TV ads smokescreen for cigarette marketing.

Byline: GUEST VIEWPOINT By Anthony Biglan For The Register-Guard

Philip Morris, the maker of Marlboro, Parliament and Virginia Slims cigarettes, has begun a campaign to improve its corporate image. The company is mailing beautifully printed materials to parents and offering schools materials for `smoking prevention.' Given its resources, it is likely that Philip Morris will succeed in improving its image.

But if Oregon's opinion leaders understand the company's strategy and past behavior, perhaps we can prevent it from repositioning itself as a friend to public health and presenting smoking as just another normal lifestyle choice.

Between 2001 and 2005, I reviewed the marketing and `youth smoking prevention' practices of the tobacco companies for the U.S. Justice Department as part of its lawsuit against the tobacco companies. Among other things, the suit alleged that the tobacco companies had for 50 years been marketing to those under 18 and that they continued to do so. Here is what U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler concluded:

`The evidence is clear and convincing ... that defendants have marketed to young people 21 and under while consistently, publicly, and falsely denying that they do so. ... Defendants' marketing activities are intended to bring new, young, and hopefully long-lived smokers into the market in order to replace those who die (largely from tobacco caused illness) or quit.'

Judge Kessler also ruled that the tobacco companies' smoking prevention activities were not effective and were designed to prevent the companies from having restrictions placed on their marketing. She ruled that they had `falsely denied, distorted and minimized the significant health consequences of smoking,' had falsely denied that nicotine is addictive, and had falsely denied that they can control the level of nicotine their cigarettes deliver. Finally, she ruled that the tobacco companies know that their low tar and nicotine cigarettes are not safer, yet continue to market them as such.

In the trial, Philip Morris presented evidence that in one year, its youth smoking prevention program spent $100 million. How could a company that spent that kind of money on prevention not really be interested in prevention? Well, consider that the tobacco companies are currently spending about $15 billion per year in marketing cigarettes, which is 150 times more than Philip Morris spends on prevention. And in the year that Philip Morris spent that $100 million, the tobacco companies increased their marketing expenditures by $2 billion - 20 times as much!

There is no evidence that the Philip Morris smoking prevention activities reduce youth smoking. Indeed, one study conducted by Mathew Farrelly and his colleagues found that young people were more likely to smoke when they saw the company's TV ads about not smoking.

Internal company documents show that the main thing Philip Morris is trying to prevent is restrictions on its marketing. My testimony included 16 pages of quotes from tobacco industry documents about the use of prevention activities to prevent marketing restrictions.

For example, in a speech to regional sales people, Philip Morris executive Ellen Merlo said, `Our goal is to prevent youth access to cigarettes and encourage a situation where enforcement activities are not necessary because everyone is using the `It's the Law' program. ... Then we can go to legislators and say, `Look, you don't need to pass marketing restrictions and in-store display bans to discourage youth smoking, because everybody is complying voluntarily with the minimum-age law.' '

I reviewed all available evidence about the `It's the Law' program and could find no evidence that it curtailed illegal sales of tobacco to young people or reduced youth smoking - or even that the industry tried to evaluate it.

If Philip Morris succeeds in convincing people that it is taking care of the problem of youth tobacco use, public support for truly effective tobacco control will decline. So whenever you see ads on TV from Philip Morris, I hope you will think about what research shows will really work to reduce tobacco use:

Pass a smoke-free Oregon law, giving every Oregonian the right to breathe clean air.

Increase the price of tobacco. Gov. Ted Kulongoski has proposed increasing the taxes on tobacco, with 10 percent of the revenue dedicated to preventing tobacco use.

Fully fund Oregon's Tobacco Prevention and Education Program.

Ask your legislator to protect Oregon's children and take action to make these laws a reality.

Anthony Biglan of Eugene is a senior scientist at the Oregon Research Institute.