Trust Us We're The Tobacco Industry - Tobacco Control Supersite

8. Labeling
Tobacco companies have historically
opposed any type of health labeling
on cigarettes:
“We strongly oppose warning
labels on cigarette packs for several
reasons: first and foremost, warning
labels may improperly imply that it
has been scientifically established that
smoking causes disease.” 133
(R.J. Reynolds, 1981)
“In general, most labelling proposals
suggest a state of knowledge
about tobacco and health that actually
does not exist…[A] disservice would
be rendered by ‘warning’ labels that
imply the use of cigarettes may
induce cancer or heart disease.” 134
(Council for Tobacco Research, undated)
In a curious instance of deference
to health authorities, a 1981 Tobacco
Institute memo states that
“Tobacco manufacturers respect
the right of health officials to offer
opinions on matters relating to
public health….Under the circumstances,
tobacco companies feel
that warning labels are redundant
and unnecessary.” 135
(Tobacco Institute, 1981)
The companies have vigorously
fought measures to put labels on
cigarettes or, where labeling laws do
exist, to ensure that the health warnings
are not strengthened:
“Through [PM’s] efforts, the
GCC’s [Gulf Cooperation Council]
Health Ministers Laboratory Specialist
Committee…delayed health warning
and maximum constituent level labeling
on cigarette packs. Rotating health
warning labels and initiatives to
ban advertising were also defeated….
We launched a successful challenge
to the Swedish government’s health
warning label proposal…” 136
(Philip Morris, 1986)
One of the industry’s concerns
is the effect of health warnings on
consumption:
“Regulations beginning with
disclosure and labelling may result
in restrictions on and prohibition of
some ingredients. This could alarm
consumers, affect brand taste and
have potentially adverse competitive
results.” 137
(Philip Morris, 1992)
“A statement linking smoking to
LUNG CANCER looks right to the uninitiated
public. By improving the ‘accuracy’
of the warning without apparent
need, its credibility is enhanced and
I wonder whether this is really in the
best interest of the industry.” 138
(Philip Morris, 1988)
In Norway, Philip Morris adopted
a “legal defence plan, a government
relations plan and a media plan” to
25
“prevent” the new health warning
labels from being adopted:
...the GCC Health Ministers Laboratory
Specialist Committee made
a unanimous recommendation to ban
cigarettes of our competitors...
and delayed health warning...
labeling on cigarette packs.
“The main target group for lobbying,
will have to be senior and political
officers of the Health Ministry….
[S]imilar contacts must be established
within Ministries of Trade, Justice, and
Industry….Alert our sympathetic contacts
within business life, including
trade organisations and trade unions.
Alert especially other consumer goods
industries, illustrating the possible
future threats.”
The media plan consisted of
“…questioning of the background of
the requirement for new labels, the
medical basis, possible trade mark
offences and the experience of present
Tobacco Law….Influential newspapers
like VG and Dagens Næringsliv will
be informed about the proposal. Hopefully
they will give their comments
on an editorial level. Such comments
tend to be picked up by other medias
(sic), and read by bureaucrats and
politicians….Furnish business magazines
with information about the
consequences the new regulations will
have for future business activities.” 139
(Philip Morris, 1991)