__ · TOBACCO ~D VERTISI~VC · THE BARRO~V Bill A Resume dthe Tobacco Industry Position bin Barren MP is sponsoring a private Memba's Bill which seeks to ban tobareo advaasing land sponsorship) in the Ui(. The Bill is due for in Second Reading on Flidav, II Februaf! 1994. The UK Tobacco Induruy mongiy opposes this unnecessary and unjustified Bill, for is following masons: I, A~uliring does normal~plopl~s~ortsmoking There is no convincing evidence, from anywhere in the world, that tobacco advenising encourages any individwl, including children, to start smoking or sncke mere. ·R#Farch consistently shows that peer ptsnue and the ewmple of parents and sibling to be the decisive masons why individuals stut to smoke. Where children art concerned the key Gavcrnmsnt Survey · "IPhy Children Smoke" (OPCS 1990) summarised the sevm main reasons why children start to smoke: tobacco adv#dsing was nor one of them. 2, BPnr ~lseN~n knue nor nduccd overall ro60cco eonnu?plion It is clear that a ban on advrrdsing would make no di~crmce to the level oCnoking in the OK. In several hmpcaP cPunmes where ham have been imposed such as Norway (buulcd in B1Sl iceland (19TI) and Fioland (1918), by 1992 the level of smoking bad increased by j~ !IO/o and SJ6 I#PCCdVCIY. In Canada and Xcw Iealand powniul rconc~aic factors (tax increaser in Canada rconomic ree#sion and tar increases in New Zcaland) have been the major factors in the ~ed~E~ion in tobacco consumption in both collnpics, not advertising bens~ ~ Ugsmokinqis in long an LJinr O~fifial fiprcs show that the reduction in annual UK eigyeae tanslmpdon berween 1980 and 1990 has been far ~ester lan all other EU Member Sues with the aapbon bilbe Br~erlmdr (which also permits advenisinB). in fact bm I peak in 19n, UK cigareoe sales have fallen by nearly 25%, despite the presence of tobacco advertising and sponsorship, I, Tobacco companies need to advertise to compete wi~ rPc~ other 'lobaeco companies advertise to build and defend market share for their brands within a marl~e~ which is in long term decline. About 1K P[the UK'I 16 mniion smokers swth b~dnQ each year, and a further 260/1 regularly smoke more than one bnnd Tnis adds up to a potential retail market sector worth around f3 billion tech year, more than justifying the fSO million the IIK tobacco industry spends on advertising each year. s. Smoking by childnn is decnaring The level of smoking by children in the UK has datincd in the long term, Beo~n 1984·1992, smoking among i 1·] 5 year olds has fallen by 5 percentage points in Eneiand, i percentage points in wales and 6 pcrccnqe points in Scotland, according 10 Le OPCS ("S~kin~ A~nong Lco~ia~Schwl Childr~n 199!"). Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 The UK toba~co indusn~ is ronliy opposed to smoking by children. it strongly rnalntains that parenc;and teachers must take ~sponsibiliiy for Insuring children do nor smoke until they reach an age when they can make an informed decision for Lemut~a. d Smoking is drcnorin~ pmongyoang worn Cigarette consumption among young women (16·19 vean old) has also fallen dur;ng the last Fro years, from jZP/o to ZI#, according to the General Household Survey 1992 fUe difference in prevalence (i.e., the Fwpcnian of smokes) between men and worts smokes has now vimully disappeared. 7, Gowrnrmntlavo~ur ValunrarlAgreements The UK Govufimenr is firmly in favour olthe current sylam oiVo~unrary Agennem, which · ~·- have a proven track record in meeting specific GPvemmcnt concerns on tobacco promotion, while ncogniling tobacco companies' fundamental freedom u,dvcnile a legal product to adult smokers. The UK tobacco companies mialy adhere to the Voluntary Agremmt as is Shown by successive reports of the independent chairman of COMATAS (the Committee which monitors the Agreement). Key tp the Agmment is a statement that no advem:sing or promotion should be directed at individuals under the age of 18~ 'IYe nminlnln one oflhr most adwnfrd, long·nonding, co~nprr~mrivr andql~bive sysraa d roCala~ epnlrolf over abaca pdrmibtg in EIUDPCU. Rt.HoeVirginia Boaomky MP, Secretary of State for Health, 22 October 1992, II, Il~N~ Borron's~Billb~cMle law: Fundamentally, it said not stop pcopie Imollb, hut merely provide mti~looldng c3mpnigntn with 1 s~mbolir viaoy on which to base their further ampli~niob~ It would sweep away IrK tobacco companies' sbilirv to defend their markns a~a~inrl cheap impanr and could corr tobaceo jobs (I1,WO anpio~io~ved in UK lobleeo manufanuring in 1991). It would give Ihe European Commission added incentive lp introduce an EU·wide ndverrising bet. Should this occur, UK tobacco companies would be prevented ~on using advertising as an essental means of competing effectively elsewhere in the El', it would create 1 dangerous precedent for huhet inteference in the marketing freedoms of other industries (drink, pharmaceuticals or toys) to communicate wil their curtomcrs through advertising, whether at a national or European level, fil:IOl$tl%%~t3Q03fi Y~r GOYLnmNII beliFla ePI the impOlidOll O/PSldllllOl~ bl on I1~I edvuririn,n ojPprab wkkb ir (rgd in sell would Be o Il~jbr clrmrge ofpkcipk vkich wouldnrrd n Icja~ifird in armf olllse likely it olPny ~c~': Government Lspwrt to SKond Repon fmm the HulB Ccmmittrc. Scion 199!·1993 (j ~arch 1993). N Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111