases. It will be truly unfortunate if states simply accept these claims and increase funding without investigating the programs' effectiveness. However difficult it is to look beyond noble intentions, appraisal of a program's effectiveness is vital -- particularly in these tight fiscal times -- if we truly want to improve public health effectively.
Jump to full article » |