(Semi-)myth #5 (TC).ppt

(Semi-)myth #5 (TC) While the health arm of the government tries to discourage smoking, the agricultural arm subsidizes it. This is hypocritical and damaging to the health of the nation. By subsidizing tobacco growing, the government is encouraging smoking. Reality… Subsidy systems vary dramatically from one country to another. Each country’s system needs to be evaluated individually. Example of the U.S. system A complicated web of regulations, with two essential components: setting annual quotas on tobacco production and minimum prices limiting growing to holders or renters of allotments (licenses to grow). The actual subsidy per se is modest. Impact of the system is... Direct effect: raise the price of cigarettes by about one cent per pack, by raising the price of tobaccos. Will decrease smoking (very slightly). [Zhang et al., 1997] Indirect effect: create and reinforce political constituency for tobacco in Congress Blocks federal tobacco control policies. Thereby increases smoking. Myth #6a (TI) Cigarette advertising and promotion have no effect on the amount of smoking. Their only function, and impact, is to permit the companies to vie for shares of a market of fixed size. When and how the myth is used Whenever the freedom of the tobacco industry to advertise is debated. Intent: to convince officials that an ad ban would violate the right to free speech, as well as adult smokers’ right to information. Reality... Brand-share argument runs contrary to much empirical evidence and makes no sense. Especially in a highly concentrated market, as in the U.S., much brand-share marketing merely cannibalizes a company’s own brands (e.g., Philip Morris controls half the market). If the industry truly believed its own argument, it would have leapt at opportunities to ban ads. In the U.S., it would save $10 billion/year. Myth #6b (TC) Cigarette advertising and promotion constitute one of the principal direct determinants of smoking, especially initiation of